1964-07-06

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer a certificate of the election and return of Mr. Carl Legault, member for the electoral district of Nipissing.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Carl Legault, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Nipissing, introduced by Hon. Paul Martin and Hon. G. J. Mcllraith.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to this honourable house a petition on behalf of a large number of my constituents. This petition is signed by the president of the joint councils of the Burin peninsula and the president of the Burin peninsula chamber of commerce as well as by the five mayors of the municipalities of this area. Altogether they represent some 30,000 people.
This petition is in the same sense as the one with 2,500 signatures of which copies have been forwarded to the Minister of Transport and to my other Newfoundland colleagues. The petitioners pray that when the new east coast ferry goes into service between North Sydney and Argentia the government of Canada will issue instructions for this ferry to call at one port on the Burin peninsula, either Marystown or Burin, while en route between these two terminals.



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the house an amended and extended petition addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled.
This petition represents the views of something over 900 of my constituents who are members or supporters of all parties in my constituency. I might say we have not got a fifth political wheel there. The petition reads as follows:
Petition
To The Honourable The House of Commons of Canada
In Parliament Assembled
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Dominion of Canada humbly sheweth:
We, the undersigned, believe Canada's heritage and future can only be symbolized by the red ensign, bearing witness to her origins and the fundamental cultures from which will stem her future greatness. No twig of leaves alone can achieve this.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
The petition is signed by the member for Kootenay West as well as by all these constituents.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the government proposes the expenditure of $4 million to assist in the design and construction of a health sciences centre at the University of British Columbia. This is a special pilot project, outside and apart from our health grants program, and will be provided for in my departmental estimates later this year.
The development of such a centre at the University of British Columbia has been under study for a number of years. It will establish a new concept in the training of the health professions and has been strongly endorsed by medical health educators.
The amount authorized by the government, which is conditional upon at least an equal amount being provided by the provincial government, will be made available in instalments as planning and construction progress. It is expected that up to two years' planning will be required before construction can begin.

Health Sciences Centre
The new centre will be primarily a teaching institution, but will also provide a 410 bed hospital with extensive research facilities. It is also to be used for the referral of patients needing the special services and facilities contained in such a unit.
In authorizing this provisional grant the government is aware of the importance of the teaching pattern developed at this university in providing common instruction facilities for all health provisions, doctors, dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers and psychologists.
This team approach to teaching is considered a major advance in medical education and should have an important impact on the quality of health care, particularly in the face of future developments regarding the provision of health services. The improvement in the method of teaching should also encourage the entry of more young people into the health professions.
This pioneer project may well establish an important pattern for future development and the government, for this reason, considers that a special grant for this important purpose is fully warranted.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May
I very briefly, as a representative of the city of Vancouver, express our great appreciation of the statement that has just been made by the minister. I personally have a great deal of satisfaction in the announcement that has just been made because some 15 years ago the members of this party, provincially, recommended the same thing, and there were aspersions cast upon us by both the medical profession and the university. Fifteen years later, sir, our intelligence and our foresight have been confirmed. I give honour to the minister that today I am in the House of Commons to say "Thank you ever so much".


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: May I also add my thanks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare for this wonderful announcement. This is going to mean a great deal to the development of the University of British Columbia, particularly the medical faculty. I know that this, to a large extent, is the result of the wonderful work that has been done by Dr. John McCreary in promoting this particular project. I think he deserves the thanks of everybody in British Columbia, and the action taken by the department here has upheld his recommendations.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: May
I very briefly state how happy we are with

the announcement that has been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We appreciate the consideration that has been given to this matter. We note also the reference that has been made to the fact that the grant is conditional upon a similar amount being forthcoming from the provincial government. I am sure that with their interest in the welfare of the people, with their forward looking policies, they will be glad to co-operate in this important work.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we associate with the members of the other parties in order to congratulate the minister for that undertaking at the University of British Columbia, not because we are citizens of British Columbia but because we are citizens of Canada. We believe that Canada has everything to gain by increasing research in the medical field as well as in all other areas of education.
We live in an era where science is making tremendous progress, where education must develop more than ever, and such undertakings, especially in a field as important as health, are sure to increase our country's well-being and expansion.
We hope the minister has already enlisted the co-operation of the government of British Columbia, because, as every member of the house knows, education comes under the provincial authorities.



TELEVISION


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, in September, 1963, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Jamieson jointly recommended that applications for licences involving the extension of alternative television services should not be received or heard before July 1, 1964. That recommendation was subsequently implemented by the Minister of Transport.
On May 25, 1964 I appointed an advisory committee on broadcasting with terms of reference that included an inquiry into "the various means of providing alternative television services". Because this question is presently under investigation and cannot be separated from the other issues which are being reviewed by the advisory committee on broadcasting, the government feels that the freeze on the extension of alternative television services should be extended until

a statement of policy is made shortly after the committee has presented its report early in 1965.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Martineau: 1.	What is the number of persons holding an employment by Her Majesty in right of Canada or by an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada in the province of Quebec?
2.	What is the number of persons holding an employment in the province of Quebec, which employment is in connection with the operation of (a) works, undertakings or businesses that are within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada (b) other works, undertakings or businesses which are outside the legislative authority of the legislature of the province of Quebec?
3.	What is the number of employers of the persons mentioned in number 2(b) hereof?


Mr. Pennell:: 1. Approximately 64,500 persons in January 1964.
2.	(a) Approximately 62,300 persons in May 1963. (b) No survey has been made of this type of employment and precise information is not available.
3.	The answer to this question is the same as the answer to 2(b).
Questions


SALARIES OP PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. MacRae: How many employees of the public service appointed by order in council are in each of the following salary brackets (a) less than $2,000 per year (b) $2,001 to $4,000 (c) $4,001 to $6,000 (d) $6,001 to $8,000 (e) $8,001 to $10,000 (f) $10,001 to $12,000 (g) $12,001 to $14,000 (h) $14,001 to $16,000 (i) $16,001 to $18,000 (j) $18,001 to $20,000 (k) over $20,000?


Maurice Lamontagne: (a) 5; (b) 125; (c) 254; (d) 118; (e) 223; (f) 96; (g) 44; (h) 40; (i) 28; (j) 30; (k) 67.


C.N.R. ACCIDENTS, JASPER-PRINCE RUPERT LINE
Mr. Howard: Since January 1, 1962, has any derailment, collision or other accident been experienced by Canadian National Railways on its rail line between Jasper, Alberta and Prince Rupert, B.C. occasioned by rock slides, washouts, snow slides or other natural causes and, if so, with respect to each such derailment, collision, or other accident what was (a) its date (b) its location (c) its cause (d) the number and extent of injuries to (i) employees, and (ii) other than employees (e) the extent and value of damage to C.N.R. property and equipment, and (f) the number of days of employment lost by virtue of injuries received?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
List of accidents as reported to the board of transport commissioners:-
Date	Location	Cause	Number and extent of injuries to employees (no outsiders injured)	No. days employment lost	Extent and value of damage to C.N.R. propertyJan.	28/62	Mile 39.9 Skeena sub.	Derailment. Two snow slides	1 employee injured fractured left leg and hip; shoulder injured	408	* 6,165Apr.	14/62	Mile 18.0 Fraser sub.	Derailment. Ice, rock and mud slide	Nil	Nil	12,699Oct.	16/63	Mile 70.1 Bulkley sub.	Derailment. Rock slide	3 employees injured: 1-broken right leg, ribs	204*	232,0081-back and internal injuries	164	1-bruises	9	
* Not yet returned to duty.

Questions


CURRENCIES ACCEPTED FOR EXPORTS
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What countries have had commercial transactions with Canada during the past five years?
2.	What arrangements have these countries made to pay for their purchases?
3.	What currency does the Canadian exchange fund accept in payment for exports?

Answer: 1. Assuming that by commercial transactions is meant both Canadian exports to and imports from such countries, the countries and areas shown on the attached list have had commercial transactions with Canada during the last five years.
2.	The government has no direct knowledge of the payment terms arranged for the bulk of these transactions as these are subject to private negotiation between buyer and seller. The government has knowledge of the transactions which have been insured under section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act and of the transactions financed under section 21A of that act. The orders in council authorizing the corporation to enter into these transactions have already been tabled in the house.
3.	The exchange fund does not accept currencies specifically in payment for exports. Exporters and importers normally deal directly with the chartered banks to satisfy their foreign exchange requirements. These requirements may be in any currency in which the exporters and importers are dealing. To the extent that the chartered banks cannnot fulfill all of their foreign exchange needs from their own internal funds, they buy or sell in the foreign exchange market. The exchange fund deals in this market to fulfil its original purpose which is to aid the Minister of Finance in the control and protection of the external value of the Canadian monetary unit. In fulfilling this function, the minister is empowered to purchase the following from time to time, with the money in the exchange fund:-
(a) gold; (b) currency of the United States; (c) currencies of any country other than Canada or the United States that are freely convertible into gold or United States dollars.
The following countries and areas have had commercial transactions with Canada during the last five years:
United Kingdom, Gibraltar, Denmark, Germany (Federal Republic), Norway, Sweden, Bulgaria, Hungary, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, Qatar, Iran, Israel, Libya, Sudan, United Arab Republic-Egypt, Rhodesia &

Nyasaland, Uganda, Algeria, Congo, French Africa n.e.s., Ivory Coast, Mozambique, Togo, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Burma, China (Communist), Korea, Taiwan (Republic of China), New Zealand, United States (Oceania), Argentina, Chile, French Guiana, Surinam, Bahamas, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, United States, Ireland, Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, British Middle East n.e.s., Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ghana, Mauritius & Dependencies, Sierra Leone, Republic of South Africa, Angola, French Equatorial Africa, Gabon Republic, Liberia, Portugal Africa n.e.s., Tunisia, India, British East Indies n.e.s., Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Australia, British Oceania n.e.s., British Guiana, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bermuda, Jamaica, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Haiti, Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Malta and Gozo, Belgium & Luxembourg, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Spain, Albania, Germany (East), Roumania, Bahrain, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Turkey, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanganyika, British Africa n.e.s., Cameroons, French West Africa, Guinea, Morocco, Spanish Africa, Ceylon, Malaya & Singapore, Afghanistan, Cambodia and Laos, Japan, Portuguese Asia, Viet Nam, Fiji, French Oceania, Falkland Islands, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, British Honduras, Leeward & Windward Islands, Cuba, French West Indies, Honduras, Nicaragua, United States (Virgin Islands).


USE OF MAPLE LEAF INSIGNIA ON C.N.R. FREIGHT CARS
Mr. Hales: Has the C.N.R. management decided to withdraw the insignia of the maple leaf and the caption "Serves all Canada" from all C.N.R. freight cars and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) under whose instructions were these orders issued?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that the company's decision on its trademark is contained in a press release issued on December 15, 1960, and from which the following extracts have been taken as explanatory information in reply to the question:
"The trademark, developed and tested during the past year, began appearing on the sides of box cars at the same time that C.N. employees were introduced to the symbol in

the December-January issue of the railways' employee magazine "Keeping Track".
Designed by Toronto's Allan Fleming, the trademark is a continuous line forming the letters "C.N." to express movement-the movement of men, messages and materials.
The traditional "R" has been eliminated because the trademark must service C.N.'s multi-type business-hotels, communications, express, freight and passenger services. As well, "C.N." is bilingual; "C.N.R." is not.
The new trademark is the first step in a comprehensive redesign program launched by the C.N. in the summer of 1959. The decision to embark on the program followed a survey on public attitudes conducted across Canada. The survey showed that in spite of centralized traffic control, dieselization, modern electronic hump yards, new microwave facilities and other modern programs being carried out by the railway, the public still regarded Canadian National and railways generally as old-fashioned and slow about trying to find new ways of improving their operations and service to the public.
The program is built around the new C.N. symbol, but a great deal of attention is being given to the backgrounds against which the trademark will be applied: color schemes for trains, trucks, uniforms, signs, telegraph blanks, stations, letterheads, and all the many items involved in C.N.'s businesses."


CURRENCY OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What foreign countries have convertible currency, and what monetary units do they use?
2.	What foreign countries have unconvertible currency, and what monetary units do they use?
3.	What countries are members of the international monetary fund?
4.	What countries are not members of the international monetary fund?

Answer: 1. The clearest standard of convertibility is adherence to article 8 of the international monetary fund. Countries adhering to article 8 undertake to avoid restrictions on current payments, avoid discriminatory currency practices, and convert foreign held balances of their currencies. Switzerland, although not a member of the international monetary fund, would also meet this standard. The monetary unit of Switzerland is the Swiss franc.
A list of article 8 countries and their monetary units follows:
Questions
Country	Unit
Austria	Schilling
Belgium	Franc
Canada	Dollar
Dominican Republic	Peso
El Salvador	Colon
France	Franc
Germany,	
Fed. Rep. of	Deutsche Mark
Guatemala	Quetzal
Haiti	Gourde
Honduras	Lempira
Ireland	Pound
Italy	Lira
Jamaica	Pound
Japan	Yen
Kuwait	Dinar
Luxembourg	Franc
Mexico	Peso
Netherlands	Guilder
Panama	Balboa
Peru	Sol
Saudi Arabia	Riyal
Sweden	Krona
United Kingdom	Pound
United States	Dollar
2. All countries not listed in the answer to	
question 1 are considered by definition to	
have unconvertible	currencies. The list of
these countries and territories is taken from	
the May 1964 issue of the Monthly Bulletin of	
Statistics published by the United Nations.	
Country	Unit
Afghanistan	Afghani
Argentina	Peso
Australia	Pound A.
Bolivia	Peso Boliviano
Brazil	Cruzeiro
Burma	Kyat
Ceylon	Rupee
Chile	Escudo
China (Taiwan)	NT dollar
Colombia	Peso
Costa Rica	Colon
Denmark	Krone
Ecuador	Sucre
Finland	Markka
Hong Kong	Dollar
Iceland	Krona
India	Rupee
Indonesia	Rupiah
Lebanon	Pound L.
Malaysia	Dollar
New Zealand	Pound N.Z.
Nicaragua	Cordoba
Norway	Krone
Pakistan	Rupee

Questions
Country
Unit
Paraguay	Guarani
Philippines	Peso
Portugal	Escudo
South Africa	Rand
Spain	Peseta
Thailand	Baht
Turkey	Lira
Uruguay	Peso
Venezuela	Bolivar
Viet Nam, Rep. of	Piastre
Yugoslavia	Dinar
Aden	E. Afr. Shilling
Algeria	Franc
Angola	Escudo
Bahama Islands	Pound
Barbados	W. I. Dollar
Bermuda	Pound
Br. Guiana	W. I. Dollar
Br. Honduras	Br. Hon. Dollar
Brunei	B. Dollar
Burundi	RB Franc
Cambodia	Riel
Cameroon	CFA Franc
Central African Rep.	CFA Franc
Chad	CFA Franc
Comoro Islands	CFA Franc
Congo (Brazzaville)	CFA Franc
Congo (Leopoldville)	Franc
Cuba	Peso
Cyprus	Pound
Dahomey	CFA Franc
Ethiopia	Dollar
Falkland Islands	Pound
Fiji Islands	Pound F.
Fr. Guiana	Franc
Fr. Polynesia	CFP Franc
Fr. Somaliland	Djibouti Franc
Gabon	CFA Franc
Gambia	Pound
Ghana	Pound
Gibraltar	Pound
Greece	Drachma
Guadeloupe	Franc
Guinea	CFA Franc
Iran	Rial
Iraq	Dinar
Israel	Pound
Ivory Coast	CFA Franc
Jordan	Dinar
Kenya	E. Afr. Shilling
Korea, Rep. of	Hwan
Laos	Kip
Leeward Islands	W.I. Dollar
Liberia	U.S. Dollar
Libya	Pound
Madagascar	MG Franc
Mali	M. Franc

Country	Unit
Malta	Pound
Martinique	Franc
Mauritania	CFA Franc
Mauritius	Rupee
Morocco	Franc
Mozambique	Excudo
Neth. Antilles	Ant. Guilder
New Caledonia	CFP Franc
New Hebrides	CFP Franc
Niger	CFA Franc
Nigeria	Pound
Reunion	CFA Franc
Rhodesia & Nyasaland,	
Fed. of	Pound
Rwanda	RB Franc
Senegal	CFA Franc
Sierra Leone	W. Afr. Pound
Seychelles	Rupee
Somalia	Sh. So.
St. Pierre and Mique-	
lon	CFA Franc
Sudan	Pound Sd.
Surinam	Sur. Guilder
Syria	LS
Tanganyika	E. Afr. Shilling
Togo	CFA Franc
Tonga	Pound T.
Trinidad and Tobago	W. I. Dollar
Tunisia	Franc
Uganda	E. Afr. Shilling
United Arab Rep.	L. E.
Upper Volta Wallis and Futuna	CFA Franc
Islands	CFP Franc
Windward Islands	W.I. Dollar
Zanzibar	E. Afr. Shilling
Albania	Lek
Bulgaria	Lev
China (mainland)	Yuan
Czechoslovakia	Korona
Germany, Eastern	Ostmark
Hungary	Forint
Korea, North	Won
Mongolia	Tugrek
Poland	Zloty
Romania	Leu
U.S.S.R.	Ruble
Viet Nam, North	Dong
3. Afghanistan	Burma
Algeria	Burundi
Argentina	Cameroon
Australia	Canada
Austria	Central African Rep,
Belgium	Ceylon
Bolivia	Chad
Brazil	Chile

China	Malaysia
Colombia	Mali
Congo (Brazzaville)	Mauritania
Congo (Leopoldville)	Mexico
Costa Rica	Morocco
Cyprus	Nepal
Dahomey	Netherlands
Denmark	New Zealand
Dominican Republic	Nicaragua
Ecuador	Niger
El Salvador	Nigeria
Ethiopia	Norway
Finland	Pakistan
France	Panama
Gabon	Paraguay
Germany, Fed. Rep. of Peru	
Ghana	Philippines
Greece	Portugal
Guatemala	Rwanda
Guinea	Saudi Arabia
Haiti	Senegal
Honduras	Sierra Leone
Iceland	Somalia
India	South Africa
Indonesia	Spain
Iran	Sudan
Iraq	Sweden
Ireland	Syrian Arab Republic
Israel	Tanganyika
Italy	Thailand
Ivory Coast	Togo
Jamaica	Trinidad & Tobago
Japan	Tunisia
Jordan	Turkey
Kenya	Uganda
Korea	United Arab Republic
Kuwait	United Kingdom
Laos	United States
Lebanon	Upper Volta
Liberia	Uruguay
Libya	Venezuela
Luxembourg	Viet-Nam
Malagasy Rep.	Yugoslavia
4.	The source for the countries and territories listed below is the same as for the second answer. Hong Kong, Switzerland, Aden, Angola, Bahama Islands, Barbados, Bermuda, Br. Guiana, Br. Honduras, Brunei, Cambodia, Comoro Island, Cuba, Cyprus, Falkland Islands, Fiji Islands, Fr. Guiana, Fr. Polynesia, Fr. Somaliland, Gambia, Gibraltar, Guadeloupe, Leeward Islands, Madagascar, Malta, Martinique, Mauritius, Mozambique, Neth. Antilles, New Caledonia, New Hebrides, Reunion, Fed. of Rhodesia & Nyasaland, Seychelles, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Surinam, Tonga, Wallis and Futuna Islands, Windward 20220-321
Questions
Islands, Zanzibar, Albania, Bulgaria, China (mainland), Czechoslovakia, Germany (Eastern), Hungary, Korea (north), Mongolia, Poland, Rumania, U.S.S.R., Viet Nam (north). [Text]


TEST EXAMINATION OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS
Mr. Nugenl: 1.	What criteria determine the test basis for the examination of accounts by the Auditor General?
2.	Referring to the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963, at p. 3, what in detail and with full particulars were the "too many instances where staff shortages result in the audit office being unable to carry out its test examinations with sufficient frequency or in sufficient depth to achieve even the minimum standard required by modem accepted auditing practice"?
3.	What is "modem accepted auditing practice" referred to in this statement and in what particulars has it been departed from?
4.	What is the minimum standard of such practice and in what particulars has it not been achieved in any department specifying such department?
5.	In what departments or branches of departments were the test examinations carried out with insufficient depth?
6.	In respect of each of these departments or branches of departments (a) what in particular was the lack of depth (b) what would have been a sufficient depth?
7.	In what departments or branches of departments were the test examinations carried out with insufficient frequency?
8.	In respect of these (a) what was the frequency (b) what would have been sufficient frequency?
Answer: 1. When the Auditor General states that his examinations of the accounts have included such tests as he considered necessary in the circumstances, he means that he has examined portions of the transactions, supporting documents and records to the extent that he deems necessary in order to form an independent opinion as to the correctness of the accounts.
The auditing procedure of testing or sampling represents an inspection of a sample of items selected from the transactions of the period under review with the object of judging the degree of reliability and quality of the whole on the basis of the sample. One of the most important factors to be taken into consideration in determining the extent of testing required is the effectiveness of the existing system of internal control which is reviewed by the Auditor General. Other factors include the reliability of the accounting records, the risk of the existence of signficant errors and the relative importance of the transactions to be tested. The extent of testing in any examination is a matter of the auditor's judgment which is recognized by the employment of the words "The Auditor

Questions
General shall examine in such manner as he may deem necessary" in the Financial Administration Act.
2.	The statement quoted from page 3 of the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963 to the House of Commons was also made by him in his report to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962.
It would not be in the public interest were the Auditor General to make known in detail and with full particulars those instances where his test examinations have not been carried out with sufficient frequency or in sufficient depth to achieve even the minimum standard required by modern accepted auditing practice.
3.	Modern accepted auditing practice may be defined in general as the examination of accounting documents and supporting evidence for the purpose of reaching an informed opinion concerning their propriety. As in the case under (2) above, it would not be in the public interest to reveal the extent to which this has been departed from.
4.	5, 6, 7 and 8. As mentioned in the answers to (2) and (3) above, it is not in the public interest to disclose the extent to which the audit office has been unable to carry out its test examinations with sufficient frequency or in sufficient depth to achieve even the minimum standard required by modern accepted auditing practice.


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT PUBLICITY FOR C.N.R.
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What official of the Department of Transport is in charge of promotional programs carried out at airports, railway stations and hotels belonging to the C.N.R.?
2.	What is the Department of Transport's policy with regard to publicity in railway stations, airports and hotels owned by the C.N.R.?
3.	Who authorizes the various companies to advertise on billboards in railway stations, airports and railway hotels and what standards are followed for rates?
4.	Are tenders accepted for renting space used for advertising by the Department of Transport?
5.	In the last two years, how many advertising firms have been authorized to advertise in railway stations, airports and hotels and what are the names of those firms?
6.	What revenue has the government derived from each publicity campaign carried out by advertising firms?
7.	Have any advertising firms requested the job of handling advertising for the 1967 world exhibition in railway stations, airports or hotels belonging to the C.N.R. and, if so (a) how many (b) what firms (c) what place and what terms were involved in each case?
8.	What promotional programs did the Department of Transport undertake in 1962-63 and what

was the cost of each program and who handled them?

Answer: 1. Not applicable as the Department of Transport does not carry out any promotional programs in connection with airports, or with railway stations and hotels belonging to the Canadian National Railways.
2.	Publicity has been taken as referring to advertising at airport terminals and in this regard the policy of the department is to process applications for advertising space as they are received. Consequently the tendering procedure does not apply since any party wishing to advertise at airports may apply. The department does not deal with advertising agencies as such on an exclusive basis. The department has no jurisdiction over Canadian National stations and hotels.
3.	See answer to part 2. Advertising at departmental airports is authorized by the Minister of Transport under the government airport concession operations regulations.
4.	See answer to part 2.
5 and 6. See answer to part 2. Within the last two years the department has not entered into exclusive agreements with advertising agencies. The department has entered into an agreement with a Montreal company (Marile Limited) permitting it to instal its advertising units in the terminal building at the Montreal international airport. The company is free to solicit advertising from interested parties, but this is not on any exclusive basis for the advertising in the terminal building. The department still accepts applications from parties wishing to rent advertising space in the terminal building.
The rental provision in the agreement with Marile Limited is $125 per month per unit or 10 per cent of gross revenue whichever is the greater.
7.	No applications for advertising in connection with the 1967 world exhibition have been received by the department. As mentioned in the answer to part 2, the department does not have jurisdiction over Canadian National stations and hotels.
8.	See answer to part 2.


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, QUEBEC
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How many vehicles did the Department of Justice buy in the constituencies of Compton-Frontenac, Beauce, Megantic, and Sherbrooke in 1961-62-63?
2.	Were these purchases made following public tender calls?

3.	Who tendered in each case, and what was the amount of the tender?
4.	Which tenders were accepted?
5.	Are maintenance, repairs, and gasoline and oil for these cars obtained through tender?
6.	Who is in charge of these activities, and what amounts were spent in 1961-62-63?


Mr. Macdonald:: So far as the Department of Justice is concerned:
1.	None.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6. Not applicable.


*RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS RESPECTING FINANCING
Mr. Orlikow: Has the government given consideration to the recommendations made to the Minister of Finance by the Canadian association of university teachers in its brief on the financing of universities on January 27, 1964 and, if so (a) does the government, in concert with the governments of the provinces, and collaboration with the universities, plan to develop a systematic long range program for the planning and financing of university development, with respect both to operating and capital requirements, initially for the period 1964-65 to 1970-71 (b) does the government consider that the goal should be to enable the universities to discharge their extraordinarily great responsibilities on the scale required of them, in such a way that will place comparable universities in the different regions of the country on equal terms with respect to the payment of staff and the provision of facilities (c) has the government considered the appointment of a small consultative committee to aid in the formulation and development of the proposals in recommendations 1 and 2 and that there be strong representation on this committee from members of the academic profession who are actively engaged in teaching and research (d) does the government consider that in the interim period, pending the implementation of the proposed new comprehensive long range program of financing the universities, the federal operating grants be increased to at least $100,000,000 for 1964-65 and the federal government commit itself to bearing a minimum proportion, at least one third, of the universities' operating costs, the grant to be distributed on a new basis, using provincial populations in the age group 16-24, with adjustments for provincial differences in proportions of out-ofprovince students, and for differences in provincial fiscal capacity (e) does the government consider that a substantial increase should be made in the annual funds available to the Canada council to enable it to expand its program in support of research in the humanities and the oscial sciences and in support of research collections in university libraries (f) will the national research council and medical research council be provided with sufficient funds to enable them to sustain and expand their support of scientific and medical research in the universities and to make those areas of research now heavily dependant on research funds from the United States less dependent on these sources (g) will a federal contribution of $300 million be made toward the estimated capital requirements of the universities for the three-year period 1963-64 to 1965-66, as recommended by the Canadian universities foundation in its brief, and will the federal government commit itself to bearing a minimum proportion, at least one third, of the universities' capital costs?
20220-321J
Questions


Lawrence T. Pennell: The government gave consideration to these recommendations but considers it necessary now to re-examine them in accordance with the answer given to the hon. member on May 20, 1964 by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister as recorded on page 3388 of Hansard. In any event, most of this question relates to decisions of policy which, when taken, would be announced in due course.


CHARLES CAMSELL HOSPITAL
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	For each year since 1953, how many Indian and Eskimo patients from the Northwest Territories were admitted to the Charles Camsell hospital at Edmonton for treatment of acute illness or nontuberculosis health conditions?
2.	What has been the approximate cost of all such care, for each year since 1953, including transportation expenses of these patients?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.
Admissions
Year	Indian	Eskimo1954	30	491955	32	551956	34	581957	54	1051958	54	741959	72	1021960	107	1181961	99	921962	165	1731963	192	198Approximate costs, based on average cost res	Indian	Eskimo$	$45,836	63,50051,418	75,42856,118	86,05761,842	121,67945,135	104,97667,726	134,20486,028	126,92967,308	82,137 f112,587	130,744136,239	171,390


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	With reference to the Farm Credit Corporation, for the period ending March 31, 1964 (a) how many loans were granted in each of the provinces
(b)	how many office employees were there in each province (c) how many credit advisers were

Questions
there in each province (d) how many credit supervisors were there in each province?
2.	How many loans were approved in each of the provinces during the financial year 1963-1964?
3.	As of March 31, 1964 how many loans (a) were applied for in the constituency of Roberval
(b)	were approved in the constituency of Roberval
(c)	were made in the constituency of Roberval?


Mr. Hays:: 1.
(a) Loans Disbursed 1963-64	(b) Office Employees March 31, 1964	(c) Credit Advisers March 31,1964	(d) Credit Supervisors March 31, 1964British Columbia	356	5	8	1Alberta	1930	47	37	5Saskatchewan	2085	46	39	5Manitoba	598	12	12	2Ontario	1636	61	41	6Quebec	892	46	24 *2	5New Brunswick	77	9	6	Nova Scotia	71	-	2	Prince Edward Island	153 4	3 a 1 Senior Loaning Officer from New Brunswick	covers the Province of Newfoundland	Totals	7802 *1	729	169	27
*1 This is the number of loans actually disbursed. Other loans approved during fiscal year were in the process of disbursement at the end of the fiscal year.
*2 There are presently 30 credit advisers on strength in the province of Quebec.
2.	Loans approved by provinces 1963-64: British Columbia, 355; Alberta, 2043; Saskatchewan, 2332; Manitoba, 625; Ontario, 1796; Quebec, 1211; New Brunswick, 83; Nova Scotia, 74; Prince Edward Island, 155; Newfoundland, 5. Total 8689.
3.	The Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain statistical records on a constituency basis However, for the municipal county of Lac Saint-Jean West, which approximately coincides with the constituency of Roberval, the answer is: (a) 191; (b) 121; (3) 94. (Some of those loans approved prior to March 31, 1964 were still being processed and had not been disbursed at the end of the fiscal year.)


LAND IMPROVEMENT, MOUNT UNIACKE, N.S.
Mr. Kennedy: Has the government undertaken to improve additional land In the vicinity of the receiver station at Mount Uniacke, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) were public tenders called and, if so (b) what was the name of each tender, the amount of each tender and to whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. Drury:: Yes.

(a)	The Halifax regional office of the Department of Defence Production invited tenders from 27 firms.
(b)	Tenders in the amounts indicated were
received from:	Hennessy & Spicer Ltd.,
Hants county, N.S. $4,570; Woods Contracting Limited, Bedford, N.S. $4,679.80; Cameron Contracting Limited, Halifax, N.S. $5,490; Roy Judge Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S. $7,071; Trynor Construction Company Limited, Halifax, N.S. $15,297.50.
The contract was awarded to Hennessy & Spicer Ltd.


MARMOT BASIN SKI LIFT, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Jasper-: Edson):
With regard to Marmot Basin Ski Lift Limited and Marmot Territory Development Company (a) has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources met with any persons connected with either company prior to the announcement of the tender (b) did the manufacturer of the lift to be used in the successful tender give any concession to the government, of any nature (c) did any departmental official meet with the manufacturing firm or its agent prior to the awarding of the

tender and, if so, (i) on what date (ii) for what reasons (iii) was similar opportunity offered to the manufacturer of the lift in the losing tender
(d)	when does the successful tenderer take over the Marmot basin (e) does the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources intend to allow both the present operator and the successful tenderer to operate in the Marmot basin this coming winter (f) how much road will have to be built by the government to satisfy the successful bidder and what is the estimated cost (g) how much road would have been required by the unsuccessful bidder (h) how does the successful bidder intend to provide power to the Marmot basin?


Mr. Laing:: (a) No.
(b)	No.
(c)	No.
(d)	When a bond in the amount of 5 per cent of the estimated cost of the development and suitable plans of the facilities to be installed and erected are filed with the superintendent, Jasper national park.
(e)	The successful tenderer will be the only person authorized to operate a lift in the basin; Mr. Toby Rayner, however, will be permitted to operate a snowmobile to carry passengers into the Marmot basin during the 1964-65 season.
(f)	and (g) None; before the call for tenders was made, it was decided to improve the five mile trail between the Banff-Jasper highway and the lower terminal off the lift m the Marmot basin at an estimated cost of $35,000.
(h) The successful bidder indicated that he intends to provide power to the Marmot basin with a 7.5 kilowatt diesel generator for electricity and a gasoline engine for the T-bar lift.


SUBSIDIES PAID TO POLARIS SHIPPING COMPANY
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	To date, what amounts, in the form of subsidies, have been paid direct to the Polaris Shipping Company in connection with the construction of the ship Cacouna?
2.	On what basis were such subsidies paid?
3.	Is the Polaris Shipping Company entitled to any further direct payments in connection with the construction of this ship?

Answer: The Canadian maritime commission advises as follows:
1.	Nil. On behalf of the ship owner, subsidy amounting to the sum of $384,000 was paid to the shipbuilder, Geo. T. Davie and Sons Ltd., towards the construction cost of the ship Cacouna.
2.	Subsidy was paid in accordance with the ship construction assistance regulations P.C. 1962-1122.
Questions
3.	The last progress payment still outstanding amounts to $96,000.


VALUE OF SAINT JOHN RIVER
Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-: Carleton):
Has the Atlantic development board any information concerning the present and potential value of the Saint John river, especially that portion affected by the Mactaquac project, in its natural state?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am advised by the Atlantic development board as follows:
It would be extremely difficult to assign meaningful quantitative values to the various features and aspects of the Saint John river, present and potential.
The Saint John river is, of course, well known for its salmon fishery, both commercial and sport. There are, however, widely differing estimates of the real value to the economy of the salmon sport fishery.
The river and valley have great natural beauty. To date, commercial development for recreation and tourism has not occurred on any large scale. The control of pollution, a serious problem in the river at present, is essential to the full development of the recreational and tourist value of the river. There is reason to believe the potential of the river for tourism and recreation will also be greatly enhanced by the creation of a 50 mile lake above the dam consequent upon the Mactaquac power development, particularly if steps are taken to deal with pollution.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER FLOW
Mr. Cowan: 1.	How many cubic feet of water are the power companies on both sides of the St. Lawrence river at Cornwall, Ontario, authorized to withdraw for power purposes by the second, minute, day or month or whatever period of time is used in such calculations and, where may a copy of such authorization or authorizations be seen?
2.	What is the normal inflow into the St. Lawrence river at Kingston, Ontario, from lake Ontario, in cubic feet per second, minute, day or month or whatever period of time is used in such calculations?


Arthur Laing: 1. With the exception of small quantities of water diverted past the Barnhart island dam for purposes of domestic water supply and the operation of the navigation channel and locks, the flow of the St. Lawrence river at that point is available for power purposes. This flow varies with many factors and is regulated in accordance with orders of approval dated 29 October 1952 and 2 July

Questions
1956 issued by the international joint commission. Copies of the orders are available at the commission's Ottawa office, room 303, 75 Albert street.
2.	Based on long term average conditions and adjusted to present developments, an average of 241,000 cubic feet per second.


COST OF H.M.C.S. &quot;PROVIDER&quot;
Mr. Fisher: 1.	When was the original tender called for H.M.C.S. Provider1
2.	Did the R.C.N. or any government department indicate at any time before the bids were in what the estimated cost of the vessel was likely to be?
3.	How many companies tendered for the vessel?
4.	What was the successful tender, made by whom, and how did it compare with the unsuccessful tenders?
5.	What was the actual finished cost of the vessel, as given by the shipbuilder?
6.	What was the actual cost of the vessel to the R.C.N. or the crown as it was received from the shipbuilder?
7.	Has the R.C.N. any claims against the shipbuilder and, if so, for what and to what amount?
8.	Has the shipbuilder any claims against the crown and, if so, for what and to what amount?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Original tender, dated September 9, 1959, closed January 29, 1960.
2.	Yes-the government was informed in September, 1958 that the estimated cost was likely to be $16,875,000. In addition, the then minister of national defence in his white paper April 1959, stated that the cost was estimated at $16,000,000.
3.	Six.
4.	The lowest basic comparative proposal for the vessel, and an initial small complement of "on board" spares, was $11,044,584 sales tax extra, submitted by Davie Shipbuilding Company Ltd. The company's actual bid was $11,040,960 but for comparison purposes this was adjusted upward by $3,624. Using the same basis for comparison, the unsuccessful tenders were as follows: No. 2, $11,261,173; No. 3, $11,793,750; No. 4, $13,177,981; No. 5, $16,218,904; No. 6, $17,666,076.
It should be noted that all tenders were subject to the following:
(a)	Sales tax to be extra to contract price.
(b)	Escalation to be allowed for labour and material.
(c)	Additional spares specified by national defence to be extra to contract price.
(d)	Construction and material requirements not covered by tender documents and specifications to be extra to contract price.
(e)	Design changes to be extra to contract price.
[Mr. Laing.l
These	factors have	amounted to(a)	$1,537,510	(estimated)(b)	1,300,000	(estimated)(c)	806,000	(estimated)(d)	1,194,944	(e)	503,490	Total	$5,341,944	(estimated)5.	The shipbuilder has stated that the total cost of the program to the company amounted to:
$15,654,000 ex. sales tax 1,537,510 est. sales tax

6.	Contract price agreed to by the shipbuilder when the vessel was accepted by R.C.N. is as follows:
$12,739,394 Firm price
ex. sales tax
Escalation	1,300,000 est.
Additional spares 806,000 est.

Sales tax	1,537,510 est.

Recapitulation: Initial tender $11,040,960 Factors enumerated in question 4	5,341,944

7.	The crown has an outstanding claim against the shipbuilder under the warranty clause of the contract. Following acceptance of the vessel, defects appeared in some of the vessel's winch pumps and motors. The great part of the remedial work is being done at the shipbuilder's subcontractor's plant at the latter's expense. Some initial remedial work was done by Halifax dockyard personnel, and a claim for reimbursement to the crown for costs involved is being prepared. The amount has yet to be established.
8.	The shipbuilder has advised that the costs which the company incurred on the program were in excess of the contract price, and has requested an additional payment of $685,660 for work performed which, he claims, was not covered by the contract. The claim is being investigated.
The Department of National Revenue reports that two drawback claims for direct imports of parts and materials in the total

amount of $313,259.41. The shipbuilder has advised that he expects to file a third claim for the approximate amount of $90,000.


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, VAL D'OR, QUE.
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	Have any public tenders been invited for the construction of the Val d'Or airport and, if so (a) how many tenders have been received (b) who are the tenderers (c) what is the amount of each
Questions
tender (d) to whom has the contract been awarded?
2.	If tenders have not yet been invited, will they be invited and on what date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Defence Construction (1951) Limited is concerned,
1.	The information concerning contracts let since April 1, 1963, to date is attached hereto.
2.	See answer to No. 1.

Description
Award date
Names of bidders
Amount of tender

Construction of a standard auxiliary power unit building and the supply and installation of one 150 KW diesel electric generator set with exterior services	 April 25, 1963
The contract was awarded to Tyver Ltd., Rosemere, Quebec, at $38,500.00.
TYVER LTD., Rosemere, Que	
Valbec Construction Inc., Val d'Or, Que	
Paquin Construction Co. Ltd., Val d'Or, Que	
P. A. L'Ecuyer Co. Ltd., Val d'Or, Que	
The Tower Co. (1961) Ltd., Montreal, Que	
Nordbec Construction Inc., Rimouski, Que	
Cimota Construction Corporation Ltd., Quebec, Que.
38.500.00
39.463.00
39.990.00
41.150.00
45.600.00
53.496.00
61.742.00
Construction of access road and electrical distribution to permanent quadradar installation	
May 14, 1963 PAQUIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., Val d'Or, Que..
P. A. L'Ecuyer Co. Ltd., Val d'Or, Que....
Tyver Ltd., Rosemere, Que	
5.500.00
7.930.00 11,250.00
The contract was awarded to Paquin Construction Co. Ltd., Val d'Or, Quebec, at $5,500.00._____________________________________________
Construction of quick readiness alert facilities and fire hall. Nov. 22, 1963 PAQUIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., \ al d Oi, Que.
P. A. L Ecuyer Co. Ltd., Val d Ur, Que	
Betteridge-Smith Construction Co. Ltd., Noranda. The contract was awarded to Paquin Construction Co. Ltd., Val d Or, Quebec, at $416,352.00._________________________________
416.352.00 418,075.20
489.099.00
Construction of armament compound	 Feb. 7, 1964 ^^^gT^TION CO. LTD;1 Val d'Or, Que....;;;.
Betteridge-Smith Construction Co. Ltd., Noranda	
North Shore Construction Ltd., J. A. B. Construction Inc.,
Montreal, Que	
La Societe d'Entreprises Generales Ltee	
Hill-Clark-Francis (Quebec) Ltd., Noranda	
447.813.00 449,915.26
470.317.00
541.400.00 549,545.08 568,523.96
The contract was awarded to Paquin Construction Co. Ltd., Val d'Or, Quebec, at $447,813.00.
Rebuilding of runway.
May 5, 1964 PAQUIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., Val d'Or, Que.
A. Simard Inc., Amos, Que	
North Shore Construction Ltd , Montreal, Que	
Deschenes Construction Ltd., Hull, Que	
D. Lamothe Ltd., Noranda, Que	
La Societe d'Entreprises Generales Ltee, Amos, Que.
McNamara Highway Construction Ltd., Toronto, Ont...
935,385.50
965,247.85
984.475.00
994.373.00 1,027,670.50 1,065,153.30 1,249,680.00
The contract was awarded to Paquin Construction Co. Ltd., Val d'Or, Quebec, at $935,385.50.
Construction	MHK	 ^
P. A. L'Ecuyer Co. Ltd., Val d'Or, Que	
Romeo Sabourin, Verdun, Que	
17.496.00
17.881.00 22,728.38
33.410.00
The contract was awarded to Valbec Construction Inc., Val d'Or, Quebec, at $17,496.00.
5066	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES  ROYAL COMMISSION RESEARCH STAFF
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the amount of money spent to date by the royal commission on bilingualism and bi-culturalism?
2.	How many full time and part time researchers will be hired by the commission this year?
3.	What are the names of the researchers and the salary each one will receive?
4.	What are the duties of these researchers, and the countries they will visit?


Mr. Davis:: 
NEW STAMP SERIES
Mr. Macquarrie: What consideration prompted the Post Office Department to commence its new stamp series with the emblems of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec rather than the senior provinces. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which were established political entities prior to 1867?


Mr. Nicholson:: The department has plans to issue a series of postage stamps bearing the floral emblems and the coats of arms of the ten provinces, the Yukon Territory and the
Questions
Northwest Territories before the end of 1966. Our stamp issue program for 1964 made it impossible to issue the stamps honouring each of the four provinces which entered confederation on July 1, 1867. It was therefore decided to issue the stamps for the two largest provinces in terms of size and population, to be followed by the stamps for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
housing units built under incentive plan


Mr. Rynard: Of the 28,000 housing units constructed during the period of the winter building incentive program, how many were built in communities of 5,000 and more (a) how many in the communities of 5,000 and more were single family units (b) how many in the communities of 5,000 and more were two family units (c) how many in the communities of 5,000 and more were started subsequent to December 1, 1963?


Mr. Byrne:: Under the winter house building incentive program 24,793 dwelling units which qualified for the incentive were constructed in communities of 5,000 population and over; of these 19,776 were single family units; 1,850 were two family dwellings containing 3,700 units; 95 were three family dwellings containing 285 units and 258 were four family dwellings containing 1,032 units. Of the 24,793 qualifying units in communities of 5,000 population and over, 14,132 units were started after December 1, 1963.


GROUP INSURANCE ON CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many group Insurance policies are In effect to cover federal civil servants?
2.	What are the dates of each policy, the insurance companies who hold the contracts, the names of those who negotiated the contracts for the government, the agents who negotiated for the insurance companies, the commission agreed upon and paid in each contract, the distribution of commission where such a distribution was within the knowledge of the government officials?
3.	How many companies were invited to bid for each group plan coverage of civil servants?
4.	If bids were or are asked, has a "competitive tender" kind of competition been in effect and, if not, for what reason?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. One in which the government is a contracting party.
2.	(a) July 1, 1960; (b) The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada; (c) D. M. Watters, H. D. Clark, T. B. Smith and E. W. Oliver conducted the direct negotiations; (d) the company was not represented by agents but by employees from its head office; (e) none; (f) none.
3.	150.
4.	Yes.

Questions


REQUESTS OF CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the request ol the consumers association of Canada that the food and drug directorate set up regulations which will eliminate deceptive packaging of bacon which will allow buyers to see at least one full slice of bacon at the time of purchase?
2.	Is the government giving consideration to the request of the consumers association of Canada that the food and drug directorate establish standards for fruit nectars, fruit drinks, fruit ades, etc., with regulations requiring the percentage of specified fruit juice in these drinks to be printed clearly and prominently on the label of the container in close proximity to the name of the drink?
3.	Is the government giving consideration to the request of the consumers association of Canada that the food and drug directorate establish minimum standards for cream for manufacturing not less exacting than present standards for milk manufacturing?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Department of National Health and Welfare has not officially received the resolutions passed at the recent annual conference of the consumers association of Canada. However the department is aware of the content of these resolutions.
1.	Yes. The whole question of the packaging of bacon will be carefully reviewed.
2.	Yes. The department has had this matter under consideration for some time. Discussions have already been held with representatives of the consumers association of Canada and industry on this subject.
3.	Yes. This matter is under consideration at the present time.


CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION REQUESTS RESPECTING CANNED FOODS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the request of the consumers association of Canada that the Department of Agriculture set up grades for all canned fruits and vegetables before they are displayed for sale in retail stores, and to ensure adequate inspection to see that grades as designated are maintained?
2.	Is the government giving consideration to the request of the consumers association of Canada that the Department of Agriculture conduct an immediate review of its standard measurements and labelling requirements for cans, to ensure that when a Canadian purchaser buys canned juices, the label shall correctly state, in fluid ounces without fractions, the contents of the can at the time of purchase?


Harry William Hays: 1. Yes. The development of grade standards for canned fruits and vegetables grown and processed in Canada was begun by this department a number of years ago. At the present time grades are established for the great majority of domestic canned fruits and vegetables. From time to time as they assume

commercial significance grade standards are developed for these new products.
The finished products are under systematic inspection by the department to ensure that grade standards are maintained.
2. Yes. The question of label declaration of can contents is being studied by this department. There are other departments involved in this, and it is felt that the various departments in consultation with industry will arrive at a satisfactory solution.


ARDA PROJECTS PROPOSED AND APPROVED
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many ARDA projects have been proposed by the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia since ARDA legislation became operative?
2.	How many such proposed ARDA projects have been approved by the federal authority?


Mr. Sauve:: 1. ARDA projects received from the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to May 31, 1964 are as follows: Ontario, 28; Manitoba, 59; Saskatchewan, 91; Alberta, 24; British Columbia, 16.
2. Projects approved by the federal government to May 31, 1964 are as follows: Ontario, 27; Manitoba, 49; Saskatchewan, 85; Alberta, 24; British Columbia, 16.


VAL D'OR AIRPORT CONTRACT
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Who were the tenderers for the work done at Val d'Or airport in the county of Villeneuve?
2.	What was the amount of the tender in each case?
3.	To whom was the contract granted?
4.	What was the amount of the contract?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1, 2, 3, and 4. See answer to question No. 1,322, Mr. Caouette.


USE OF R.C.A.F. STATION EDGAR
Mr. Smith: Has, or is, the government giving any consideration to the use of the R.C.A.F. radar station at Edgar as a physical health education centre for the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport, either alone or in conjunction with an educational establishment which might be located there?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


FLAGS AT HALF MAST ON DEATH OF NEHRU
Mr. Howard: Upon the death of the late Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, was any action taken, by the government of Canada as a fellow member of the commonwealth along with India, to have flags flown at half mast and, if so, to what geographic areas did this policy apply and, if not, for what reason?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It is the established policy to fly flags at half mast in Canada at the death of a foreign head of state. This is not done for commonwealth or foreign prime ministers.
The flag flown at our high commissioner's office in Delhi would, of course, have been flown at half mast for Prime Minister Nehru in accordance with local practice.


ADVERTISING REVENUE, STATION CJBC, TORONTO
Mr. Cowan: What was the division of the advertising revenue of radio station CJBC, Toronto, in the month of June, 1964, between advertising in the French language and advertising in the English language?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that all advertising revenue of station CJBC for the month of June, 1964 was from advertising in the English language.


RESTOCKING OF CARIBOU, CAPE BRETON NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Is the department concerned giving consideration to the re-establishment of caribou in the Cape Breton highlands national park?
2.	Is there a source of caribou for re-stocking available and can methods be devised to capture and transport the animals?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. Preliminary investigations indicate that the re-establishment of caribou in Cape Breton highlands national park is desirable and feasible. Certain aspects of the proposal require further study and a final decision must be deferred until those studies are concluded.
2. There are several sources from which caribou could be obtained. Modern techniques
Questions
for capturing and transplanting caribou have been successful.


SUBSIDY TO NEWFOUNDLAND-CANADA STEAMSHIP LTD.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Has a subsidy been granted to the Newfound-land-Canada Steamship Limited for the Halifax-St. John's, Newfoundland service?
2.	How much is this subsidy, on what date was it granted and for what period of time?
3.	Did the Newfoundland-Canada Steamship Limited have a subsidy for this service previously?
4.	Under what authority was this subsidy granted?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Canadian maritime commission advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	$248,600, approved June 4, 1964, for 12 months ending March 31, 1965.
3.	No.
4.	Approved by treasury board.


TENDERS FOR DREDGING, KINCARDINE, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	Have tenders been called for dredging at Kincardine harbour, Kincardine, Ontario and, if so, in what newspapers were the tender calls advertised?
2.	What is the closing date?


Mr. Deschalelels:: 1. It is intended to advertize for tenders later this month.
2. Not yet known.


TEACHERS' SALARIES, NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Fisher: What is the salary schedule for teachers in the north engaged by the department of northern affairs including the description of the grade levels for each salary?
20220-322i
Questions


Arthur Laing: Jr. matric plus 1 year Experience teacher in years education	Sr. matric. plus 1 year teacher education	Sr. matric. plus 2 years teacher education	Sr. matric. plus 3 years teacher education	Sr. matric. plus 4 years teacher education	Sr. matric. plus 5 years teacher education	Sr. matric. plus 6 years teacher education$	$	$	*	$	$	$0	... 3,600	4,200	4,560	5,040	6,120	6,600	7,0801	... 3,840	4,440	4,830	5,310	6,420	6,900	7,3802	... 4,080	4,680	5,100	5,580	6,720	7,200	7,680S3	... 4,320	4,920	5,370	5,850	7,020	7,500	7,9804	... 4,560	5,160	5,640	6,120	7,320	7,800	8,2801 5	.... 4,800	5,400	5,910	6,390	7,620	8,100	8,5806	.... 5,040	5,640	6,180	6,660	7,920	8,400	8,8807	5,880	6,450	6,930	8,220	8,700	9,1808	-	6,120	6,720	7,200	8,520	9,000	9,4809	-	6,360	6,990	7,470	8,820	9,300	9,78010	-	7,740	9,120	9,600	10,08011	-	-	9,420	9,900	10,38012	-	-	-	9,720	10,200	10,68013	-	-	10,020	10,500	10,98014	-	-	-	-	10,800	11,280
"Teacher education" means teacher training after the junior or senior matriculation level, followed by university training toward a degree.


EMPLOYMENT OF STAFF, BICULTURALISM COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1J75-Mr. Fisher:
1.	In the hiring of personnel for the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism, what directive or memorandum has been drawn up to define the salary scales for the various kinds of personnel required?
2.	Who drew up the directive or memorandum and what advice was sought from what government agents or departments so as to determine fair salaries for the various posts?
3.	Has anyone been engaged whose salary is above or below the scale or limits set out in any directive or memorandum?
Answer: 1. Administrative, clerical, stenographic and typing appointments are made by the royal commission according to civil service salary scales. Research and other technical appointments are made by the royal commission after individual salary recommendations, submitted to the honourable the treasury board, have been approved.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.

Mr. Coates: 1. Has a competition been held for the purpose of filling the position of director of meteorological services from which Dr. How resigned, and, if so (a) has a Mr. R. Noble been designated for this appointment (b) has an appeal been lodged against said appointment?
[Mr. Fisher.l
2. Does the government intend to initiate a new competition for this position at the earliest date possible?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. No. (a) Mr. Noble was the next ranking candidate to Dr. How in the competition for director of meteorological services, and as such has been designated for this appointment in place of Dr. How. (b) Yes.
2. No.


PORT ELGIN, ONT.-HARBOUR DREDGING
Mr. Loney: 1.	Have tenders been called for dredging at Port Elgin harbour, Port Elgin, Ontario and, if so, in what newspapers were the tender calls advertised?
2.	What is the closing date?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. It is intended to advertize for tenders later this month.
2. Not yet known.


LETTER RESPECTING LAKE HURON AND GEORGIAN BAY WATER LEVEL
Mr. Loney: 1.	Did the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources receive a letter from the Georgian bay development association with regard to the current low water levels in lake Huron and Georgian bay areas and, if so, on what date?
2.	Has there been a reply to this letter and, if so, on what date?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. June 18, 1964.
2. Yes. July 2, 1964.


LOS ANGELES WORLD FAIR IN 1967
Mr. Lamberl: Has the government of Canada been advised officially, or otherwise, of any requests by the promoters of a so-called world fair in Los Angeles in 1967 to the international body of which Canada is a member to have the proposed Los Angeles fair of 1967 qualify as a world fair and, if so, what representations has the government of Canada made, or does it intend to make in this regard?
Answer: There has been no advice, official or otherwise, presented to the government ol Canada with respect to a so-called world fair in Los Angeles in 1967. The bureau of international expositions has, however, accepted for registration a special category fair to be held at Long Beach, California, in 1968. This fair is to be known as "The California world's fair on transportation and communications" and will be conducted, tentatively, from April 27, 1968 to October 27, 1968.


DEATH FROM TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND LUNG CANCER
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the total of fatal traffic accidents in Canada for 1963?
2.	What was the total of deaths attributed to lung
cancer for 1963?	s
Answer: 1. Number of deaths from motor vehicle traffic accidents, 1963-4,367.
2. Number of deaths from lung cancer, 1963 -3,246.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hales: 1.	How many employees has the federal government hired in all departments in the last 12 months?
2.	How many employees has the federal government hired in crown corporations in the last 12
months?
3.	How many employees left the government in this period, for the following reasons: death, retirement, to take other employment, discharged?
4.	How many of those who applied for employment stated that they wish to be examined (written and oral) in the French language?
5.	How many of this group were so appointed?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER JOINT PROGRAMS, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1. How much did the federal government contribute toward work carried out under federalprovincial programs in Chapleau county, during the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?
uraers Tor Keturns
2.	How much money has been paid or is soon to be paid in respect of each of these projects?
3.	Are projects to be carried out under joint programs in 1964-65 and in 1965-66 presently being studied and, if so, what are these projects9
4.	Did the county of Chapleau receive any benefits from joint programs other than those for the execution of work, for example, under the fitness and amateur sport program, during the years 1960 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 and, if sm what was the value of benefits in each case?
Return tabled.


SHARED COST PLANS-PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In how many shared cost plans does each of the provinces participate at the present time?
2.	What is the nature of the plans and how much has each of the provinces received since 1960 or will each receive from the present time to the end of 1964 with respect to each such plan?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	To what extent did the federal government participate in work carried out in the constituency of Compton-Frontenae under joint programs in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	What amount has been spent or will be spent on each individual project?
3.	What projects under joint programs are being considered at the present time?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): How much money has the province of Alberta received from the federal government in each of the past five years as regards to (a) welfare (b) agriculture (c) forestry?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY PERSONNEL
Mr. Doucett: 
COUNTRIES PURCHASING CANADIAN WHEAT
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What countries have definitely indicated a desire to purchase Canadian wheat in this crop year and in the crop year 1964-65?
2.	How many bushels is it expected that each of these countries will purchase in the 1963-1964 and 1964-1965 crop years?
3.	What will be the total dollar value of sales for each country for each of the two years?
Return tabled.


TEACHERS' SALARIES, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Fisher: What is the salary schedule for teachers in the north engaged by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration including the description of the grade levels for each salary?
Return tabled.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely: of Gordon Chaplin, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Waterloo South, by decease.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question in connection with a matter I brought up the other day , regarding the Kitsilano reserve in Vancouver. I asked him whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made an application to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation [Mr. Doucett.l

for the land and buildings on this reserve.
I am speaking of the area which was occupied by the airport. Second, I wish to ask the hon. gentleman whether this land is still controlled by or in the custody of crown assets, or whether it has been turned over to the C.B.C.


Maurice Lamontagne: As far as I am aware the C.B.C. intends to make an application to crown assets in order to acquire new facilities in British Columbia, but I do not know whether or not this application has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I direct a question to the Minister of Industry in this connection;
I think he is in charge of this. Has an application been made by the C.B.C. and, if so, would the minister give an assurance that no action will be taken to transfer this property, which is needed for parkland purposes in Vancouver, until the fullest consideration has been given to the objections which have been taken thereto by a large number of people in Vancouver?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No; no such application has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: Should an application be made, is the minister prepared to give that assurance; because the head of the C.B.C. when he was out in Vancouver indicated that he was going to get this property regardless of the wishes of the people.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think I can reassure the right hon. gentleman. Full consideration will be given to all proper representations.


Harold Edward Winch: It
is awfully difficult for a member from Vancouver to get in a question on this subject in comparison with the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


An hon. Member:: Get in earlier.


Harold Edward Winch: I have been on this for months, not just in the last week. May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry who is responsible for crown assets, and ask him if he can give the house any information as a result of a telegram, which I have made available to him, received from the Vancouver parks board commissioner this morning to the effect that this is the crucial week of decision. Can the minister state whether this is a crucial week? Are negotiations under way, or has a decision already been reached?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No decision has been taken. The president of the C.B.C. was himself out in Vancouver last week looking into this matter. He has since returned to Ottawa. Since then no formal proposal has been received from the city by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in respect to this particular property.


Harold Edward Winch: Has any official representation been made to crown assets by C.B.C. officials?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure what "official representation" means. I repeat that no application by the C.B.C. to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to acquire ownership of this property has been received.


Harold Edward Winch: Did the minister also say the city of Vancouver-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I said we had received no submission from the city of Vancouver since Mr. Ouimet's visit to Vancouver.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question. Did the minister give any authority to any other minister of the government to offer a deed of half the 40 acres providing the C.B.C. got the balance?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether he has received any information from the secretary general of the United Nations as to what action that body intends to take with respect to the violation of the security council resolution, in view of the landing of Greek troops and the statement of General Grivas announcing a policy of enosis for Cyprus.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the United Nations over the week end and again today. The secretary general has reported to our ambassador at the United Nations that these matters are now under consideration but that he is not in a position today to make any statement or to give any indication of the course he intends to follows. I may say that there are important negotiations under way now in Geneva and elsewhere, but beyond that I cannot go.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he has had any word as to what action is being taken to protect the water supply lines as far as British forces connected with the United Nations in Cyprus are concerned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations command has advised us- and this was confirmed some time ago by the Minister of National Defence-that plans were naturally being prepared for any emergencies of that kind.


Robert Norman Thompson: Could the minister inform the house whether there is any truth in the report that Turkish troops have been landed on the island over the week end?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will perhaps recall the statement I made a week ago in this context with regard to the importation of arms. Beyond that and beyond what I said on Friday it is not desirable to go at this time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
As regards the problem the two railway systems the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., have to solve, that is, a salary increase for their employees representing a $57 million expenditure, could the minister reveal to the house the terms of the proposal the government is discussing with Mr. Crump and Mr. Gordon in order to help those two companies meet that situation? Could we have some information on the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Marcel Lessard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will that government proposal be submitted to the house so the members and the general public can examine it thoroughly before it is implemented?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the Prime Minister indicated in the house one day when I was not here that it was his impression that the

Inquiries of the Ministry negotiations between the railways and the unions were apt to be resumed very shortly.
I think it would be very desirable to allow these negotiations to take their course before others intervene to anticipate their results.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
The government plans to help these two railway companies by subsidizing their rates which are now frozen. Are the rates frozen upwards as well as downwards, since rates are being reduced at this time and, consequently, the income. Are those rates frozen to prevent them from increasing also?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should seek to anticipate the ordinary course of events in this matter.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister tell the house whether definite arrangements have been set forth between the Canadian government and the railway companies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question. Have any assurances been given to the non-operating brotherhoods or to either of the railways that an increase in revenue to the railways will be granted by the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Following the speech he made in Mont Joli during the week end, could the minister tell us what amendments the government is considering with respect to ARDA and when those amendments will be introduced in the house?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, changes will be made to the agreements between the federal government

and the provinces, but we do not know yet whether those changes will make it necessary to amend ARDA.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does the government intend to hand over to the provinces the full administration of that legislation?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, there will be no administrative changes in that connection.


REQUEST FOR PRIORITY FOR CROP INSURANCE LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the serious drought situation in several areas in western Canada at the present time, would the government not consider it imperative to give priority to amendments to the Crop Insurance Act over the flag resolution in the proposed schedule for the latter part of July?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture will be back within two or three days, and I will direct his attention to this question when I talk to him later this afternoon. In the meantime I should like to inform the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Agriculture will be in Regina tomorrow to discuss the situation in that province with the provincial cabinet.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address to the Minister of National Health and Welfare what on the surface may appear to be a borderline question as far as the rules are concerned, but it deals with a matter of national interest. Did a Mr. Gaston Naessens visit the director of the food and drugs division on June 29 with respect to an application for the use of anablast in the treatment of disease; what were the conditions he was informed he must comply with in order to obtain legal sanction for the use of anablast, and what procedure was he advised to follow to comply with the directorate's requirements?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of his question and I did not have much trouble in deciding that it was an excellent question for the order paper.

Inquiries oj the Ministry
provincial replies respecting conference oif Mr. Drury: I think in the very near future, royal commission report	Mr. Speaker.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, or perhaps it should be put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have the provincial premiers yet replied to the letter of the Prime Minister written on June 26, asking for their views on the holding of a conference on the Hall commission's report within six months? If so, can it be indicated what are the views of the premiers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and give a reply tomorrow.


WORLD FAIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. First of all, I should like to compliment him on the excellent arrangements which he made for members of both houses to visit Expo '67 last Saturday. Would the minister consider having progress reports on Expo '67 made from time to time to the Canadian people by radio and television?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give this suggestion very careful attention.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Is the minister now in a position to indicate the action to be taken by the Department of Defence Production with regard to defence contract allocations in the maritime provinces, and more especially for plants located at Amherst and Halifax?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question.
Might the minister be able to give us some indication when he will be able to make an announcement in this regard?


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials will cost $50 million to the Quebec hydro within five years, according to Hon. Rene Levesque, is it the minister's intention to remove this tax which is prejudicial to the Canadian economy?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why, Mr. Speaker?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one put by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to the Minister of Finance. Did the Quebec minister of natural resources ask the federal Department of Finance to exempt the Quebec Hydro from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friends will not think I am abrupt in taking their advice and answering these questions in the "yes" or "no" fashion which they sometimes urge; but the answer again is no.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have given him notice. In view of the critical situation with regard to box cars on the C.P.R. line, and particularly the Soo line between Moose Jaw and Weyburn, where a great many farmers have not been able to deliver their 8 bushel quota as yet, will the minister try to have this situation looked into at once so the farmers can have their supplementary quotas delivered before the end of the crop year on July 31?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and admirable rate. I do not think I need say any Commerce): Mr. Speaker, as a result of the more about the prospects for the present notice the hon. gentleman gave me I have season.
already brought this request to the attention of the wheat board.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether a decision has been reached on a most important and immediate matter, namely the policy with regard to those who have received or will be receiving separation pay under the new plan of integration and who have been or anticipate being accepted into other branches of the armed forces?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I do not think I understand the question.


Harold Edward Winch: It is my understanding, sir, that under this plan of integration a number of servicemen have been given their separation allowances; I believe they are receiving up to ten months' pay. However, a number of them have made application to join a different branch of the armed services and have been accepted. What is the position with regard to their separation pay?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there have not been re-enlistments, but I would be glad to check into that. We certainly will make every effort to see that no one is compulsorily retired in advance of normal retirement age who could be usefully employed in one of the other services. I will check into this matter as soon as possible.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the Minister of Trade and Commerce give the house any further information regarding further shipments of wheat to Russia this season?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, shipments to the Soviet union are now proceeding at an


Clifford Silas Smallwood: A supplementary question. According to a C.B.C. news report at seven o'clock last Friday night Premier Khrushchev was quoted from Denmark as saying that Russia would not be importing any further wheat this season.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did make a statement in reply to a similar question either last week or the week before, and I would refer my hon. friend to it. I have nothing to add at the moment.



VOLUNTARY CONTROL OVER EXPORTS OF TEXTILES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before the signing of the trade agreements between Canada and Japan, will the Canadian government provide a clause under which Japan would exercise a voluntary control on the export of textiles to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, discussions on this subject have been proceeding for some time. I can assure the hon. gentleman that his concerns are shared by the government.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I know the answer is quite simple. Is it the minister's intention to make a statement with respect to the complexities of the financing of the Columbia river treaty on the introduction of the next batch of supplementary estimates?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the financing of the Columbia river treaty is a simple matter, as my hon. friend suggests, and it is my intention, when the supplementary estimates are before the house, to explain it in as simple a way as I can.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the student loan legislation is one of the items on our agenda for this week, can the Acting Prime Minister say when the resolution preceding this bill will be on the order paper?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement on this matter tomorrow.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and this might be a good opportunity for him to get off on the right foot. My question is this. Will the minister rescind the instructions, now coming into effect, to have company contributions to the Ontario hospital services commission computed as income received by the employee?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am having this particular matter looked into. I do not think this involved any change in the law as it existed, but rather an enforcement of the law. However, I assure the hon. member that I am having this matter investigated.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the question very pressing? We are making very good time today.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, it is very pressing, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the minister to make a speech in this house on the maple leaves flag?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not see why I should answer a question of that kind, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are evading your responsibility.
National Defence Act


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this raises a matter of some interest. I listened to the Minister of Finance delivering his speech in London, in which he described Canada's new flag as having three maple leaves and two bars of gold. Has there been some change in government policy?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I had just come from a very excellent lunch at the Bank of England, and perhaps I was thinking in terms of more substantive things than colours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 29, consideration in committee of Bill C-90, to amend the National Defence Act-Mr. Hellyer -Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Duties of chief of the defence staff.
The Chairman:: Order. The house again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-90, to amend the National Defence Act. Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, the bill before the committee provides for only one thing of importance; that is the abolition of the chiefs of staff of the navy, the army and the air force, and the substitution for them of one chief of defence staff. However, the debate on second reading, and particularly the proceedings and the evidence which we secured in the defence committee, show that a great deal more is involved than this; or rather, that a great deal more will flow from it.
What is actually proposed and what will result from the passage of this bill is a complete reorganization of the military side of defence headquarters. The present organization of defence headquarters is based on the existence of the three services, the navy, army and air force, each with its own head and its own definite line of command and communication running down to individual units. What is proposed is the disappearance of these three chiefs of staff and their headquarters staffs, and a substitution for them of a single defence staff which will take over all the functions previously performed by these three separate staffs. However, Mr. Chairman, the three services will remain.

National Defence Act
This is provided for in the National Defence Act, and until it is changed we will still have the navy, army and air force.
One thing which was not made clear on second reading or in the evidence we secured in the defence committee was how the chain of command will operate. In particular, we received no evidence whatever as to whether the new system will not make for a great deal more confusion and will not be more cumbersome and less effective than the system we have at the present time. In my opinion this was one of the deficiencies in the evidence presented to the defence committee. Really all we had there was the unsupported word of the Minister of National Defence that in his opinion the new system would work better than the old. On the other hand we had evidence from people who had previously held important military positions that the reverse would be the situation.
One thing in particular I should like to draw to the attention of the committee is that under the new system it appears there will be at least four or perhaps five chains of command from the top down to the individual units, which in the final analysis will have to do any fighting or carry out other operations that may be required of them. I think this is clear from the chart provided to us in the committee showing the proposed new organization, in which under a chief of defence staff you have four main branches. As the minister indicated, this is an organization designed to operate on a functional basis rather than the service basis we have had in the past.
What we will have under this new system is a chief of operational readiness who will be responsible particularly for operational matters, for what used to be referred to generally as the "G" side or general staff side of any military organization. We have next a chief of personnel who will be responsible for recruiting, manning, personnel administration and services generally. Third, we have a chief of logistics and engineering, which function is again split into logistics generally on the one hand and engineering and development on the other. Under this would come, of course, transport, accommodation, the supply of food and all that sort of thing. Finally there is a comptroller general who is in charge of program management, establishment, organization generally and budgeting.
As I say, it would appear from this that as far as each individual unit or formation is concerned there will in effect be four bosses 
instead of one. You really have four distinct functions which are commanded by four separate people. So far as I can see you are going to have four channels of command and communication down to the people who in effect have to carry out the operation or do anything. Therefore I am doubtful, as I think a lot of other people are, whether this form of organization is not going to be more cumbersome, more difficult to operate and less effective and efficient than the one we have at the present time.
The basic purpose of the changes proposed is to secure unification of command and, from the minister's statements, the eventual unification of all the services. I have no quarrel with the idea of providing for unification of command. In fact, as I have said on other occasions, I think this is necessary and desirable. However, the method to be followed in order to secure this objective is a very different matter.
The United Kingdom, for example, has reorganized in order to secure unification of command, and various other countries have done the same thing; but they have done so on a basis completely different from the one proposed. I mention this merely to show that unification of command can be secured in other ways. The particular plan which has been put before us and which it is proposed to put into operation is by no means the only plan which could be followed in order to secure unification of command, and in the minds of a large number of people it is a considerably inferior plan and one not likely to work as effectively as, for example, the one that has been adopted in the United Kingdom.
In connection with the discussions we had in the defence committee in regard to this whole matter, the minister made out that one of the great virtues of his proposal was the cutting down of the channels of communication from the services to himself from six to three, in effect reducing his direct military advisers from four men to one man, from the present three chiefs of staff of the services plus the chairman of the chiefs of staff to a single chief of defence staff.
I submit this is a weakness rather than a strength. I think there is no question but that experience in this and in all other countries has shown that separate, independent military advice to the minister responsible for the defence activities of the country is an advantage rather than otherwise. For the minister in effect to make himself dependant on one source of military advice only handicaps

his ability, I think, to get at the real situation; to get independent and frequently differing opinions as to the course of action which should be followed. Thus I believe that under this new system the minister will be in a much poorer position to assess what should be done and what course to follow than would be the case under the sort of system we have had, where he has had the benefit of advice from the head of each of the separate services on how a particular problem is going to affect them, whether the solution proposed is practicable and so on.
This really comes down to what is frequently referred to as the supremo concept, having one supreme commander. This has been tried in the past. In fact this system was in effect in Great Britain up to 1904, when the Esher commission reported that the inefficiency and many of the semi-military disasters and difficulties that the British had experienced over almost 100 years following Waterloo up to that time, the difficulties they had had in the Indian mutiny, in the Crimean war, in Egypt and in the South African war, had arisen to a large extent because of the inability of one supreme commander to effectively control the military organization and give the proper type of advice to the minister responsible.
You had the same situation in Germany, where the chief of the general staff was the supreme military commander. This situation prevailed in Germany, of course, before 1914 and again under Hitler. In that case you had really a separate power and authority within the German state, and I believe most historians will agree this situation was responsible to a large extent for the catastrophe of the first world war.
Now, on the basis of history-and it is only on the basis of what has happened in the past that we can assess a proposal of this kind-I submit that the proposal to revert in Canada to the concept of one supreme commander is not a reasonable one or a good one. It is not likely to work out or to give us as efficient or effective defence forces as a modification or a reorganization of the present set-up in order to give the advantages of unification of command.
There has been a lot of criticism of this proposal, particularly as to what the effect will be if you take away the three chiefs of staff. Air Marshal Curtis, who was one of the witnesses before the defence committee, a former chief of the air staff, had this to say as recorded at page 164 of the committee report of June 9:
National Defence Act
I feel that to do away with the chiefs of staff Is a terrible thing to do to the services. I do not care what you do, you are not going to have one service immediately. You may get it in 20 years but, in the meantime, our services are going to go down hill both in respect of morale and spirit.
I feel the three different services are like ships without a rudder; they are tossing around on the sea without a chief or a leader to lead them. That is what the C.A.S. is, the same as the C.G.S. and the C.N.S. And, you cannot substitute a chairman who is removed two or three times and who is bound to be from one of the other services. He cannot possibly have the same intimate knowledge of every service that the chiefs have.
I do not believe there is any question about it; that is the general idea that is held by most senior officers who have occupied the position of chief of staff at one time or another in the past. I have heard this same opinion expressed by an other former chief of air staff and by some former high ranking army and naval officers. I do not believe there is any question about it, that to place the amount of work which is required in the hands of one man by having a single defence chief on whom all of the responsibility for organization and operation of the military forces falls, is to impose too heavy a burden. It is not possible for one man, no matter who he is, to carry out that responsibility successfully. In my experience certainly the chiefs of the navy, army and air force were always fully occupied, as was the chairman of the chiefs of staff. Now it is proposed that the work formerly done by these four men will be done by one man. I doubt very much whether it can be done as well or as effectively.
If I may turn from that for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the greatest weakness in the proposal is that the minister has no idea as to what will happen below defence headquarters. The only thing about which we heard in the defence committee was what was going to happen in the reorganization of defence headquarters. When questions were asked as to what was going to happen below defence headquarters, how this so-called unification or integration was going to work out in the field generally, the minister's only answer was "We do not know yet; this will all fall into place. This will develop after we have reorganized the staff at defence headquarters. Then that staff will go ahead and get the rest of the services integrated", or unified or something else along that line.
It seems to me that this is an extremely naive approach. It is starting to do something, starting to change a system completely, without any real idea where you are heading or

National Defence Act how you are going to get there. I would say the minister is like a man who is starting out on an unknown sea without a compass, without knowing really where he is going to arrive when he crosses the particular body of water immediately before him.
There has been a great deal of talk about the integration of the services. However, we have had no definition of what the minister means by that term. One time he talks about unification, another time he talks about integration; and so far as the members of the committee are concerned I think some of the questions that were asked indicated the minister was not able to supply a clear explanation of what he means by these terms. He has no clear concept in mind as to what integration is going to mean to the defence forces of this country below national headquarters itself.
This, of course, makes for a great deal of uncertainty and confusion on the part of the people in the defence forces. In the meantime the minister has said that 500 air crew are being discharged or have been given their notice. Statements have been made that there will be a reduction of some 10,000 personnel in the forces, and naturally this has caused uncertainty and worry on the part of the people in the defence forces. At the same time you find that bases are being closed down and ships are being decommissioned, so naturally under these circumstances you are going to have a considerable reduction in morale.
Unfortunately this is exactly what is happening in our defence forces. I think generally the morale of our defence forces was as high as any in the world, but the uncertainty that exists as to the future of the personnel, as to whether they are going to get the axe some time in the future, what their function is going to be, whether their units are going to disappear-all these things have had an extremely serious effect on morale.
This was mentioned by more than one witness, but Air Marshal Curtis mentioned the experience he had in talking to both senior and junior serving and retired officers of the services. At page 180 of the evidence he is reported as saying:
-I would think that a lot of our technical officers can go outside and earn twice as much money as they are getting in the service. I would not be surprised to see them start to go and take jobs which offer pay better than they can receive in the service.
Then I asked him this question:


I am very much afraid not only about technical people particularly but also about the actual fighting units and those in command positions and so on who are sufficiently able that they can get jobs quite readily in civilian life and they will be doing this in large numbers unless the present situation is cleared up.


Mr.   Curtis@: That is my feeling, yes.
I do not believe there is any doubt but that those who are acquainted with people who have served, and know personnel in the services, have had exactly the same experience as Air Marshal Curtis has had and as I have had. A considerable number of the people with whom I have talked in the services are very worried about the future of the services and about the future of defence in this country, as well as their own future. As a result of this, increasing numbers of them are looking about for outside jobs. We are in very grave danger of losing a considerable number of our best general service command officers and technical officers unless this uncertainty is brought to an end, and unless people can know definitely what the future is likely to hold for them.
The chief difficulty here is that the minister does not really understand the importance of morale, that you can quite easily destroy it and that it is extremely hard to rebuild. The course he has been following so far is one designed to break down morale, to destroy the spirit of the forces, and we are likely to get into a serious situation from that point of view, as I have indicated, unless something definite is done to reassure the men.
The chief difficulty along this line, as I have indicated, is that the minister seems to have no clear idea of what he means by integration of services or how this will take place. He was been unable to say what will happen so far as the services are concerned. On second reading I pointed out the distinction which must be made between the administrative and fighting units. I pointed out that the integration of administrative functions can take place and should take place, but integration or unification of fighting units will not work. It will destroy fighting effectiveness. You must continue to have a ship as a fighting unit, an air squadron as a fighting unit, an infantry battalion as a fighting unit, and so forth.
In that connection I gave two or three examples, one of which was that it would be impossible to send the commander of an artillery battery to command a destroyer escort. Anybody who has any knowledge of military matters knows that is the situation, but the reply the minister made on that oc-

casion has caused a great deal of dismay to a very large number of people in the services. This is what he said, as recorded at page 3188 of Hansard for May 12:
The hon. member said an artillery officer could not command a destroyer. That may be so, but I suspect that an artillery officer might find himself quite at home with a naval gun after a brief familiarization period. Certainly many of the basic skills involved are the same.
To anybody with any experience this was a very dismaying statement. The minister did not know what he was talking about. This is not a workable concept. It is one of the things which has added to the uncertainty, and to the idea in the minds of a lot of serving officers and other personnel that the minister does not know where he is heading or what he is doing. He went on to say:
I think there should be no doubt left in anyone's mind as to what is intended. This unification of the command of the three armed forces is, as stated in the white paper, intended to be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
The only meaning you can take out of that is that all the present units, organizations and what not are going to disappear. But in giving evidence before the committee, at one point the minister said "Well, of course, the present naval units and army units and air force units will continue." As I have pointed out previously, it is essential that they should continue. You cannot have fighting forces unless you have units of this kind, but the minister's statements are contradictory and confusing to people. As a result neither the general public nor the people in the armed forces who are most affected, and whose general efficiency is at stake, know what the minister means or where he is headed. I hope this situation will be cleared up rapidly, and that a definite statement will be made as to what is going to happen below defence headquarters level.
If the minister still has any idea that by integration all the fighting units are going to be rolled into one shapeless mass, then the sooner he comes to realize that that is impractical and would destroy the fighting effectiveness of our forces the better off he, the government, the country and the defence forces will be.


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate on Bill No. C-90, I should like to point out briefly that the subject of the bill in itself covers a somewhat narrow field of action since it limits the debate, I think, to the appointment of a chief of defence staff, who would replace the com-
National Dejence Act
mittee which was presided over by the chief of staff of the armed forces.
This bill comes within the over-all project of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), providing for the unification of the armed forces and a rather substantial reduction in the number of servicemen. I believe that the step we are taking today is a step in the right direction.
If this debate is to be rather limited in time, it is merely because the question has been discussed at length by the defence committee. In my opinion, we had at that stage the opportunity of getting the information we sought, even if the replies were not always quite satisfactory and in line with the ideas one might have on the subject.
I feel that the reduction of our military forces is a good way of saving Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. However, I should like to repeat here what I said in committee. It seems to me that the chief of defence staff, who will make the decisions, under the minister, will still have to be surrounded by advisers because he will be unable to make all the decisions by himself. He will have to take into account the recommendations made by the experts around him.
When you consider the military development in this country and see the mistakes made time and again in the procurement of defence material, the efficiency of those people is doubtful, if they continue to have the same advisers as before, the same men who, for instance, favoured the development of the Arrow aircraft, or the construction of the Bobcat military vehicles, or those who encouraged the government to acquire submarines in England.
When, in the past, those individuals made some mistakes which, today, are deplored and criticized from all sides, I wonder what we can expect if, in the years to come, we continue to employ those supposed experts in matters of defence, who nevertheless, encouraged the government to buy equipment which proved obsolete, after being only a short time in use, involving considerable expenditure of the Canadian taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this is both a most sensitive and delicate point, because in the rapid evolution which is taking place at this time in the technological field, it is certainly difficult to establish what result machinery which it is proposed to buy at this time may give in the years to come, and how long it may remain efficient, before being replaced. Indeed, if, today, we buy some equipment which will eventually be

National Defence Act
replaced tomorrow because it has become obsolete, I wonder again if we should not, at that time, simply avoid expenses as considerable as in the past, because Canada cannot afford to spend such considerable amounts as our neighbours to the south for buying equipment which, to all ends and purposes, will become obsolete the next day.
The minister will probably have to give special consideration to the recommendations he will receive from the military experts, because the general public is always asking itself certain questions. Indeed, the question is often asked: why did they buy that, if it will not be any good tomorrow? That is when it is rather hard to explain such expenditures to the taxpayers and to answer their questions, when we realize what is going on almost everywhere and we see how money is spent in the field of military defence.
Many taxpayers tell us about things happening in military camps, with special emphasis on the waste of public funds, the misuse of equipment and of everything available to the soldiers. Naturally, I do not intend to go into details, because I realize people are inclined to exaggerate some of the irregularities that may have been committed.
Moreover, I understand that, in the administration of such an important department, mistakes and squandering are unavoidable, but I think that the department should have a special committee, made up of people outside the Department of National Defence and whose members would not be responsible even to the chief of staff, who could go from one military camp to another to check on the spot what is going on and prevent abuses, if any, and see whether it would not be possible to save the equipment and the time of the men now in the armed forces.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point which I would like to discuss briefly and I think that I could do so now. I refer to our military colleges and our young people who are contemplating a career in the armed forces.
Since the total establishment will be reduced, the minister will have to rely on markedly improved equipment and on efficient men. I am not suggesting that our present military leaders have no knowledge or efficiency. Far from it. I feel that our military personnel is intelligent, but I think personally that our military colleges should be given more importance so as to train men with a broader outlook than that of soldiers who rose from the ranks and were promoted after many years of service or because of experience acquired in the armed forces. I know

that experience is an excellent thing, that it is a supplement, but I feel that basic education is most important and will greatly help our future military men to take charge of rather large units to which they will have to give the training they received themselves.
In short, one might say that the army should insist on quality rather than on quantity and try to improve its efficiency.
In this connection, I cannot help thinking of our military colleges, and I hope that it will be possible to extend the curriculum in order to encourage our young people to stay there after they have received their training. As a matter of fact, we see that a number of them now leave the armed forces after their three years of service.
I know that the service term has been extended to four and perhaps even five years, and I feel that this is a good thing. In my opinion, the necessary steps should be taken to encourage young people to stay at military camps, and more especially those who go to university, since statistics establish that the majority of those who are trained in universities, thanks to subsidies from the Department of National Defence, leave the army afterwards.
Of course, this is not a total waste for the country, since those young people who come back to civilian life generally render to their fellow citizens services they might not have been able to render had they not received such training, thanks to the help of the Department of National Defence.
I heard a while ago the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) say that he is deeply concerned with the lower morale of our military men. He stated that they are worried about the future. I wonder, when he was responsible for the administration of the Department of National Defence, if he was so concerned about unemployment and the morale of the unemployed, because they could also be as concerned as the military people are today.
I do not think they have reason to be more afraid than any other Canadian citizens because through technological and economic progress they are affected in the same way as the factory worker who tomorrow will be replaced by a machine. As a matter of fact, I do not see why our soldiers' morale should be low. It should be as good today as it was yesterday because Canadian citizens do not see why the soldiers' morale could be good yesterday when they had guns but no ammunition. Would it be better to have more soldiers without guns and ammunition? I do not

think their morale can have been affected to that extent.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the public is wondering in this connection, but I feel that every Canadian must realize that momentous changes are taking place. We are not in the thick of a shooting war and the present hot or cold war, call it whatever you want, is subsiding, and I do not see why the military would want to keep an army of 200,000 to 300,000 men for the sole purpose of giving them jobs.
Mr. Chairman, some people would like to see the total strength boosted to 200,000 from the present 120,000. As far as I am concerned,
I do not think that the reduction of the strength to 110,000 men, a reduction of 10,000 men, would affect the morale of the forces in general. As a matter of fact, I think the morale of our servicemen will improve when they know what action the Canadian government intends to take to maintain its military forces in Canada.
Will our military force simply be a police force, a peace keeping force, as some are advocating? Perhaps. In any case, if that is what is in store for our military forces, I think our servicemen would be happy to be informed about it, so that they may prepare themselves to play whatever role is to be assigned to them by the government and the Canadian people as a whole.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that with this Bill No. C-90, we are taking the first step that will likely result in a reduction of our military expenditures. Personally, I can but support this measure, because I always considered- and I never had any proof to the contrary- that the Canadian government was allotting too large a slice of its budget-26 per cent- to military expenditures.
There is hope that the amounts thus saved will be even greater in the future and that we can use them to bolster our economy in a more rational and practical way.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: During the course of the short debate we had on Bill No. C-90 last Monday a number of points were raised which had already been discussed during the hearings of the special committee on defence. The hon. member for York-Sunbury asked whether we considered the experience of other countries concerning integration of forces. Of course we did, Mr. Chairman. Steps have been and are being taken in many countries toward a more integrated organization. While it is true that other countries have not proceeded to the extent contemplated here, the trend is un-
National Defence Act
mistakable and in my opinion inevitable. As far back as 1945 testimony given before the United States congress was of some significance on this subject. General of the army Douglas MacArthur had this to say:
The great lesson for the future is that success in the art of war depends upon the complete integration of the services. In unity will lie military strength. We cannot win with only backs and ends. And no line, however strong, can go alone.
General Eisenhower, speaking of his experiences in world war II, said:
Unity of command in the field, so vital to our success, was not easily achieved. When war came at Pearl Harbor we had joint command. It was not until we surprised the enemy in North Africa that the first large scale example of unified command emerged. But it was a new device and there were many difficulties which yet remained to be overcome. All of these had to be met and surmounted during actual operations when lives were at stake. In my opinion, those difficulties grew directly from the traditional separation of army and navy, which is the inevitable outcome of the present organization of our military departments. Separation at the top necessarily fosters separation all along the line.
In April, 1958 in a message to congress, General Eisenhower made his recommendations:
Separate ground, sea and air warfare is gone forever. If ever again we should be involved in war, we will fight it in all elements, with all services, as one single concentrated effort. Peacetime preparatory and organizational activity must conform to this fact. Strategic and tactical planning must be completely unified, combat forces organized into unified commands, each equipped with the most efficient weapons systems that science can develop, singly led and prepared to fight as one, regardless of service.
The hon. member for Calgary North quoted the opinion of Air Marshal Curtis with respect to the discontinuance of the chiefs of staff of the single services, but I should like to quote from an even more senior air force officer. As far back as 1947 the former head of the R.A.F. bomber command, marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris, wrote a book about his experiences, and in his conclusions he strongly urged one fighting force. He made the point that:
There is only one answer to this otherwise inevitable tendency in each of the services to get tied to a particular and invariably obsolete weapon, and all weapons are obsolete as soon as they are in use. There must be only one service: the survival of three of them at this stage in the development of armaments is wholly idiotic, and there never was any reason or need for them at any time.
That is the opinion of one of the most senior officers, who played a very significant role in world war II. Field Marshal Montgomery has, of course, stated his views on this matter of unification on a number of occasions. Talking


Paul Raymond Martineau: Four, instead of three.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member said that the three services, according to Air Marshal Curtis, will be like ships without a rudder. Naturally I do not agree. I think they will be like ships with synchronized rudders, whereas sometimes in the past the three ships had their rudders set on a different course and were headed, one would expect, for quite different destinations. The waters may be uncharted, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that we have a compass, we know where we are going, and we will keep a sharp lookout for rocks and shoals on the course.
The subject of morale has been raised by a number of speakers, in particular by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Calgary North. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that generally speaking morale in the armed forces at the present time is extremely high, particularly in the field. I have just completed a tour which involved visiting personally most of our units overseas, and I can assure hon. members of the house that their morale is excellent. They have no fear or apprehension whatsoever about their future or the future of the defence organization of Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In Cyprus too?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In Cyprus too. I have never seen men with better morale than those.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Naturally when there is a reorganization of the scale proposed at the present time there is uncertainty, and particularly at national defence headquarters there is some uncertainty. We have said that we are going to do the job with fewer people. Inevitably there is some wonderment as to who the people will be that will be required in the future. I think the best way to restore the morale in this situation and to restore certainty is to pass this bill and let us get on with the job.
The organization is proceeding, planning is proceeding, and v/e will be in a position to cut
National Defence Act
over to the new organization within a few weeks of the time parliament passes this bill. In so far as the cut-over is concerned, I can assure hon. gentlemen that there will be no diminution in our effectiveness. The fighting units will be kept in the same high state of efficiency that they are in at the present time. Special effort is being made in this regard, and I have no doubt whatsoever that our fighting units will be just as effective as they have ever been and that there will be no loss whatsoever in this regard during the period of changeover. I can also assure hon. gentlemen that we will proceed just as quickly as we can without at the same time making too many mistakes. We want to get on with the job, and at the same time we want to make sure that each step is carefully thought out.
I would like to repeat for my hon. friend for Calgary North something that I had thought would be self-evident to everyone, but which apparently is not. That is, we will still have, as I have said before, squadrons of ships, squadrons of planes, battalions of men, and it does not matter whether these are in three services or one in so far as their operational effectiveness is concerned, their effectiveness will depend on their commanders. They are well commanded now and they will be in the future. But in order to effect the maximum savings in the organization and the administration, which the hon. member subscribes to and supports, and to have a military machine which is most responsive to the needs of the second half of the twentieth century and best adapted to combined military operations now and in the future, a single, unified force is the best answer by far; and I am sure that history will prove this to be correct.
I think no one should vote for this measure who has any doubt in his mind as to what we propose to do. It is true that the bill is limited in the sense that it merely replaces the chairman of the chiefs of staff and the chiefs of the individual services with a chief of defence staff. But let there be no mistake about it; we are going to reorganize national defence headquarters on a functional basis; we are going to try to make it responsive to the special circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time. Then after that we are going to make whatever savings we can in other areas, in logistics, training and area commands so we will have the maximum savings available for the purchase of new equipment for our armed forces.

National Defence Act
We have stated categorically in the white paper-and this is at least our intention; this is our belief, and without it we would not be proceeding as far as we now have- that what we propose is a single, unified defence force for Canada, one which will be responsive, streamlined and effective to do the job now and in the future. In this regard we are, I think, ahead of some of our contemporary nations. But we have a responsibility to go ahead; we have an opportunity which is unique, and I think this house has a responsibility to pass the bill and make it possible for us to get on with the job, to show that we have the right solution, and to put it into effect just as quickly as possible.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, it is rather satisfying to have the minister make a full statement in this house and in the committee, but there is one thing on which I should like to comment. That is that the minister has been sort of going back on the many eminent soldiers, sailors and airmen who have made statements previously in this connection. I may say at the start that I am wholly for this integration, but it is the lack of information that the committee had and the wonderment all through the armed forces that has bothered me.
As a preliminary question I would like to know from the minister about the proposed change in staff. Has any information been sent down through the three branches of the services setting out what possible changes may be made in personnel? How many have already passed into civilian life as a result of these proposed changes? I am wondering whether the minister could give me that information now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There have been very few, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the 500 aircrew who were given notice some time ago. In respect of orders having gone out, the orders are being prepared now, not in relation to reductions in personnel but the method of reporting. This information will be available, we hope, within a few weeks, so that when the time for cut-over comes it can be done without any disruption.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether the 500 aircrew who received their notice and have now gone were part of the over-all plan, or was this something that was thought of ahead of time? I am trying to jibe this in my own mind. Was this part of the long term, ten year plan about which we heard? Were these initial 500 aircrew part of the ten year plan, or was

this something that was started ahead of time and just happened to coincide in timing with the change of staffs and the integration of the forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think in fairness, Mr. Chairman, it can be said that the 500 reduction in aircrew was not directly related to the change in organization mentioned in the white paper. The surplus of aircrew resulted from two or three circumstances; first of all, from the build-up in personnel following the Berlin crisis, when a number of short service commissioned officers were re-engaged in order to provide additional aircrew if required. These were not required. Consequently they became surplus and have remained surplus throughout the months since that time.
In addition, some of the changes announced during the discussion of the estimates last year resulted in a reduced requirement for air traffic controllers and a few reductions in the establishment for aircrew officers. These made up the balance of the total. So as far as the 500 aircrew are concerned, although they have been retired at this time one certainly could have justified their being retired whether or not the proposed reorganization had taken place.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I have no further thought on that point. Prior to the minister's statement just now, were the services made aware of the fact that this action was not a part of his 10 year plan but was just a general chopping off of 500 aircrew? Have they been made aware of the fact that it is not a part of the over-all plan he now proposes to bring forward, which may involve the removal of a great many more from the services? The minister says these 500 were signed on again for a period. Were they personnel who had indicated that they wanted to make the service their career? Were they taken on for a definite time, and have they been cut off before that time? What are the circumstances?
I think the minister can appreciate that I am concerned about the state of morale in the armed forces at the present time. It is all very well to say there is high morale among our troops in Cyprus, but that is a permanent force. It is all very well to say there is high morale throughout the services, but I have received a very different impression from correspondence and from talking to officers myself. It is my impression that the feeling is that what is being undertaken now is very bad for morale, and I am wondering how soon the services will be made acquainted with the situation. The minister mentioned the ship

which has a tri-service rudder, and I say all the more power to it. He also mentioned uncharted shoals. Just how many uncharted shoals is he going to have to navigate around?
I am asking these questions because of my concern about morale in the services, and because there are a great many men in all three branches of the services who may receive notice tomorrow or six months from now. To what extent are personnel acquainted with the fact that soon they may be removed from the careers in which they thought they had set themselves for the rest of their lives?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been some uncertainty in respect of the reasons for the discharge of the 500 aircrew officers because of the timing. I think most of them probably know the reasons for it. They have simply been surplus to requirements and their retention could not be justified. The expense was very heavy. If any mistake has been made I believe it lies in the fact that this reduction perhaps should have been made several years sooner than it was. It could have been, and I can demonstrate that if you really want me to do so.


Mr. Churchill:: Go ahead and demonstrate.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So far as the short service commission officers are concerned, they are chaps who in most cases are not making a career of the armed forces but who are in the services for stated periods of time. They were re-engaged by mutual consent for a further period of time on the expectation, of course, that they would be required for that period of time.
So far as the question of notices is concerned, it will not be possible to be too definitive for some time to come. There will be no large scale retirements for some time. We will have to work out the establishments [DOT]one at a time, starting with national defence headquarters. I think adequate notice will be .given to everyone. We will naturally proceed just as expeditiously as we can so that everybody will have the maximum amount of notice. This cannot be done overnight, however, because the establishment in each branch has to be worked out carefully, and you cannot give notice to individuals until you know -who is required for future employment and who is not.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask the minister. With refer-[DOT]ence to his previous answer, has he an overall estimate of the number of men who will be released or affected by the proposed
National Defence Act
integration? I ask that question because there have been conflicting answers.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just the ball park figure that has been given many times of approximately 10,000 over a period of several years. May I reiterate that the great majority of these will be by attrition. I cannot say precisely what the percentage will be, but I have already indicated publicly that probably 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the total reduction will be by attrition, so the number of people who will be retired involuntarily in advance of the compulsory age is not too great, certainly not in relation to the total number and the total turnover.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister said his purpose was to effect a single, unified force. Is the bill before the committee simply the first step in that direction? If so, what is the second step he has in mind, and will that also involve legislation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have stated that this is the first step. This was set out in the white paper. The steps which can be effected as a result of this legislation involve the reorganization of headquarters on the basis I have outlined. In order to proceed beyond this to the replacement of the three services by one, for example, additional legislation will be required.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, in the course of the minister's remarks he referred to the morale of the services, particularly on the continent and in Cyprus. I suggest that if the morale of these forces is not high, morale will not be high anywhere. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to visit these forces and see the conditions under which they are functioning at the present time. I will not deny the minister's statement with regard to the forces in those fields of operation, but I certainly do refute his statement with regard to the forces serving in Canada, on the basis of the conversations and communications I have had with members of these forces. They feel that a beginning could have been made by endeavouring to see what could be done with the existing organization before instituting the present plan.
I have my personal views in regard to the bill under consideration today. With reference to the quotations the minister read into the record from statements of chiefs of staff of previous years such as Bomber Butch Harris, I might say that I knew him personally because I had the privilege of serving under

National Defence Act
his command for quite a time, and I appreciate such views. I know fully what he had in mind, and so far as general thinking along these lines is concerned I would be inclined to be receptive to such views.
However, the one thing I must reiterate concerns the morale of the people currently in the forces. I do not believe that morale within the country is too high. I believe a clearer picture must be presented as to what the future will hold for the personnel in the services. The minister has just made an explanation of what will occur over a period of years. However, when the initial statement was made the public had the idea that an immediate saving of taxes was going to be made. Now we find that is not the case.
I had the privilege of returning to my home not too many weeks ago and speaking to a young man who was one of the 500 who had been discharged. He was lamenting his future and the future of his wife and family. Being a jet pilot in this age and being out of work is not the nicest thing that can happen. One does not change one's vocation in life without some misgivings or without a tremendous effort, and in many cases some sacrifice. The minister explained at great length that he felt the trend toward unification was inevitable. I must agree; I think that is most certainly the case.
Then we must ask ourselves, how do we start? Statements appeared in the press that so much money was going to be saved the taxpayers and that there was going to be a reduction in personnel during the course of time. The statement that so much money was going to be saved the taxpayers was somewhat misleading. We do not know precisely what the plan is. The white paper refers to the plan in general terms. I think it has been characteristic of this government to be rather misleading in this general field. If we co-operate with the other countries in the world with whom we must co-operate in the future, then surely we cannot expect we are going to save the taxpayers tremendous amounts of money. We should be given details as to where we are going to save it.
The general public should be told what the future plan might be. Are we going to reduce our navy by a number of ships? There are hardly any left now. Are our planes going to be effective in Europe when they are not at the moment, unless a great amount of money is to be spent on them? I suppose the army will finally fit into the picture when the bill is passed. Then we hear people in the country asking, what is going to be the

role of the militia? Will there be any role left for them? I think the minister should give us some of this information, and he should tell us what this is going to mean to the various provinces of Canada.
Recently we have heard about the extraction from the maritimes of certain areas of industry which are extremely important to that part of the country so far as the economy is concerned. Surely these proposals might also have a tremendous effect on this part of the country. Let the minister tell us what this is going to mean to the maritime provinces. This reduction in the forces could affect their economy. The minister has said it is inevitable and must take place. Let him tell us what the effect will be on the provinces. Let him tell us what the role of the militia will be in the future, so people who have devoted a large amount of time to this phase of our military organization will know what the future holds.
At the moment, as the minister is aware, representations have come from my particular part of the country, not from my constituency but from my part of the country in regard to the role the militia is to play. I am not going to mention any names because I am not referring to this to embarrass the minister or the government in any way. The people are wondering if the forces are integrated whether or not these units will be available for service to the country in time of need, and even in peacetime. I think we are entitled to have these answers. I hope the minister is prepared to give us this information before the debate closes.


Mr. Fisher:: Carried.


Mr. Lambert:: It is obvious the hon. member for Port Arthur has little or no interest in this matter. He sits there and just mouths "carried" from time to time. However there are certain things I should like to indicate to the minister at this time. We are asking a number of questions at this time because after rereading the transcript of the evidence given to the committee I must say it was lamentable that the minister should withhold so much information. I was not present during all the committee hearings on this bill. However I have noted that there were many general statements made.
I believe this has become a general practice with the minister. When he was over here as the defence critic for the opposition, he used to cry to the heavens about the minister of the day being reticent in giving information. Well he was a chattering jackdaw compared to what this minister has

become. The minister has become a sphinx. I have never seen a minister who held back so much information that properly should be the property of the house or the committee. Naturally we asked for reasons. It is not sufficient for the minister to merely say "Well, I think"-or "We thought", or "Based on information we had we did this"-or did that. We want the reasons because this is a far reaching change. The announcement of it was accompanied with the greatest amount of ballyhoo this country has seen for many years.
The white paper referred to savings of $100 million on a ten year program, although the ten years was never mentioned in the white paper. There were some very carefully prepared news releases in this regard and the newspapers generally swallowed them whole. We saw headlines to the effect that million dollar savings were projected for national defence. How misleading. It is true that subsequently the minister said, after he was pushed into the position, that this would be achieved over a period of years. The impression remained with the public that national defence budgets were going to be reduced by a billion dollars over the next ten years. We knew this was not the case. The minister indicated later on, quite properly, that what he was trying to do was to get some money out of the administrative side to spend for new equipment. He has not got a monopoly on that. His predecessors were trying to do that as well..
The minister knows that the former member for Esquimalt-Saanich, when he was minister, indicated to the defence expenditures committee of 1960 and the estimates committee of 1958 how this problem was worrying the government and the senior officers of the department. Therefore there is no latter day discovery made by this minister. There is here an attempt to find some money by a reorganization of the command structure and it is accompanied again with a great deal of ballyhoo as to unification. There is great confusion between unification and integration.
You can have unification of command down to a certain point, but integration of forces means everybody wears the same uniform. You may call them A, B and C units; you may call them numerical units of the defence forces, but when they all wear the same uniform this is the ultimate in integration. The minister would be very wise to make a definitive statement on how far he is going to go. This afternoon he waffled on both sides of the question. He made a statement about a former
National Defence Act
president of the United States and he gave us a quotation.
Frankly all that General Eisenhower, the former president of the United States, referred to was unity of command, citing his experiences in the European theatre where they had a supreme commander allied forces, a unified command; but surely it goes beyond the limitation of any reasonable comprehension to read into General Eisenhower's words that every sailor, airman, and soldier would be in the same uniform.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He said he would put them in the same uniform if he had his way. I think that is a direct quote. I can produce it if you want it.


Norman Platt Lambert: Then perhaps instead of having the minister in that cartoon with the highland soldier, with his kilt and shillelagh, we should have General Eisenhower. But in any event, referring to some of the problems of morale, there is a great deal of merit in unification of command but I have some reservations about the methods being used by the minister. There is something to be said for unification of command, but I have very definite reservations as to this so-called integration if it means one force one uniform.
The hon. member for Calgary North referred to this when he mentioned the minister's statement about the artillery officer serving on a destroyer. If the minister thinks his proposals and his statements have all that acceptance within the armed services, I do now know to whom he has been speaking. He must know that in his position as minister people talk to him a lot less than they did when he was just the hon. member for Trinity, on the opposition benches.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just the opposite.


Norman Platt Lambert: I think the minister is wrong. He is patently wrong or else he is hearing those things he would like to hear, or the things people think he would like to hear, not the things that the men down in the ranks want to tell and do tell. If the minister thinks he is getting a true picture of the morale in the lower ranks, both at the officer and other ranks level, he had better get his head out of the sand because he certainly has it buried right there now.
At the beginning it was claimed that these proposals would result in a savings of $100 million, and would mean a reduction of about 10,000 in command personnel. Where is this $100 million going to be saved, and how? This is what 1 would like to know. It is not

National Defence Act
enough for the minister to say we are going to save $100 million. This whole program is so fundamental that the minister owes it to all members of the committee to say how he is going to do it.
I hope he has not just plucked this figure out of thin air because it looks nice and round. It has a resemblance to 100 days or 60 days. These are nice round figures and they look attractive, but surely the minister is working on something better than that.
He will not break any security or anything like that by saying it is their estimate on the basis of best judgment that they are going to save so much over the next few years on contributions to pensions, or payments out of the superannuation fund, or other housekeeping costs, because the saving has to be within the housekeeping. He cannot find it elsewhere, or else he is taking money from the wrong source. This has to be $100 million from housekeeping costs.
Why does he specify this 10 year period? We never heard anything about 10 years in the white paper, but it was mentioned in a press release.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not in the white paper.


Norman Platt Lambert: I hope the minister will be able to correct me if I am wrong. On rereading the transcript of evidence taken before the committee I find it was definitely indicated there might be about 2,000 personnel compulsorily retired, that unification of command would be the first step. Then there would be recommendations and they would go at it step by step. But is this the way to do it? As recorded at page 73 of the transcript of the committee proceedings, a question was put to the minister by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. First of all the minister objected to the question by saying:
I think you are getting into an area of questioning which we agreed not to take up because it relates to decisions yet to be taken as a consequence of reorganization. We deliberately decided not to answer all these questions before proceeding. We decided to amalgamate the high command and let them work out the answers to questions like the ones you are asking this morning.
Incidentally, this had to do with questions of basic training-would there be common basic training.
I think it would be better if we waited until these things have been considered by the defence staff, and recommendations come forward and decisions are taken.
There are other statements by the minister to this same effect, that this unification is the first step toward a single united force for Canada; and then there is this indication that

we are going to go at this step by step, that we will examine the field, go one step forward and then look around. It is as though a man who had decided to put up a building were to say: First I will put up the four walls and the roof, and then I will look at the building and decide what to put into it. Surely this whole program had to be considered in its entirety before arriving at the conclusion which the minister proposes as to the unification of command. I cannot conceive it otherwise. If so, why the withholding of information? We would like to have the reasons. We are not asking for names of officers or civilians who may have recommended this or that. But let us have a frank disclosure of what has motivated the government to propose this reorganization of the forces. If the reasons are given to us, I think the government has much more hope of finding a wholehearted acceptance of this proposal throughout the country and among the armed services.
We come to this question of morale. Here again, as a result of a question asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary we find that these 500 aircrew are not part and parcel of this reorganization scheme they are separate. This is the first time it has been indicated that these men are not part and parcel of the reorganization. The minister was asked to give us reasons, and he said the previous administration could have done it. Pressed for reasons, he did not give us one reason why the previous administration could have brought about some reduction in aircrew. I listened to his words most attentively. He got on to something else. He did not tell us one reason; he tried to evade the question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was trying to be kind.


Norman Platt Lambert: The minister knows the Berlin crisis was in 1961. These aircrew were added as the result of a "beef-up" of Canadian forces from 120,000 to 135,000, part provided by the air force and part by the army and navy. Let us not hear this minister tell us that the number of these aircrew could have been reduced years ago by the previous administration. That is a lot of nonsense. The build-up only took place in 1961. If I remember correctly, it was in the latter part of 1961. Let us look back. The Berlin crisis and its consequences did not disappear overnight. Does the minister think one could have signed these men to serve for a period of years and then, six months later, said: The crisis is over; you are out. It could not possi-

bly have been done. There is no chief of air staff who would ever dare say to the government: I need another 6,000 or 8,000 men for six months. He would not be able to get past the minister if he had the foolhardiness to make such a recommendation. So the minister's statement was patently wrong. He could not give any reasons to back up his remarks, and he knows it.
The minister says we are moving forward one step at a time. He admits there are many questions which remain to be answered because events cannot be foreseen. But what steps has he taken to guarantee that he will not run into some real shoals or troubled waters, to use his own phrase, which would materially affect the integration scheme? How does he know he will not run up against a blind wall?
The minister may smile. I seem to remember when he was over on this side of the house, and when things were explained to him it was not done with any supercilious air. I am very serious when I am discussing this subject. There are problems which come to mind, and the minister has no monopoly on genius in the working out of a plan for the defence department. If the hon. gentleman can tell us what problems were envisaged and what solutions have been thought out to deal with those problems, then surely there would be a quicker acceptance of this plan. There are people, whether in the service or not, who foresee problems. This gives rise to doubts. The minister may have answers to the majority of them. Why cannot he give them to us? We were promised a full explanation in our consideration of this subject earlier but I have never read one which was more barren of information or which would lead us to the conclusion that the minister was doing anything else but asking the house to accept something which he had recommended.
As a classic example, there was a carefully prepared brief put before the committee by Mr. R. S. Malone recommending a variant tq the minister's proposal. It introduced a defence council within the hierarchy of command so that the chief of staff would not be the one and only adviser to the minister; the minister and the chief of staff were part of the defence council. I should like to refer to page 146 of the evidence before the committee where Mr. Malone, as reported, points out the dangers which might arise in connection with the proposal the minister is now making for the appointment of a single chief of national defence. I should like to hear the 20220-323
National Defence Act
minister counter Mr. Malone's argument. He is obviously not prepared to accept them. Let us have the reasons. His present attitude is not good enough. With the committee's permission I should like to read the first two paragraphs on page 146 and then a further paragraph reported on page 147 of the transcript of evidence.
May I also illustrate my point by the experience of Arthur Balfour one half century ago, when the British army was commanded by a single commander in chief. He held that having had no part, either personally or through his representatives, in the decision making process up to that point, the minister must either accept his experts' recommendations, in which case his superior authority is mere form, or he may enter into a debate on the pros and cons of the project and start afresh, in which case he has in effect rejected his experts' advice. Either way he has placed himself in a false position. The experts prevail over him, or he, a layman, overrules them, with consequent loss in time, effort, money and morale.
And I would add, confidence.
Assume for a moment that we could find a paragon of all the virtues to occupy the post of chief of the defence staff; in fact, a commander in chief. Look at the position in which he would be placed. All his professional associates would be junior to him, accepting his directions and orders and therefore not likely to challenge his decisions and no power to veto his projects.
Above this one, top expert or professional soldier are the amateurs or civilians-
And I am sure Mr. Malone in referring to them as amateurs or civilians did not imply anything derogatory, but the minister or the cabinet are not professional soldiers-
-in many cases not qualified or prepared to question his professional advice.
I think that is only fair comment.
It is hard to believe that such a top chief would not have some blind spots, some professional biases, some personal prides or fixations which could cause disaster. Surely the matter of national defence and the huge costs involved should not be subjected to such hazards. Certainly from an individual standpoint it is much easier to operate by yourself and be the complete boss and not have the problem worked through a committee, but it is not the individual interest we are thinking of here but the question of what is the right thing for the country.
In addition to that, I would point out one further difficulty, and that is that the two persons involved are to be very dominant personalities. There we would have a clash of which a summer thunderstorm would be but a pale shadow. Because if the minister is not such a dominant personality but his chief of national defence is a very dominant personality-and we have had some in this country; Canadian services have not been without them-then the minister will be a mere tool in the hands of the chief of national

National Defence Act
defence. On the other hand, if the minister is a very dominant personality and his chief of national defence is but a run of the mill type, then I think we are in the position where the minister would be also chief of national defence, to whom we could apply the old adage: "Why hire a watchdog if you are going to do your own barking?"
I come now to a further statement of Mr. Malone as reported at page 147 of the report.
For a minister to deal directly with individual military experts is to place both minister and expert in a 'false position'. The minister, he said, must either confirm the expert's decision, in which case his position as superior authority is a mere form, or he must enter into the reasons for and against and decide afresh, in which case the expert becomes superfluous. It is bad organization to have two men (the minister and the expert), one over the other, to do the same business.
Mr. Malone proposes that the defence council, instead of being an appendage and acting in an advisory capacity only-which is the proposal of the government at the present time-and composed of capable men who sit off to the side and are not in the chain of command, be replaced by a defence council presided over by the minister and composed of those same people but in the chain of command. Decisions shall be not those of the chief of defence made direct recommendations to the minister. The minister and his defence council, including the chief of national defence, shall formulate the decisions. The British have gone even further because they have introduced many more civilians into their defence council. I do not think I have to go into the details of that because the minister is quite well aware of which I speak.
Admittedly one may ask: How do you know their system is any better than ours? They have had experience of this supremo concept which is now being introduced and have got away from it. They are in the position of formulating a judgment decision on the basis of experience for the type of services they have had-ours are patterned on theirs-and they have decided that their organization is better suited to today's requirements. True enough, the minister has been able to quote from certain individuals who, based on wartime experience, feel they should have complete domination. Because who but himself would have been the number one in the eyes of marshal of the royal air force Sir Arthur Harris? I think with all due respect to Viscount Montgomery we all know who would have been number one there: He would have been. It is human to want to have it all under your own thumb. But surely to goodness the
[Mr. Lambert.)
words I have read when citing Mr. Malone to the effect that it is for the good of the country rather than for the good of the individual are more important. We are not looking to the interest of the individual today but to the interest of the country.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to hear the minister's real criticisms of Mr. Malone's proposals. Those criticisms may be perfectly justified but for goodness sake let us hear them, because we have not heard them yet. Mr. Malone's comments are dismissed as though the exercise before the defence committee was a matter of form.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member to say that his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue.


Norman Platt Lambert: If I may be allowed 15 seconds I can close off my peroration, Mr. Chairman. There are a few other matters, depending on the minister's reply and other items which may come up, which I may want to raise; but this is my initial reaction to the minister's statement and to the evidence given before the defence committee. Surely we can establish a greater degree of confidence by a greater disclosure of information. We are not asking for the impossible, as the minister knows. What we are asking for is actually somewhat less than what he felt was right when he was on this side of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I will not take more than a very few minutes, but I do want to express the fact that I am at a loss to understand the ways in which this debate is proceeding, and to understand how the members of the official opposition who have spoken, the majority being members of the defence committee, are speaking in this way.


Norman Platt Lambert: You are wrong there.


Harold Edward Winch: The majority of them. When this bill was up for second reading I believe a full discussion was had by the representatives of all parties on the broad, general question of defence. There was no limitation of debate. When the debate was concluded the bill was referred to the special committee on defence. That committee met each Tuesday and Thursday for several weeks. A steering committee was appointed composed of members from all parties. From that steering committee unanimous reports were brought back to the general committee regarding the procedure to be adopted and the witnesses to be called. I, sir, was a member of that steering

committee and I have no recollection of any witness being asked for who was not in fact called, whether it was the minister of defence, the associate minister, the deputy minister, former chiefs of staff, or someone from outside.
We heard the witnesses in the special committee. They gave their evidence. Committee members asked their questions and made their comments. There was no closure; there was nothing of that nature in the committee. Any witness whose attendance was requested was there, and any questions asked were answered. Any comments a member wanted to make, he made. Then after meeting twice a week everybody agreed about this, and as far as the steering committee knew no one else was desired to be called. The committee then sat down to consider the bill itself. Mr. Chairman, that bill was considered clause by clause. After our weeks of meetings, questions and answers-


Norman Platt Lambert: Four.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend says "four". He was away for a while. We held more than four meetings on this bill.


Norman Platt Lambert: Read it in the proceedings.


Harold Edward Winch: I never missed a meeting. We held more than four meetings. This bill was considered clause by clause; it was accepted clause by clause. Finally the question was, "Shall the bill"-I am referring only to the bill-"be reported?" The bill was unanimously, without amendment, referred back to this House of Commons. I find it absolutely extraordinary that members of that committee are now asking questions in the House of Commons, and did when this bill was before us a few days ago, which are exactly the same as those asked in the committee. They are using the exact arguments and the exact protestations as were used in the committee. If we are going to have a bill before a committee, I am going to say for approximately one month, and if it is reported unanimously-I refer just to the bill itself and not to all the aspects that might flow from it eventually-and then in the House of Commons we have to go through exactly what was done in committee, what is the use of sending a bill to committee?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the use of sending a bill to committee, on which there was allparty representation on the steering committee, and in the general committee, which 20220-323i
National Defence Act
unanimously recommended that the completely unchanged bill be reported, if this procedure is to be followed? I refer only to this bill. I think something amazing is taking place when we have time after time members, who were also members of that committee, rising and reiterating what took place in the committee itself.
I just wanted to make that statement, sir, because, much as I would like to do so, I am not going to go into all the aspects of defence and all the aspects of questioning. That was why the committee was set up; that was our job in committee. Then after all our consideration we recommended unanimously that as a first move this bill be accepted by all of us and pass this House of Commons. I hope that in the future, having done a job in committee, we will not have a repetition of questions and answers in the house with regard to a unanimous report. The time for general discussion on defence policy was on second reading, and we had it. The time, also, is on the estimates or on a policy statement made by the Minister of National Defence. But the time is surely not now, with regard to a bill that after study unanimously passed the defence committee.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take violent exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East. For one thing, with regard to the speeches made this afternoon, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary is not a member of the defence committee; the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is not a member of the defence committee, and if the hon. member will remember-


Harold Edward Winch: I said the majority, on the two
days.


Norman Platt Lambert: As I said, I have spoken twice. I was absent on all but the first day of the hearings of the committee. I re-read the evidence. Perhaps the hon. member has not done so.


Harold Edward Winch: I didn't have to do so; I heard the evidence.


Norman Platt Lambert: However, Mr. Chairman, I have this afternoon limited myself precisely to the question of unity of command, integration and retirement. In fact I did not consider the third report with regard to involuntary retirement. Perhaps the hon. member would indicate just where I went beyond these very narrow issues. I would say also, Mr. Chairman, that he has falsely represented the position. I am not going to say he has deliberately done so, but the hon. member has involuntarily

National Defence Act
misrepresented the position. In so far as this question is concerned, having re-read the evidence, and considering what the hon. member has said, I do not retract one word I have said about asking the minister to give us further information.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Chairman, I was and am a member of the defence committee. I attended I think as many meetings as did the hon. member for Vancouver East. I think I listened to the evidence with as much care as he did.
I did not avail myself during the committee meetings of the opportunity of making so many statements about things. I think the hon. member misconceives the purpose of a committee. Surely we know in this house that there is no such thing as a minority report; that if a report is submitted, it is the report of the committee. When the bill which is reported comes to the house for passing, that is the time when those hon. members who heard the evidence have a duty to make statements and comments on the bill. They are required to do this.
The statement I am going to make shortly is in my opinion in the nature of a minority report. This is my feeling about the report that was made and about the bill, and I do not apologize to anybody for making these remarks. If we are going to reorganize our defence organization, we are going to reorganize it for a long time; and if the house has not a day or two to listen to the comments and criticisms of the proposed reorganization, I think some people who loudly protest their great love for democracy know less about it than they claim.


Harold Edward Winch: Why didn't you do it at the last meeting of the committee?


Sydney John Smith: Because this is the proper forum; this is where that criticism should be made. The purpose of the bill is commendable, in a sense, if we are going to make the armed forces more efficient and better operated, or if we are going to effect real and substantial economies. Those are commendable purposes, and they have been loudly proclaimed in headlines and press releases all across the country. But when we look behind the headlines and the press releases we begin to wonder if the efficiency and the savings are not much more apparent than they are real.
The criticism with regard to the command situation has been that with the chiefs of staff committee there has been no effective head to translate their views or to arbitrate between them, and that the Minister of National Defence has had to listen to too much
IMr. Lambert.]
divided counsel and too many different views and has not had a good system of evaluating those views. So we now have the proposal for a single chief of staff who will evaluate the views of all the various heads of the services and then present them to the minister. I do not know that this will improve the quality of the advice the minister will receive. Nor do I think it will provide the proper civilian evaluation of the views that the chiefs of staff or heads of the armed services put forward, and that the minister should have before he acts upon them. Presumably that was the purpose of the reorganization but I do not think that high purpose will be carried into effect.
We are told that this new set-up is going to cut down the number of people reporting to the minister and to the chief of staff. In the committee we were given a chart showing that there would be a chief of operational readiness, a chief of personnel, a chief of logistics and engineering and a comptroller general and were told that these men would report to the chief of staff. Two meetings later we asked questions about what the position of the heads of the navy, army and air force would be and we were told that they too would report to the chief of defence staff directly. Therefore instead of having a committee of chiefs of staff composed of four people we are now going to have a committee of seven. This seems to me to be the first indication that in the battle to cut down the armed services Professor Parkinson is going to win, and not the minister.
The minister is very popular in United States military circles at the present time. As a matter of fact, he has just become the man in the purple suit in a well known American magazine. I suggest that when he was reorganizing the services he might have looked a little closer at the recent reorganization in the United States department of defence. If he had he might have made provision for a small group of civilian technical advisers who could weigh and decide on the military hardware that we are talking about buying with all the money we will have for such equipment if we reduce the armed services by 2,000 people. We are going to need very careful evaluation of such equipment, and I think this was the time and place for the minister to provide himself with a small number of adequate and highly trained civilian advisers to advise him as to the value of the various weapons and defence systems that are proposed for us.
The other criticism I have of the new command structure is that it gives little or no

status whatsoever to the defence council. Indeed in the charts provided to us in the defence committee the defence council is not even enclosed by a solid black line but rather has dotted lines around it. Along with the rather casual attitude that the minister has taken toward the defence council, this indicates that little if any use will be made of it in the new organization and, indeed, there will be even less civilian advice for the minister in the future than there is now.
Brigadier Malone gave evidence before the defence committee. His main complaint about the Department of National Defence in the past has been that there is not enough civilian control. Indeed, he puts forward that very problem in his article in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 28, 1963, dealing with the suggested reforms in the Department of National Defence. In that article he said that too often civilian intervention has come too late in the decision making process to be effective, and went on to say:
A good deal of the authority which was once exercised by civilians-most notably during the war when each service had its own cabinet minister and deputy minister-has gone by default to the chairman of the tri-service chiefs of staff committee and to the individual chiefs of staff. In the absence of civil leadership these officers have been forced to make policy decision which in a democracy should really be made at the political level.
Under the present system, for example, it is not uncommon for the services to be working for months or even years on new weapons, spending large sums of money on investigation, research, design and so forth before seeking civil approval. By the time such a project reaches him for final approval, the Minister of National Defence faces the dilemma described by Arthur Balfour a half century ago, when the British army was headed by a single commander in chief: Having had no part, either personally or through his representatives, in the decision making process up to that point, the minister must either accept his experts' recommendations, in which case his superior authority is mere from, or he may enter in to a debate on the pros and cons of the project and start afresh, in which case he has in effect rejected his experts' advice. Either way he has placed himself in a false position. The experts prevail over him or he, a layman, overrules them, with consequent loss in time, effort, money and morale.
It would be very interesting if the minister would describe to us in detail how under the new organization he proposes to make good the lack of civilian control and supervision at an early enough stage. We have been given all sorts of glorious figures about saving $100 million and cutting 10,000 people from the armed services, and told how we are going to be able to buy a lot of new weaponry with all the money we are going to save. But I wonder whether we are going to save it.
National Defence Act
Each time one questions the number of persons who are being cut from the armed services the number is less than it was the last time. Each time the cost of living goes up, and surely it has gone up fast enough even for my friends opposite in the last year, the savings are reduced and we are able to buy that much less new weaponry.
The other ground to which the minister presumably would turn would be better buying and more efficient administration. In all his discussions he has been curiously reticent about the position of the Department of Defence Production in relation to the new organization of the Department of National Defence. I suggest to him this is where there should be some real reorganization and where there are some real savings to be made. On this fascinating chart with which we have been supplied we have a chief of logistics and engineering. Under him will come design, development, test, evaluation, inspection and quality control. In the six years I have been a member of the house those are exactly the things the Department of Defence Production has been supposed to be doing with regard to ships, airplanes and all other types of military weaponry. Is the Department of Defence Production going to be dropped completely or are we just getting more duplication here?
I could give the house some examples of places in which savings could be made because of bad administration in the past. I have to mention the Avro Arrow. I am not mentioning it from a political point of view because that is aside from the administration of the department completely. One of the things that forced the decision on the Arrow was the absolutely fantastic and uncontrolled costs in connection with the Arrow. What is the minister doing to change the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production in order to reduce the type of waste that occurred in connection with the Arrow?
Then there is the Starfighter. The decision to acquire the Starfighter was a political decision in the sense that it was a decision that had to be taken by the politicians. We hear now that it will have to be redesigned and that will cost another $50 million in order to make it work. These are administrative decisions made by the experts and no politician could possibly know about the design of the Starfighter. What is being done to make sure there will not be $50 million more wasted on the next weapon we buy? This is where the minister could make some saving.

National Defence Act
Then I should like to refer to the naval drawing office. We find that the pumps on H.M.C.S. Provider do not work and that the hangars are not big enough to hold the helicopters. No politician designed those. No politician knew about them; he had to accept the advice of the experts. Let the minister tell us how he is going to correct these situations. Is he going to bring the aircraft procurement and naval procurement sections of the defence production department into his department? Is he going to put them under civilian control? This is where some real savings could be made, rather than in the lopping off of 2,000 men from the armed services.
These are the questions to which the committee would like answers. We deserve answers before passing this bill. We do not need any long statement about the good will of the minister. We need to know how he is going to exercise effective civilian control. How is he going to do it? How is he going to make our procurement more efficient, not just putting things on a chart, but what are his plans? These are the things we must know before we can have any hope of more efficiency in the armed services.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I am going to announce at the beginning of my speech that I am not a member of the defence committee. I regret very much having to make that statement because I believe all members are elected to this House of Commons to state their views in this arena. The fact that they may or may not be associated with a committee does not in any way limit what they may wish to say in this chamber. I get quite upset and irritated by statements from members of the smaller parties who endeavour to cloak themselves in purity by trying to give the people of this country the impression the official opposition is endeavouring to obstruct the government. The official opposition is merely trying to do its job by endeavouring to secure the information that we should have before decisions are made about the legislation before us.
Certainly, this is the only thing the hon. member for Vancouver East endeavoured to accomplish when he spoke today. I, for one, am most anxious to discuss this bill and ask the minister certain questions to which I hope I may be able to secure answers, in an effort to understand better how I should vote on the measure when that time arrives.
I was impressed, Mr. Chairman, by the remarks of the minister concerning morale

in the forces. Being a member from Nova Scotia, I am especially impressed because a large part of the Royal Canadian Navy is located there. If the minister feels that morale in our forces is excellent, I would suggest he take a trip to Halifax and talk to some of the men in that arm of the forces. I have found no high morale in the navy, and I do not think anyone else has who has been speaking to anyone in the navy. As the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg says, the situation is just the reverse. These men do not know where they are going and that is the reason we are asking questions today. We want them to have a better appreciation of what is happening. I see no reason why we should not continue to ask these questions over and over again until we get the answers. This will give personnel in the armed forces an opportunity to know what their future is, whether they are going to be employed in the navy, for instance, or on civvy street.
There is another matter which has only come up within the last few days to which I must refer, so that the people in the mari-times generally can appreciate what is happening. Ever since this government has taken office we have seen substantial cut-backs in our armed forces, in our defence contracts and in everything associated with national defence. It has been a case of cut, cut, cut and nothing more nor less. They talk about alternative programs, but we never seem to see them. We are most anxious to see them, or if we are not going to see them we are most anxious to know that so we will have some appreciation of what we are going to have to plan for in the future in order to replace what has been taken from us.
Today I asked the Minister of Industry to indicate to me what the plans are for the future in so far as defence contracts are concerned. He is not yet ready to tell the people who are unemployed in my constituency or in the constituency of Halifax. I certainly hope he will be shortly and that he will be able to indicate a long term program that will allow us to prepare ourselves for whatever is to come in this regard. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence this question: Is there a change of policy on the part of the government in so far as defence establishments are concerned in the maritime provinces? May we still expect the preference, if you want to call it that, given by the former administration which resulted in the people associated with defence establishments in the maritime provinces having some certainty

as to their continued association with these defence establishments? This is an area that is beclouded. It has been beclouded since the minister started to make statements of policy-relating to the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program, the suggested elimination of the reserve base at Summerside, the elimination of the naval repair depot at Point Edward and the elimination of the radar station outside Halifax.
I would like to know what are future prospects in the field of new equipment for the navy. Are the shipyards in our area going to be given the same type of attention that they received in the past? We have suffered from the cancellation of almost $100 million in contracts.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would like to interrupt the hon. member and ask him if his remarks are related to the clause before the committee?


Robert Carman Coates: They are related in this way, that the minister is talking about the unification of command and we do not know what is involved with this. We do not seem to be able to get the information from him. If he gives us an indication of the different things that are related to this, and how it relates to the R.C.N., the R.C.A.F. and the army then we will have a better appreciation of the effect unification will have on these various aspects of the forces.
Associated with this is a substantial decrease in the size of the forces, a reduction of 10,000 personnel. Though this is supposed to be associated with headquarters we would like to know if it is going to fan out so that it will affect bases in the maritime provinces. We have a substantial number of bases there. We have a large army establishment at Oro-mocto, in the riding of my hon. friend from York-Sunbury. We have the large bases at both Halifax and Cornwallis, and the repair depot at Point Edward. We have the R.C.A.F. at Greenwood, Summerside and Chatham. Therefore you can see that we are very much involved in what happens to the defence forces and how unification will affect them.
I would like the minister to tell us how his policy will be associated with the policy that was built up over the years, and which placed emphasis on the location of bases and men in the maritime area. When everything else is equal the economic factor is taken into account, and we would like to see no damage done to the economy by restricting any of the operations in this area. This is very important from the maritime economic viewpoint.
National Defence Act
We in the maritimes do not expect the people in the rest of Canada to bear all the burden, and that we bear none. At the same time we would like some clarity in statements from the minister, indicating exactly what he is going to do. Basically the minister seems to desire to keep everyone in the dark. He does not seem to want to make the public aware of what he is doing. If he is as proud as he tries to indicate of the actions he is taking, then there should not be any reason for him to want to hide what he is doing. Instead there should be every reason in the world for him to let the public know. If he is so certain of public approval he should do everything he can to make the public fully aware of what is happening.
Certainly if he wants this bill passed he should be taking action to see that the members of this committee are fully informed of future plans, in so far as that is humanly possible. He does not do this by sitting in his seat. He can do it by answering questions as intelligently as possible. I do not have anything more to contribute to this debate. I was anxious to ask the minister these questions and I feel there are many other members in the same position as I am. I do not believe they should be accused, whether directly or indirectly, of endeavouring to obstruct the government by asking these questions.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I want to endorse what the hon. member for Cumberland has said, of course keeping within the limits of the bill before the committee. The minister owes it to the Atlantic area to answer any questions put to him.
As has been said by other speakers this afternoon, the claim has been made that a great amount of money will be saved as a result of these changes, but the suggestion has been made in other quarters that a lot of these savings are being affected by transferring certain liabilities from the Department of National Defence to other departments. I am not prepared to go into that at length this afternoon, but I understand that is the case.
I think I should deal for a moment with an answer the minister gave to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary regarding aircrew personnel. The minister stated that the 500 aircrew personnel released were not part of the 10,000 personnel who will go under the integration program. I believe the minister should go into detail on this, because in answer to a question which I placed on the order

National Defence Act
paper the associate minister-I am subject to correction on this-stated it cost approximately $85,000 to train aircrews. I suggest the minister should calculate this amount of $85,000 for training as against how much it will cost the treasury to let these trained personnel go.
The hon. member for Cumberland referred to defence establishments in the Atlantic area, and this brings in the matter of shipbuilding. I do not intend to go into detail, except to point out that when the minister announced these cut-backs in January last, these cutbacks which presumably were part of the unification and integration program, many newspapers in the Atlantic area reported that the cut-backs hit Nova Scotia hardest.
One picture which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of January 10 this year, and which I have kept in my files, shows one of the ships that have been placed in mothballs, the H.M.C.S. Quinte, which was last refitted at the base in my riding, and under the picture it states:
Halifax was home base for the minesweeper when this photograph was taken-soon it will become a resting place.
Many people in my area are a bit leary about this integration program. They feel that many things are coming to a resting place in mothballs, and that they may never be replaced.
The minister stated earlier that the study in connection with the provision of antisubmarine vessels would be ready in July and, as I understand from the press, about a week ago he said a final decision about what would be done with regard to antisubmarine warfare would be taken within 60 or 90 days.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say that.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That is what I understood.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then you did not understand it correctly.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I am subject to correction if that is not the case. In any event, when this study is produced I suggest the minister get off his fanny and start work on a new antisubmarine plan. If there are to be new submarines, too, perhaps he will tell us where they figure in his plans for the future. He knows well enough that it takes a long time to get ships off the drawing boards of the draftsmen in his department, and into construction. He should certainly be moving in this regard. He told the house in answer to the question I put to him that the ships study would be ready in July. Well it is July now, but nothing has come

forward. Action should be taken in this respect. The minister owes it not only to the Royal Canadian Navy but to the shipbuilders of the nation. We know that when the general purpose frigate program was cancelled it was suggested that an alternative program would be put forward. It should have been put forward months ago and I suggest the minister should get moving in this regard.
It is part of this program to reduce the militia by several thousands. Speaking of my own area, I recall that when the Liberal government was in power it took the kilts away from the Pictou highlanders, amalgamated them with the Nova Scotia highlanders and gave them new kilts. I can tell the minister and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice this: They will have a difficult time taking the kilts away from those highlanders. It may be they will issue them to the sailors on these new ships, if we ever get them, but I imagine it would be drafty in the north Atlantic wearing a kilt.
I know a study is to come forward with regard to the new program in this field, but let us not forget these fine units which are ready and active in case of war or whatever task may be set before them.
I think some of these points should be answered now, before the bill receives further passage. Integration means a lot to various parts of this country. Let us have some of the answers, and then we shall be prepared to deal with the bill as necessary when the time comes to vote upon it.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the committee has been waiting to hear from the minister of defence. He has sat in his place in supercilious silence except for one or two observations. The committee wants to hear from him an answer to the various questions which have been raised. It deserves that answer. The minister seems to have adopted the philosophy of so many of his colleagues-I can think of the Minister of Finance and I can think of others, also-who rushed into the house with a plan, and, when it came up for consideration, found it had to be altered or changed, or was a dismal failure.
All of us are in agreement that action should be taken to bring about economy and efficiency in the armed forces. The minister enunciated his plan some months ago in a white paper. However, what is before us is simply the question whether or not there should be a unified command, in other words whether the chairman of the chiefs of staff

committee and the chiefs of the naval staff, general staff and air staff should be done away with and replaced by a chief of defence staff. It was mentioned this afternoon that following discussions which had taken place in the special committee there was no place in this committee for consideration of the matters which had received the vocal attention of the defence committee. I have read the evidence given before that committee. I have read it from beginning to end and, having read it, I cannot but be left in a position of deep uncertainty as to what will result from the plan which is before us in the amendments now being considered.
The purpose is efficiency and economy. The minister has said economies will be effected. He has not placed before us anything in the nature of evidence to support the generalization that the result will be beneficial economically. Certainly what has become apparent since he became minister is a deep sense of uncertainty and fear among members of the armed forces in every part of this country. They cannot understand the purposes and aims. They have not been given a full and complete elucidation of the minister's ideas and those of the government. It has simply been a case of generalization accompanied by failure to go into particulars which would give those who serve at least some reasonable approximation of what will transpire, of what will happen to them, and what benefits are likely to flow as a result of unifying the command. Certainly experience in the past, going back to 1904 in the United Kingdom when the Esher commission made its recommendations has never established that benefits commensurate with the hopes of the minister will be achieved. This follows from the consideration given to the question of unified command not only in the United Kingdom but in the United States. I know great stress has been laid on the economies which would be gained by cutting out duplication of services, duplication in command, duplication in procurement, in supply, and so on. But when we come down to examining what has taken place in the months since the white paper was brought in we can only fear for the future of our armed forces in Canada, particularly in the field of morale.
I said a moment ago that the armed forces have not been taken into the confidence of the minister. He has not given them the facts, he has simply generalized. Now he comes before this committee, after hearing evidence in the defence committee which was anything but unanimous among the witnesses produced 20220-324
National Defence Act
before it, and would have us believe that the initial step is one of placing one man in command-a service superman who will discharge the responsibilities which were formerly discharged by the chiefs of staff of the various branches of the armed forces. Certainly we are entitled to have more information in this regard.
The uncertainty of the position was recently revealed in a meeting which took place in Washington. Much was made of the joint meeting between the United States and Canada. Great hopes were expressed as to what would take place. When the ministers returned from Washington they spoke in fulsome terms. The Canada-U.S. cabinet committee on defence had not met for four years, so the Prime Minister decided that it would be most beneficial if that committee were to meet. We have to depend on press references for information as to what happened. Mr. Bruce Phillips of the Washington bureau of the Hamilton Spectator said this, in part:
The first meeting in four years of the Canada-U.S. cabinet committee on defence.. .created the impression that once every four years is far too frequent.
The meeting apparently was a gross waste of everybody's time.
I am surprised at that, with the minister there and with the other ministers present at the meeting.
By all accounts it consisted mostly of exceedingly general discussions which pointed nowhere in particular.
I am not surprised at that. One does not expect ministers to be any more pointed in their observations abroad than they are at home. The report goes on to say:
But the question arises whether such meetings have any value if people leave with the feeling that they have wasted their time.
Then some of the matters discussed are referred to, and apparently the minister gave a most interesting dissertation on a unified command; but nowhere does the report indicate that anyone was overwhelmingly in support of the explanation he gave. The report continues:
It is a subject of continuing interest in the defence department, which has tried unification...
The report might be summarized by saying that the members of the committee drifted away with nothing but a few listless assurances to give the matter of joint defence and production sharing some thought.
That has been the difficulty here, Mr. Chairman. I see the minister sitting in a pose with his right hand holding up his jaw, and

National Defence Act
his finger in the best Karsh fashion, forbidding all information to the house. He is decorative, attractive and appealing; I am prepared to say that of the minister, for whom I have a very large measure of respect. But his sitting in that pose I can only say means it is to take the place of information, apparently.
We should like to know what is being done. What is the evidence which came before the committee to which allusion was made this afternoon? The first point is that the proposal calling for a single defence chief must be taken in context with other proposals made by the government, which were summarized by the minister on May 26 before the defence committee. He ended up with a recommendation to replace the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, and the three service chiefs. He was then asked by the hon. member for Greenwood to give a detailed analysis of the proposed savings, and the evidence then concluded pretty quickly because the minister could not give any such information. What the minister has done to date is to promise economies which have consisted in transferring expenditures from one department to another and in covering them up, whereas in point of fact he has not been able to bring before the house and the country any record in this regard.
What about the single defence chief? Is it appropriate in a democracy to concentrate all power and responsibility in defence matters, subject of course to approval, in the hands of a single individual? Will one person necessarily be familiar with the technical and military requirements relating to all three services? However estimable such a person may be who is designated to this position, this kind of concentration of authority has not worked anywhere in the world. There will be the blocking of direct contact with the minister from the heads of the three services. Information will be funnelled through a single channel. Where is the coordinated long range defence policy which was promised on May 8? Can it only be achieved by one person assuming these powers? To say that it cannot be achieved except by putting all power and authority in the hands of one person is contrary to the experience of any military power in the democratic world. Certainly people are beguiled by this plan. It is doing something. Economies are going to result. Five hundred aircrew are removed; they are not even part of the plan apparently, we learn today. Only the other

day a young man was in conversation with one hon. gentleman in this house. He had been nine years in the force. He is an authority on jet propulsion and is a jet pilot. But he is out now. Where does he go? He says he got no notice but was just told he was out. Is this a system which will promote sound morale? Is this the kind of action to be given to those who joined the armed forces with the expectation of other treatment?
Mention has been made of the evidence given by Air Marshal Curtis. I am not going to repeat what has already been placed on record, but there is one matter not yet answered by the minister or by anyone else which will have to be answered by him. It concerns savings proposed in the white paper of $100 million a year. Air Marshal Curtis said, as reported at page 163 of the report:
I understand this will call for a reduction of roughly 10,000 troops in order to make that possible because integration itself will not come anywhere near to doing that. Also, I would think it would take probably a reduction of closer to 20,000 troops to make a saving of $100 million a year possible.
What he said has been placed on the record. He said that our services are going downhill both in regard to morale and in regard to spirit. Then Air Marshal Curtis, who is fully acquainted with and knowledgeable of the position in the United States, went on:
I was in Washington two months ago and the report I got from the senior officers there was that although this was an interesting experiment they were too polite to say what they thought but they are not going to attempt it.
I should like the minister to tell us, when he was in Washington meeting with this joint Canada-U.S. cabinet committee, those men of experience, what they thought of this plan, because I hope he told them more than he has told us.
Sir, the serious, searching and penetrating criticism from a former chief of staff, reading it objectively, cannot be disregarded, based as it is on a great deal of experience in both war and peace. The minister would simply brush it aside. We want to know the answers to these things. We want more than sophisticated silence; we want more than an attractive pose on the part of the minister. We want him to place before the house and the country the evidence that he has. Certainly General Macklin's views, too, were quite interesting when taken alongside the optimistic hopes expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the troops sent to Cyprus. The hon. member for Vancouver East said we should not go into these things.

I wonder how many read what General Macklin said in regard to Cyprus:
When we sent a battalion to Cyprus a few weeks ago, there was not enough airlift for its heavier equipment and so it went into that hostile island half equipped and half armed and waited two or three weeks for the rest of its armament and equipment to come by sea.
What a risk that was to subject Canadian soldiers to.
We mentioned some of these things.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is categorically denied.


John George Diefenbaker: We want to hear some categorical denials, Mr. Chairman, not from a seated, posed position but from a standing position in which the minister will review what has been said. General Macklin said as well:
The third defect is that there are absolutely no reserves of any kind anywhere behind the formations of the regular army. If the NATO brigade got into a battle it would be into a manpower crisis in no time.
These are things that are concerning Canadians. This was evidence that was given before a committee. Is it not about time that the minister, if he is able to do so, has the knowledge to do so and the advice to do so, placed before the house and the country the facts? Certainly the placing of omnipotent power in one person will not meet situations referred to by Air Marshal Curtis and General Macklin. We ought to have this information because, as I said earlier, this government's approach in connection with defence has been an uncertain one. There have been many promises of what would be done; there has been a white paper that generalized- but these things have been followed by no effective action.
All we are asking is that the minister shall place before the committee the facts. What efficiency will result from this unification of command? What controls will there be, other than the committee that is being set up, over what I would call the omnipotence of one person? What is being done on behalf of those who are serving in the armed forces, to diminish-yes, abolish-the destructive, demoralizing concern of the armed forces? Simply to say "cut" for the purpose of being able to argue that effective action is taken, is not sufficient. What are the economies that will result? Those are questions to which we have a right to answers. The committee met. It is obvious, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said, that the committee had the fullest information. However, I submit that the house will not accept his conclusion, that this information covers in the detail it should 20220-324J
National Defence Act
the various questions that I have raised, that are merely by way of summary of the views expressed here this afternoon by one hon. member after another.
We are not here for the purpose of endeavouring in any way to embarrass the government. What we are here for is to endeavour to assure that when experiments are being undertaken, experiments that have no basis of experience, this house and the country shall receive fuller information than it has received in the past. Experiments there will always be; but I think that when an experiment like this is being placed before the Canadian people, unsupported anywhere in the free world by the approval of experience, the questions asked by hon. gentlemen this afternoon deserve an answer, and the fullest answer that the minister can give.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. In view of the fact that my name has been mentioned twice by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and in view of the fact that he stated more than once that he was to a great extent basing his statements on the evidence given before the committee, could I ask him if he will explain to this committee of the house why it was that at the final meeting of the special committee on defence in regard to this bill, when it was considered clause by clause, not one solitary Conservative member of that committee objected to any clause, and it was agreed unanimously that it should be reported to this house without change?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the committee heard the evidence. The committee listened to the evidence. The bill was before the committee. The hon. gentleman very well knows that no dissenting report can be given. It is beyond the right of a parliamentary committee to do other than report favourably on any matter that is sent to it. We are not in that position when we come to the floor of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct when he says that no committee of the house can bring in a minority report; we all know that. But I would like to ask him this question. Although it is impossible to bring in a minority report from a committee, is it not possible to register your objection in the committee? And that was not

National Defence Act
done by a solitary Conservative member of that committee when we had our final meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is one of the weaknesses of committees. They are exercises in futility when it comes to summarizing the views of members following the hearing of evidence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether the minister wanted to attempt to reply now, or does he want to consult with his advisers over the supper hour in order to see if he can get off the horns of the dilemma on which he is impaled?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think you might raise some more questions in the meantime.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to raise some more questions. I should like to have answers to the questions I raised the other night when we were discussing this measure. With regard to the problem just mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East, may I say that I was a member of the defence committee last fall and I objected to some of the things that were in the report of that committee. We were not permitted to bring in a minority report, but when I raised the point at the final meeting of the committee it was quite obvious that there was not unanimity in that several members were dissatisfied with items that appeared in the report. However, as a committee we could not show the various items with which we disagreed. So the report was made public.
I have read all the evidence presented to that committee. I noted that quite a number of members of the committee raised questions which were unanswered by the minister, and raised objections as they proceeded with the discussion of the bill as it was before them. I can quite understand why those members, having stated their objections once, did not bother to repeat them when they came to the last allotted day for consideration of the matter; but it certainly does not follow from a reading of the evidence that there was general agreement with the bill.
I am surprised at the casual attitude of the Minister of National Defence, and I use the phrase that the hon. member for Simcoe North used only a little while ago. That is the impression the minister is creating now. He has taken a casual attitude toward a very serious matter. The importance of national defence is something of which we in Canada are apprised and the subject merits more than just a casual attitude.

This minister has been in office almost 15 months. I ask him: What has come out of that 15 months of casualness? We have heard about study groups, seminars and appraisals of this, that and the other thing. But what has actually come out of that 15 months in office? Is there greater efficiency in our armed forces at the present time than 15 months ago? The answer I give is no. There is less efficiency than there was 15 months ago.
The minister has reduced the complement of ships in the navy. He wiped out the Sabre jet squadrons in Europe before the 104's were prepared for effective action. Even now that air division in Europe is not fully armed. He has reduced by two squadrons the Voodoos in Canada and has not armed the remaining Voodoo squadrons as he promised to do. What has he done for the army? What changes in the army has he made in these 15 months? Where is the mobile equipment he was talking about? He has not even provided a nuclear missile for the Honest John battery about which he made so much noise approximately 18 months ago.
The efficiency of our armed forces has declined under this minister and we cannot get from him the answers that are essential. There is a lack of confidence in the minister. He talks boldly and says that under the proposed reorganization the armed forces will be responsive. I do not know just what he means by that. He says they will be streamlined. This is supposed to encourage everybody to think they will be better forces. He gives us no evidence of how that will be brought about.
How can we have confidence in a minister who carelessly talks about an artillery officer, as the hon. member for Calgary North mentioned today, and says, to use the minister's words, that he "may find himself quite at home with a naval gun after a brief familiarization period", as if he could serve acceptably on board a ship just because he was a trained artillery officer on land? What confidence can we have in a minister who, in response to a question in the house last week, informed the house that a camera on a reconnaissance plane was a conventional weapon? This is the type of answer we are getting from the minister, and the confidence that may have rested in him 15 months ago has rapidly dissipated.
His responses to questions in the committee, his responses to our questions in committee of the whole house on the bill, have been inadequate. When we came to take up the bill the other night after it had been

reported back from the defence committee I had to press him to get up and make a statement. He took about a minute and a half or two minutes, although I had asked him to give us a report on the type of evidence that was reported to the committee, general criticisms, if any, of the bill, and let us know what had happened. The minister dealt with none of these things. He simply made general statements and confined himself to stating, as found at page 4846 of Hansard of June 29:
This bill implements government policy set out in a white paper on defence and is the necessary first step to bringing about integration of the three headquarters leading, we hope, to increased efficiency and a reduction in overhead expenditures.
That is all he said in the committee of the whole house when the bill was taken up the other day. That is not good enough. As he was urged to do today, the minister has to define what he means by integration and unification, and I propose to deal with those two points later. He has to tell us exactly how he expects to achieve a reduction in overhead expenditures and at the same time, which is his chief responsibility, retain the fighting effectiveness and efficiency of our armed services.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I will resume at eight o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to announce that the questions to be raised at ten thirty o'clock this evening are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, pensions, Canada plan, request for consideration to be continued to conclusion.

Second, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon): A question concerning the deepening of the Richelieu river.

At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I started at just five minutes to six with a few introductory remarks and my intention was to give the minister the supper hour to collect his thoughts, return here to the house and give us answers to questions. I propose to give him a few more minutes to assemble his
National Defence Act
ideas, and I express the hope that when I have finished or perhaps when someone else has spoken, the minister will make a comprehensive statement on his plans for the future. Just before six o'clock I read out his basic statement which he made the other night, in which he expressed the intention of the government to bring about integration of the three headquarters, leading to increased efficiency and a reduction in overhead expenditures.
I point out, as others have pointed out, that he must give us proof that he will achieve increased efficiency by the major change he is making in the defence structure. We have no quarrel with him at all if he can effect a reduction in the overhead expenditures and transfer the money obtained in that way to the purchase of equipment. I realize that he has been placed in a strait-jacket by the Minister of Finance since he has been limited to a billion and a half in money to support the three services and provide equipment for them.


Gilles Grégoire: It is still too much.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now that amount of money may be too much. Someone in the far corner, I guess it was the hon. member for Lapointe who is constantly interrupting from his seat, has said that. It is open to question whether it is too much. It depends upon what you are getting for your money. When we consider the expenditures of money in which we were involved in the first and second world wars and in Korea, perhaps we are well advised to maintain our defences at the present time and spend some money that way rather than be plunged into a conflict in the future unprepared. Under those circumstances we are aware, from our experience in the past, that a great waste of money occurs.
However, within the limits the Minister of Finance has set for the Minister of National Defence, he is now attempting to divert some of the money to the purchase of equipment. If he can do that without impairing the effectiveness of the services, we are not in disagreement because modern equipment is an essential. I read in a newspaper not so long ago that the minister said he was embarking on a 60-day period of decision. I am not sure what date that started, but we will be watching very closely to see the effect of the 60-day period of decision because we have been through that once before. This is where we came in, in the movie. I wondered at his temerity in stealing from the Minister of Finance and from the Prime Minister a

National Defence Act
statement such as that. In this 60-day period of decision he is going to place orders, he tells the production industry, for military equipment. We will watch closely to see whether or not the services are kept in balance in the expenditure of this money or whether one is preferred over another.
We will be particularly interested in seeing whether the army, which has been doing a major portion of the active work during the last several years, is given the mobility it requires. I want to deal with the vagueness of the minister's ideas concerning his plan. On May 8, when we were discussing the bill, the minister was talking about the various choices he had before him, and he is reported as follows on page 3066 of Hansard:
The third alternative, which was the one finally-adopted, was the integration of the armed forces into a single unit.
Then on page 3188 of Hansard for May 12 the minister is reported as using these words:
I think it follows logically that once the high command has been unified and once the armed forces of Canada are organized on a functional basis rather than along traditional service lines the complete integration of the armed services will follow as a natural evolution from this change in organization.
So, he told us what he thought, and again he used the word "integration". In the white paper on which he bases his whole case, page 19, he uses these words:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
The minister has been asked what he means by his use of the words integration and unification. This afternoon he quoted at some length from various prominent leaders in the second world war, who used words which he considered bolstered up his case. MacArthur spoke about the complete unification of the services. Eisenhower spoke about unity of command in the field and about one single, concentrated effort. Harris, the celebrated "Bomber" Harris, talked about one fighting force and one service, and Montgomery said that the committee system was unsuitable in a fighting service.
These are men of distinction and it is important to get their points of view. I notice in the defence committee report that Brigadier Malone interviewed some of these people after the war and had conversations^ with them as to their ideas about organization of the services.

General MacArthur, fighting the war in the Pacific, was faced with amphibious operations and he had to use combined forces, air, sea and land forces, in order to land on the various islands and establish a position. He found that it was a difficult operation unless the troops were trained for that type of combined work. The United States marines had more experience than the army units and set the pattern for the island hopping that was characteristic of the Pacific campaign. I think when General MacArthur was talking about unification of the services he was thinking in terms of amphibious operations where it is absolutely essential that the three services work together.
Similarly, when General Eisenhower was talking about unity of command in the field he was thinking of combined operations leading to landings in north Africa, Sicily, Italy, and on the beaches of Normandy where the navy, army and air force had to work closely together to achieve effective results.
I do not doubt for one minute that Air Marshal Harris was thinking in terms of a unification of command among the three services, although his activity was largely in the air, and much doubt has been cast upon some of his planning and his direction of strategy in the massive bomber assaults on Europe. It is the opinion of many military experts that under better direction some of the war effort of England and the United States might have gone into aircraft for close support of the army rather than be devoted to bombers.
General Montgomery was quite familiar with combined operations and realized the value of them, but it is not necessary to unify the three services into one single service in order to get successful combined operations. We saw enough of that in the second world war to understand what it means.
Even within an army itself you have combined operations, because not only have you infantry and tank formations but you have artillery and engineers, all of whom have to be welded into one striking team, and if you can combine with that striking team tactical air support then you have an effective fighting land formation. We have had the experience of that. It was done without putting all the personnel into one formation or one service. That is why we fail to understand what the minister is talking about when he leaves the impression that in time he will end up with just one service.

It is obvious to anybody with any military service at all that you cannot interchange as readily as that in the fighting formations. You may make changes in the administrative tail of an army, air force or navy. You can have the trained mechanical assistance, the electricians, the ordnance people and the supply people-there can be a change there, but how you can interchange people in fighting formations escapes me entirely. It just cannot be done. We had enough difficulty in the second world war effecting good co-operation between tanks and infantry, and between air force and infantry formations, to realize the problem.
What does the minister mean by his integration of the services? Is he going to put everybody together in one uniform? Are they to be interchangeable? How does he have an effective fighting force? His job as the Minister of National Defence is to have effective fighting forces whether they are on the sea, in the air or on the land. Judging by experience I would say this is best done along the lines familiar to us now, with good training on combined operations and with the high command thoroughly familiar with the three services. These are the people who carry the fate of the troops in their hands, and if the high command has knowledge of the functions of the three services then you can get proper results, but why you would need to go beyond that I do not see.
Some of the expert witnesses who appeared before the defence committee dealt with some of the factors I have been talking about. The other evening when I was talking on this bill I dealt at some length with Brigadier Malone's evidence before the committee, dealing with a study of the Esher report, and I was astonished today to hear the minister say that the chief recommendation of the Esher report was the setting up of area commanders. Having read the Esher report I could not reach that conclusion at all.
As the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out, and as has been mentioned by others, including myself the other evening, the Esher report was brought in to correct the deficiencies that had been shown up in the British army under the supreme commander in chief idea. With experience in two or three wars, and with experience in the Boer war- the South African war-the decision was reached that a change should be made. The Esher report advised and parliament finally adopted a council system whereby the commander in chief was not responsible for everything that went on and whereby the minister,
National Defence Act
with four military advisers and three civilian advisers on the council, was able to get better and more complete advice than from one supreme commander. This is what we think the minister should be doing here, rather than reverting to a system which was tried many years ago and found wanting. In 1904, when the Esher committee reported, the system was changed in England, and it was also changed in Canada, because the people here read the same report.
One man who was very largely responsible for the implementation of the Esher report was Balfour. He subsequently was prime minister of the United Kingdom. He served as head of the cabinet committee on defence. Later, when there was a change of government and Asquith became prime minister, Balfour was invited by Asquith to sit in on the meetings of the committee on imperial defence. Subsequently when a coalition government was formed he went to the admiralty, and later he became foreign secretary. So he was a man of vast experience whose interest, during a large part of his life, lay in this question of defence.
His sponsorship of the findings of the Esher committee was decisive. A council was set up and functioned with considerable success from then on. Had it failed in world war I and world war II, it would have been changed by now. But it was not. I suggest therefore, that our own experience plus the experience of other nations should be drawn upon in these circumstances, and when the minister tells us that the chief recommendation of the Esher committee was simply to appoint area commanders he shows he is not familiar with the report, for otherwise he would not have made such a statement.
I have here excepts from that report which I propose in the few minutes remaining to me to put on record for others to study. Part II of the report reads as follows:
For the first time in the long annals of war office reform its intricate problems have, we believe, been approached from the point of view of war rather than from that of peace. The scheme we have laid before you is based upon the consideration that the preparation for war is the primary object of a war office, and that no military organization can be sound in time of peace unless it is applicable to the necessities of war.
I should like to interject here that, much as we hesitate to talk about war, our defence department nevertheless exists for the purpose of giving us adequate assistance and protection in time of war. It is not a peacetime organization. So anything which is done by

National Defence Act
way of reorganizing the Department of National Defence must be done with a view to what would happen in case of a conflict. We may be able to manage, having adopted the minister's idea of a supreme commander, when we are faced only with operations which Canada is obliged to perform, or agrees to undertake as so-called police actions in connection with United Nations peace keeping operations. But these activities are not war.
So in the light of our experience from the first part of the century Canada must look to the future. We cannot be sure we shall not be involved in some conflict where the lives of men are at stake, and if the lives of men are at stake there must be efficient handling of the service organizations. That is when the great test comes. Have they the equipment? Are they trained? Are they ably commanded? Or are their lives to be wasted? We have seen enough of that in the past to make us cautious about making mistakes in the future.
The committee report continues as follows: Bearing this principle constantly in mind, we have proposed-
(a)	A permanent nucleus for the defence committee, in order to ensure the continuous consideration of defence problems and to co-ordinate the naval and military forces of the crown. We regard this proposal as the keystone of the whole structure of reform.
(b)	An army council for the higher administration of the army.
(c)	The creation of a trained general staff, which is one of the most pressing military needs.
(d)	Divorce of administrative from executive military functions.
(e)	Complete decentralization of administrative work.
(f)	A thorough system of inspection.
(g)	Financial changes, in the interests of sound economy, and increased responsibility of the military administrators of the army.
(h)	Division of duties within the war office, to prevent overlapping to minimize reduplication of effort, and to ensure the smooth and rapid dispatch of business.
Those are the effective recommendations of the Esher committee report and it is on this basis that the reorganization of the British army was carried out after 1904.


David Vaughan Pugh: How many times has one to ask a question before he gets an answer? Today for the first time the minister finally stated that the 600 aircrew-


An hon. Member:: Five hundred.


David Vaughan Pugh: Call it 400 or 300, it does not make any difference. The hon. gentleman stated they were not part of the new policy. Many questions have been asked touching morale in the forces but the minister has not given any adequate explanation. He said

today that as far as the 600 were concerned, Berlin was the excuse, and possibly this action should have been taken previously. He indicated that these men were supernumerary to the number actually required.
I wonder why the minister has not given an adequate explanation of this. I asked the minister the other day in the debate if he would say whether he had received any complaints from those who had been turned out and from those who might well be turned out, and I am wondering whether he would now answer that question, first as to the 600 who were turned out-the men who were not part of the program-and second as to service officers who may find themselves without jobs and without careers as a result of what the hon. gentleman termed the ten year plan. He has not made any real explanation of this.
Today for the first time, in answer to a question I asked he said: Those 600 men are not part of the plan; we just turned them out; we got rid of them. I think many people in Canada are asking questions about the expense in dollars and cents which the government bears in the training of men for the three services. I am asking the minister, now: What about our training colleges? What about university education? What are these young men to expect when they are through? Are the best of them going off into industry after their education has been paid for by the government? If they sign up they can get their education paid for, provided they meet certain requirements and, thank goodness, we have many young men who can meet these requirements, and who can in this way get a university education. The minister should be able to tell us how much it costs to put a young man through university and train him through the service and how many of them leave without having served at all or, having served three years, do not continue in the service. To my mind this is very important because it involves tremendous expenditure.
I do not see anything wrong but I am wondering what is the result. Would the minister care to give any figures relating to those who go and those who stay on in the services? I asked the other day in relation to the air force how many experienced flyers trained in depth to take part in any division of our armed services were going to be turfed out, and what would be the cost to Canada. The minister mentioned his 10 year program. Everyone is talking about a five or a 10 year program, or something like that, but I am wondering how far this integration is going to go. Personally I am for integration if it

will cut down the costs of our armed services and will not spoil any of the efficiency of the armed services.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister says "hear, hear", but we have heard nothing of this 10 year program. He refers to his great airy-fairy deal, his 10 year program. He has a white paper and a few other things, but he has not answered my questions. Someone asked: Shall this clause carry? Why does the minister not answer? Is there no answer? I am asking, as are other people, whether the minister has a program. Is there a program he can announce? Where is he trying to go? What is his object? The minister has not answered any of these questions. Why does he not get up and make a statement, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this is becoming an exercise in futility. Here we have the Minister of National Defence occupying a very important position in the government and bringing before us a bill which he claims is the first step in his program of integration of the forces. He has had the most tremendous press build-up all over the country that I have seen. Yet we cannot get from this minister answers to legitimate and serious questions.
May I tell the Minister of National Defence that we are not treating this problem lightly. The question of the national defence of this country is of vital importance. It is an expensive proposition. From the point of view of the taxpayer we want to know whether the money is being properly spent. We have thousands of young men in the services. Behind those services there is a great tradition extending back throughout the whole life of this country. We, the Canadian nation, have put forth great efforts in wartime and are putting forth great efforts in peacetime. The minister has come along and is going to change things, and we want him to give proof that his proposed changes are for the betterment of Canada's national defence. We want him to give us proof that there will be no deterioration in the combat effectiveness of our services.
As I said a few minutes ago, I am not thinking in terms of a peacetime army. You can have a peacetime army which will never be called out for active service. But our experience in this world has been that Canadians have been called upon to go to war. A
National Defence Act
lot of people do not like that word, but that is what we have faced four times within the last 60 years. Canadians have been called upon to go to war, and they get killed in warfare. If the services are efficient, fewer men get killed; that is what it amounts to. If they are inefficient, lives are wasted.
What we are asking of this minister is this. He must demonstrate to us without shadow of doubt that his proposed changes will maintain unimpaired the fighting efficiency of our services. He must show us that his proposed changes will increase their effectiveness. Otherwise what is he about? Is he just building up a little empire for himself? Is he trying to make great claims for himself? This is too serious a matter for that. We are now talking about the national defence of this country, and as I pointed out from the Esher report, when you are talking about national defence you are making preparations for the war that you hope will not occur, but which may occur and for which you have to be ready. We are saying to this minister that his proposal for a supreme commander in chief is likely to weaken the effectiveness of the fighting services, and he has not given us any proof to the contrary. We are pointing out to this minister that some of the plans which he has underway, as the hon. member for Simcoe North I think it was pointed out, will enlarge the responsibilities of the former chief of the general staff instead of reducing them, and will make his work even more complicated.
The other evening when we were discussing this bill we pointed out from the evidence given by Brigadier Malone, who was quoting from the report of the Esher committee, the inherent dangers in having a supreme commander in chief who may become the dominant figure in the defence services of this country and put the minister in the shadow. Or if there is a conflict of interest between the two men, one of them has to go. If one has to go it is damaging, on the one hand to the government, and on the other hand to the services. Why is the minister launching on this uncharted sea? He himself is not a man of vast experience, yet he will not tell us who are his advisers who have put him on to this particular course, and he will not give us adequate reasons for the changes he proposes. Because we treat this matter as of the utmost seriousness, we are insisting tonight that we get adequate answers from the Minister of National Defence,

National Defence Act
and I will now give him an opportunity to give us some of those answers.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to answer a question I asked on June 29. I asked it of the associate minister at that time because the minister himself was away on business. I asked whether he had heard any complaints about the cutting down of the armed forces, and he replied: "Not to my knowledge". Perhaps the minister read that statement, but I would ask him now whether he has heard any complaints, generally or specifically from certain people, from those under him in the armed forces in the highest capacity, people upon whom he must rely. I have not had an answer to that question.
Since I asked it we have discovered that the aircrew who have been turfed out are not part of his general plan. Therefore I am wondering in relation to the 600 men who were turfed out whether the minister has heard any complaints, specific or otherwise, from any of his advisers, or from those high up in the armed services, about the future of the armed services and about the great cut-downs. Obviously if it is necessary that there should be cut-downs, all right; but has he heard any complaints? The minister has not told us where the cut-down is going to be, and I think this committee of the whole house should have this information before they are asked to pass this bill.
We have here a bill which is based on integration. The minister himself this afternoon said this is only the start. He said, "We are going to save money. We are going to cut down." Obviously his first concept is completely wrong, because in cutting down the chairman is replaced.
There is one other question I would like to ask the minister. Will the new chief of staff have top-flight men in each branch of the services? If the minister sits there and does not answer, perhaps it is because he has not an explanation; but I want an answer. I have asked for this information previously; it is not a question that has been put to the minister summarily which he has to answer off the cuff. He has had since June 29 to look the matter over, and he has not yet answered the question. I ask him once again; first of all, has he received any complaints from those who were turfed out? Have any complaints been voiced to him-I refer to matters that would affect morale-from his senior service officers, those who are advising him? 
I ask the minister this question, Mr. Chairman, and I would like an answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I have had one or two letters of disapproval, and the thing that has surprised me is that I have not had more. I think this is very encouraging and is an indication of how well received in the country have been the steps that are being taken in the department.


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister mentioned letters, Mr. Chairman. I would point out to him that he is not very likely to get a letter from a service officer who is now employed and who may be without his vocation if he voiced such disapproval. I am wondering whether anybody has been strong enough-that is, anybody within the armed services who is acting in an advisory capacity to the minister-to say to him, "Look here, we should tell these people. We should say what our policy is and how it is likely to affect the lives of these people". I am referring to members of the armed services. I ask the minister now, has he been in consultation with his senior officers in this respect?


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, surely to goodness the minister is not going to sit there as though he had been struck dumb. After all, various members of this party and of the Social Credit party put some fair questions to him. Does he think he is going to disregard these questions; or is he without any answers? It is not by sitting there with a smug look on his face that the minister is going to get any progress on this legislation. Actually there have been some very seriously thought out questions to which I think the people are entitled to answers.
I put some questions last Monday night, a week ago, to the minister, but he has not replied. Is he just going to shrug his shoulders and say, "You are not going to get the information?" I asked him simply, what was the basis or the criteria used for the selection of aircrew for discharge? We were told this afternoon that there happened to be some surplus aircrew; there happened to be some short service commission officers.


David Vaughan Pugh: We were told that for the first time this afternoon.


Norman Platt Lambert: There was also another category which the minister mentioned. But what were the criteria? I put to the minister, for instance, that I know of one operational training unit where seven out of eight instructors have received their release, and this

has put a great strain on the operations of that unit.
What were the criteria applied for coming to this decision? Surely to goodness we are entitled to an answer. The minister is not going to get eaten alive if he gives the information. Surely this house is entitled to know. I can recall the minister when in opposition going through all sorts of agony and anger because he could not get a minor piece of information. Well I am not going to give him that satisfaction. But on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, surely his colleagues know that answers should be given to these things. The majority of his colleagues, when they are asked questions which are relevant and pertinent, try to obtain the information. If the minister does not know, for goodness sake let him say so. But a number of questions have been asked and we want answers. Surely it is the minister's duty to stand in this house and tell us the answers. I invite the minister to answer these questions and not just sit there with a smile on his face.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Hurrah. At last.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the criteria used in the selection of the 500 aircrew for discharge were as follows. All flight lieutenants, aircrew list, and air traffic control junior officers due to reach compulsory retirement age between July 1, 1964, and December 31, 1966, to commence rehabilitation leave in July. Up to 250 of the short service commission aircrew officers now serving on extension, depending upon present employment qualifications and performance, were also released at the same time. Those were the criteria which were applied by the service in the selection of the surplus aircrew who would be retired.
The reason I have declined to engage in an exchange with hon. members opposite this evening is that no questions have been asked which were not asked either in the house at the time the bill was given second reading or in the committee at the time it was being given careful consideration there. If hon. members will check the record in Hansard and in the committee proceedings, they will find the answers to the questions that have been asked here this afternoon over and over again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
National Defence Act Mr. Hellyer: I stated this afternoon, and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has disagreed, that the chief recommendation of the Esher report was to put into effect a system of area commanders. The reason I say this is that it was the only, or at least the major, recommendation which has persisted, which has lasted, which has stood the test of time. The army council which was recommended and established then to have independent powers has had its powers eroded. My hon. friend, being an ex-minister of national defence, is thoroughly familiar with that. The chief of the general staff was then only one among equals, though the senior member of the council, through the passage of time had his powers augmented until he became in fact the chief executive officer of the army, and the council in fact became subordinate to him. This happened years ago, and I am surprised that my hon. friend is now suggesting an organization which went out of style years ago, presumably on the basis of the experience of skilled men in the army both in the United Kingdom and here in Canada. I think it is interesting, if not symbolic, that hon. gentlemen opposite would recommend an organization which is based on conditions that existed in 1904. I think they would be well advised to turn their attention to the conditions which exist in the world today and see if they cannot apply their ingenuity to a solution which is adequate to the second half of the 20th century, which is the time period we are really most concerned with at the moment.
Hon. gentlemen would not expect me, I am sure, to comment on the detailed plans in respect of bases, and so on, in the maritime provinces, because that would be out of order on this bill. Therefore I will try as best I can to confine myself to the considerations of the bill that is now before us. I have given the reasons for integration many times.
I have stated that in my opinion it would not be possible to implement a co-ordinated defence plan for Canada without integration of the high command. I think that is reason enough in itself. Under the present system, with three independent chiefs and three independent services, I do not think that any minister could in the long run implement a co-ordinated defence plan. That is my opinion based on my experience. In order to implement a plan over a period of time which is co-ordinated and objective for all the armed forces, I believe it is necessary to have a unified command. That is the reason that one has been recommended.

National Defence Act I have also stated, and I am firmly convinced that it is the way to achieve the maximum savings, that only with a single unified command can you effect the maximum savings at all levels, from headquarters in Ottawa to area headquarters, logistics support, engineering, training, supply. This can only be effected with a single administrative organization in charge of the three armed forces. We have tried integration the other way and there have been some derogatory remarks about it on the other side of the house. We have had some areas of integration and there have been some real problems. One of the reasons there have been real problems is the continuation of three independent services and the fact that it was possible for any one service to implement a veto or to put obstacles in the road of implementation of recommendations put forward by the personnel members committee or by the minister to integrate a particular area of our defence forces.
In respect of morale I have stated that generally speaking morale is good. Certainly it is good in our overseas forces. It is good amongst our field forces here in Canada. I have stated quite honestly that there is some uncertainty particularly at national defence headquarters, and I have also stated that in my opinion that is inevitable. You cannot have a major reorganization along the lines we have proposed without a feeling of uncertainty. This cannot be avoided. You cannot have a new policy involving the employment of less people in national defence headquarters without having this feeling of uncertainty which exists at present.
The way to end the uncertainty and to improve morale at national defence headquarters is to permit us to get on with our job. Our planning has proceeded to the point where we have done as much as we can do until this bill is passed, and every day that goes by now without the bill being passed aggravates the situation which exists at national defence headquarters. It not only aggravates the situation in respect of morale at national defence headquarters but it results in the postponement of potential savings involving tens of thousands of dollars. So my recommendation to the committee is that we get on with the job, refer the bill back to the house, give it third reading and make it possible for us to go on to the next step, to provide that certainty which I know the armed forces would like to have and to effect the savings which I am sure all Canadian citizens are interested in our achieving.
[Mr. Hellyer.l


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just made two statements to which I should like to refer. He said that we should pass the bill and restore morale and he also said that every day we delay passing the bill we are preventing the morale of the armed forces from being re-established. This simply indicates one thing to me, that there is cause for the minister to say that. There is no question that the morale of the armed forces has received a severe shock. The minister has admitted that in two statements. I ask the minister once again whether those who are senior in the services have said to him: Look, Mr. Minister, you had better do something about this because morale is sinking. I ask him that question specifically.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman, the senior officers of the department have the same confidence in me that I have in them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Please interpret.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think that some of the remarks made by the minister a short time ago indicate that he does not understand what the present form of organization of the defence forces of the United Kingdom is. He stated that the basic recommendation of the Esher commission that ultimate command and power should reside in a defence council had been discarded years ago. All that anyone has to do is to look at the chart showing the organization of the defence forces of Great Britain at the present time to find that the defence council is still in the same position it has been since that report was made, namely of having ultimate control and the ultimate power of command.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was the army council to which I was referring.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In each of the forces you still have a separate board of some sort. You have the admiralty board for the navy, the army board for the army and the air force board for the air force, and each of these boards has its own staff, scientists and what not. The minister has either not looked at the organization existing there, which has produced unification of command as I have already indicated on two or three occasions, or otherwise he has not understood it.
He made a statement a few minutes ago which is completely at variance with the facts and which the merest glance at the organization chart for Great Britain, without reading

how the system works there or studying it, is enough to convince anyone of the true facts. If you look at this chart you will see the secretary of state for defence and under him the minister for the navy, the minister for the army and the minister for the air force. Then there is the defence council consisting of the secretary of state for defence, the ministers for the three services, the chief of the defence staff and the chiefs of staff of each of the services, the chief scientific adviser, the permanent undersecretary of state and the deputy minister. This is the same sort of situation we have had here. Under this you have the chiefs of staff committee and the defence staff. It is all one staff as far as the operational end of things is concerned. You have the defence secretariat, the defence scientific staff, and then you have the admiralty board, the army board and the air force board all reporting directly to the defence council where the ultimate authority resides.
To say that this totally disappeared years ago and that we are talking about something that went out of date many years ago just shows a lack of knowledge of what the present organization is in Great Britain, which was only completed in the last two years and is really just getting into operation properly there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend is confusing the reference I made to the army council with the defence council, which I was not discussing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, under the present organization in the United Kingdom the army council is still there and it is responsible to the defence council for the operation, administration and so on of the army. The same is true of the navy and the air force, and to say that this has disappeared is just not correct.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister's statement a few minutes ago, to which the hon. member of Calgary North has drawn attention, is another indication of the loss of confidence in the Minister of National Defence. He made a wild, general, incomplete and untrue statement with regard to the situation in Great Britain, and he asks people to believe that. The hon. member for Calgary North has pointed out his error.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Is he back on the team?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Earlier the minister indulged in a cheap remark about getting into the second half of the 20th century and forgetting all
National Defence Act
about 1904. This is where the minister gets himself into trouble. We are not playing around with this thing. As I said before, the question of national defence is serious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, I know laughter from Liberal members and Liberal ministers of the crown is to be expected. They do not understand the situation and are attempting to howl us down.
I should like to point this out, Mr. Chairman. We were using the example of the Esher committee report in 1904 to show what a nation with very great experience in war found was necessary to correct the deficiencies under which they had been operating. We are accusing this minister of going back to an outmoded system. I cannot understand why he is doing it. Ever since the 1904 report the British system, and for a time ours, was organized with a council in authority and not a supreme commander in chief. Now the minister, without advancing arguments, is reverting to an outmoded system. He is the one who is living in the past. We want him to come into the present.
To reinforce what the hon. member for Calgary North has said, let me read come of the things Brigadier Malone said to the committee. This will be of guidance to people who are seriously interested in this subject.


Gilles Grégoire: Dispense.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Brigadier Malone drew attention to the new British system and a chart is displayed on page 142 of the committee report. This is what he said, as reported on page 143:
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there they are not attempting to do what we are doing here. They are attempting to centralize the command structure only; they are not trying to unify the forces. In Britain three ministers are being maintained under a single secretary of state. Directly under the ministry level you will notice there is a defence council, not a chief of defence staff. The chairman of that council is the secretary of state himself.
This corresponds to our minister.
The secretary of state must participate; he must be part of the decision; he cannot say, "The experts told me this"; he must be part of the decision and he must answer for it in parliament; and either he or his deputy must attend.
Then, they are going to have the members of the three services, but in your case you will not have the three services but you will have heads of branches, that is the G branch, the administration branch and the supply branch-call it what you will, I prefer in my own chart to simply call them administration and supply as they are simpler this way.

National Defence Act
Subsequently, Brigadier Malone produced a chart giving his ideas on how things should be organized. I should like to quote one more paragraph:
Now then, the defence council breaks down into three services, in the case of the British plan, but it does not go to chief of staff, chief of air council, admiralty board, on anything, it goes to a board. At the bottom of the British chart you see the admiralty board, the army board and the air force board. In the old days it used to be called the army council, the air council and the board of admiralty. They are still maintaining that this board will have the authority, and not a single man.
The minister says to us, let us revert to the old system of 60 years ago under which they had one single commander in chief. Let us not adopt a modem plan of having a council where there are seven people or so on that council who have the authority and must bear the responsibility. Why the minister wishes to revert to an outmoded system escapes me entirely. He will not tell us from whom he got the advice. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should either give us a fuller explanation than he has given or he should revise this bill because he is running into trouble. We are trying to help him. We want him to avoid difficulties with the services and with all the paraphernalia that goes with the services. Surely, sir-


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you would call to attention and order to remain silent certain people down in the lower part of this chamber who are continually interrupting? I do not know why members in this house have to be interrupted by-


Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: Monkeys.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -by these people who are chattering away in their seats. I would ask you to give me some assistance, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully request that some action be taken with regard to these people who are continually interrupting and who will not identify themselves.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps I should remind the committee that the hon. member who has the floor has the right to make his remarks without being interrupted. If there are remarks to be made by any group of members at the end of the chamber, perhaps they will await their turn and take part in the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I wish to point out that we are not creating any disorder, but that the Liberal members who come and sit across from us give the impression that members of our group are to blame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not object to interruptions, but I do object to a continual stream of shouts of "Order" or "Passed" or something like that. They are just ridiculous.
Now, coming back to the Minister of National Defence-


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was that the hon. member for Lapointe? He has not enough courage to stand on his feet and make the necessary interruptions.


Gilles Grégoire: Do I understand the hon. member is now giving me the floor?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the floor. Have you a sensible interruption to make?
I am suggesting to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Chairman, that he has not given us the answers. We have specifically asked him about integration and unification. Let him tell us exactly what he means. I am interested in the fighting efficiency of our services. Is he going to get that fighting efficiency by a complete unification? Are we misunderstanding him with regard to integration and unification? Let him tell us and let him tell the services. This is what we are after.
I noticed, according to the committee report, that this disturbed Air Marshal Curtis. He wanted to know what would happen when we have to send people abroad to engage in conferences with our allies, whether at Washington or in the NATO organization. I quote his remarks on page 165:
But, In two or three years time, when we are all mixed up and we do not know whether an officer is air, army or naval, we will he in an embarrassing position when appearing at joint commissions in Paris, NATO or down in Washington, and I think we will be at a very great disadvantage.
Mr. Chairman, we do not want the Canadian forces, Canadian senior officers, to be placed at any disadvantage anywhere when they are dealing with their counterparts in other navies, armies or air forces. He goes on to say, speaking of the chairman of the chiefs of staff:
But, I do think we should have given him the authority he requires to force his views upon the

other services rather than doing away with the other services and confusing the three services for a number of years to come.
Here is a very senior officer making this comment after a lifetime of service, and the last sentence he spoke to the committee at that time was:
I cannot express myself too strongly in my view that this is a terrible mistake.
This committee of the House of Commons cannot ignore the evidence given before that special committee on defence by people like Air Marshal Curtis, General Macklin and Brigadier Malone.
Has the minister an explanation? How is he going to answer this complaint of Air Marshal Curtis? I am sure Air Marshal Curtis is speaking for other people who have similar experience in the services. These are things we want cleared up, and the minister is adopting a strange attitude tonight in failing to be frank with the committee, in failing to discuss this matter, in failing to give us his reasons.
We are going to be very patient. We are prepared to wait for his explanation, but if he is as anxious as we are to get on with the business-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -he will tell us exactly what is in his mind and make a straightforward statement in reply to these questions.
Coming back to the point I started with, he has been corrected by the hon. member for Calgary North, and by myself reading out the evidence of Brigadier Malone, with regard to his haphazard statement just a few minutes ago. I have now put before him the feeling of Air Marshal Curtis with regard to the proposed change. Again I ask him how he is going to improve the fighting efficiency of our forces by adopting the outmoded system of a supreme commander? What is he going to do about this problem of unification or integration? Does this mean one force all put together?


Mrs. Konantz:: I think all members of the committee will recognize the wonderful contribution women made to our three services during the last war, and I would like to know something about the role that the women's auxiliary corps will be playing in our reorganized defence forces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: To supplement the fortunate remarks of the hon. lady from Winnipeg South, would the minister include in that the Wrens and the women's division? It is
National Defence Act
unfortunate that no reference has been made in this debate to the contribution made by women to our defence forces.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I try to mention them every time I say what a wonderful job our men and women in the armed forces are doing, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay a compliment to the ladies who contribute so much to the three armed services. There are many tasks which they do very effectively, in some cases more effectively than their male counterparts. I can assure hon. members that this will be a continuing requirement in the women's division, and we will make sure that they have opportunities for advancement to use their capabilities to the maximum extent.
We have one lady officer in the air force, I just mention this as an example, who is in charge of the food services for the air force. She is doing a wonderful job and is an excellent example of the real contribution that women are making to the armed forces of Canada.


Mr. Weichel:: My question can wait if the minister would like to answer the questions put by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. With regard to the 500 men who have resigned or been laid off, how many of these are on active reserve? What would be our position in case of emergency, with regard to them?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot answer that question. I shall take it as notice, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that we still have in the air force more than sufficient pilots and aircrews to man all of the aircraft we would have if hostilities should break out, and not only at the commencement of hostilities but for some time to come. Not only do we have sufficient to man present inventory but we have an adequate reserve as well.


David Vaughan Pugh: I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. lady from Winnipeg South. I trust that the remarks the minister made in answering will apply to the nursing service which we had during the last war. I make mention of this because my wife was a nurse in the Canadian army during the last war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: The committee is now feeling in a much friendlier mood, as I trust the minister is as well. I am wondering whether he will let us in on his 10 year plan. He has

National Defence Act
said he will not have a thought on that subject until this bill is passed, but has he anything to tell us about his 10 year plan which he mentioned the other day? How far will this affect personnel? How far will it affect contracts for construction? How much material will be manufactured in Canada and how much will have to be imported from the United States? I am thinking of airframes as an example.
All we have had so far is the change in the chiefs of staff, but we have had a wide ranging discussion concerning personnel. Could the minister give some specific idea about his 10 year plan? Obviously he must have thought it out to some extent or else he could not get up here and say he has one. He has been backing away from questions.
He says the chiefs of staff or his advisers have complete confidence in him, as he has in them. Can he not take the committee into his confidence? It is all very well to say that if we pass this bill we will start to cure morale in the armed services, but the minister has not answered a number of questions. Has he borrowed this 10 year plan from the Russians or the United States? Is it just his idea that a 10 year plan would be twice as good as Russian five year plans, about which we have heard so much? I am wondering whether the minister could not enlighten us with regard to this 10 year plan. Where do we go from here? Has he anything specific to tell us? Where is he heading?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. gentleman will permit the bill to go through we shall proceed at once to implement section 5 of the white paper. There he will find the 10 year plan set out in the shape of Canadian forces, 1964-74.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I was called out this afternoon while the minister was making a brief statement. I did not hear him directly, but I understand he gathered from my remarks that I was under the impression that senior military officers were, or could be made, directly responsible to parliament. He wanted to correct me and inform me that it was the minister who was responsible to parliament. I am sorry if the minister misunderstood what I asked. Last Monday, when this matter was last under debate, I mentioned the subject and to clear the matter up I should like to quote a sentence. I said, then:
The main question is this: Whether parliament will have, in effect, one individual, in this case the chief of the defence staff, who is to be answerable to the minister for the defences of the country,

or whether you are to have a council each member of which is appointed as a result of legislation and whose duties are specified in that legislation so that he can be held responsible if a particular phase of defence is not up to par.
All I was saying was that in most defence acts, and in our defence act at one time, there was a council set up and the provisions specified the membership of that council and what their responsibilities were. This is all I was recommending. Of course, there was no suggestion-it would be absurd under our parliamentary system-that any military officer should be reporting directly to parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not wish to press the minister any further but I shall record my great disappointment that he will not give answers to this committee. I charge the minister with failing to carry out his duty as a responsible minister of the crown. We are entitled as members of parliament to get information from the treasury benches. We have asked legitimate questions and fair questions of this minister. He sits in arrogant silence and refuses to answer. I have never seen an example of this, to this extent, in my experience here in the House of Commons.
All we are asking this minister is a reasonable response to reasonable requests. Basically we have said to him: Advance your arguments for attempting to put into effect an outmoded system which was found wanting in the past. But he will not give his arguments. In the second place we have asked him to explain what he means with regard to unification and integration of the services. Does he intend to wipe out our three fighting services and attempt to make one out of them? If so, what is the experience and the evidence on which he is founding such a decision? Surely the House of Commons is entitled to an answer, and why cannot we get one from the Minister of National Defence? Of course we appreciate his attitude. We have seen it now, month after month. He thinks that nobody on the opposition side knows anything about defence. I recall asking him if he wanted to get advice from the special committee on defence last fall. He said: No, I do not require advice from the committee. Yet the committee was supposedly set up to give him advice. This is the type of arrogant attitude which the minister has shown, and it is regrettable.
What we fail to understand is why the minister, as a responsible minister of the

crown, will not give answers to these questions. He sits silent with regard to the unification of the services. He has told us at other times, or his words lend themselves to this interpretation, that he intends to have just one service. Frankly I do not see how that is possible. I do not see how it is possible to combine naval, air and land services into one force. Men are not interchangeable to that extent. I can understand-and I have seen this in actual practice-a combination of services working together effectively. That has been the experience in various wars, particularly in the second world war. But what does the minister mean? Is he wiping out the infantry regiments and the tank regiments which have a tradition behind them going back almost a hundred years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is he retaining the highland regiments, for example? Why cannot he answer that simple question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I already have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is he retaining the artillery regiment or is he wiping it out? What about the engineers? Then where does the air force come in, and the navy? Are these men all to be in the same service or is there some misunderstanding of what the minister has been saying? I submit these are fair and reasonable questions and we should have from this minister reasonable answers. This silence of contempt is a shocking attitude to adopt toward parliament and, once again, I call upon the minister to give us a comprehensive statement in answer to our legitimate queries. He should inform the House of Commons of these things. Where else can we get information, if not here in this chamber? I make one final request to the Minister of National Defence. Let us have the answers.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Norman Platt Lambert: Hon. members who sit in their places and make a lot of noise, calling "filibuster", show precisely how much they feel they know about this. They cannot stand up and replace the minister, telling us what is meant by integration and unification of command, and how far it is to go. There is but one of them who could do that. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Unless the minister will come forward and give us an indication of what he intends to do, that is the situation.
National Defence Act
A few moments ago the hon. gentleman said there had been some changes brought about at the level of the lower echelons but that each service maintained an effective veto over how far the process went. Does he intend to do away with that veto, and is there to be an elimination of the individual services consequent upon the elimination of that veto? These are matters which should be clarified. It would be simple for the minister to tell us what he thinks about this. After all, it is he who is proposing the changes. Let him who proposes the changes prove his case. That is the simple practice in everyday business and it should be applicable in parliament. If the minister wants to make changes, let him prove his case. This does not consist of making merely the flat statement: I think this is a better way to do things. If the minister is confident that what he proposes is correct, then surely, nothing should deter him from putting forward reasons for his attitude. They are not bound up in some great mythology. There is no one who has placed a "super confidential" stamp on them. They are not contained in any white paper. The statements the minister has made are general. He gave me a classic answer at the first committee hearing, and I must say that if the minister wants to think these words mean anything to anyone they certainly do not mean anything to me. He said, as reported at page 30 of the report:
I think the motivation is simply this, to get the maximum amount of effective forces in the highest state of readiness for the least amount of money.
What a lot of gobbledygook. That was his answer to the question as to his ultimate plans and upon whose advice he had acted in this connection. What the minister has stated is certainly the motivation which is behind the actions of his predecessors. But who does he think he is? Is he some divinely inspired minister of national defence who has suddenly discovered the truth? It is nonsense to adopt the attitude he has.


Mr. Habel:: It is you who are talking nonsense.


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, he has more sense than the hon. member for Cochrane. Surely the minister can be frank with us and give us these answers.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Norman Platt Lambert: But he sits there silent. We know the hon. member for Lapointe thinks he is back in high school and is trying to draw attention to the spoilt brat he might have

National Defence Act
been. But once again I appeal to the minister to give us the real reason why he is going back to this system that he is asking the house to approve, and to indicate why he prefers it to other systems. Let him give us some hard reasons. Surely to goodness he has them, so why can he not give them to us? We would not have been spending at least an hour and a quarter trying to get him to give us some answers otherwise. And let no one say "filibuster". I am sure the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace brings a great deal of deliberation to this matter, sitting there as he does, muttering from his seat. Since he was a member of the defence committee we would have liked his observations in this regard, but we have not had them yet.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate, one which recalls to my mind events of not so many years ago. Questions have been asked this afternoon and evening which parliament has a right to have answered. The minister has proceeded throughout the afternoon, with the exception of one or two more or less unimportant contributions, to remain silent and to follow a course of action which has been his since the time he became minister. One cannot but recall that no minister has since the year 1956 followed the course which has characterized this minister today and on previous occasions. His attitude is one which is in keeping with what took place in 1955 and 1956. It is that of a minister who refuses to give information; who regards his silence as something which is commendable; who refuses to furnish parliament with answers to reasonable questions; who sits and smiles and sneers when asked questions which are of pre-eminent importance to Canada.
I am not going to press him any further to answer these questions. I am simply going to point out that it is this attitude of insolent arrogance which brought about in 1957 a change of government. It is an attitude on the part of a minister who refuses to answer, having brought in legislation which will effect tremendous changes in the life and future of many thousands of Canadians in the armed forces. This is a minister who has been questioned by two hon. gentlemen who have occupied the portfolio of defence. The minister's answers have been proven-those which he gave-to be totally out of consonance with the facts and the course respecting defence organization in the United Kingdom. This is

an example of the arrogance that so often in the past was the characteristic trade mark of those who now sit opposite.
I can only point out once more that the retribution that comes to those who refuse to answer is recorded in the history of our country constitutionally and on more than one occasion. It is an attitude on the part of ministers-and there are only a few of them sitting opposite who have this attitude-of treating parliament with contempt and with a cavalier disregard of the rights of members of this house. I look back over the years to some former ministers of defence. I think of Ralston, I think of Power, I think of Macdonald during the days of war. I hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce applauding because he knew them. Those ministers answered questions when they occupied the position of defence minister.


Howard Russell MacEwan: They knew the answers.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, they knew the answers. I would not suggest that the minister today does not know the answers, but if he does he is the only one among many of the ministers who qualify for the descriptive phrase that was used in 1962-"We have the answers".
What, Mr. Chairman, are the answers in this connection? Silence, insolence, arrogance; an attitude of sitting tight and refusing to answer. I am going to conclude-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it must please you to find that these hon. gentlemen opposite are still able to hammer their desks because this is the only contribution most of them make to the discussion of a matter of great importance to our country. The government represented by the minister has refused to give any answers. I leave it there; time will tell.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, they also serve who only sit and wait.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the minister says, "They also serve who only sit and wait." If that were the qualification for membership in the House of Commons, the minister is pre-eminent among all the ministers who have occupied the portfolio of defence throughout the years.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time; now?


Some hon. Members:: No; next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the intention of the minister to move that the said bill be now read a third time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the house that it is not necessary that we have consent for third reading, because we did not have second reading today.


John George Diefenbaker: If I might be allowed to speak to this, Mr. Speaker, we have found ourselves in the position this afternoon and evening of having a minister who has refused to answer questions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and who has followed a course of stubborn denial in regard to answering questions. I suggest that parliament and this house be not further bulldozed by having third reading tonight and that it be set over until tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might refer hon. members to standing order 78, subsection 2. If the minister wishes to make his motion now, we will vote on the motion; but it does not require the consent of the house to make the motion at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: No; it just requires ordinary parliamentary consideration.


Mr. Dupuis:: That is what you did for six years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time; now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hellyer, seconded by Mr. Martin (Essex East), moves that the said bill be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Som


a hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are now on third reading; is that correct?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is correct. There is a motion for third reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Third reading is debatable, and this is the type of bill that deserves full consideration.
National Defence Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have had an exhibition tonight of the most unco-operative attitude on the part of a minister of the crown that I have seen since I have been here, with perhaps the exception of some episodes in 1956.


Gilles Grégoire: And in 1962.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We fully expected from this minister, who has received such glowing press reports from time to time-inspired, I presume, by his own office-some first-class exposition of his policy with regard to national defence. But he has taken the attitude of silence; he has nothing to say with regard to the bill which he is putting before us. On the one or two occasions when he did attempt to make an intervention, we pointed out his error, his lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the setting up of a supreme commander in place of the present chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and the various chiefs who have been serving under him. We are now to have one single commander for the armed services of this country-a system outmoded, outdated which has been proved beyond peradven-ture to be ineffective; a method used in the past by the United Kingdom, which resulted in unnecessary losses to that country in warfare.
With that type of experience behind the minister, if he has any knowledge of the past at all, he has persisted in foisting upon this country this outdated, outmoded and inefficient system and he is going to hand over to one single individual the control of the armed forces of this country under the supervision of the Minister of National Defence. I have indicated already tonight that as far as we are concerned, we have no confidence in this Minister of National Defence; and if we have no confidence in him, what about the services generally? This is the weakness of pushing a man ahead too fast when he is unprepared for the responsibilities; a man without any great experience in government administration; a man without any substantial experience with the services-and yet this man, lacking this experience, is attempting to sweep away the fundamentals pertaining to the services. No man who had substantial military experience would do this; he would pause when attention was drawn to the problem. But this is what we get with a person who has been pushed ahead, pampered, raised up as-

National Defence Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May 1 be allowed to bring to the attention of the hon. member who has the floor that on third reading the discussion is limited strictly to the bill itself. In the opinion of the Chair, when the hon. member is referring to the qualifications of the minister to hold his portfolio it seems to me he is going beyond the terms of the bill before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the lack of qualifications of the minister to hold his portfolio, and I think I have amply demonstrated that.


Harold Edward Winch: What were your qualifications when you had the job?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East has asked me what my qualifications were when I held the portfolio of minister of national defence. At that time I had some experience in government, and I had some experience in warfare. Perhaps a similar experience was open to the hon. member for Vancouver East, if he had wanted to take advantage of the opportunity; I do not know.


Harold Edward Winch: The member for Vancouver East fulfilled the service he was allowed to according to law, and served in the armed forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very glad to hear that, but before the hon. member interrupts again I suggest that he should be more sure of his ground before talking about qualifications.


Eric Alfred Winkler: And have a look at the record.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If we are to have these catcalls and cries of "carried" by people who have no knowledge of military matters, I am prepared to wait for silence in the chamber. It does interfere with debate and makes it difficult to continue. We will probably hear from some other people pretty soon Whose opportunities were not grasped at the time.
As I was saying a few minutes ago before the interruption, the purpose of the bill is to replace the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and the chiefs of the naval staff, general staff and air staff with an authority who will be charged with all the functions, powers and duties of the persons being replaced, to be known as the chief of the defence staff. That is the main purpose of the bill, and the other clauses of the bill are

consequential because of that particular amendment.
We have endeavoured to point out the weaknesses of the system proposed by the bill. We have endeavoured to show that putting one man in supreme command is a weakness. We have suggested that it would be better to have a council charged with responsibility and that with such a council, consisting of a certain number of military advisers and a certain number of civilian advisers given power and not simply acting in an advisory capacity, two things would be accomplished. First, civilian control over the armed services would be maintained, which is essential under our democratic system. Second, the minister would have military advice over and above that which might be proffered by the supreme commander alone.
The idea of having a supreme commander is attractive to some minds and has been and still is used in some countries. But in some countries where there is a supreme commander in charge you get revolutions and undue influence on the part of the services with regard to the government of the day. This is something to be avoided. That is why in countries with lengthy democratic experience civilian control is emphasized, strengthened and maintained.
In considering this particular bill our suggestion was that it would be far better to have a council comprised of military and civilian representatives with authority to reach decisions with regard to a great many problems. The problem of procurement of equipment, in which taxation is involved, the problems of recruiting, mobilization of manpower, accommodation, transportation for troops, the allocation of equipment and money among the navy, army and air force, all these things are better decided by a council of military and civilian advisers working together with the minister than by one supreme commander on his own initiative.
It is all very well to say that an advisory council is being set up and that this council will provide the military and civilian advice requisite under the circumstances. That is entirely different from having a council charged with responsibility. If such a council consists of seven members, those seven members, acting somewhat like a cabinet, have to take collective responsibility for the decision they have reached. This would provide a more sensible method of looking after our national defence problems than the one man idea, because in that council you would

have the benefit of the experience and advice of seven or eight people.
Under the bill now before the house the contrary will prove to be the case. The supreme commander will reach his decisions based, of course, on consultations with others of lower rank. He will consult with civilian advisers within the department, but in the final analysis he has to make a decision and give his advice to the minister. Then you can have a conflict between two people, the supreme commander and the minister. The minister is responsible to cabinet and to parliament and has to accept the responsibility.
We have tried to point out the dangers inherent in a system where you have two people who are obliged to agree or else one or the other has to go. What position will the supreme commander be placed in if his advice to his minister is that, for example, there should be a vast increase in one of the three services and the minister is of the opinion that this is wrong, and one of the other services should receive greater attention? What happens? If the supreme commander is adamant, what does the minister do? On the one hand, the minister becomes just a satellite of the supreme commander and has to take his word for everything. On the other hand, if the minister enforces his will on the supreme commander and tries to get him to do something contrary to his military experience, the supreme commander either becomes a tool or puppet of the minister or he resigns and you have an upset in the system.
I know it has been argued that the committee system is unsound, but this is not a committee system that we have been advocating. It is a council; it is a meeting of minds just as in the cabinet. It is a relatively small council but it carries responsibility and gives instructions to the forces.
Attention has been drawn to the fact that a supreme commander may have undue influence on subordinate commanders. He may tend to surround himself, and this is natural and characteristic of human nature, with men of like mind, men who have the same ideas as himself. Under those circumstances how can you get a proper decision? There is plenty of experience both in wartime and between wars to indicate what happens when people in military forces get fixed ideas. I can give one or two examples which come readily to mind. In between the two wars we continued in Canada cavalry formations. Yet in the first war the cavalry, except in Palestine and in the very early days in 1914, was a useless
National Defence Act
weapon. The cavalry massed on the front for the breakthrough which did not occur, and when the Canadian cavalry brigade did get through on August 8 and 9, 1918, they were mown down. About 80 per cent of the force was destroyed by machine gun fire in just a few minutes.
Well, that is one example of what happens when people have fixed ideas. The people who were in control in between wars still pinned their faith on horse cavalry and neglected the new arm, the tank. Canada went into action in 1939 and 1940 ill-equipped for modern warfare. Supposing you get a supreme commander whose mind is cast in a mould that favours an outdated method of conducting warfare, an outdated method of training troops or an outdated concept of how a war should be fought. We will run into trouble. The frailty of the human mind is such that this is what might well happen, and we have seen it happen in the past. It can be observed in a reading of history.
I well recall another example of the fixed military mind or the inexperienced military mind. At the conclusion of the second world war a meeting was held in London with regard to an armoured personnel carrier. Three officers of the Canadian army were summoned to the meeting in London to put forward a proposal as to the type of vehicle which should be used as an armoured personnel carrier. Within 20 miles of London I was resident in a camp, and I was the only officer with the rank of lieutenant colonel who had used an armoured personnel carrier in action, but I was not consulted. Three officers who had never seen one in action sat down at a meeting to determine what an armoured personnel carrier should be like. This is the result of the fixed military mind which sometimes cannot see the woods for the trees.
We have seen the situation here in Canada. Only now are we getting to the point where we will have an armoured personnel carrier for our infantry forces. Despite speech after speech I made when I used to sit in the back row of this house concerning the necessity for an armoured personnel carrier in order to save the lives of infantrymen, it is now 1964 and we still have not an armoured personnel carrier.
This is one of the problems that arise in the field of national defence. I have just given you examples from my own experience. I expect similar examples to be drawn from the navy. Supposing there is not a

National Defence Act
nuclear war, but another war in which transport vessels have to be escorted across the ocean. Supposing the man in charge is against the convoy system. We have been through that in the history of the last 40 years. This was the trouble in the first world war. There was no effective convoy system introduced against the threat of the submarine because of the fixed military mind among the admirals. The danger that you run into, therefore, is this danger of having one man in complete charge. If his mind is inflexible, if he is determined on his course, what can you do? It is for this reason we suggest that instead of one supreme commander there should be a council, mixing military people with civilians and retaining civilian control which is essential, because in a democracy the civilian control is paramount. The armed services must be given direction from the civilian authorities.
We are opposing this bill, Mr. Speaker, on the grounds that it represents a throwback to earlier times. It is bringing into Canada a system which was rejected many years ago both in Canada and in the United Kingdom. We think it is absolutely unsound. The minister, intent as he is on reform, should have moved more slowly, one step at a time. If in the Department of National Defence there were too many committees and subcommittees, too much duplication of effort, why did he not try the system suggested by Air Marshal Curtis of giving more authority to the chief of staff or make the chairman of the chiefs of staff, along with the other chiefs of staff, into a council and give them the authority? He could have tried it out to see how it would go. Oh no, this minister says this is a new idea. Not having read history and being bereft of any practical experience, he seizes upon this idea of a supreme commander and now is attempting to foist it upon our armed services.
He says that this is just a step toward unification of the services. I fully appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot deal with that particular subject but I refer to it because the minister has indicated that is his intention. This is step No. 1, the supreme commander, and then the unification of the services. We feel that in this instance the minister has made a serious mistake. We have expressed our regret that he has been unco-operative. I now believe his lack of co-operation is due to a lack of knowledge of his subject. We regret that he failed to answer our questions and to explain what is in his mind with regard to his proposals for 
the future. It is our intention to oppose this bill at the third reading stage.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy for the opportunity provided by this debate on third reading to join my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) in making a few observations. Unfortunately, it was not possible for me to be in the house earlier in the day. I think the subject matter is of sufficient importance that we should take advantage of this opportunity which is not usually taken on third reading to add some further comments.
I cannot join in the criticism of my colleague who has indicated that during the course of the debate today many questions were not answered in connection with this important subject of the reorganization of the Canadian armed forces. However, there were general questions of policy that remained unanswered, and which I would like to bring to the attention of the house at this stage of the discussion.
First, as we heard during the debate, this is not a new method or technique of organization so far as the experiences of other countries are concerned. This leads to the question that having been tried in other countries, particularly a country like the United Kingdom with its wide ranging military responsibilities, is this sudden leap forward in reorganization in the best interests of efficiency at this critical juncture in our nation's history?
The bill before us, which provides for a supreme commander of the armed forces, is more concerned with the public relations aspect of reorganization arising out of the recommendations of the white paper on national defence than it is a realistic approach to reorganization in the interests of manpower economy as well as actual fiscal economy. When the white paper was produced I was one of the first to criticize it as more of a public relations document than as a concrete effort to meet the difficulties of Canadian armed forces organization, difficulties which are not new, because up until recent years, except in times of war, Canada's military formations have pursued a rather disjointed policy.
The whole idea of integration emerged gradually in recent years. It began actually with the advent of General Pearkes to the ministry, when he started a trend toward integration which was designed as a new approach to reorganization. Now suddenly in this bill we have abandoned the gradual ap-

proach and in one fell swoop, at least according to the public relations aspect, we are trying to unscramble all the errors of policy, or lack of policy, which had given rise to the difficulties of armed forces organization down through the years.
There has been a tendency on the part of the government of Canada to downgrade the importance and significance of our armed forces in peacetime. This was the pattern between world war I and world war II, and it was followed to such a disastrous extent following world war II that when the crisis of Korea came upon us Canada had to embark suddenly upon a crash program. In fact this was the name given to the program of recruiting and reorganization that took place at that time by the then minister, Hon. Brooke Claxton. He referred to the crash program that was necessary in order to gear the Canadian military formations to the demands of the struggle in Korea.
I suggest that the proposal before us has somewhat of the unplanned crash aspect that the hurried unplanned activities to meet the Korean crisis had back in 1950. But it goes even further than that. One of the reasons why we have had such extreme difficulty and extended debates on defence during the fifties and the sixties is because of the lack of consistency in policy until the advent of General Pearkes to the ministry. This lack of consistency created a perpetual crisis in defence planning, particularly in the air force sector of the Department of National Defence.
We had some momentous debates in this house when this party formed the government, when the first gradual move towards integration took place, when Canada embraced the NORAD system of defence after a long period of delay and hesitancy on the part of the previous Liberal administration. The Liberal party then in opposition were highly critical of even the gradual approach toward integration of the service aspects of the armed forces. They were particularly critical of some of the reversed decisions with respect to planning for the equipment needs of the air force arm of Canada's forces. I refer, of course, to the noisy debates that took place at the time of the cancellation of the Arrow program.
Why did it become necessary to cancel the Arrow program? It was simply because of the crash type of planning referred to by Hon. Brooke Claxton, which became necessary to meet the demands of the air force. All the resources of that rapidly growing air industry in Canada, A. V. Roe at Malton,
National Defence Act
were suddenly diverted from peacetime pursuits, such as work on the jetliner, and concentrated on producing the CF-100, which became quickly obsolescent and was superseded by the CF-105, because no careful long term policy planning to meet the hardware needs of the air force had ever been undertaken.
The former Conservative government was strenuously criticized for its decisive action in this regard. I am not going to revive the debate at this time other than to point out that decisions of that kind became necessary because there had been no consistent policy planning to meet the needs placed upon Canada's armed forces immediately following world war II. Not only did it become necessary, to meet the Korean crisis, to institute crash programming, but I can remember in the years 1946 and 1947 when Canada was asked to participate in the occupation of Europe, the Liberal government of that day had decimated our armed forces to such an extent that we were not able to take our rightful place, a place that Canada had merited by reason of her outstanding contribution in world war II. We were not able to take that place because of this tendency to proceed on a hit and miss basis in meeting our peacetime armed forces commitments. It seems to me that the desire of successive Liberal administrations has been to reduce our spending on the forces to an irreducible minimum, even though it came down from $2 billion in the early fifties to $1>
billion due to the economies of the former Conservative administration.
I feel that this bill which would place a supreme commander in charge of Canada's armed forces is putting the cart before the horse. Before we have a supreme commander to carry out the organization as outlined in the white paper I would suggest that the government and the Department of National Defence should proceed to more specific planning in the direction of integration than is outlined in the white paper. I presume that some of the policy questions which were asked this afternoon and which remain unanswered were related to some of these specifics which still have not been explained by the Minister of National Defence.
There is one further aspect of this subject which concerns me. It seems to me that having embraced the NORAD concept of continental defence-and I would remind the house that it was a Conservative government which first accepted the principle of continental responsibility for the defence of

National Defence Act
North America-the new administration is going to the extreme pole in this aspect of armed forces reorganization. They were hesitant to embrace the NORAD principle early in 1956 and 1957 because to a certain extent it meant the surrender of national sovereignty. But now-and this is the only possible manner in which the new top level structure of the armed forces organization as contemplated by this legislation could possibly work-it seems to me that we are surrendering the sovereignty of Canada's forces to another power.
Let me by way of illustration refer to the so-called Bomarc debate. This was an even more furious debate both in the House of Commons and across the nation than was the debate concerning the cancellation of the Arrow program. The essential point at issue in the Bomarc debate was the loss of Canada's ultimate sovereignty over her own armed forces. When I hear of the gradual disbandment of fighter squadrons such as 410 squadron, and more recently 414 squadron, it seems to me that this planning will reduce Canada's air force potential to complete dependence upon United States airpower. The essence of the Bomarc question was simply this: Is Canada to maintain ultimate control over her own armed forces or is she to surrender this control to a foreign power? We are reduced to three fighter squadrons-three all-weather fighter interceptor squadrons and two Bomarc squadrons armed with atomic warheads. It is still not known whether Canada has ultimate control over those warheads. It seems to me that these policy decisions have already been taken by the government in anticipation of the structural reorganization contemplated in Bill No. C-90 and if the government proceeds with this reorganization at the upper echelon of the officer level, the supreme commander will merely be accepting the policy put forward by the government which has already acquiesced in the ultimate and final control of the Canadian armed forces by the government of the United States.
This is a question which concerns other countries besides Canada. For example in the British House of Commons just two weeks ago the government came under fire from the Labour opposition for accepting submarines armed with the Polaris missile in much the same way as the former Liberal opposition criticized the Conservative government of the day for its acceptance of the Bomarc without the final decision concerning the atomic warhead. The defence of the

British government, as was the defence of the Canadian government during that debate, was: The warhead is American; the Polaris is American; but ultimate control of the missile will remain in the hands of the British government. It seems to me this is the crux of the matter and it is of fundamental importance to Canada as a nation, because if we are surrendering military sovereignty it is a long step toward surrendering political sovereignty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house that I call it 10.30 and put the question? Is the house ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker; you have called it 10.30.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I would ask the leader of the house what the business is for tomorrow and the next day.


Mr. Favreau:: We hope to have third reading of Bill No. C-90 on national defence, after which we shall proceed with the second reading of the youth allowance bill. We would hope, because of the urgency of this matter and the public interest as expressed by all parties, that we could dispose of the committee stage and third reading in succession, after which we will proceed with the resolution preceding the bill revising certain fiscal arrangements. That would be followed by the committee stage debate and third reading of Bill No. S-17 respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning, July 3, as recorded in Hansard at page 4992, I drew the Prime Minister's attention to the very firm announcement he had made on Tuesday, June 30, at page 4907 of Hansard, with regard to the debate on the flag. As hon. members are aware, that announcement was

in definitive language to the effect that the debate on the flag would be continued until it had been concluded. Accordingly I asked the Prime Minister whether he would not give the house an equally firm assurance that the legislation respecting the Canada pension plan would be continued in this session until it had been concluded. As hon. members will recall, the Prime Minister's reply was that the Canada pension plan would be introduced in the fall part of this session and that it would be proceeded with, but that further than that he could only say that he hoped it would be concluded.
My point in asking for this matter to be transferred to this overtime period is surely quite clear. I think it is a very reasonable request which we are making on the floor of this house that there be at least as definite an assurance regarding the Canada pension plan as has been given with respect to the flag.
I would point out that the assurance about the flag debate is that it will be concluded before the house rises for a summer recess. All I am asking with regard to the Canada pension plan is for an assurance that it be concluded before the session ends; and it begins to look-I am not jesting; I am making a serious prediction-as though the session probably will not end until Christmas.
I think we have the right, Mr. Speaker, to have an equally definite assurance with regard to the Canada pension plan, and I hope that the house leader, who I understand will be answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, will give that assurance tonight. As hon. members know, we in this party-and I think this is true of members of other parties as well-would like to see the Canada pension plan brought on sooner. We would like to see it brought on this summer. Indeed, that was the original plan. But as announced by the Prime Minister when he spoke about the business of the house last Tuesday night, it is a fact that we have had negotiations respecting the business of the house to be dealt with during the summer weeks. The results of those negotiations, as I say, were announced by the Prime Minister last Tuesday night, so it is clear to everyone that dealing with the Canada pension plan has been put off till the fall.
It is an open secret that one of the reasons it is being put off is because it is taking time to draft the legislation in its revised form. In other words, the bill is not yet ready. I am accepting the result of those negotiations; indeed, I must accept them because I took part in them. But I am concerned as to 20220-325
6, 1964	5123
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion what will happen in the fall. When the fall comes we will have a long list of items before us. One of the top items will be redistribution, which I think should have high priority. There will also be the legislation regarding the Bank Act, and that concerning the department of forestry and rural development. There will be legislation setting up the treasury board as a department of government; there will be legislation on periodical publications, the railway legislation, the national labour code, and 15 or 20 other items. In addition to all these items there will be practically all the main estimates.
Surely hon. members can see the terrific competition there is going to be for parliamentary time in the 12 or 14 weeks between our coming back here in the fall-or maybe we will still be here, with the flag debate having lasted throughout the summer-and Christmas. In those 12 or 14 weeks there will be tremendous competition for parliamentary time, as I have said, and I know what will happen because I have been through it a good many times. We will start to have meetings of house leaders and party representatives, and we will have to face the fact that we cannot deal with everything; therefore some things will have to be left over until next year. My fear is that if we do not get moving with the Canada pension plan, if we do not receive a firm assurance from the government, it is one of the pieces of legislation which may very well be put off until next year.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we were going to have it last year, but it was put off until 1964. It has already been put off a couple of times this year. I say that in view of the importance of this piece of legislation, in view of the place it occupied in the government's election platform of 1963, it is not good enough for us to be told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) merely that he hopes it will be dealt with at this session. I think we have the right to be given the assurance that it will be proceeded with, and proceeded with to a conclusion; and we should have an assurance that is just as strong as that which we have had with respect to the flag. We know that the Canada pension plan after second reading will be referred to a committee. That would be a good time to resume the debate on redistribution. But first of all let us get the Canada pension plan moving this fall, and let us have the assurance now that it is going to be stayed with until concluded; let it be just as firm an assurance as we have had with respect to the flag.
5124	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, one thing that I must first make note of in this house is the interest of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken in the matter of the Canada pension plan, and the other matter which I must note, in due justice to him, is the genuine character of the interest which he bears to the question. I may assure him that the sincerity of the government and the government's desire to proceed with the Canada pension plan as early and as definitely as possible is just as genuine and intense as his own.
The government is, as the hon. gentleman noted, at the present time completing the drafting of the bill in certain of its technical aspects. In view of the discussions which have taken place in this respect and certain modifications which have been agreed to for the purpose of assuring that this country once and for all will have a nation-wide Canada pension scheme, of course certain adjustments had to be made and they must be reflected, especially the technicalities involved, in the actual drafting of the bill.
I can assure this house that it is the firm intention of the government to do everything possible so that the final stage of the legislative process with respect to this legislation can be achieved and completed before the end of the current session in the fall. But the Prime Minister of course could not state a date the other day. In this connection I want to say that the government does not have the same measure of control over the continuity of the legislative process with respect to the pension bill. It will, as the Prime Minister said, be sent to a committee and will have to go through all stages. But, given the full assistance and co-operation of the house at each stage, the government undertakes to obtain the completion of the legislative process with respect to the Canada pension plan before the end of the session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Keep us in session until it is done.



TRANSPORT


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Prime Minister if the government was going to proceed shortly with the Richelieu deep waterway project.
In 1961, the Conservative government asked the boundary waters commission to make a survey in order to carry out, if

possible, the Richelieu deep waterway project. That study must be over now, I am quite sure.
It would be of importance to connect Montreal and New York through the Richelieu river, which is the shortest navigable waterway. The route between Montreal and New York would be shortened by 1500 miles through that waterway, instead of going around by the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ocean. By using that means of transportation, Canada would save $125 million a year.
Since Canada is ready to pay in full expenditures connected with its troops in Cyprus, without any help from the United Nations, I wonder why the government is delaying the implementation of that project which is of vital importance to our country's economy.
I would like to know if anyone is against it and why the work is being postponed.
Referring to the newspaper Le Devoir for September 19, 1960, I note that the hon. members for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) and Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), both ministers now, met with their colleagues from the Quebec legislative assembly and approved a resolution asking Ottawa to carry out an investigation, which was ordered by the Conservative government. The government was also asked to proceed with the deepening of the Richelieu river in the fall of 1960.
Appearing before the international boundary waters commission and speaking on behalf of the chamber of commerce of greater Sorel, Mr. Henri Ollivier stressed the important economic advantages which could be derived from the deepening of the Richelieu river. Numerous steps were also taken in that connection by the late Dr. C. Robert Fiset, former mayor of Sorel, who worked intensively in that respect.
The St. John chamber of commerce submitted two briefs to the international boundary waters commission during the latter's sittings in the city of St. John in the riding now represented by the Minister without Portfolio.
Mr. Speaker, since the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister without Portfolio advocated the implementation of that project a few years ago, I wonder what they are doing now in this connection. That is why I am asking the minister to render them at least a service, to help with their reelection, if possible, while looking after the interests of the Canadian people.

Moreover, I ask the minister to tell us what serious objections the government would have to proceeding without delay, jointly with the United States, to the deepening of the Richelieu river?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks about the progress of the studies concerning the Richelieu deep waterway project. I must tell him that since the governments of Canada and the United States asked the international joint commission to make an inquiry as to whether the project was feasible and beneficial from an economic point of view, it held public hearings in the area concerned on both sides of the boundary. The commission also appointed a board of experts
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which is now pursuing its work and technical investigation. The commission expects to receive from the investigation board a preliminary report on the feasibility of the project by June 1965. When it receives that report, the commission may take a decision as to the "form" of its own report to the two governments, and the date when it will be submitted.
We will consider seriously the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who so efficiently supported the representations of various members on the government side.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
5127

Tuesday, July 7, 1964