1964-05-08

PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is that certain documents were improperly made available to the hon. member for Kootenay East by a senior official of the Department of External Affairs before those documents had been tabled in the house. This action was taken during a meeting of the external affairs committee held yesterday afternoon, and in my opinion it constituted an offence against the rules of the house and a grave discourtesy to its members.
On Wednesday, May 6 I moved the following motion:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all petitions sponsored by the Nelson chamber of commerce signed by residents of Kootenay East and West urging immediate ratification of the Columbia river treaty, received by the government since January 1, 1964.
This motion was unanimously agreed to. During the meeting of the external affairs committee yesterday afternoon a senior official of the Department of External Affairs, at two minutes after 5 p.m., handed the hon. member for Kootenay East the original petition referred to in my motion. I wish to bring Your Honour's attention to the fact that the hon. member for Kootenay East is not at present a member of the government. Shortly afterward the hon. member for Kootenay East commenced to use this document as evidence before the committee.
At that point I immediately rose on a question of privilege to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the document was improperly before the committee. The hon. member for Leeds, the esteemed chairman of the committee, then suggested I be permitted to see the petition. However, out of respect for the rules of this house and the rights of members of parliament I refused to look at the document until it came into my hands legally in accordance with the rules of the house.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the members of this house are entitled to an explanation of the reasons for this unusual breach of the rules of this house, and are entitled to an apology from the member for Kootenay East and the senior official of the Department of External Affairs involved in this breach of the rules and grave discourtesy to the members of this house.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I might have risen and suggested that raising this particular question of privilege seems to me out of order at this time. The question has to do with a matter which is before a committee that is sitting, and the place to raise such a question of privilege is, I believe, in that committee. However, I am not rising to make a technical objection, except to remind my esteemed and sensitive friend of what I believe to be the correct procedure.
I am sure we would all regret it, if the hon. gentleman has been unfairly dealt with. The fact is that his question concerns a petition containing some 4,000 or 5,000 names of people from the hon. gentleman's constituency who are urging the government to get on with the Columbia river treaty. I referred to this petition when I was speaking in the house on the question of the Columbia river treaty.
Yesterday, or the day before yesterday, the hon. gentleman had on the order paper a motion which was accepted by the house asking for the production of this document. It takes time to provide several copies of it, and the hon. member for Kootenay East asked one of the officials of the Department of External Affairs if he might see the petition. The official, who is one of the responsible officials of the department, as the hon. gentleman knows, thought there was no reason why this should not be permitted. If the hon. member for Kootenay West had asked for it he would have obtained it. However, with these facts in mind I am looking into the matter further to try to deal with the situation in a manner which, I know, will end in the full satisfaction of the sensitive nature of my esteemed and dear friend the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member for Kootenay West, having raised this

Question of Privilege
matter and heard a partial explanation, and having heard also that the minister is looking into the matter further, will be satisfied.



MR. WOOLLIAMS    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN DEBATE BY MEMBER FOR BURNABY-COQUITLAM

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which not only affects me personally but I think affects many hon. members of the house. I realize and appreciate that the rules say I should raise a question of privilege as soon as possible. My question of privilege arises out of a comment made yesterday in reference to the report brought in by the rules committee. The comment was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I was unable to hear it at the time because of the noise from that particular party following the remarks I made. The words I refer to are these:
As long as we have a democracy in this country I think the hon. member for Bow River will have to abide by the decision of the electorate.
Either the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam deliberately misinterpreted what I said or he unintentionally misinterpreted it, because I was not speaking against splinter parties as such or against the situation with regard to those constituencies which may elect members of splinter parties; I was saying there has grown up in this house a procedure, now endorsed by the rules committee, of giving a spokesman for each of those parties an opportunity to make comments in reply to statements on government policies made from the treasury benches from time to time. Here we are in the process of amending our rules because we wish to save time in the house, and we now have five parties in the opposition. I only said that in the future we may have 10 or 20.


An hon. Member:: Four.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, four parties in the opposition; you are absolutely correct. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam deliberately misinterpreted my statement because he was frightened that the Canadian people would find out the truth and import of my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege may I just point out to the hon. member for Bow River that his complaint is incorrectly lodged when he lodges it against
[Mr. Speaker.!
the committee on procedure. It was the house itself, by unanimous decision, that adopted yesterday provisional standing order 15(2-a).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to those remarks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. First of all, the hon. member has had the opportunity of restating his argument to a shorter and lesser degree. Second, I do not see any basic question of privilege. If it is anything it is a grievance, and it is hardly that. It is really a statement of personal opinion. In view of the discussion of yesterday and today may I suggest that we now get on with the business before the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is briefly this. The hon. member says it was unanimously approved by the house. If he had listened very carefully to my remarks he would know that I did not agree to it.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the promise given to 117 employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation that their seniority and other rights would not be impaired in the termination of their services with the corporation and their absorption into the Department of Industry. Would the Prime Minister have this question looked into so the obvious injustice that would result from denying these civil servants their guaranteed rights, or indeed any possibility thereof, will be avoided?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I saw this report and I am looking into it. I am quite sure that if there is an injustice it must be corrected.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Associate Minister of National Defence; I have given him prior notice of this urgent subject. When will the government be in a position to release the

special benefits arrangements for the armed forces personnel who are being prematurely retired?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. member and the house that the government has approved a special benefits plan for service personnel who will be retired in advance of their normal retirement age as a result of the integration of the armed forces. The forces will be notified today of the contents of this plan, and details will be made available to all hon. members who are interested.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouefie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to introduce during this session a measure for readjusting family allowances according to the cost-of-living index?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



REMOVAL OF TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises from an article written by Roger Appleton which appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen. It is headed "Major Contractor Fails, Thousands May Lose Jobs". One of the reasons given for this bankruptcy and other bankruptcies is the tax on construction materials and building equipment. In view of this situation is the government giving any consideration to rescinding the tax in question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. First of all I have grave doubts that the question is in order. It is a very interesting one, but it is more a statement than a question. I realize its importance and the general interest, but it is too much to expect the minister to answer a question like this on the spur of the moment. It seems to me that the hon. member would be well advised to put the question on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency problem. This is a national problem. Contractors are going broke all over the country because of this tax. Surely the minister is prepared to answer a question so important to the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is trying to argue the question. The fact that one contractor in the city of Ottawa goes into bankruptcy does not necessarily mean that all contractors across the country are going into bankruptcy.



PROCEDURE RESPECTING REFUNDS OF SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Revenue. On April 27 I asked the acting minister if his department was considering simplifying the procedures for obtaining refunds of the 8 per cent building tax on allowable projects such as educational institutions. The acting minister replied that simplified procedures had been announced or would be announced in a very short time. My question is, have these new procedures been announced, and where can I obtain this information?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, new regulations have not yet been announced but I expect they will be announced almost any day now.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I sent to his office this morning. In view of many complaints regarding the onerous application of the availability test for unemployment insurance benefit, has the minister had discussions about this matter with the unemployment insurance commission? Is any relaxation of the application of this test in prospect?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was good enough to send me a copy of this question. I have done my best to see the pressing urgency in the matter, but may I suggest that he put it on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will not quarrel with your ruling, but I give notice that I will ask the question in the next overtime period.



FOREST FIRES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I addressed a question to the Prime Minister relative to providing assistance to Nova Scotia in fighting the serious forest fires which have broken out in that province. In view of press reports last evening that the provincial minister of lands and forests had called upon Ottawa for naval and air force planes to be used as water bombers, is the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence in a position to state whether any assistance as requested will be provided?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat what I said yesterday, that if a request is made we will do what we can to help. But I am informed that no request has yet been received from the province of Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Forestry, as reported in the Halifax press of last evening, stated that this assistance will be made available if found technically possible by the services involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that report but I will look into it at once.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to supplement and correct, if I may, the answer I gave the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. I am informed that a request for assistance has been received from the government of Nova Scotia, and that service personnel are now in fact assisting in firefighting in Nova Scotia.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to the question I posed previously in reference to naming the veterans home in Saskatoon after the late member of parliament for Saskatoon, Henry


Frank Jones. At that time the Prime Minister will recall he stated that no official representation had been made by the city council of Saskatoon but that if this were done consideration might be given.
I have now been informed by the city council of Saskatoon that at their meeting on March 30, 1964, a resolution was passed to that effect, and that on April 3 a letter went out to the Minister of Veterans Affairs submitting the council's suggestion for the naming of this home. Would the Prime Minister now give consideration to this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think I said that no information of that kind had been received by me. That is correct, but my hon. friend now tells me that a resolution has been passed and sent to one of my colleagues. I will look into the matter at once and give consideration to that request.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I have not sent him notice because I feel quite sure he is familiar with the subject matter.
In view of the fact that the C.N.R. plans to revise its maintenance of way methods in the maritime area on June 1, which I am informed will cause great disruption and hardship among the working force and ultimate unemployment for a large number of railway workers, would the minister now advise the house what has been the result of his discussions with the C.N.R. in order to prevent this from taking place? He may recall that it was brought to his attention in the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the railway that the new methods they are proposing to use will not result in any decrease in employment until such time as there are retirements of existing employees who may not be replaced.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister check with the C.N.R. and ascertain if it is not correct that many of these employees are going to be uprooted from their homes and may have to move hundreds of miles away, which will cause great disruption to themselves and their families?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can only Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not draw that statement to the attention of the a question for the order paper. The emer-management of the railway.	gency is here, and I suggest if the minister
has any plans he should answer the question. WATER RESOURCES


Some hon. Members:: Order.



PROPOSED DIVERSION FROM HUDSON BAY INTO GREAT LAKES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Would the hon. member place that question on the order paper?']
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of his statement made in the house last night that the Grand canal project is being taken exceedingly seriously by the government at this time, can he say whether the government will consider accepting the resolution standing in my name, which is to come up for debate on Monday next, asking for studies to be carried out in this connection and for talks between the provinces and the United States government?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not misrepresent me. I said that the whole problem of the water levels of the lakes was being taken exceedingly seriously by the government. I said we were fully aware of the proposals in respect of the Grand canal and were studying them. Unfortunately I was unable to complete my statement last night, but we are making a study of the Grand canal proposal and other proposals from the point of view of trying to do the best we can in respect of the water levels throughout the great lakes system so that a minimum of damage will be done in all places and to the various people concerned.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would mind answering the specific question I asked him, whether the government is disposed to accept the motion standing in my name on that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Would the minister say now whether the government, either the federal government by itself or in cooperation with the province of Ontario, is considering emergency action in order to ameliorate the effects of the falling water levels in the great lakes on the tourist industry and particularly on those operating marinas and the like who will suffer very greatly this summer unless some action is taken?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind; the government never has any plans.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the secrecy with which the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries approached the Senate banking and commerce committee yesterday, and in view of their refusal to give information to that committee about the territorial waters and the fishing zone in Bill No. S-17, I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider making a more revealing explanatory statement so the people of Canada would know just what is in the mind of the government with regard to our fisheries limits.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thought the statement which was read by my colleague to the committee yesterday was admirable and full. There was no refusal of any appropriate information.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask him if he expects to attend the ministerial council meeting of the NATO at The Hague next week. If so, would he tell the house what is the attitude of the government of Canada toward the project for a mixed-manned nuclear force, which I understand is to be discussed at this council meeting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question has already been given in this house by the Prime Minister, who has stated the present policy of the government with regard to the proposed multilateral force. The multilateral force proposal is not a NATO proposal. It is a proposal by the government of the United States to which

Inquiries of the Ministry some seven countries have given, in varying forms, a measure of consideration. Canada, however, is not one of the participants.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to know whether the Minister of Public Works has had any representations from the city of Saskatoon in connection with the construction of a second trans-Canada highway, and in particular would he inform the house whether there have been any representations in connection with the construction of the highway as it affects the 25th street bridge?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member place that question on the order paper?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of several reports that there have been some significant recent sales of butter or butter oil out of government surplus stock. I wonder if he could inform the house and the dairy farmers as to the extent of these sales.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will be a matter of interest to all members of the house to know that progress has been made in the sale of the agricultural stabilization board surplus holdings of butter oil. The board, in its oil program, converted some 105 million pounds of butter into approximately 85 million pounds of butter oil. This was offered for export sale at 27 cents a pound to approved markets on November 1, 1963. From that date to the present some 20 million pounds had been sold on export markets.
I am pleased to announce that the board has now completed sales agreements with 11 Canadian firms for the disposal of an additional 50 million pounds on export markets. The bulk of these shipments are expected to be made during the next three or four months. While it is not considered to be in the best interests of the firms involved to disclose the
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1

terms and conditions of these contracts, all contracts involve a forfeitable performance deposit. Thus, in essence, the government's entire stock of butter oil, other than that which is considered necessary to service the domestic market, is at present committed for sale. This leaves the board with total butter and butter oil stocks of approximately 90 million pounds.
Obviously our butter situation is considerably improved from what it has been in the last few years. However, it would be premature to suggest that we have yet arrived at any permanent solution to the problems of the dairy industry. I think the experience of the dairy industry over the last few years indicates that some further adjustments will eventually have to be made in dairy programs if we are to arrive at a solution to the industry's problems. I do not want to suggest in any way that I think our producers are getting more help from the government than they deserve, but we do not want any of our programs to encourage conditions that just do not make economic sense.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should point out that under the rules I have been given, questions should be asked only in connection with matters of sufficient urgency that an immediate answer is required. In that sense I considered the question was of important general interest and permitted it, but after having heard the interesting but rather lengthy answer I feel I should have applied the rule at the beginning.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: Is the minister in a position to say that the dairy policy he announced in April 1963 has produced the expected result, that is a saving of $6 million?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that while our policies are not doing all that we would like them to do, they are a great improvement over previous policies. The price of milk last year for cheese producers was higher than it has been since 1954.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure Your Honour would not deny me the right to ask a question arising out of the rather slippery explanation that has been given by the hon. gentleman. Will he inform the house as to the price these Canadian companies will be paying for the 50 million pounds of butter oil?


Harry William Hays: I think I mentioned it in the statement. It is in excess of 27 cents a pound.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the house what steps the government has taken along the lines of the lecture he delivered last night at Carleton University looking toward the establishment of stand-by units for a United Nations peace force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government is in the process of calling a meeting of representatives of the interested governments of the other countries. We have been in communication with certain governments, but I do not think I can go into detail now. We hope to have a meeting before long, and that is the first step in the process.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Where is it intended to hold that meeting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In Ottawa.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
On the request of Mr. Marchand, president of "les Syndicats nationaux", does the government intend to convene as soon as possible a federal-provincial conference to examine steps to be taken to settle the terrifying problem of unemployment which is now threatening the Canadian economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please put that question on the order paper.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in her unavoidable absence I shall direct it to her parliamentary secretary. On April 22 the minister intimated
Inquiries of the Ministry that a revised white paper on the Canada pension plan would be made available to the house. My question is, can the house be advised now when this revised white paper is likely to be made available?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall take this question as notice and endeavour to have a reply for the hon. member next week.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the promise made last year by his predecessor that the long awaited report on juvenile delinquency would be brought forward for sure by April 1964, will the minister say whether this report will be brought down, and whether it will be available to all members in the very near future?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some difficulties in the way of obtaining completion of the report of juvenile delinquency. I might tell the hon. gentleman that I am presently taking the necessary steps to have all the material already collected dealt with, and I expect the report will be issued and tabled before the end of this year.


Thomas Miller Bell: Might I ask if it has been decided that the report will be tabled and made available to hon. members?


Guy Favreau: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I used the wrong word when I forecast the time, but I expect a report to be remitted to the minister before the end of this year.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I would like to ask him whether there has been any further indication since yesterday from the temperamental and trigger happy premier of B.C. as to his plans and intentions with respect to providing recompense for the tidal wave disaster victims on the west coast.

Defence Committee


Arthur Laing: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to accept those adjectives. We have had a telegram indicating the amount of the loss and a request that we carry half of it in the sum of about $750,000. In other words the total loss will be about $1,563,000, or something of that nature. This will be discussed and some reply given, I think in the matter of the next few days.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the question I have to ask is somewhat supplementary to the previous one and, if I may, I would like to direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the interest in the country at the present time in the collection of taxes, does the Prime Minister intend to appoint a minister in charge of tax collection before June 22?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I answered that question yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I have nothing to add to what I said then.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State. Will the minister look into the serious charge levelled in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that a proposed, unsponsored C.B.C. television program, "The Good Life," has been scrapped as a result of pressure brought to bear on the C.B.C. by a certain advertiser?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to direct this to the attention of the C.B.C. and I am sure they will communicate with the Secretary of State.



DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence) moved:: That a special committee be appointed to continue the consideration of matters relating to defence

begun by the special committee at the past session and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses;
That it be empowered to adjourn from place to place;
That the minutes of the proceedings and evidence taken by the special committee at the past session be referred to the said committee and made a part of the records thereof; and
That the committee consist of 24 members to be designated by the house at a later date, and that standing order 67	(1) be suspended in relation
thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as set out on the order paper, the purpose of this resolution is to appoint a special committee on defence to continue the work started by a similar committee in the past session.
The house will recall that the resolution appointing the original committee was proposed by the Prime Minister on May 30, and the motion was agreed to by the house on June 7. The committee began its hearings on June 18, and by the time the interim report was tabled in the house a total of 45 meetings were held including 29 in Canada, two in the United States and 14 in Europe. In addition to travelling abroad the committee set a number of precedents, including hearing from senior service officers and individuals outside the government. The committee also received expert military and political advice here in Canada, in the United States and in Europe.
Personally I feel that the committee performed a very useful function. The members from all parties pursued their assignment in a very responsible manner in devoting themselves to the very complex problems of defence. Not only were the members of the committee made aware of the problems facing defence, but also members of the press and through them the public.
I might say that the government found the recommendations of the committee of great assistance and I think it was very rewarding, in a parliament of minorities, to have the members of the committee on defence adopt a non-partisan approach to their work. Certainly one result of this was that the calibre of the debate when the estimates of the Department of National Defence came before parliament in 1963 was of a much higher order than in previous years, due to the contribution made to the debate by individual members of the committee representing all political parties in the house.
The government has every confidence that the reconstitution of the committee called for

in this resolution will serve a very useful purpose, and I am hopeful that upon adoption of this motion the committee can begin its sittings very shortly.
I have already said that it is the intention of the government to refer the amendment to the National Defence Act, which we are to discuss later today, to the committee after completion of second reading. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there is agreement to approve this motion, that we will have a general debate on defence on second reading of the bill to amend the National Defence Act, and that the debate on that bill will not be restricted to its immediate terms but will be allowed to cover the whole field of defence.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is agreed so long as the house is perfectly clear with regard to the nature of the debate on second reading of the bill to amend the National Defence Act, namely that that debate may range over the whole field of defence including, if required and if deemed necessary, a discussion of the work of the defence committee last year, what it may do this year, the general policy of the government as outlined in the white paper, the situation with regard to defence at present, and things of that nature. If that is thoroughly understood then we are prepared to approve the setting up of the committee Without any lengthy statement, unless the hon. member for Edmonton West, who served as vice chairman of that committee, might want to speak for a minute and a half.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what has been said by the Minister of National Defence and by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre accords with our understanding of the arrangement made among the parties. If I may just confirm that arrangement in a sentence, providing it is understood that debate on second reading of Bill C-90 will be broad enough to include everything that might have been said in the debate on the setting up of this committee, we are prepared to approve this motion to set up the committee without debate.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on the clear understanding of the views set out and recognized by the house, that there will be no curtailment of debate on the following bill, we are quite prepared to fit in with the general plan.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This arrangement is satisfactory to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
National Defence Act


Paul Theodore Hellyer: the second reading of Bill C-90, to amend the National Defence Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to implement one of the major recommendations included in the white paper on defence. Specifically, the bill provides for the replacement of the present positions of chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, chief of the naval staff, chief of the general staff and chief of the air staff by a single new position designated as chief of the defence staff. This change is the first and perhaps the most important move in the integration of the armed forces under a single defence staff.
At this point I should like to express my appreciation of the support given to this proposal by the Prime Minister and the government of Canada. The enthusiastic response has been most gratifying and is deeply appreciated. I should like in particular to thank my colleague the associate minister for his untiring assistance. In carrying, as he does, the main burden of the administrative load in the department he has contributed immeasurably to the work we have jointly undertaken. Without this support any major reorganization on the scale contemplated would not be possible.
The establishment of a single chief of defence staff will permit the reorganization of our armed forces on a functional basis. This will not only simplify procedures and permit the development of a more efficient fighting force, but it will also greatly facilitate the implementation of a long range, co-ordinated defence policy as set out in the white paper. In the absence of a unified defence staff the implementation of such a policy would be extremely difficult and, in my opinion, virtually impossible.
In considering the organization of the armed forces a number of options were studied. These included the status quo, the Glassco commission recommendations and the decision which was finally adopted, that is to say the complete integration of the forces commencing at the top with the integration of the command structure.
First in respect to the status quo, may I say there are at the present time six routes of information coming to the minister. Direct access is afforded to the chairman of the chiefs of staff on behalf of the chiefs of staff committee; to the chief of the naval staff, to the chief of the general staff, to the chief

National Defence Act
of the air staff, to the chief of the defence research board and to the deputy minister. The minister is inadequately staffed to coordinate at his level and in his office the information coming from these several sources. Projects are not always co-ordinated into a single plan. It is in effect, in its present application, a system which is virtually unmanageable, and the minister is unable to exercise his constitutional authority adequately.
In considering alternatives which would permit the minister to exercise his responsibility effectively, the recommendation of the Glassco commission was considered. In essence the suggestion was that a number of support functions be transferred from the individual services to the chairman of the chiefs of staff for administration. This suggestion was given careful consideration because it is in line with procedures in other countries, and has long been put forward as a course which might be adopted in this country.
However, we came to the conclusion that this proposal would not likely result in a real reduction of manpower. On the contrary, it seemed to us it would probably result in a continuation and perhaps even an amplification of the committee system. If the chairman were given power to impose decisions made in these various areas on the individual services, then the real power of the individual chiefs of staff would be substantially diminished. If, on the other hand, he was not given power to impose decisions in those areas and the acceptance of his proposals depended on persuasion and the accommodation of views, then the committee system with all its inevitable delays and frustrations would remain. Based on experience both in Canada up to the present time and in other countries we came to the conclusion that this would not meet the two real needs as we see them; first of all a more effective organization and, second, a considerable reduction in duplication in headquarters.
The third alternative, which was the one finally adopted, was the integration of the armed forces into a single unit. This was decided on because it was considered to be the only solution likely to achieve those two important objectives (a) a more streamlined and effective system, and (b) reduced manpower due to reduction in duplications and increased efficiency in headquarters, command, training, logistics and support organizations.
At this point I should like to emphasize that I have no criticism of the men who

have served their country in senior military positions. On the contrary, they have served Canada and the military organizations of which they were and are a part with courage, devotion and distinction. Man for man there are no better armed forces than ours, and we are proud of the men and women who serve us so well. The organization of our available forces can, however, be improved so as to provide greater effectiveness, and in this area responsibility for taking the initiative lies with the minister and the government. The constitutional authority and responsibility is clear, and if changes in organization are required it is the responsibility of the government to recommend them and to see that they are implemented. We have placed our recommendations before parliament and now seek the statutory amendments necessary to get on with the job. We have the backing of the great majority of the Canadian people, and the enthusiastic support of the men and women of the armed forces.
As I indicated, we believe that the proposed new organization will result not only in a more efficient and responsive service but that it will also permit substantial reductions in manpower in headquarters, training and other units. It is, of course, impossible to predict the exact extent of the savings because there is no experience on which to base our estimates. For the purposes of planning, however, we have guessed that it will be possible to reduce service requirements by approximately 10,000 without affecting our operational elements.


Mr. Lambert:: Over all?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Over all. This estimate predicts a 20 per cent average saving in the
50,000	personnel employed in headquarters, regional headquarters, training and other support units. Of these we believe the largest saving can be effected at national defence headquarters. If we reach our goal we expect that the saving in dollars will amount to approximately $100 million annually, or $1 billion over a ten year period.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question? I wonder if he is not incorrect in talking about a saving. The impression has got abroad that he is going to save $100 million from total expenditure, but all he is doing is transferring a certain reduction in one area to expenditure in another area.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should be glad to clear up that point. First, we have saved $100 million and the defence estimates have been reduced

by that amount as compared with previous years. So there is a saving to the taxpayers of approximately that amount. There is, in addition to that, a $100 million a year saving which we are now talking about, which is a diversion from overhead costs to military equipment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then let us not call it a saving.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a saving in the overhead establishment which should be available to be diverted for the acquisition of new equipment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us say "reduction".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If there is some word which would please my hon. friends more, I would be happy to use it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: By saying "saving" you are confusing the public.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This reduction, or saving, will assist us in the difficult task of getting our defence expenditures back in balance. We must increase the proportion of funds available for new equipment if we are to have a viable and effective force in the years to come. The present proportion of about 14 per cent for equipment is unacceptably low and must be increased to something of the order of 25 per cent in the years ahead. Even this proportion is not high compared to other forces. The additional moneys available for equipment will not only permit us to keep our forces in better fighting shape; it will also have a beneficial effect on our Canadian defence industries. The advantage of a long range plan will permit them to plan more effectively and to assist us in meeting our equipment needs. Peaks and valleys of production will be evened out to the maximum extent possible, and the commercial and export aspects of defence requirements will be kept in mind in our planning.
I would like to say a word about the effects of the proposed reorganization on service personnel. First of all, as announced by the Associate Minister of National Defence this morning, we plan special benefits for those who will be retired in advance of their normal retirement age. This will be done as integration proceeds and as reductions occur in many branches of the armed forces, particularly in the support units. This will result in the necessity to retire some personnel. There is no question as to the loyalty, efficiency and faithful service of those who will be affected, but officers and men
National Defence Act
selected for premature retirement will be those for whom appropriate employment cannot be found within the reorganized defence force. Established positions will be eliminated when the functions now carried out by two or more individuals are amalgamated into one.
The government appreciates that the termination of service of an officer or man, through no fault of his own, may place him in a position of undue hardship. In recognition of this a special cash benefit will be provided to assist him to rehabilitate himself in civilian employment. The special gratuity is partial compensation for the loss of anticipated future earnings and reduced pension benefits. This special cash payment, which is subject to income tax, will be in addition to any normal leave or pension entitlement. The benefit will not apply to those who are released for reasons of misconduct or inefficiency, or who request their release.
The amount of the special cash benefit, to be paid in one lump sum, will increase with length of service up to a maximum of the equivalent of 10 months pay for those with 15J or more years of service. It will be reduced progressively as normal retirement age is approached. Officers serving on short service commissions are in a special category. The period of time by which their service is shortened will be the basis for calculating their benefits.
In addition to this special cash gratuity, the government will propose to parliament that the present provision in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act which provides a 5 per cent reduction in annuities for servicemen who have less than 20 years service but more than 10 years service be waived. This will be accomplished by the inclusion of an item in the next supplementary estimates of the Department of National Defence to obtain statutory authority for treasury board to direct payment of a full, immediate annuity to contributors under the act.
In so far as those who will continue to be required, Mr. Speaker-and this includes most of those now serving-there will be excellent career opportunities. I am confident that the reorganization of the Canadian armed forces will lead to greater opportunities for many of those who are now serving and for those entering the service now and in the future.
The main purpose of our program is to achieve a better balance between the combat forces and the supporting elements, and to streamline and modernize the management system. In the process there will be a reduction in over-all numbers. There will not, however, be any reduction of effectiveness

National Defence Act
and efficiency, or any elimination of positions that contribute to the capability of the forces to perform their assigned roles.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary for us to continue to recruit new men. I think this is most important. The services have a continuing need for young men. Our armed forces are very much living organizations and require a constant infusion of new blood to keep them in prime condition. For those with ability and determination, the armed forces offer expanded career prospects and opportunities in the service of Canada and the cause of world peace. Therefore I urge hon. members to encourage young men to volunteer to serve their country in the armed forces.
While the amendments to the legislation before the house are not concerned with the civil aspects of the department, I wish to say something about the important subject of civilian control. As we stated in the white paper on defence, the responsibility of the minister to maintain an effective civilian control raises, in the words of the royal commission on government organization, "a need for a strong staff group which is essentially civilian in character, outside the framework of the armed forces". This civilian staff group is supplied through the deputy minister and his permanent staff. There is no need to change the legislation relating to the deputy minister. The National Defence Act now provides, under section 7, for the appointment of a deputy minister. As in the case of deputy ministers of other departments, this position is defined under the Civil Service Act as the ''deputy head" of the department. Under section 31 of the Interpretation Act, he is the lawful deputy of the minister and can do any act or thing which the minister is empowered to do under any act or regulations.
With the reorganization of the defence staff, the problems of civil control will be very much simplified. The minister and the deputy minister and his staff will be dealing with one defence staff under a single commander. It will no longer be necessary to deal with three defence staffs, which has necessarily resulted in a good deal of the resources and energies of the civil staffs being applied to the problems of co-ordination. Civil control, as exercised by the civil staffs under the deputy minister either directly or through advice to the minister, cannot be exercised in a vacuum. It is essential that the matters over which the civil staff are to exercise control or provide advice do, in fact, come before them. With three organizations, each of which

has direct access to the minister, it is much more difficult to ensure that this does happen than it will be with a single defence staff. The changes proposed in the military organir zation in themselves will therefore facilitate the strengthening of civilian control.
In general the staff group under the deputy minister has a responsibility to the minister to see that the work of the department in all areas is carried out efficiently and economically. In other words it is their responsibility to see that the resources, manpower, materiel and money available for military purposes are used to the best advantage. To achieve this it is essential that there be a strong civil staff in the defence department outside the military chain of command for analysing and reviewing military requirements and the use of resources made available for defence. This requires a civil organization capable of reviewing and advising on defence estimates and programs.
Some changes will be made in the organization of civil staffs. As announced in the defence white paper, a program review system will be established which will provide for systematic review of all programs on a comprehensive basis covering a period of at least five years into the future. The object of this system will be to ensure that the programs being presented for the consideration of the minister, and subsequent changes to them, have been thoroughly analysed in terms of resources required to accomplish them, optional means of meeting the objectives, and the relationship to the total defence effort. This system is now in the process of being installed in the department but it will be perhaps a year before it is fully in operation. It will be necessary to some degree to reorganize civil staffs to handle adequately these new management arrangements.
In seeking to build a strong civil staff group to assist the minister in the control and management of the armed forces, I have clearly in mind the need at the same time for exercising care that the civil staffs do not assume functions which are necessary to the military staffs in order that they can efficiently control their military forces and carry out their military responsibilities. Both civil and military staffs have important roles to play and responsibilities to assume, and it is essential to efficient and effective operation that they work closely together and in harmony and understanding. I am glad to say that this is the case in the defence department today. I am certain that it will continue in the future and will, I expect, be enhanced as a result of the reorganization.

On the subject of civilian control I should mention the role of defence council. Defence council is chaired by myself or the associate minister. Its membership has included the deputy minister, the associate deputy minister, the chairman, chiefs of staff, the three chiefs of staff, and the chairman, defence research board. This council has been largely concerned with administrative policies in the department, and in the last several years has tended to meet infrequently and to exercise its influence in a limited area of defence activity.
As part of the reorganization it is our intention that defence council will become the departmental policy board at which all important policy matters relating to defence are considered, with a full interchange of views before decisions are taken. The exact membership of this council following reorganization has not yet been Anally determined, but it will include senior civil and military advisers to the minister. In order to permit it to do its work effectively the secretariat of the defence council will be provided by the deputy minister's staff. I am confident that this system will permit an effective exercise of civilian control and, equally important, civilian direction in the carrying out of defence policy as laid down by the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister permit a question at this point. Would he go into a little more detail as to how that differs from the present arrangement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I really think it would be more appropriate to go into considerable detail once the bill has been referred to the committee, but the policy direction is that submissions and programs from the armed forces of Canada, after they have been analysed by civil staffs, will then be fully discussed by the senior military and civilian advisers to the minister in defence council before they are approved. This has not been done in recent months, certainly not during the last year, and I understand not in the years immediately preceding also.
Finally may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think Canada has a unique opportunity, and consequently responsibility. The proposals put forward in the bill have been the subject of general discussions for many years and have been supported by many of the greatest military leaders of our generation. Their implementation would not be possible in some other countries at this time. In Canada, however, it is possible to proceed. We have often pioneered with new ideas in war and peace, and having proved their effectiveness
National Defence Act
set a pattern for future development. In the integration of our armed forces once again we are giving leadership in a very important area. As Canadians we have an inescapable responsibility to proceed with the plan and demonstrate its effectiveness.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset of my remarks that I find the minister has for once stuck pretty well to the rules of relevance, because he has limited his remarks precisely to the reorganization of the command structure of the forces. I think this was hardly in keeping with the spirit and the requirements of the house to discuss as a whole defence matters at this time. It is true that this could have been done on the resolution which the house approved a few moments ago, but I felt that the minister would have welcomed the opportunity to give us a general statement on defence rather than wait until his estimates appear, whenever that may be-some time in October or November, perhaps; we do not know.
I would also have appreciated an indication at this time of some of the observations he would have made regarding the interim report of the committee on defence. After all, the house has received no indication from the government as to its reaction to the white paper, other than in very general terms. The very general terms are, shall we say, the least courtesy which the minister could have offered. I may say that as a member of the defence committee I share his view about the report, that the work of the committee provided the members of this house with the opportunity to become much more familiar with defence matters and to approach the work of this committee in a real, nonpartisan manner and from a co-operative point of view.
If I may say so, as a member of the steering committee and as vice chairman of that committee I felt that we had developed a very flne spirit. My chagrin, however, has been that the government did not follow its good example of last year in setting up this committee as early in the session as possible. Seeing that the session commenced on February 18 I think it would have been quite conceivable to have set this committee up by March 15 and to have sent it along its way. I know that a goodly number of the members of the committee and also other members of this house wondered why this was not done. At least two months of valuable time has been lost. It may have been, of course, a question of timing, with the minister wanting to put forward his white paper first before

National Defence Act
the committee sat again; but I think a tactical error was made in this regard.
I agree with the minister's words that his white paper is but a charter or a guide, not a detailed and final blueprint. In commenting on the white paper today I am sure the house would not expect me to provide a counterblueprint. It is not of the type with which I seem to remember the minister in days past coming to the house, and which got a rather premature exposure much to his embarrassment. I am not going to go into that particular plan of 1959 or 1960, but from what I can recall certain things are now appearing which have some reference to that blueprint. So far as unification of the forces is concerned, at that time the proposal by the minister when he was in opposition was the appointment of a commander in chief.
In dealing with the matter of the appointment of a commander in chief I would refer the minister to the recommendations of the special committee of the house. The committee indicated that it wished to look into this matter further, and in this regard I think the minister might have been wiser if the committee had been permitted to sit earlier to look into this matter. I am most interested myself in this particular aspect. There are many people who have given this matter careful study whom I would have liked to have appear before the committee to give us the benefit of their years of study and their observations in this regard. In particular I might mention one man whom I have mentioned before, Mr. Richard S. Malone, who has written some very fine articles. I may not necessarily be in full agreement with him, but he has made a very careful study of the whole picture of the command structure of our armed forces.
I think it is here we have to start, and in my opinion it is unfortunate that there has come into the picture now the idea of the integration of the forces. We have started with unification of command, and the white paper speaks of this as the first step in integration. Here again I believe the minister has been premature, because the matter of integration of the forces is an entirely different thing from the unification of command. I would have been much more satisfied as to the wisdom of the government's decision if we had had the time and opportunity to look at the ramifications of integration in detail. There is a great deal more involved in integration of the forces than there is in the unification of command under one commander in chief.
I am wondering just where the minister has received his advice in this regard. True

enough his service chiefs will have assisted him, but I should like to know where he got his underlying motivation, inspiration and justification for integration of the forces; because it is quite clearly stated in the white paper that this is the aim. I would have liked to see a great deal more evidence on the pros and cons of integration. It is not sufficient for him to say "We think in our wisdom that we should integrate''. We want to know the reasons why there should be integration. We want to be able to discuss them.
True enough, an opportunity will come when the committee sits, because undoubtedly it will look into the white paper in great detail. But already the government is committed to this course of action, and surely we are not going to have the Minister of National Defence following the practice that has taken place in other sectors of the government in the last year of taking a major step forward and then having to back away from it. Surely we have a right to expect something else better than that.
The minister has taken a major step, but he has not disclosed to members of the house any really valid reasons. It is easy for him to say that it is in order to achieve efficiency and to streamline the operations, but that is not sufficient. We will have to have something much more than that. Again, I would have liked a little more detail as to the progress that has been made in this regard. The move was announced some time ago. Undoubtedly there has been a good deal of planning and there may have been some steps taken to this end. Can the minister give us a general timetable for the next few months as to how this will take place?
I have heard that the date of July 1, 1967 has been set as a sort of D-day for the completion of this program, or is it going to be U-day? Some people are saying that by this date everybody will be wearing a common uniform. We will leave that minor detail aside, but we would like to have more detail as to the programming in so far as unification is concerned.
The minister has indicated that he feels it will mean an over-all reduction of 10,000 service personnel. Will it also mean-I trust we can place this interpretation on his remarks-a reduction in the number of civilian personnel who are an integral part of national defence? We know there is and has been a very large civil staff, but if this move will merely mean that 10,000 people will put on their bowler hats in order to carry out the same jobs in mufti then there is little to be

gained by this transfer. It is true that the minister has indicated the move will mean a 20 per cent reduction in personnel on the administrative side at national defence headquarters, in certain of the supply units and so on, but this $100 million per annum reduction in what I would call the housekeeping or overhead costs will naturally have to be transferred for use in the purchase and maintenance of equipment.
The minister has not made a great discovery in this regard. I remember one of his predecessors, General Pearkes, expressing his concern at the time we were having special committees on defence expenditures. The service people who advised the former minister were quite correct. The actual forecasts and behaviour with respect to the proportion of defence expenditures have worked out as they forecast back in 1959 and 1960. There is nothing new there, and there has been no major discovery. The same problem is also present in the British, the Danish, the German and the French forces. Certainly this is always one problem. How much is it going to cost to house, pay, feed and generally cover the overhead of this outfit? I like to call these the general housekeeping expenses. Then we have to ascertain how much is left over to buy equipment.
There is a tendency for housekeeping to become more costly. I suppose it is like any domestic operation. As husbands we find that our domestic operations seem to cost more year by year, and there may be a tendency in this regard as well in national defence. The minister did mention certain things about retirement. I am going to leave this matter of unification with the criticisms I have made. I believe the plan has been disclosed prematurely without study by the committee on defence. I believe we could have had the advice of people outside of the minister's present advisers in this regard. I think we could have derived a good deal of benefit as a result of hearing all these views.
I fully agree with the fact that there should be unification. I understand that as a logical step. There is, however, one side of the matter that has left me somewhat puzzled; that, is the extent of the civilian control from the minister's own side of the department. Where is the independent yardstick to be applied by the Minister of National Defence? This has been a problem in the past, and unless I have misunderstood the minister's remarks I think this problem will exist in the future. It is true that there is to be the defence council. However, is it to be an independent body under the direct
National Defence Act
control of the minister which can apply that yardstick without having a responsibility for administration within the department? There is the minister, the associate minister and the deputy minister, but I am not too sure about the composition of the remainder of the defence council.
In order to really assess the situation I should like to see an organization that could give the minister independent advice. Witnesses before the defence committee indicated they thought that the commander in chief should be an adviser to the minister and not responsible for the administration of the armed services. It is true this does raise one question; how can you advise if you have not got responsibility? I will admit that this raises a problem, but where is the independent advice for the minister? After all the minister must then go to cabinet, and where is that independent advice for cabinet? This has always puzzled me; where is this independent advice? If anything is to be checked out, if anything is to be rejected or modified, is it done by intuition? Is it done for political considerations? Any time there has been a modification it has been given the mantle of a political modification, and I think that is wrong.
I know the minister is feeling his way in this regard. However, I suggest to him very strongly that there should be this independent, shall we say, control. The minister says it is part of the function of the civilian staff to provide some of the control, and the white paper mentions defence programming. To whom are these people responsible? Are they responsible directly to the minister without any intermediate responsibility through the deputy minister?
I am asking these questions because these are the things we should be asking in the defence committee before parliament is committed to this program. Unless the minister is able to give us these answers, I think he has taken a step without looking at a lot of these potential problems. Certainly they exist. These questions pop up in the minds of the members of the defence committee. I believe the minister had better be prepared to give us a full explanation as to how this is going to work; otherwise I believe all we will have had is a great shuffling, "plus ga change, plus c'est la meme chose".
I think the minister is aware of the problem I have put to him in this regard. How are you going to test the advice that is given to you? After all, the minister is not a professional military man. Usually the



National Defence Act
ministers are not. I think perhaps it is far better that he should not be; otherwise he is like the physician who is prescribing for himself, and that is not good at all. Let us find out how the minister is going to be be able to test and weigh the advice that he gets from within the service. I have discussed this with senior officers and they agree that there must be some form of examination, otherwise you may be so blinded by the justice of your own cause that you fail to see some of the difficulties. I hope that within this framework the minister is able to provide us with answers to these criticisms I have mentioned.
As a consequence of this reorganization the minister mentioned retirements. I suppose this is partly the answer the associate minister indicated would be given to the services today. What happens to those people who are being prematurely retired? They will be given a certain cash gratuity which is subject to tax. This is to compensate them in some way for the interruption of their military career and, presumably, the reduction in pension benefits they will enjoy under the pension act by reason of their shortened service. There seems to be one major restriction, that the cash benefit will not be paid to any service personnel who request premature retirement at this time.
I am wondering why that is so. I would have thought there were a number of senior officers and perhaps senior N.C.O.'s who may be two or three years away from normal retirement who could help the minister in his desire to reduce the forces by requesting that they go out now rather than wait out their time. After all, if they do so it must mean that they have an opportunity to resettle themselves in civilian life without too much dislocation.
I think in appropriate cases this should be permitted. After all, we have seen it in many another type of service in this country and other countries, in order to loosen out the top. I think the minister is faced with the problem of having a great number of senior officers, people of a certain age who have seen service in world war II. I believe there should be a loosening out in this, shall we say, rank structure. Why not give them the inducement to get out now if they have only a matter of a couple of years or three years to go to pension age, and let there be a waiver of the disabilities under service superannuation.
I now turn to other matters which the minister did not touch upon, but on which he has taken a lot of action since defence

was last considered in this house. The first is the militia, and I shall not go into that question in detail. Some of my colleagues will speak on it, but my particular interest concerns why the statement was made in respect to the reduction and reorganization of the militia when the defence committee had already set it aside as a special problem for examination. The committee's work in this regard would have assisted the minister.
The committee did plenty of work to assist the minister in what was probably the most urgent area, Europe. It was on that particular point that the committee concentrated its efforts, got the greatest amount of advice and offered the most numerous recommendations. I am glad to see the minister acceded in part to those recommendations, and I believe that strengthens my argument that it would have been better to withhold an announcement so far as the militia were concerned until the committee had dealt with that problem.
I can assure the minister there is a great deal of unrest in the ranks of the militia, unrest caused by uncertainty. If the minister wanted to carry out a reorganization of the militia, and I think one was due, it would have been preferable for him to set up the committee under Brigadier Suttie to examine the problem before making an announcement regarding what was to be done.
The minister made a grand announcement about the militia and the naval and air force reserves. Orders were issued that premises had to be vacated by certain dates, and no provision was made for the training of cadets. Because of that the orders were deferred, a review was made of the premises, and they are to be kept in operation until the end of June, when it is expected that we will get the report from the minister's committee or commission in regard to the militia. But why was there this sort of grandiloquent announcement and then withdrawals from it? The militia are most unhappy. This has left them up in the air.
What does the minister think about the survival operations training in the militia? Where does this fit in? The white paper has indicated that survival training and operations must be subject to the location of an anti-I.C.B.M. deployment, when and if that comes, and that no decision can be reached in the interim on survival operations. This is a rather unhappy state of affairs, and again it would have been far better to wait to see what the committee would bring forth, had it sat early enough this year to have gone into the question of the militia, survival training and survival operations.

I do not know how far the minister has gone in contacting the militia to get their reactions to this, but I can tell him that they are very unhappy. What about all our national survival and radiation control projects? Certain construction projects have gone forward and some have been interrupted. Officers have been posted as radiation control officers, but once they get that posting they have nothing to do. The whole thing is in a process of uncertainty. For the life of me I cannot understand why some of these decisions were announced in the manner they were and then the whole thing left hanging. Whether it was because of a certain desire to impress somebody that something was being done, I do not know. I do not even know that it has yet shown it is going to save money, because the cut-back of so many thousands in the militia is only a cut-back on paper, as the men are not there, and that means there is no saving of money. It is only when you cut back the effective strength that you are going to save money.
One of the things I hope the minister will be able to discuss with us was raised by the defence committee, with regard to the complexities introduced into his department by the existence of two ministers. I know this is a delicate matter and perhaps the minister does not want to step on the toes of the associate minister, but I ask is it absolutely necessary to have two ministers within the framework of the Department of National Defence? The administration of the department is great, but I would think it is still possible to organize that department on the basis of one minister and on one minister alone. I am not suggesting that the associate minister wishes to fire the Minister of National Defence or vice versa, but this is something fundamental, particularly when we are going to get a reorganization on a functional basis within the whole department.
Before terminating my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the minister in paying a tribute to the men and women in the armed services.
They have served well. A lot of them will no longer be needed. But I can assure this committee that many senior officers with whom I have discussed this question over the past year felt there was a need for change, a change in approach. Obviously there are likely to be serious dislocations, but I believe anyone who approached this question in a spirit of calmness and objectivity would realize that some changes were necessary in the Department of National Defence. Certainly changes were due with regard to
National Defence Act
some roles, and I will limit myself today to this particular point. I could cover a wide spectrum as far as Europe is concerned. I could deal with the militia in greater detail. I should certainly like to examine the role of our troops in Europe. But I will leave these matters to some of my colleagues who served on the defence committee and took part in the examination of those subjects.
I hope the minister in his closing statement will furnish us with much more information. I have tried to remain strictly relevant to the subject today although a wide open debate is permitted. It is for this reason that I am not touching on certain of the subjects I have mentioned. The contents of this bill are to be referred to the committee on defence, but here again there is a difficulty. The minister naturally wishes to go forward. He is asking us to go ahead right now. The committee on defence could say "We will leave this bill to the end." However, I do not think the minister would want that to happen. I would caution him, however, that I do not think the bill need come out of the committee very quickly. I say this because the measure has so many ramifications which will need to be examined. As long as the minister is reasonably patient with us, this examination can be carried out. As long as he does not want the bill back, say, in two weeks from now, the committee will be able to carry out its task.
I should like to know what deadline he has in mind as far as this proposal is concerned. I think we must be very careful about this, because the legislation now before us is the foundation of the whole structure and if we go wrong at this point we are likely to go wrong at many others. I for one would have preferred, at the present time, to have examined something else in the committee, but now the minister has forced our hands and I am a little unhappy about it.
There are others who wish to speak on this subject as well as on other aspects of defence. I had hoped the minister would give us a much fuller statement on defence matters generally than he did, because it is several months since he gave a report on these matters to the house and to the country.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We in
this party welcome the reappointment of the special committee on defence. The committee, as its own report shows, was well aware that it only scratched the surface in its investigation of the matters committed to it. In fact the report lists a whole series of subjects which in the opinion of the committee require further study.

National Defence Act
The very first recommendation of the committee was that it be reappointed early in the session. I must say I hope it was just an oversight or accident, rather than a reflection of the seriousness with which the government takes this committee, that in fact the committee is not being reconstituted until well into the month of May. I think members of the committee all feel that the committee could do a more useful job if it were sitting more or less continuously while parliament itself is in session.
In this party we shall support Bill C-90 on its second reading. In our view it provides a useful first step or piece of machinery looking to the integration of the armed forces; I think the hon. member for Edmonton West used some other expression, "concentration of command". Whatever it is, we think it is a useful first step. Indeed, in the light of the role which we see for our armed forces, a role I intend to discuss later, we believe that integration of staff, or integration of command, is not only advisable but absolutely essential. However, I should like to devote most of my remarks to expressing as clearly and vigorously as I can our disagreement-my disagreement-with the defence policy outlined in the government's white paper.
May I call it one o'clock? I am beginning a new subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, when I ceased speaking at one o'clock I had just explained that I intended to use the opportunity presented by this debate to say as clearly and vigorously as I could that we in this party disagree with a great deal of the defence policy outlined in the government's white paper. When the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made his famous speech in Scarborough in January, 1963, he said that his party felt bound to honour the commitments made by the previous government to acquire tactical nuclear warheads for our army brigade in Europe and for the strike reconnaissance squadrons stationed in Europe, as well as for the Voodoos and Bomarc missiles attached to NORAD. At the same time, however, he promised a thorough examination

of the whole basis of Canadian defence policy. I would like to quote his words on that occasion. This is the Scarborough speech of January 12, 1963, in which he said:
The government should re-examine at once the whole basis of Canadian defence policy. In particular it should discuss with the United States and with NATO a role for Canada in continental and collective defence which would be more realistic and effective for Canada than the present one.
This examination would be concerned, among other things, with the necessity of building up NATO's conventional forces and the part Canada could play in this.
A little later he said:
In the full re-examination of defence policy, and in which all parties could participate through a defence committee of the House of Commons, a Liberal government would be guided by the following considerations:
I will not read all the considerations, but one of them was this:
Our financial resources are limited. Therefore we should be careful to see that our defence dollars are spent sensibly and economically, avoiding commitments which require expensive equipment that is, or soon will be obsolete; and activities that are, or soon will be, meaningless.
Later, if I am not mistaken, I heard the Prime Minister say in this house that the tactical nuclear commitment that he said had been made by the previous government was, in his opinion, a mistake. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) himself when in opposition wrote an article which was published on January 25, 1963 in which he explained the defence policy of the Liberal government. This article was in a paper called The Varsity Weekend Review, and in it, as one might expect, the minister supported the stand taken by the Prime Minister at Scarborough. He added these words, however:
One of the questions which bothers many sincere people is this: Will not the fulfilment of our commitments now make it impossible for us to pursue anything but a nuclear role in the future? The answer in my opinion is a resounding no.
In the future we will be able to adopt the policy which we think is most in keeping with our national objectives. Once the policy has been agreed on, however, we will be expected to fulfil it without equivocation.
Then he said:
The other question people are asking is why we bother to fulfil our commitments when we intend to negotiate new ones in due course.
He goes on to explain that:
Only in this way can we earn again the right to speak forcefully in the alliance. Second, renegotiation implies consent of our allies, and when agreement has been reached the implementation of a new policy cannot be achieved at once-it is physically impossible. It will require, at best, several months for a new government to adopt a sound, long range policy and present it to our allies for

concurrence. It will take several years to Implement the new agreed policy within the limitations of orderliness and a reasonable level of defence expenditures. In other words, by the time a new policy could be implemented in full our present commitments would be honoured in full, and the equipment we now have would have served its useful life.
Consistently with those two pronouncements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, we in the defence committee, the members of the house, and indeed the Canadian public have heard from time to time about this proposed re-examination of Canada's defence role. We were led to expect that out of the white paper would emerge, I think it was called a bold, new policy for Canada that would set a new course for Canada's defence posture for a decade. It is our view, Mr. Speaker, that the mountains have laboured and produced a mouse. The white paper contains some sensible and useful observations and a few good suggestions as to the machinery, but when it comes to the re-examination of Canada's role, the white paper evades the issue. It calls for nothing more than a continuance of policies based on a strategy which in our opinion is obsolete, provocative and dangerous.
The white paper has had a very good press. I suspect the reason for this is that many of our editorial writers and commentators seem to know little and care less about the problem of defence. I do not expect to gain any particular popularity in those circles by saying this, but the facts speak for themselves. The general public has been led to believe that the integration of the services which is proposed by the white paper and which is partially implemented, or perhaps a better word would be foreshadowed, by the bill before the house will result in substantial reductions of the defence budget. Indeed, in my own home town we saw screaming headlines in the newspapers the day the white paper was announced declaring a $100 million cut in defence expenses. In all fairness the white paper does not pretend to say any such thing. Page 19 is very much more modest. It says this:
Thus, integration will result in a substantial reduction of manpower strength in headquarters, training and related establishments, along with other operating and maintenance costs. The total savings to be effected as a result of such reductions will make available funds for capital equipment purchases, and eventually make possible more equitable distribution of the defence dollar between equipment and housekeeping costs. Sufficient savings should accrue from unification to permit a goal of 25 per cent of the budget to be devoted to capital equipment being realized in the years ahead.
National Defence Act
The goal is, therefore, that 25 per cent of the expenditures should be devoted to capital equipment. But the special committee on defence-and I assume the information they had was accurate-makes this statement in paragraph 39 of its report:
Evidence presented to the committee shows that approximately 77 per cent of Canada's total defence budget, 1963-1964, is allocated to the payment of salaries and to expenditures concerning maintenance and operations, while only 23 per cent of the budget is for new equipment.
I do not know whether the phrase "new equipment" as used there is the same matter which is referred to as "capital equipment" in the white paper, but if it is you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the aim of the white paper is to achieve a shift from 23 per cent to 25 per cent. While that is a laudable, worth-while objective, the size of the change is not very remarkable.
A close examination of the white paper indicates that if-and I emphasize the word if-its recommendations are carried out it will involve a substantial addition to present defence expenditures. The white paper proposes a series of what it calls major expenditures and these are new expenditures to be made largely in the next few years. Page 24 of the white paper says:
On the basis of this assessment, major expenditures in the next few years will be designed to:
(a)	re-equip the army as a mobile force;
(b)	provide an adequate air and sea lift for its immediate deployment in an emergency:
(c)	acquire tactical aircraft;
(d)	maintain a relatively constant improvement of maritime anti-submarine capability.
Those are praiseworthy objectives and I am not opposing them in any way, but I do say that if we continue our former commitments and then add these new expenditures which are proposed in the white paper we shall be adding to the burden of taxation of the Canadian people in regard to defence rather than reducing it. And this will be at a time when the responsible leaders of most of the other major countries of the world are in fact reducing their expenditure on defence.
I know the minister confined himself to the bill, but he did not touch on what is the major problem facing Canada in the matter of defence, and that is that we are in my view faced with a choice of roles in the field of defence. I think it is the tragedy of the white paper, and the weakness of the policy of this government, that no choice is made between the options but that the government seeks to do both things at the same time. One option, as I see it, is to go on doing just what we have done before, that is

National Defence Act
a process of escalation which will then end in the suicide of a mutual strategic nuclear holocaust.
Another thing that has changed the views of those concerned with strategy is recognition of the fact that the myth of a vast Soviet superiority in conventional forces was just that, a myth. Mr. McNamara made that abundantly clear in his speech in November to which I have already made reference.
I suggest that our strike reconnaissance force is particularly dangerous because it is vulnerable. The incentive in a moment of rising tension for one side or the other to strike first is so great, they cannot wait to be sure whether or not war is coming. There is an ambiguous act that may mean war, and the advantage of destroying the other person on the ground before they have destroyed you is so great that the situation may well get out of control and an unintended nuclear holocaust would follow. Indeed, in my opinion that is the main danger of war at the present time. There is very little danger of anybody being so crazy as to attempt the suicidal course of a planned nuclear attack on Europe or North America. This is highly improbable unless we assume a degree of insanity that does not exist. What is less improbable is that, with this confrontation of massive power set up in Europe some incident will arise and tension will grow and the temptation to release a striking force first will be so powerful that the thing will not end until there is the destruction of our civilization.
We were told in Europe-when I say "we", I mean the defence committee-by the wisest observers, that the strike reconnaissance role should not be carried out by aircraft based on the ground because they are too vulnerable. It should be carried out by Polaris submarines which can afford to wait. There is no incentive to use them immediately for the purpose of averting a threat by striking first. If only submarines were used in this particular instance one could afford to wait to make sure the threat is unambiguous, and war is real. Even the ability to wait a few hours could make the difference between destruction of the world and non-destruction. Why do I say this? I say this because even a few hours many enable political wisdom and common sense to intervene and the disaster of all-out war would be prevented.
What does the white paper say about this strike reconnaissance role? It says nothing but that we should carry out what we have been doing. What does it say about our contribution to the front line? It says we should maintain our present role in Europe, but it
tMr. Brewin.]
points out no military reason for doing so at all. It alleges political necessity for doing so. It is suggested that if we pull out of the front line and cease carrying on this particular role, somehow or other we will undermine the whole idea of NATO and the morale of the European countries.
I want to make it very clear I am not advocating the total withdrawal of our forces from Europe. As I have said already, our intervention forces such as I have recommended, could play in my view a much more useful military role than the role we are playing at the present time. I agree it would be a mistake to do anything that might imply disunity or weakness in the western alliance. However, I suggest it would be a sign of good sense as well as strength if Canada and her NATO allies were to move towards easing the political tensions in Europe by ceasing to rely upon tactical nuclear weapons as an immediate response to any threat in Europe. I am not suggesting they should be thrown into the sea. I am suggesting they be withdrawn well behind the line, where they would not be used early in any conflict which arises. Canada's contribution to European defence is probably one two hundredth of the whole. I suggest it is a little ridiculous to suggest that, because we move out of a role that I suggest is dangerous and no longer necessary, somehow or other that would undermine the defence of Europe. After all, Europe is not what it was when we first sent our troops to NATO. Europe has grown stronger and grown more prosperous. She is perfectly well able to look after her own commitments although, as I say, the contribution of an intervention force to deal with problems which, according to the information we received were at the top end of the spectrum, the things most likely to happen, such as probes in Norway, in Denmark, in Turkey or Thrace-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would he explain to me the difference between his proposed intervention force and the force we have planned?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am saying you should have concentrated on this intervention force-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But what is the difference between your proposed force and ours?


Francis Andrew Brewin: You have proposed in your white paper two brigades and you propose to equip them more effectively to play this intervention role. I think that is a good idea,

and I have said so. However, I do not believe you can do that and carry on this other role which at one time the minister himself thought should be re-examined, and of which I believe he was just as sceptical not very long ago as I am myself.
I must say that the white paper reminds me of the old case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the person with the split personality. I do not know whether the minister claims authorship for the entire white paper, but I read somewhere in a newspaper that he was the main author. Certainly, he accepts responsibility. I find interspersed between sensible and perceptive observations, some good suggestions with weak and evasive conclusions. There is, however, one good thing about the white paper, and that is it makes a virtue out of flexibility. I hope the policy is sufficiently flexible to enable the government to move quickly towards the adoption of the sort of defence policy that we in this party recommend. We recommend a policy and role which is realistic and distinctively Canadian, a policy which we think is commensurate with our means and our aptitudes, a policy which is needed in the world, indeed in the alliance. We believe that this policy would be consistent with an international policy based upon the strengthening of the United Nations and its peace forces, a policy based upon the urgent need for making progress in disarmament, particularly in the difficult but dangerous confrontation in central Europe.
Lastly, we believe that this is a contribution that Canada is particularly fitted to make because it cannot be made in the same way by the major powers or the former colonial powers. We think that we can make it and we should concentrate on making a contribution to these peace keeping forces through strengthening the United Nations and eventually building in that way a world order. The government has moved in that direction and I commend them for it, but they have not had the courage to break off from the old things they were doing before. I venture to suggest that if you try to do both of these things together, you will find yourselves on the horns of a dilemma and one or the other will have to go. I am afraid that as long as you stick to these old commitments and do not boldly say they are obsolete or outdated, and we have to get out of them, then I do not think you are likely to make a really effective contribution to the peace keeping forces about which the Prime Minister himself has spoken so eloquently in his speeches and about which he has written in Maclean's.
National Defence Act
I think that this white paper is a disappointment in that it promises us a bold new policy, but it advances haltingly and inadequately towards that policy. It fails to grasp the facts that it should have grasped. I hope the flexibility it promises means that the government is still open to give real reconsideration to the role that Canada should play in defence.


Alexander Bell Patterson: We
welcome this opportunity today to participate in the debate on this very important subject of national defence. It does not seem as though these opportunities present themselves too often. We do hope that in the course of this particular debate we shall be able to discuss a great many related subjects and we will not be confined to the particular measure that is actually before the house. My understanding is that a fairly wide range is permitted in this debate at the moment and I shall proceed, therefore, on that basis.
Many references have been made and are being made today to the apparent relaxation in international tension. We certainly hope that there is some basis for these particular statements. On the other hand, in view of all the considerations we dare not be lulled into any feeling of false security, so I believe the maintenance of a relatively small but efficient defence force is essential at the present time to remind any potential aggressor that we will not tolerate any violation of our national borders nor any infringement of our sovereignty. In addition to that responsibility of defending our own borders, we have the broader participation in the North American defence operations, and the still wider responsibility of making our contribution to the defence of the free world.
As has been pointed out, during the course of the last session the special committee on defence was established. I believe that generally people look upon the establishment of that committee as a very worth-while project. Many people who have given some attention to the matter would agree very satisfactory work was done by that committee during its sittings last year.
Just prior to Christmas the committee tabled a report, which had been prepared somewhat in haste and without having the time to complete a thorough study of all the relevant problems. Nevertheless, that report does make some definite recommendations. I do not want to take up the time of the house today by reading the list of the various items to which the committee felt attention must be given.

National Defence Act
It is rather extensive, and there was no desire on the part of the committee to intimate in any sense that it had completed its assignment.
The general feeling among committee members was really that we had just commenced our studies, and the iterim report that was submitted contained just a few of the recommendations that were more or less obvious ones. With regard to a great many other important matters, the committee felt a lot of them were of such magnitude that it was not in a position to make any definite recommendations with regard to them. Therefore it submitted a list of these other matters which it decided should be considered when the committee was reconstituted.
As I say, the committee made certain specific recommendations, but having listened to the minister's statement today I wonder if he thinks they were very important. In fact the general attitude of the minister has been rather discouraging, so far as the work of the committee is concerned. He has given us his blessing. He has stated that every cooperation would be given the committee, but yet in a great many instances we have found that he has proceeded to forge ahead in certain fields that the committee felt should be thoroughly studied before any action was taken in them.
In other cases the minister has indicated somewhat of an impatience with the work of the committee, and that he had to move ahead himself because, in the final analysis, it is his responsibility to make important decisions. For that reason I wonder whether the minister places any great reliance upon the recommendations of the committee, or whether he has any practical appreciation of the work that the committee has been endeavouring to do.
The main item which is before us today is Bill C-90, which has to do with the unification of command. In paragraph 27 of its report the committee made mention of this particular matter as follows:
In order to follow up the second chapter, further time is required to study the following matters:
(a)	Integration and co-ordination of the armed services.
(b)	Role of the militia and other reserves.
(c)	Compulsory military service.
(d)	Manpower management.
(e)	Service colleges.
(f)	Civil defence.
This shows the committee felt sufficient study had not been given to this particular matter of unification and integration, and it suggested that when the committee was reconstituted it would be able to give its time and attention to a more thorough study and

analysis of this particular problem. But now we find the minister moving forward, introducing the amendment having to do with this matter, thus showing neglect and a repudiation of the position of the committee relative to such a study.
The minister made a statement and referred to the necessity for a long range, coordinated defence policy. He stated that the moves that were anticipated through the introduction of this amendment were just part of this long range, co-ordinated defence policy. We certainly hope the time has arrived when we will have a co-ordinated, long range defence policy, because so far as the people of Canada are concerned they have been very dissatisfied. They have wondered just what the policy was, just what direction we were heading in, and what it was all about, because there did not seem to be any clear enunciation of defence policy in a manner that would enable them to understand what the minister and his department were trying to do in this particular matter.
Reference was made this morning to savings, and I would like to find a more adequate word because it was pointed out that this was more in the nature of a transfer of certain funds from one part of the budget to another. It was pointed out by one of the previous speakers that the percentage of the defence budget for overhead expenses was so far above the amount of money allowed for the procurement of new equipment that it was very badly out of balance. Reference was made to the matter of a 25 per cent, 75 per cent, and so on ratio. I can understand why the minister wants to make some correction in this particular matter, because it was pointed out by a number of the witnesses who appeared before the committee that there was a serious imbalance in this matter, and that more of the defence dollar should be spent on the procurement of new equipment with a consequent lowering of the percentage allowed for overhead and maintenance.
The minister also made reference to the provision for those who would be retiring prematurely because of the reorganization of the defence department. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised the question as to why there should be some discrimination regarding those who may want to retire and who express the desire to retire prematurely. If we are going to dispense with the services of a certain number of personnel then I do not know why people who may wish to retire prematurely should be penalized. It could be done on a voluntary

basis and then the balance of the forced retirements would make up the total figure envisaged. I do not think people should be penalized and deprived of this consideration just because they would prefer to retire earlier.
This whole matter will have some effect upon the employment situation, upon the ability of individuals to secure gainful employment. Every precaution should be taken and every consideration given to see to it that those who are going to be displaced in this particular manner will not suffer unduly because of the change of policy. I wish to say right now that I agree with the proposal which is before us. I think it has been under study for a considerable length of time. I believe there are many aspects of it which should be analysed before we move forward with the whole program, but I believe it is a move in the right direction. Further, after discussing this matter with a great many people across this country, in the services and outside them, I have come to the conclusion that there is general support for a move of this kind intended to make the operation of our defence establishment more efficient.
Without question a radical change in defence thinking and planning is taking place. This has been made imperative as a result of the changes which have been taking place in weaponry and political alliances. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a degree of flexibility, as far as defence planning is concerned, so as to keep in step with these various changes. Speaking personally, I think we should commend the minister for the initiative he has shown in taking hold of a difficult situation. In spite of the fact that his actions might not have been acceptable in some circles, he had the courage and the initiative to go ahead and propose changes which I believe have been due for a long time.
As we consider the problem of defence generally, as far as Canada is concerned, I think we find ourselves in a special position, or a difficult position, because Canada with a huge land mass and a relatively small population must find it hard to meet every situation which could possibly arise relative to her defence. I do not think it is easy to plan in these circumstances. I do not think it is easy to envisage the situations which may arise in the future and exactly how we ought to prepare to meet them. For this reason, as I say, I believe a certain degree of flexibility is necessary, and the fact that
National Defence Act
the minister has indicated his agreement with this view is to be commended.
I shall not attempt to elaborate this afternoon the policy which we in this group have advanced from time to time, except to say that it seems as though the ideas we have suggested and which we have in mind are gradually being recognized and that at least some of the proposals we put forward are being adopted. I do not say we can take any credit for that, but at least we had the vision to put forward some of these ideas which are now being taken up and implemented. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who spoke before me, said the government was taking a halting step in this direction. Well, I believe halting steps are better than no steps at all. The direction in which we are moving at this time and the proposals which are being made indicate that the government is moving on a course which is, I believe, acceptable to a great many people across the nation.
I should like to read a brief paragraph from a statement made by our leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) stating defence policy. He said Canada's objectives should be the creation of a strong, modern, completely mobile and efficient force. I think that sums it up succinctly. We still believe this should be our objective. Canadian forces must be adequate to maintain surveillance of our skies and coasts and also to meet any emergency which may arise. However, we have a wider responsibility. I believe it is essential that we should continue to co-operate with the United States in measures for the defence of the North American continent. This was pointed out, I believe, in the committee's report. On page 758, the recommendation is that Canada remain a member of NORAD since the defence of North America is a joint responsibility. I believe this is essential because, as I have indicated, Canada, with its vast land area and small population cannot hope to meet the challenge which would be imposed by any massive aggression. We must, therefore, depend to a large extent on our neighbours and, in turn, we must be willing to make our contribution to the extent that it is possible in the defence of North America.
Moving further afield, there is a necessity for continued co-operation with our NATO allies in the field of collective defence. This subject would possibly lead us into a discussion of nuclear arms and nuclear commitments. I do not intend to go deeply into that now, because the views of our group have already been set forth in this respect.

National Defence Act
Here again, if we interpret correctly the tenor of the evidence given by witnesses before the defence committee and, somehow, project the nature of the move being made on the part of the government, it would appear we are leaving the nuclear field, now, in favour of a more conventional type of operation. We think this is to be commended. Indeed, we have advocated it through the past years.
The United Nations remains, of course, the universal organization to which is committed the maintenance of peace. In this connection we have supported and continue to support the contributions which Canada is making because these, after all, are part of national defence. In contributing in any way to the maintenance of peace in the world, no matter where the peace may be threatened, we are contributing to our own national defence. The world today is getting smaller. We can no longer think of it as segments separated by so many miles or days. The world is shrinking and becoming exceedingly small. Therefore we believe that in continuing our support of the United Nations and its peace keeping operations we are making a contribution to the defence of our own nation as well as to the peace of the world.
I just wanted to make these few remarks about the bill which is before us and about the whole subject of national defence. Others of our group will be speaking on this subject. We do think it is necessary to maintain, as I have said, a strong, well equipped, modern mobile force because we believe that in this way we can best defend this nation and make our contribution to the defence of the North American continent as well.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, in respect to Bill No. C-90 with which we are dealing, we understand from the different expressions we have heard and from looking over the bill that it is concerned with an integration of the armed forces and concentration of command. These expressions apply very well to the subject we are discussing, but the bill itself is mainly concerned with the concentration of command. We also have the information given us by the minister in the white paper on defence, which I imagine is a summary of his ideas on the establishment of a military program, and so forth. Coupled with that we have another summary of the white paper. This makes three summaries. I will probably try to summarize them, so on the whole these summaries may be very lengthy. I
[Mr. Patterson.)
shall try to give a summary of the summary of the summary in order to arrive at what should be done in this matter of defence. If the minister will refer to Hansard he will see that on Friday, December 9, 1963 I spoke on this matter to a certain extent, and I do not intend to repeat what I said on that occasion. However, I will reiterate a few of the points I raised at that time, especially concerning the integration of the armed forces.
Before dealing with that matter I would like to say to the minister that in my opinion this bill should be a little more extensive.
I know it is a starting point, but the starting point is not quite correct, as I understand the position, because today we are talking about the naming of the chief of the main headquarters and, if my information is correct, he has been named already and is leaving tomorrow with the delegation for Colorado Springs. I will let the minister answer that one and say whether I am correct. Also, I gather that the headquarters will still be in Colorado Springs. I have always understood Colorado Springs to be in the United States and I do not imagine its location will be changed in any way after we have named the chief of the main headquarters. I have a suspicion that not only the minister controls that office, but also some of our good and willing neighbours sometimes give us a helping hand, which I would say is not always to our own benefit. If we are to have a command which is completely Canadian, I do not see why we have to establish it in the United States. This is one point about which the minister should be concerned and should endeavour to bring this command back to Canada. We and the United States have to work together as an international power. That is okay; but working together means we must also be able to make some of our own decisions.
We have been discussing the integration of our forces, and quite a few question marks pop up as we consider this problem. In fact, some objections were made in this regard last summer when we were on a NATO tour of different military bases in Europe. These objections were raised by some of the high ranking officers and were on this basis. When we spoke with somebody in the navy, he had his views on it. Then we went over and saw somebody in the army. He had his views on it, and his views were different. Then we went and saw somebody in the air force, and he had different views on it. We found that these views are not always the same. The navy would be willing to be integrated completely

so long as they were allowed to keep their traditions and customs. This also applies to the army and the air force. This is one thing the minister has not discussed in the white paper. Perhaps he has an idea of what he is going to do in regard to the necessary coordination. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on page 19 of the white paper on defence we find the following passage:
Two objections are given as reasons why integration should not be undertaken. First, that morale or "esprit de corps" is weakened, and second, that competition is diminished. Neither of these objections will stand against careful scrutiny.
The last one, namely that competition is diminished, can probably be overcome because I do not see how two Canadian armed forces such as the army and the navy can be competitive when they are trying to defend their own skins. There might be some people like that, because there is always pride in one's force, but I think this could be overcome. With regard to esprit de corps-and this is the most important of the two considerations- I think we can imagine the esprit de corps of the Canadian army as a whole, but there are different points which are going to be very ticklish to deal with. Whether you integrate or not, you will still have an air force, a navy and an army, and the guy who is undergoing army training is not riding on the boats or ships. The man in the navy is going to be boasting about the ships, and the man in the army is going to say how good it feels to be on solid ground. I think these are two different fields of activity which could be commanded by one general headquarters, but the soldiers or the bottom men will still have their own feelings and in my opinion will always keep them. This was one of the main objections raised by the military people themselves. They were wondering whether they were going to be given the same uniform. This is one thing the minister has not mentioned, although I may not have correctly understood what he said. You cannot have complete unity if you start producing a distinguishing effect with the uniform. Is the navy, the army, or the air force going to have a distinctive uniform, or will they all have the same uniform? Also, you have the civilian men in the army. They also have rank and qualifications. How are they going to be considered in this whole set-up? The minister has probably considered this matter, but this is one fact that we bring to his attention.
The minister this morning spoke mainly about saving $100 million. It is always good to save money, but if we are going to save money, or amend or change something, we must do it for the benefit and good of all.
National Defence Act
I agree with the minister about concentrating the integration of the armed forces under one command, but the way to go about it is what I would like to know about in more detail.
There is another thing upon which I commend the minister. In fact, I spoke about it on December 9. This is a subject dealt with by the hon. member who preceded me, and this was in the Social Credit platform. I refer to making the armed forces very effective, very mobile and versatile for our own uses. It is useless to consider joining the nuclear arms race that exists across the world. First of all, we cannot afford it, and second, by the time we have a nuclear war engine ready for operational use the thing will be obsolete and somebody else will have produced something new. It is no good our trying to keep up in such an arms race because we will always be three or four years behind the rest. So in regard to nuclear warfare we are about as useless as can be on a competitive basis.
I am glad the minister has understood this and is turning his attention toward another way of protecting the Canadian nation and also fulfilling our commitments throughout the world. We can do this by having very effective conventional weapons and also by training people to use them most effectively, not only in wartime but also in peacetime. This is also the goal of the armed forces. Quite a time elapsed between the two world wars, and the armed forces have been maintained since at great expense, just in case there was war. Some people say, if we want peace prepare for war. I think Caesar said that, but I still do not believe in that principle. I think if you want peace you also have to prepare for peace, and in peacetime the army has a role to play just as much as in wartime. It can be used in peacetime as a deterrent force. In wartime it is used as a defensive force as well as offensive; but it is mostly used defensively to protect this nation.
But in peacetime when we are not defending ourselves what are we doing with our armed forces? What are its members doing besides keeping their boots and buttons shined? We can give them something to do to build the country economically speaking instead of their being just an expense. We can use the army as an internal force to help the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We can use it in time of fire or floods. It is already used to a certain extent in this way but we can use it even more. These forces should

National Defence Act
be trained to be ready for action at any time of emergency, either in Canada or wherever help is required. It was ready when Cyprus needed it, as I could have told this house before.
In fact I spoke about that on December 9. I spoke about Turkey, having just returned from a tour of that country. Turkey is one country in the world which has one of the longest histories of warfare, dating back thousands of years. If Turkey had spent just 10 per cent of what it has spent on warfare and devoted it to other matters it would be one of the most beautiful countries to visit, as well as one of the most prosperous. But at the moment the economy of Turkey is very weak, a fact which the Turks express openly. Greece is not so much stronger, and they have the same sentiment towards war. When these two countries do not have a common enemy they fight between themselves. I do not know whether they are just trying to keep in practice, but soldiers should not be used only for fighting. We can also use them for something else, and the minister should tell us something more of his plans in this regard. Has he any definite ideas about using these armed forces later on, not only as a means of defence but also to help the country either in production, in protection, or in any way the minister wishes to consider?
I was talking a moment ago about trying to save a few dollars and perhaps I can assist the minister on this. I want to mention a matter which concerns Uplands airport and it relates to a practice which is common to a large extent right across the country in different fields, wherever government administration is concerned. At Uplands airport there is someone controlling the purchasing of transistors for transistor radios. Uplands airport purchase these transistors in lot purchases, although I do not know how. I also do not know why they need to use two men in a three ton truck to collect a transistor from a certain store in Ottawa. That is one matter the government should look into, because if it is done here it is probably done somewhere else as well. I do not know who authorizes these purchases, or who authorized two men and a three ton truck to go to a store and get a radio transistor.
There are also at Uplands electronic tubes which are used in television sets. I do not know how many televisions there are at Uplands airport, but practically anyone on the base can just about go into the storehouse and get a radio or television tube without saying where it is for use or for what instrument. A lot of these technicians come into [Mr. Langlois.l
town and do repair work as a sideline, and I would be interested to know where they get their television tubes. I would like the minister to check into this. I am not trying to state facts; I am just raising question marks. In fact, the minister has given us a lot of question marks so I am giving him a few back.
There is another matter which I should like to relate in French so that I do not get mixed up with technical terms. If the minister would listen and answer when he speaks I should be very much obliged.

Could the minister check up on this: Apparently, there is some buying of electric and electronic wire from an American firm to repair electrical and electronic equipment in Canadian planes. It would seem that the company purchased the wire after it had been discarded by the U.S. air force.

If we are going to turn around and "buy American" this is beginning to be expensive. Therefore I should like the minister to check on that matter too.
These are all details which I am relating to the $100 million savings the minister was building up to. It is right to save, but we have to save all round. I should like the minister to check into these matters and to see whether there is any leak, because if he can prevent some sort of scandal it would be a lot cheaper to remedy the matter immediately.
The minister says the armed forces in Canada are to be transformed. We have to have concentration of command and integration of forces. But we also have to consider the preparation of our armed forces at the level of the militia cadets. I do not know how the minister is going to establish these cadet bases, but he might also take them into his consideration.
Militia courses are being given in my region, for example. The cadets are to be transported some 70 miles in the morning and some 70 miles back again at night, a round trip of approximately 140 miles. They will be trained during the day and brought back at night in this course which commences in June. According to the local authorities, with many more than 20 cadets it would be much cheaper if the training were done right on the spot, with the instructors there.
I do not know what risk the government will have to assume under the present plan or how much it would cost the government if: one of these cadets was injured in a car

accident. Has that point been considered? I know that some of the parents have complained about the plan. They would rather have the training done at Thetford Mines than for these cadets to be transported 140 miles every day.
I imagine the minister will solve these small problems when he gets around to them, but this one problem in my region may very well pop up somewhere else throughout the country. If we want to interest our young men in becoming cadets, let us not start out by discouraging them the first time they undertake military training.
I should like to refer to page 20 of the white paper, where reference is made to a recommendation of the royal commission on government organization in these words:
The government accepts and will implement the recommendation of the commission "that the deputy minister be given greater responsibility for keeping under review the organization and administrative methods of the Canadian defence establishment, and assisting the minister in the discharge of his responsibility for the control and management of the armed forces."
I should like to discuss this matter briefly. This is one thing that is not in the bill. If there are going to be changes in the functions or powers of the deputy minister we should like to know exactly where we stand. We have in Canada a nation that is looking foward to a peacetime defence organization that will also provide adequate protection and efficiency in wartime. But I know one thing is true. The Canadian people will support the government in its work in this regard as long as it does not interfere with the economy too greatly by being too expensive for the country. If that should happen you can be sure that the government will not have the support of the Canadian people.
I think that is one reason why the Canadian people were so much against nuclear weapons. We could not afford them and they knew it. But we can afford to pay and will pay for a very efficient, versatile, mobile armed force, whether or not it is integrated under one command. It is the minister's problem to see that the forces co-operate and work together for the protection and maintenance of peace in this country.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is inescapable that a deplorably small percentage of our military defence budget is being used for the procurement of new equipment. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) mentioned that he thought the figure was in the neighbour-20220- I96i
National Defence Act
hood of 23 per cent and therefore increasing it to 25 per cent was not very much. I suggest to him that the figure of 23 per cent includes the construction of new buildings and does not apply only to new equipment.
What has happened in the past ten years is that, from a high in 1954 of 42.9 per cent of our defence budget devoted to the purchase of new equipment, we have this year come to the point where only 13.3 per cent is being devoted to the procurement of new equipment. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if this trend continues for another couple of years we will have well paid, well dressed and well fed forces but with the poorest equipment in the world. For this reason I am sure we all agree that this imbalance has to be corrected.
Another thing I like very much in the white paper on defence is the emphasis on mobile forces. I do not think this is shown any better than in Cyprus. Within a very short time from the time parliament gave its approval for Canadian troops to be sent to Cyprus they were landing on that island. But the reason that our troops were able to get to Cyprus so quickly is that Cyprus has an airport with hardened concrete runways that can take the Yukon transport planes that we have in Canada. The Yukon aircraft requires long hardened runways and fortunately Cyprus has them. Therefore I am very happy to see that, while we have acquired some already, the white paper calls for the acquisition of more C-130E Hercules aircraft.
The reason I am so happy is that this aircraft, with its different aerodynamic characteristics, can take off and land on relatively short and unimproved air strips. We have mobile forces that we can use to fulfil our NATO commitments and to assist the United Nations in dealing with brush fire wars, but I am afraid it will happen quite often that we will be wanting to send them to places that do not have excellent airports like Cyprus. There will be other places in the world to which we will want to send our forces for use by the United Nations in putting down brush fire wars, places that will not have airports of this type. Therefore I believe it is a very sound step to procure the Hercules C-130E short take-off and landing aircraft.
There has been some talk about not preparing for war and that this does not help to keep the peace. In that regard I should like to read a few words from the conclusion of the white paper. It states as follows:
Force alone, as all history shows, is not able to establish an enduring and creative peace. Nevertheless, and regrettably, it is essential to maintain force on our side as a deterrent against attack from

National Defence Act
potential foes who are themselves heavily armed; as a means of removing the greatest temptation to an aggressor, the assurance of easy victory.
The maintenance of adequate force for the above purpose gives us the time in which men of wisdom, persistence and good will can work together to build a world where peace will be secured by stronger means than force. If we fail to take advantage of the opportunity that time gives us, then peace, and with it civilization, may be lost. If we spare no effort in seeking for peaceful solutions to the problems that divide and embitter men, then true peace may be established and all mankind gain the victory.
I feel that all members of the house agree with the work done by the defence committee last year and with its establishment this year. I say; Let us have second reading of the bill as soon as we can, send it to the committee and let the committee continue the work it did last year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say I am disappointed in the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) because of the way in which he introduced the debate today. This is what comes of attempting to make an arrangement to forgo the debate on the setting up of the defence committee in exchange for a general debate on the bill introduced by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). We expected him to make a complete statement with regard to the defence situation in this country. Having made that arrangement, the Minister of National Defence simply talked on the narrow issue of the bill itself. I think he has performed a disservice to parliament and to the country in this regard.
We have not had a full debate on the problems of defence for five months. This is one of the most important areas of consideration, and a full statement should have been made by the minister today. This is the thing for which we were waiting, and this is what we did not get. It was on that basis we agreed to forgo the debate on the setting up of the committee. We could have had two debates and stretched them out for several days. However, we did not want to do that. We want to get on with the business of the country. However, before passing the bill or setting up the committee, we wanted to have a full disclosure of what has been going on in the field of national defence. The minister had his opportunity and did not take it. Once again he has failed to perform his duty, as I see it, because a heavy responsibility rests on the Minister of National Defence and on the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country.

I noticed that the minister told us the Prime Minister was in accord with his proposals in the white paper and in this bill. We were so encouraged to hear that the Prime Minister approved of what the Minister of National Defence was doing. What if he had disapproved? The Prime Minister does not approve of things that are being done by some of the other cabinet ministers, but we are now informed he approves of what the Minister of National Defence is doing. Obviously, he is the white haired boy of the cabinet. Then, the minister did as he did in December, he praised his associate minister. The associate minister will get up and praise the Minister of National Defence. This is what was done last December. They pat each other on the back and say, "My, how hard my colleague is working." They are the gold dust twins working together, struggling with these great problems. They are burning the midnight oil and producing a white paper.
What else have they produced in the course of the year that they have been in office? This is what we wanted to know today. We asked questions all last session with regard to national defence, but we could not get very satisfactory answers. One year has elapsed. What about the Prime Minister's promise that after closing the nuclear gap, to use his words, he would then negotiate Canada out of the nuclear field? What has happened to that in the course of a year? We have been very patient. We have been waiting for this diplomatic action. What has happened? The Minister of National Defence failed to tell us. Is this another broken promise by a promising Prime Minister? I wish the Prime Minister were here to give us an answer to this question. Why does he make these promises to the Canadian people and then fail to fulfil them? This is a question that is being asked right across this country. Promise after promise, tailored to suit an election campaign, has been made and then there has been the failure to fulfil these promises. What did the Prime Minister mean when he said he was going to undertake immediately to negotiate Canada out of the nuclear arms area? Obviously, he meant nothing.
Why does the Minister of National Defence not tell us something about the Bomarc, how much they are costing and things of that nature?
If we believed for one moment that the Bomarc provided any real protection with or without nuclear warheads we would concur in their use, but we do not believe so-

In our minds it is not a question of using a missile with an atomic warhead such as the Bomarc. It is our conclusion after serious consideration that in the time period in which these missiles will be in operation they will provide no effective defence whatsoever and might just as well not be there. If anyone else thinks differently let him support the policy and let him pay the piper. We do not believe so.
These were the words used by the Minister of National Defence speaking in the House of Commons in August of 1960 when he was a member of the opposition. What has been done with the Bomarcs since he has undertaken responsibility for them? He had no use for them then; he was not going to pay the piper. Who is paying the piper now? Who is in control? He said:
We particularly do not believe so when the atomic warheads would be under the control of the United States government.
Are they under the control of the United States government now? We have not heard one word from the minister with regard to the Bomarcs for which he had no use, according to words attributed to him on page 7572 of Hansard for August 4, 1960.
What about the Voodoos? Would he tell us the number of squadrons he has, and are they armed with nuclear missiles? Where are they stationed? What protection are we getting from the Voodoos in Canada? We have not heard one word from the Minister of National Defence. What about the Star-fighters?
It is true that we do have two air bases in Germany and presumably F-104's could operate from them. In the day of missiles, however, it would seem sheer folly to station eight squadrons of atomic equipped planes on two bases where they are vulnerable to sneak attack. We urge and demand that the government communicate to the house exactly what plans it has for the effective use of these machines.
These are the words used by the Minister of National Defence on August 4, 1960, when he was a member of the opposition, and they appear at page 7565 of Hansard. We have not had one word from the minister with regard to Starfighters. In December I asked him questions about the Bomarc, Voodoos and Starfighters. I said, let us know if any one of these Starfighters in Europe is equipped to fight. I got an answer on the order paper here not so long ago to the effect that they were not equipped. This air division in Europe could not fire a shot, so far as we know today or tomorrow if called upon to do so.
Now, I said the Minister of National Defence has heavy responsibilities and so has the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to take responsibility for the defence of
National Defence Act
this country and, through his cabinet, he is responsible to the house and to the people. What is the state of readiness of our forces? One year has gone by since the election campaign at which time the present Prime Minister was saying we did not have any Starfighters in Europe equipped. He said there was a whole air division flying around in Europe not equipped to fight. There was not an air division then; there were only 18 planes. Of course, they were not equipped and we acknowledged that. A year has gone by, and is that air division fully equipped now?
What about the bases for the nuclear weapons for these F-104's? How many of them are there on ready alert, ready to take off at a moment's notice? How many are still stationed in France on bases where nuclear weapons, apparently, cannot be used? What teeth have the air force, except those in the police dogs that are guarding the missile dumps that have not yet been constructed. Is that all our air division in Europe is doing? Just a few years ago it was the elite air force in NATO, but the present Minister of National Defence wiped out the Sabre jets which were fully equipped to fight and were ready for action, at any time over a period of ten years. What is the air division in Europe doing now? Why did the minister not tell us this afternoon? Surely this is important. What purpose is served by having armed forces unless they are ready for instant action? That is the type of Minister of National Defence we are saddled with.
I hope the minister will give a reply to that in due course, or that the associate minister will do so when he gets up to compliment the minister and after he has finished patting him on the back.
With regard to the defence committee, everything I said about it in June last when we were setting it up has turned out to be true. I said I feared that matters of policy would be decided by the government without reference to the committee on defence. That happened. I said that I feared the committee on defence would be discussing various matters, hoping to evolve some advice for the government, and the rug would be pulled out from under it when it was involved in those discussions.
I can give two examples. The frigate program was cancelled by the government after the defence committee had been struggling with the problem for several days, getting evidence, examining figures and talking to the admirals, but all the time the Minister of National Defence and the associate minister

National Defence Act
had their hands on the rug. Suddenly they gave it a yank and that work done by the defence committee was just useless. The frigate program had been cancelled, but there was not one word to the committee while this was going on.
Subsequently the minister decided that there would be a serious curtailment of the militia forces of this country and, without referring this subject to the committee on defence, he appointed a committee, gave it instructions to bring in a report, and removed this from the subjects for discussion by the defence committee. What purpose can be served by a committee when it is treated that way?
During the course of one of our discussions here I asked the minister if he wanted advice on policy matters from the committee, and he said no. That was a very interesting day in committee when he said he did not want advice on policy. We were just to inform ourselves so that we would be able to participate in discussions on defence matters on the high level of the minister and the associate minister. Like groundlings, we were to emerge from the pit and get up on the stage if we had the information.
Now we are again setting up the defence committee. Is the minister going to refer problems to us? Will he let us discuss the question of the militia before the decision is made, or will he pull the rug out from under us while we are discussing that problem? Is there any use in our discussing it? If he has got all the answers and the decisions, what is the defence committee to do? That is the difficulty that we face. In my opinion the future of the defence committee is problematical and I wonder whether it really can be effective under those circumstances.
If I heard him right, the minister said that the bill presently before the house, if second reading is approved by the house, will go for consideration to the committee on defence. In other words, he is determining the subject matter that will be placed before that committee, because obviously a bill of this nature would have to be looked at and discussed soon. We would not want to delay it indefinitely.
I was interested in the reports we received month after month about the study the minister was undertaking, and the production of the white paper. We had more advance information with regard to that white paper than we had with regard to the production of the motion picture "Cleopatra." Week after week we were told, "A white paper is coming out; all your problems will be solved."

Then there were leaks of information as to what was to be contained in the white paper. Then there were inevitable delays because the minister was still studying the subject. It took him a whole year, or certainly ten months, to produce the white paper. Then it came out with a great glare of publicity. The highlights were presented for people to look at. It was described as a ten year plan, the "first such long term defence plan." The late Hon. Brooke Claxton, if he were now living, would not agree with that because he had long range defence plans, and so had his successors in office.
Then we had a list of the highlights in the white paper, as though there were something absolutely new and different in it. Some of the commentators indicated to the public that now at last Canada has an understanding of the goals of her defence policy. I know, Mr. Speaker, you know this, but strangely there are others who might not, namely that there have been other white papers. This will come as a surprise to a great number of people, but we have had white papers in existence, to my knowledge, from 1954-55 up to 1961, and there were some before that.
I have read all of these white papers and in many respects they are superior to the one for which we had to wait almost one year. In 1954-55 the Hon. Brooke Claxton published a white paper setting out Canada's defence objectives. He said:
The objectives of our defence policy remain the same as heretofore:
(i)	The immediate defence of Canada and North America from direct attack;
(ii)	implementation of any undertakings made by Canada under the charter of the United Nations, or under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or other agreement for collective security;
(iii)	the organization to build up strength in a total war.
Defence policy was known to the minister of national defence, to parliament and to Canada as far back as 1954-55. A white paper was prepared each year after that, but I pick out the one prepared in 1959 by Hon. G. R. Pearkes, Y.C., on the subject matter of defence policy. Fancy, talking about defence policy as far back as 1959. One would imagine that it was only in 1963-64, under this minister, that the subject of defence policy has been studied, perceived and disclosed, but back in 1959 we read this in parliament:
Canadian defence policy derives directly from our foreign policy-
You will find a sentence like that in the present white paper.
-and is designed to ensure national security and the preservation of world peace. These objectives

are reached through collective arrangements within NATO and the United Nations.
Then, skipping a few sentences, I read this in paragraph 2:
In order to meet the objectives of the alliance and in support of the United Nations, it is the defence policy of Canada to provide forces for:
-The defence against an attack on the North American continent:
-The collective defence and deterrent forces of NATO in Europe and the North Atlantic:
-The United Nations to assist that organization in attaining its peaceful aims.
Well, there we are. Defence policy has been spoken about in this house and written about in numerous white papers. It has been expressed and re-expressed. And now, in March, 1964, we have a white paper on defence which is supposed to be the final word-the new look. This is a discovery which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has made-a discovery of defence policy. He suggests to us in a foreword:
The objectives of Canadian defence policy, which cannot be dissociated from foreign policy-
These words are familiar in the light of what I have been reading.
-are to preserve the peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression: to support Canadian foreign policy including that arising out of our participation in international organizations, and to provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air space and our coastal waters.
Then, on page 6, these objectives are listed again under letters (a), (b), (c) and (d). Here they are:
(a)	Collective measures for maintenance of peace and security as embodied in the charter of the United Nations, including the search for balanced and controlled disarmament;
(b)	Collective defence as embodied in the North Atlantic treaty;
(c)	Partnership with the United States in the defence of North America;
(d)	National measures to discharge responsibility for the security and protection of Canada.
I would be interested if someone would disclose what is new in this white paper. It is rather a good literary document. I think it was drawn up by officials in the Department of External Affairs or in the historical section of the Department of National Defence. Now and again, the minister has got in a word of his own; he has a few words which I recognize here and there. It is a carefully drawn document. There is an introduction and the objectives are stated. Then there is a historical summary of our policy since 1945, followed by considerations affecting our future and a section on the organization of the defence forces. Then the minister looks ahead for ten years to the
National Defence Act
shape of Canadian forces between 1964 and 1974, and follows up with a section dealing with defence research and industry. Finally, just in case people might be too critical, he provides an escape hatch through which one could drive 12 Centurion tanks line abreast, because by means of this escape hatch he could get out of anything he had said in the pages earlier.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the part attributed to the minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. These are the exact words, I think. I recognize the minister's style in the conclusion, assisted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
Well, that is the white paper. I suggest it is a most incomplete document. I was tremendously disappointed in it. In a white paper, in addition to a literary exercise setting out objectives and things of that nature, we require-and all previous ministers recognized this requirement-tables and charts showing the size of the forces, the expenditure of money over the years, how the defence dollar has been distributed, and so on, so that all who are interested may be able to form a picture of what has been going on. There is nothing of that kind in the present white paper on defence. It is simply a literary exercise. It contains only one thing that is new, and I intend to deal with that in a few moments. Why were we not favoured with summaries of expenditure and charts to show where the money has gone? This has been mentioned before but it does not hurt to mention it again- in 1954-55, 21.3 per cent of the defence dollar was spent on military personnel and 42.3 per cent on procurement and equipment. By the time we had reached 1959-60, military personnel costs had risen to 33.1 per cent and money spent on the procurement of equipment had gone down to 21.3 per cent. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot increase the personnel in the armed forces and raise their pay and allowances, as we did when we were in office, without effecting savings somewhere along the line, unless the entire amount available for defence is increased.
Why did the minister not put things like that in the white paper? Why did he not give us, as was done in 1961 in a booklet published under the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), a summary of expenditures for the past ten or 15 years, so that we could make comparisons? This would have been very helpful.

National Defence Act
In 1952-53 total expenditure on national defence amounted to $1,882 millions in round figures. In subsequent years it was $1,805 millions, $1,665 millions, $1,750 millions, $1,759 millions and then $1,686 millions. The minister talked about a saving. He says he has effected a saving. I would point out that we effected a saving of almost $262 million in defence expenditures as shown by the record for the year 1958-59 when defence expenditures totalled $1,424 million. This is not the first time there has been a substantial saving in defence expenditures. The figures carry on. Expenditure in 1959-60 amounted to $1,514 million. For the next five years I have no figures for final expenditures, but I have estimates. These are the estimated expenditures for the following five years: 1960-61, $1,520 millions; 1961-62, $1,614 millions; 1962-63, $1,590 millions; 1963-64, $1,634 millions. The minister is now proposing for 1964-65 an expenditure of $1,525 millions.
These figures give the house a proper basis for comparison. Now a serious decision has to be made with regard to the amount of money to be devoted to Canadian defence, and parliament has to look at this question very closely. Are we to set a figure of $1,500 millions and stay there? If we do, what are the choices. One course which might be followed is to reduce the percentage of the defence dollar spent on personnel. The other is to reduce the amount spent on the procurement of equipment, operations and so on. This is the problem which is facing the minister. He talks about financial savings. He told us-and I objected to his use of the word "savings" in that connection-that he had brought about a saving of $100 million in the estimates as is shown by the figure I have just read. But what the hon. gentleman is really doing is transferring a saving realized by reducing the cost of military personnel, headquarters establishments and so on, to the purchase of equipment. To say otherwise is to mislead the public. I noted, by quickly going through the estimates that out of the $100 million he mentioned the hon. gentleman has made a saving of $80 million on equipment, the very item we were going to spend more money on because, he said, we were falling behind. In other words he has cut out the purchase of equipment by the navy, army and air force to the tune of $80 million. Then, in order to get that back for the purchase of equipment he has to cut down on personnel.
That is about what he is doing. He is chopping down personnel in order to find money to spend on equipment, because he has

reduced the over-all budget by approximately $100 million. Well, he has to maintain the efficiency of the armed forces while doing that. No one will object to the saving of money through the reduction of unnecessary overheads. I suggest, though, that more information will have to be given to us as to how this is to be done. The minister has talked loosely about the integration of our forces; articles have been written about it, but nobody completely understands what is in the mind of the minister with regard to that and he did not explain it this afternoon. What does he mean by "integration" of our forces? He should have given us a discourse on this. It is not clearly set out in the white paper. How far is this integration to go? It is a desirable objective. It was started by General Pearkes in 1959. He started on this program of integration by reducing the staffs in the medical, chaplain and recruiting services. That is where the start was made, and we have to carry on from that point. How far is integration to go?
The minister is starting with the report of the Glassco commission which recommended a change in the chiefs of staff committee. He mentions this in the white paper; but the white paper failed to quote all that the Glassco commission said with regard to that proposed change. Let me read from page 73 of the Glassco commission report:
In relation to the key function of the chiefs of staff committee of advising the minister and the government on military aspects of defence policy, the C.C.O.S. has no formal pre-eminence and there may be merit in making this function the collective responsibility of the committee.
I draw attention to this sentence:
Excessive concentration of the advisory task in the hands of one man has obvious dangers.
The Glassco commission did not elaborate on that sentence. The minister does not mention it in his white paper and made no comment on it today. I think parliament has to look very, very closely at that to see whether or not it is advisable. I do not think there will be opposition to integration, but it is the question of how it is to be done. That is the function of this house, to examine the method by which that integration is to be accomplished and how far it will go. If it means placing too much control in the hands of one man, which the Glassco commission has already warned is dangerous, then we must watch exactly what we are doing with the bill which is before us.
I would refer the minister to some comments on the government white paper by Brigadier Malone. This article was published

in the Winnipeg Free Press. I seldom have occasion to quote the Winnipeg Free Press and they seldom have occasion to mention me, but I am not unfriendly to Brigadier Malone in his capacity as a former military officer, and I know he had practical experience in warfare, has made a great study of the theory of warfare and was very much interested in the militia. Brigadier Malone has drawn attention to the fact that there may be a serious danger in the command structure as envisaged by the proposal of the minister. I have not time to read the various things he has put in front of us in articles in the Winnipeg Free Press, but I draw attention to his suggestion that a study should be made of the findings of the royal commission on defence under Lord Esher in England in 1904. I have made that study. He says that the proposal now put before parliament by the minister is reverting to a system which was found to be unacceptable by Great Britain in 1904. They had had plenty of experience and found that it did not work. Instead of that, they set up a defence council, different from the one the minister mentioned this afternoon, and in this connection Brigadier Malone says:
What Is required today is a defence council at the top policy-making and administrative level of which the chief operational officer of all three services is but one of the members.
He is not the supreme commander-inchief; he is just one member of that council. Then he says:
The other members (of equal authority) should not be divided according to separate service but as to the other main functions or divisions of defence. The council should include, as well as the senior operational officer-
That is the supreme commander:
-the senior officer responsible for all supply, transport, accommodation and equipment, etc. (for all three services), the senior administrative officer responsible for such services as recruiting discipline, legal, welfare and so on. These officers should speak with equal authority to the operational chief of the three services and they should take their orders not from a supreme commander-in-chief but from the defence council itself.
There is not time for me to extend these remarks with respect to this particular feature of it, but I do suggest that before we launch too far into this sea that the minister is sailing we should observe the experience of the past and the marked reefs. The army organization in England in the 19th century, in the Crimean war and the Boer war, foundered on the mistake of having a supreme commander-in-chief, as Brigadier Malone points out, and they corrected that mistake by setting up an army council-the same
National Defence Act
applied with regard to the navy, and so on- in which the supreme commander-in-chief was only on an equal footing with other people who had the administrative services under their wing, and there was the proper civilian control, which was not available in the days when the supreme commander-in-chief looked after everything.
So I sound this cautionary note at this time for a consideration of the matters drawn to our attention by Brigadier Malone, for a study of the Lord Esher report, for a study of the system operated at the present time in the United Kingdom, so that we do not, in the haste for reform, make what might become a very serious mistake.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the bill now before us.
First, I wish to refer to the re-setting up of the special defence committee. I think we are unanimous, in this house, in supporting that measure and in saying that this committee has already played a useful role and is called upon to play an even more useful one this year and in future. I should like to point out that the members of the committee constitute together a most valuable storehouse of technical military knowledge. Therefore, it would be in the interest and to the advantage of the house to use the special knowledge acquired last year by the hon. members who took part in the work of the committee. We should, as much as possible, keep the same members.
I believe that is the policy followed with respect to defence committees in most countries of the alliance that we visited last year as members of the committee. I am thinking in particular of the French committee on defence which is composed of members of the national assembly and which has been under the chairmanship of representative Moinet for many years. In view of the continuity of its membership, the committee has been most helpful to the French government in the establishment of a military policy.
Consequently, I take this opportunity to impress upon hon. members the advisability of reconvening the committee on the same basis as much as possible.
I should now like to deal with remarks made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) when he introduced his resolution. He referred in particular to the savings which would result from the new plan to integrate the armed forces. I do not intend to dwell on the subject, since my colleagues,

National Dejence Act
the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in particular, dealt with it and pointed out that in spite of the reference to savings made by the minister, no savings will be effected actually, because the government has no intention whatsoever to reduce the appropriations for military purposes any more than it has already done. No attempt should be made to delude the public with a plan designed to look as a means to effect savings in that field, when no savings are actually being considered.
Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke of the immense advantages that would result from integration; for instance, it would reduce the number of people or channels of information reporting to him, which would give him a better interpretation and a better co-ordination of military information-that may be true-and would give him a better opportunity to set up on a functional basis the Canadian armed forces.
But why did the minister, when he spoke about integration-of course he is well known for his modesty-speak of it as if he had discovered something extraordinary, a new planet for instance? If you analyse his speech thoroughly, you might be led to believe that before him no one in Canada or in any other country had thought about the need to integrate the military forces.
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that this project has been under consideration for many years by military authorities, by the former minister of national defence, and that everybody agrees today, because of modern military technology, that integration is necessary.
Integration is the first essential step toward the streamlining of our armed forces. How could it be otherwise when today the role of the various services being integrated, has become undistinguishable.
This is the age of space ships. Because of this, we can no longer separate the army, navy and air force and assign each service a special and air-tight role.
Therefore, what the minister suggests is only the first unavoidable step in that direction. What he puts forward is not a fait accompli and there again I do not understand the minister who, in a very pleasant tone of voice and without passion, reveals to the house things he would like us to believe are extraordinary but which are the most normal in the world. That outline he gives us remains more than just an outline. Even if the integration of the armed forces should become a reality, what the minister is suggesting 
at this time is not the massive integration of our military forces but just integration at the top, replacing three chiefs of staff by a single one. That is far from the complete integration of the armed forces which would be desirable.
Moreover, the minister shows us integration as being desirable from an administrative point of view and also for purposes of economy. It might very well be, but if integration has become necessary it is certainly not because, from the administrative point of view it might be more flexible, or because it would be cheaper from the economic and financial point of view; but it should be at least for the purpose of making Canada's military role more efficient and more flexible to apply.
The minister also referred to the necessity of maintaining civilian control over the military forces. Who, in this house or outside, questions that necessity? But the minister has a special art for presenting his ideas and projects as if they were the result of the fullest deliberation and that his projects become absolutely necessary due to exceptional circumstances which he does not fully reveal to us.
Really, listening to him this morning, I thought for a moment that we were on the point of witnessing in this country a coup d'etat plotted by a military junta. This comes from the way the minister outlined quite normal things, in order, I believe, to set off the splendid role he laid out for himself.
Mr. Speaker, we are of course in favour of a control of military forces. I do not think there is any reason to believe that the minister will lose this control. If there is such a danger, I think it would be his duty to resign and surrender his functions to another who would apply this control; otherwise, we would be like those republics where democracy is but window dressing.
This is not the situation in Canada, except that I was somewhat upset, Mr. Speaker, by this week's developments. I am thinking especially of the melodramatics of which Kingston was the scene when the royal commission of inquiry on bilingualism and bi-culturalism met in that city.
The situation was judged so unusual-and I insist on that word-that the commanding officer of the area felt it necessary to issue special orders to forbid members of the Canadian armed forces in the district to attend the sittings of the commission or, at least, to participate in the discussions.
My colleague from Royal (Mr. Fairweather) looked up the military regulations in that

respect and he found no substantiation for those orders. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin), who is paying close attention to me, changed the regulation by saying that such questions were controversial and that the military personnel should in no way be involved in controversial discussions.
Mr. Speaker, surely the fact of being a soldier in peace time Canada, does not mean that you have to abstain from publicly discussing topical matters of general interest which, if they are subject to controversy, certainly do not jeopardize the security of Canada or other military objectives.
I am not at all satisfied, Mr. Speaker, with the muzzling of our Canadian military forces on this occasion. In fact, I am very dissatisfied with it and, when reading the minister's explanations, people might think themselves right in the middle of a who dunit starring Maigret. Anyway, that was the impression I had, and which seems tome normal under the circumstances.
Therefore, I understand the better, or rather still less, the motives of that military commander, when I think of some briefs submitted at that commission sitting, for instance, the brief of Dr. Arsene Lauziere, professor of French literature at the Kingston military college, on which the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence did not make the slightest comment.
I believe that, because of the seriousness of the charges made by a person in authority, the Associate Minister of National Defence, who is more particularly in charge of personnel, might have given some explanation to the house. Some very serious charges have been made. It has been said that in the army, the current language, in which everything was done, was English; that promotions were slow and difficult for a French-speaking officer, and finally, that, if you wanted advancement in the army, you had to learn and speak English. Moreover, though the French language was allowed for communication in the Royal 22nd, even that regiment had to use English when communicating with other units.
Mr. Speaker, there must be a very good reason for this state of affairs, but the house is entitled to an explanation, especially now that tremendous efforts are being made to convince French Canadians that they constitute an integral part of this nation and that they are on an equal footing under the confederation pact.
National Defence Act
I think that, in this matter, the minister can, if he wishes, and not only if he wishes, but it is his duty to do so, take very useful action. I do not think that what was reported by the professor is false, because I, myself was a member of the national defence committee and I was in a position to know that in Europe, particularly at the Canadian brigade base in Germany, children of French Canadian servicemen were receiving their education exclusively in English. No effort was being made either to follow the curriculum adopted by the province of Quebec, because the course given was different, or to have French classes for children of French Canadian servicemen.
Now, I am saying this with great objectivity, for I think that such a situation is abnormal. I merely mention it in the hope that the minister will very shortly take necessary steps to correct this anomaly.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me back to the national defence policy of Canada. While we are considering this defence bill, we are entitled to ask what is the general defence policy of Canada and what is the trend of that policy in regard to objectives set in the field of Canadian foreign policy?
Those well-known objectives aim at maintaining the sovereignty of Canadian territory and curbing communist expansion, as far as we can and finally, at maintaining order among nations.
Those are broad objectives, and to attain them, Canada participates in some essential alliances, the principle of which must never be questioned-and today more than ever before-of joint defence for western nations. That is why we are and will remain within the Atlantic alliance, as well as the North American alliance. We are also a member of the United Nations, and for those purposes, we contribute to the maximum of our means; this has to be in order to promote disarmament and raise the standard of living throughout the country, notwithstanding our foreign aid program.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock? [Text]


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

Broadcasting Act BROADCASTING ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING PARTISAN POLITICAL BROADCASTS

Mr. H. C. Harley (Hallon) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-25, to amend the Broadcasting Act (political programs).
He said: The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, it reduces to two days the restriction now governing political broadcasts prior to a federal election. As every member in the house knows, at the present time political broadcasts may not be made on election day nor on the two days preceding election day, that is from Friday midnight until the night of the election. This regulation, of course, governs broadcasting, but the newspapers may carry political advertising even on election day.
This amendment I propose will give the broadcasting media, that is radio and television, a more equitable arrangement as compared with the newspapers, but it still does not equalize them. The present Broadcasting Act says that no licensee shall broadcast a program, advertisement or announcement of a partisan political character on any day that an election is held for the election of a member of the House of Commons, the legislature of a province or a council or municipal corporation or on the two days immediately preceding any such day. As I have said, this refers to a federal election, a provincial election or even a municipal election.
I know many hon. members have had the experience of having broadcasts from parliament hill cancelled because there was an election in some other area. I know that during the last election in Newfoundland I had a broadcast cancelled which I did not really believe was of a political nature.
The second purpose of the bill is to ensure that the prohibition mentioned above would only apply to a broadcasting station within the broadcasting or receiving range of the electoral district involved. This provision would not apply, therefore, to federal elections because all of Canada would be involved. However, it could apply to by-elections, provincial elections or municipal elections. This sounds a little complicated, Mr. Speaker, but it can be done since I am told that each broadcasting station has a licensed pattern or range.
Apropos of what I have just said, I should like to quote from Hansard for August 26, 1958, where the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), at that time
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
the minister responsible for the C.B.C., was discussing Bill No. C-55 regarding the establishment of a board of broadcast governors. I should like to quote from pages 4115 and 4116:
I do not know how many hon. members know this, hut under C.B.C. regulations as they apply today if there happens to be a town council by-election in Wolfville or Port Albemi, then the C.B.C. is not supposed to broadcast political programs for three days prior to that by-election although there may be a provincial general election in Ontario. That is the existing regulation which has application to federal, provincial or municipal elections. The thing is just silly.
A little farther down on the same page, I find this:
After a great deal of discussion we felt it might be allowed to stand this way; the elections committee of the House of Commons would be set up in the relatively near future and that would be a much better forum in which to discuss this question and arrive at some solution with respect to political broadcasts and so on, rather than attempting to deal with it by way of amendments or by a board outside the control of parliament.
Speaking in the same debate later, as recorded on page 4129, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings said:
It was the understanding when we inserted it here rather reluctantly that this was not the place to include it but as this certainly was not the time to engage, as I said before, in a prolonged political discussion about advertising and programs it was put here, shall we say, as a temporary resting place until the elections committee could meet.
This referral mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings at that time has never taken place. I went through the reports on privileges and elections and ascertained that in 1959, a year later, this topic was mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). However, the committee never proceeded with it. In 1960 the committee did discuss a 48-hour prohibition on political broadcasting. After a great deal of discussion they felt they should leave the regulation as it was. After reading the evidence and trying to deduce the reasoning of the committee at that time I found they felt television had a greater impact on the general public than newspapers and therefore it was reasonable to leave the newspapers with the advertising advantage over radio and television. During the meetings in 1960, the committee discussed amendments to the act concerning political broadcasts from outside of Canada, that is broadcasts originating across the border. At this time amendments were proposed, which were accepted later and became part of the Canada Elections Act.
The committee on privileges and elections met in 1962 and 1963, but this topic was not

discussed. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this matter by the committee which was promised in 1958 has never been undertaken, for one reason or another. I am introducing this bill at this time in order to bring to the attention of the house the fact that this matter should be considered and I hope that members of the house will refer it to the committee on privileges and elections, as should have happened in 1958.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I shall not detain the house very long, Mr. Speaker, but there are a few comments I should like to make on this bill. I should first like to deal with the clause concerning dramatization. In my opinion this has been a sore spot so far as a number of people in Canada are concerned. I feel that dramatization, especially those in which the candidate takes part in the discourse, are a means of getting a point across. It seems to me this is merely a matter of education so far as the individual who is viewing the program is concerned. After all, this is the point of a political broadcast. Surely, the cost of a broadcast on television is high enough, so that the best use of that time should be made in order to get a point across to the viewer.
I should like to refer now to the free time for political broadcasts. I believe the voter is entitled to hear from each party on an equal basis in order that he can ascertain for which party he should vote. I am very strongly opposed to the situation where, because of the number of members in the House of Commons or the number of people who voted in the last election, one party gets the lion's share of the free time provided on television. I am strongly opposed to the situation where a party, because of its numbers in the House of Commons or because of the number of people who voted for it in the previous election, gets the lion's share of the time given by the taxpayers themselves to view the various parties' positions and the things they have to present to the public. To my mind that is absolutely the reverse of what it ought to be.
We should look at this whole matter from the point of view of the viewer, and the ability of that individual to get a much clearer picture in his mind as to where he should put his "x" when the vote is being taken.
I would like to refer just briefly to broadcasts outside Canada. We may say that we can regulate this from Canada, but I say that any person who wants to get somebody else in the United States to give a very
Broadcasting Act
strong viewpoint, over a United States station, in connection with a Canadian election can probably do more to emphasize a position than if the people of Canada themselves could go across the line and put on a program. The reason I say this is because it would be an isolated incident that would stand out from the rest of the broadcasts at which the viewer would be looking.
We have to be big enough and bold enough so that we can stand in the face of all competition, and put our wares before the Canadian public as much as we can so that they may be able to decide for themselves what they are going to do when election day rolls around. In closing I wish to say I would very much like to see the subject matter of this bill referred to the privileges and elections committee where it could be gone into very thoroughly and perhaps, out of that, could come some badly needed corrections.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate briefly the support I have for the bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley). The remarks just made by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), which of course deal with a section of the act that it is not proposed to amend by this bill, serve to emphasize the desirability of having the general subject matter of the bill sent for review and study before a committee, where the views advanced by the mover of the bill and the hon. member for Cariboo could be gone into.
I am not quite sure how the name of Port Alberni happened to come into this discussion. I was not in the house when the minister made the statement which was quoted by the hon. member for Halton, but I mention it merely to emphasize the fact that this is a subject which, at various times and under various circumstances, has come up for discussion in Port Alberni in connection with elections to the various levels of government.
While the basic idea of having some restraint or limitation on partisan broadcasting in the period immediately preceding an election is a good one, it is ridiculous that the act is so worded that it prohibits broadcasts, where there is overlapping, for elections to the various levels of government. It is ridiculous that a report from parliament hill may have to be cancelled because of a purely local election in that region of the country represented by the hon. member who contributes to the report. I am sure most hon. members who have participated in these broadcast reports have had that experience.
The hon. member is to be complimented on presenting this bill. I certainly hope the

Broadcasting Act
subject matter will receive early consideration in the appropriate committee of the house, so that out of that will come a recommendation that the anomalies which exist with respect to broadcasting in other jurisdictions will be removed from the act.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill of the member for Halton (Mr. Harley) now submitted to the house, because it points out an absurd situation which can result from the application of section 17 of the Broadcasting Act in its present form. In fact, it is entirely illogical to note that a candidate in a federal election or even an elected member called to express the point of view of his party on radio or T.V. may be prevented from doing so, because a simple municipal election is going on elsewhere in another part of the country, sometimes quite far away.
Therefore, I congratulate the member for Halton for having set forth the principle of the bill under consideration.
I also believe that he is entirely justified in submitting this bill to the committee on privileges and elections, because I feel it is not only section 17, but the whole Broadcasting Act that should be completely reviewed.
Mr. Speaker, it is not simply a matter, as proposed in this bill, of reducing the period of time to three days, when no program of a political character could be broadcast prior to a federal election. There is more to it, and that is why I suggest that the whole Broadcasting Act should be reviewed.
A rather difficult problem arises at election time. It happens that all radio and television networks are congested with political and partisan speeches, and this becomes boring for the listener or the viewer. This is likely to cause serious prejudice to politics itself and to depreciate, in the eyes of the people, the idea of greatness and nobility of political competition that every responsible citizen should have.
Therefore, the principle now before the house enables us to consider other amendments, like the one I just talked about, to the effect that the board of broadcast governors could exercise the rights it holds under section 1 of the said act which authorizes the board of broadcast governors to exercise a more effective control on political programs during election campaigns in order not to supersaturate televiewers who cannot but listen to often boring political speeches broadcast on radio and television. In my opinion, there is a problem there that should be considered.
[Mr. Bamett.l
Mr. Speaker, another problem comes up, particularly in the province of Quebec and in Quebec city.
Through CFCF-TV station in Quebec, political programs of a separatist nature are broadcast every week by one Leo Tremblay, a true paranoiac who constantly attacks confederation and federal institutions. There is also the leader of the RIN that my hon. friends opposite have the opportunity like me to hear and who preaches secession from confederation.
I am in favour of the absolute respect of democratic procedures, in favour of the fullest freedom of speech, but I have the right to denounce an obvious violation of section 10 of the Broadcasting Act. Section 10 reads as follows-


Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: -and it is related to section 17 which we are considering now-before my hon. friend raises unnecessarily a point of order-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I just wanted to ask the hon. member whether he would allow me to ask him a question.


Auguste Choquette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
hon. gentleman rising on a question of privilege?


An hon. Member:: No.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I am merely asking the permission to put a question to the hon. member.


Auguste Choquette: By all means.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Does the hon. member think it is worse to criticize confederation than to criticize the Queen?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are engaging on a fairly controversial subject, and I know of no hon. member sitting in the House of Commons presently who has ever criticized in any way a reigning monarch. I do not know a single case when that happened. Perhaps the hon. member is referring to certain statements of principle I made and I do not regret. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have always advocated that Canada must be truly Canadian and have truly distinctive symbols. I would ask, for instance, the hon. member if he agrees with me when I set forth principles that are not

an attack against the reigning sovereign and a lawfully constituted authority.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to section 10 of the act-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
I shall have to ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to discuss the principle of the bill before us.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I readily submit to your ruling in discussing the bill under consideration. Its purpose is to amend a clause concerning programs of a political nature. We agree, Mr. Speaker, with the amendment as stated; that amendment is so clear and so interesting that we are naturally inclined to relate this principle to another one which is just as important.
So that clause 17 is well understood, I should like to read section 10 of the Broadcasting Act, which is as follows:
The board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character, regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
Mr. Speaker, that section cannot be clearer and when television stations allow political speeches aimed at destroying the federal system as such, when political programs of a partisan nature endeavour to disrupt the federal system as it is, I say that those programs are basically illegal and that section 15 as well as section. 18 of the Broadcasting Act should apply in order to prohibit such programs.
That is why I commend the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) who made a point of clarifing the situation concerning political broadcasts.
I hope that, when his bill is referred to the committee on privileges and elections, the Broadcasting Act will be fully reviewed, so as to allow the board of broadcast governors to exercise its prerogatives, powers and duties, as set out therein.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Halton and I just had those few remarks to make.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree there is a desperate need for some amendment to the regulations respecting political
Broadcasting Act
broadcasting during political campaigns, and particularly before election dates, which is the main matter dealt with in this bill. I am not sure what the interpretation of one of the clauses should be-whether or not there are to be two consecutive days preceding the election or whether there will be one day ahead of the election date. It is not completely clear and perhaps it can be clarified.
This matter of public relations and the persuasion of the public by political parties is very difficult to control. It is also, in my opinion, a most difficult task to write a set of regulations which would have the effect of providing equal opportunity for the various political parties so as not to give one of them an advantage over the others. This is true, I think, notwithstanding the size of the various parties, if we consider that size on the basis of representation in the House of Commons is the criterion. We know, for example, that we cannot even buy national network time from the C.B.C. for political broadcasting. Some time is made available, but it is granted as free time. I do not intend to argue now whether this is an advantage or not, but I certainly do have a grievance about the way in which this time is apportioned. For example, at federal level the corporation imposes a number of conditions which a political party must meet before it gets any time at all. Yet we know that they violate more than 50 per cent of those conditions in the apportionment of the free time. Even worse, they do not use the same formula when it comes to granting free time in connection with provincial elections. I know that in Alberta during the years 1959 to 1963 there were 61 Social Credit members of the legislature and one Conservative. During all that time the Conservatives got equal time; the Conservative party had just as much time as the Social Credit party, in spite of the fact that the proportion of representation in the house was 61 to 1. There were times when the New Democratic party, for example, were granted equal time, and they did not have any members. I am not exactly sure what the case is now, but I think the Conservatives are still getting free time on provincial affairs broadcasts, and they do not have any members in either the Alberta house or the British Columbia house.
This may be a proper way to do it. I think the practice in the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia, where they give this free time on provincial affairs broadcasts to all the four political parties who have

Broadcasting Act
run nearly a full slate of candidates, and so on, is the right one; but I say the same formula should be applied to the federal arena. During the years 1958 to 1962, when we did not have any representation in this House of Commons, they did not give us any time at all. So some major overhauling needs to be done with regard to the regulations governing the apportionment of time.
I really cannot see much point in having regulations at all if you are not going to follow them. Some of the regulations we have now demand, for example, that you run candidates in at least three provinces before getting time on national broadcasts. They say that you must contest more than 50 per cent of the seats in Canada-in other words, 133-and there are a number of other conditions. We know that the way in which this time is apportioned today is such that they do not even follow the formula set down, and therefore it is time there was a major overhaul of the whole situation regarding broadcasting time.
Getting back to one of the other points raised by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) when he introduced this bill, I would refer to the matter of trying to equalize to some degree the opportunity for advertising between the press and the other media of public communication and information. I know that to suggest to the press that they should not accept any advertisements from political parties on the day before the election, or even on election day, would cause them immediately to scream about the freedom of the press. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the press includes television and radio, in the present context of their function in our social order. So if we are going to insist that the radio stations and the television stations are prevented from carrying partisan political broadcasts during a specified period before election day, this should apply to the printed press as well. I am one of those who believes that the influence television and radio have on the general public, or the electorate, today is equal to or perhaps even greater than that of the printed page; therefore I see no logic at all in separating one from the other. Perhaps a case can be made out for allowing television and radio stations to continue partisan political broadcasting right up to the day before election day, but I am not arguing that at the moment; I am arguing that as far as I am concerned these three mediums cannot and should not be divided.

As far as some of the other provisions of the bill are concerned, the matter of prohibiting political broadcasts in one part of the country that is far removed from where the election is taking place is, to my mind, a silly rule. I wholeheartedly agree with the provision here to the effect that it would only need to be prohibited in the actual area where the election was taking place. That certainly seems to me a sensible thing to do. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that there are a great many other difficulties and anomalies in the present regulations as they apply to partisan political broadcasting, and I think this whole matter should be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons. We should either come up with something that is reasonable and equitable to all parties and to the mediums involved, or withdraw all the regulations and allow the television stations and the radio stations to do exactly what the newspapers are doing.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that most hon. members who have spoken thus far have been in complete accord with the terms of the bill as presented to us. As a matter of fact, if I thought for one moment that Your Honour would allow a discourse this afternoon that was irrelevant, such as was the case with a previous speaker, there are a few things I would like to say with regard to other debates this week; but of course I know Your Honour would not allow this. With regard to the bill before us, I think it has some good aspects and there are good and sufficient reasons for us to consider it closely to see whether there is not also a bad feature in regard to the practice thus far. I agree with the limitation contained in the amending clause 17(l)(b)(ii). I think this is a proper limitation to place on the provisions of the present act. On the other hand, in the explanatory notes for clause 1 it is stated:
The revised clause continues this prohibition-
I do not think this is quite right and I would like to say that so far as the bad features of the amendments in the bill are concerned, it is my belief-and I know this is just a part of the thinking in the amendment-that when we are concerned with a general election, by the time the public have absorbed all they have listened to or watched or read, they have had enough by the Friday night prior to an election. I am one of those who believe that the extension of the extra day is indeed not necessary.

Let us look at what might happen. I do not suggest tor one minute that any citizen of Canada who offers himself as a candidate for election would follow a course which would not be acceptable in the public eye, but if we were to accept such an amendment and continue broadcasting, particularly by television, on through the Saturday evening prior to an election, you would reach a situation where a candidate might well make some statement against his opponent which could not in any other way be refuted or dealt with, so far as the public was concerned, either by the press or by public meeting, because immediately we would run into the restriction in respect to the following Sunday and Monday. Then you would have a situation where a candidate could possibly take advantage of his opponent or opponents, and as I said before without any recourse being given the other candidate or candidates in the field.
There is some merit in all the other things which have been said, but in regard to the amendments which are before us I say again that I believe it has been the practice in these particular fields of communication to deal with the situation judiciously so that an embarrassing or hypothetical situation such as has been mentioned here several times does not occur. If it does occur and the two areas are far enough apart, then the broadcasting corporation itself would take care of the matter in the best way possible for the two areas concerned without causing a breach of the rules, and yet seeing that justice is done so far as the candidates are concerned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, regrettably 1 would be one of those who suggests that another thought be given to the amendments before any action is taken with regard to sending this matter to the committee.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly interested in the comments of the previous speakers, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley), the sponsor of the bill, as well as the member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), without forgetting, of course the humorous but very pertinent remarks of my good friend, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) in connection with Bill No. C-25 under study this afternoon.
The purposes of the bill have been clearly explained by the sponsor himself and are set forth in the explanatory notes of the bill. It is more especially a question of amending a single subsection, that is subsection 1 of section 17 of the Broadcasting Act.
Broadcasting Act
Under paragraph (b) of subsection (1), no radio or television station is allowed to broadcast a political program on any of the two consecutive days before a federal, provincial or municipal election.
As it was pointed out a while ago, that provision gives rise to some rather unusual situations. Indeed, it means that if there was a municipal election in Vancouver, for instance, it would be illegal to broadcast political programs in other parts of the country during the three days preceding voting day. In the case of a provincial election in New Brunswick or of a municipal election in the west, the radio and television stations of the province concerned would not be allowed to broadcast political programs.
Of course, that is but an example, since there is no question of a provincial election in New Brunswick, for everybody knows we have there at present an excellent government.
Coming back to section 17 of Bill No. C-25, I hold that this legislation, as drafted, is ridiculous and should be amended, but I should first of all point out that the amendment itself, as proposed by the hon. member for Halton, could be somewhat amended were it referred to a committee, for we see, for instance, that the amendment, as proposed, is as follows and I quote section 17 (lXbXii):
(ii) intended to be received by the public within the electoral district either directly or through the medium of relay stations.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that the term "electoral district", even if those two words give a very good definition of a federal or provincial riding, could not be a proper definition of a municipal division, at the municipal level, where we have wards or subdivisions rather than electoral districts.
Now, the explanatory notes of the bill refer us to page 4117 of Hansard, volume 4, 1958, where we see that the then minister of national revenue proposed to refer that matter to a committee of the house. I fully agree with the then minister and with the hon. member for Halton.
Of course, when we speak of a committee with that in mind, it would be, in this case, the committee on privileges and elections. This committee, recently formed for the duration of the session, will, no doubt, consider fairly soon the Canada Elections Act. Members of the committee will, therefore, have the opportunity of considering the problem and finding a solution in conformity

Broadcasting Act
with the Canada Elections Act and the Broadcasting Act, and in accordance with the facts.
Subsection 1 of section 99 of the Canada Elections Act reads as follows:
No person shall be allowed to broadcast a speech or any entertainment or advertising program over the radio, on the ordinary polling day and on the two days immediately preceding it, in favour or on behalf of any political party or any candidate at an election.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that paragraph 1 of section 99 of the Canada Elections Act does not stipulate any penalty. On the other hand, paragraph 2 of the same section deals with broadcasts coming from outside the country.
For instance, if candidates in federal elections in Canada go to the state of Maine and use the local television stations to broadcast political programs to Canada during an election campaign, they commit an illegal act, although there was a time when, during an election campaign, a candidate was allowed to cross over to the United States and use the services of American radio and television stations to explain, from outside Canada his political principles to a Canadian audience.
Mr. Speaker, subsection 2 of section 99 of the Canada Elections Act, as opposed to subsection 1, provides a penalty, whereas section 18 of the Broadcasting Act stipulates that:
Every person who violates any of the provisions of this part or the regulations is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction as provided in the Criminal Code.
This means that we have two acts which completely contradict one another, since the penalty clause in the Broadcasting Act refers to the Criminal Code, while the penalty clause in the Canada Elections Act provides its own penalty.
Therefore, this is a second or third discrepancy which should be studied and rectified by suggesting to the committee on privileges and elections that the appropriate and necessary amendments be made.
Mr. Speaker, if I may make a few remarks, I should like to point out that this is not the only section of the Broadcasting Act which should be revised. Many others should be looked into, as mentioned by hon. members who spoke before me.
On the other hand, how is it that radio and television stations can boost the price of their programs during an election campaign?
How is it that we read in the press and hear on the radio that politicians, regardless of political affiliations, spend too much money on election campaigns? But we seldom read
[Mr. Dub6.1
an article in the newspapers or hear commentaries over the radio or television blaming those who are actually making electoral campaigns more and more costly. I believe that we should adopt legislation or promulgate regulations establishing maximum costs so as to prevent radio or television station owners from taking advantage of elections which have come up frequently these last few years, by raising their prices and thus increasing their profits at the expense of those who wish to carve out a career for themselves in politics or become members of the federal or provincial parliament in order to serve the public.
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I wish to point out that a way of settling this last problem would be to allow free periods of time for radio or television broadcasts during election campaigns. Of course, these free periods should be limited, but equally apportioned between all legitimate candidates running in an election, in order that every one of them might have the same opportunity to express their views and make themselves heard, without having to be millionaires for that.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for further study.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am only going to take about two minutes so there will be plenty of opportunity to vote on this motion. I want to make three points, and because of the lack of time they will necessarily be disjointed. First may I suggest that the time within which election broadcasting is carried on should be limited because of the fact that most of the people of the country now feel that election campaigns are far too long. We first confuse and stun people, and then we allow them to vote. My suggestion would be that a total period of 30 days terminating just before the election should be established as the time within which broadcasting may take place.
Second, I suggest that the question of dramatized form is innocuous. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who spoke in this debate, when in full exercise of his oratorical powers could very well be accused of making a dramatized election speech. I say this in the most kindly way, of course, but this indicates the inadvisability of including this particular provision. Are we to allow people to vote, and then say to them

that the insidious propaganda of a dramatized political program is going to deprive them of the ability to exercise their right to vote in a free and independent way? I think this is nonsense.
Finally I make the suggestion that surely we should not presume to legislate on behalf of the provinces. We should make provision that the part of the section prohibiting these broadcasts in respect of provincial legislatures or municipal corporations will apply only when the provincial legislature has seen fit to adopt and ratify it. There may be provinces who feel that their citizens are made of hardier stuff than those in other parts of Canada and who might be prepared to allow their people to be subjected to propaganda on the radio and television media. With these changes I suggest that the hon. member has done a service in bringing this matter to our attention, but we should have regard to more than what is included in the bill.
Motion (Mr. MacNaught) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the house willing to call it six o'clock?
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader to put on Hansard, the business for next week.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, beginning on Monday, and proceeding in succession until each item has been exhausted, we will complete second reading of the bill to amend the National Defence Act. Then we will take the resolution preceding a bill to provide for the payment of certain provincial fees and taxes by crown corporations, after which we will discuss the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act. We will then take second reading of the bill to amend the Income Tax Act, after which we will proceed with second reading of the bill to amend the Estate Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 11, 1964