1966-02-18

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that five objections, signed by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) and eight other hon. members in one [DOT]case; by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) and ten other hon. members in another *case; by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) and ten other hon. members in the third case; by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cote) and nine other hon. members in the fourth case, and finally by the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) and ten other hon. members, have been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, with respect to the reports of the electoral boundaries commissions for the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec respectively.

If the house will agree, I propose that the procedure followed on prior occasions in this session be again followed, so that the text of these five objections, together with the names of the members who signed in each case, will be printed as appendices to Votes and Proceedings for this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I add a word at this time concerning the notice of objection filed by the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and others. When the notice of objection was initially deposited "with me the first paragraph thereof included the words "and that this house do endorse the said objections". After consultation with the .hon. member for Kamloops he agreed to *delete these words from the notice.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOAN ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Municipal Development and Loan Act.
Hon. members will recall that the purpose of this statute, which became law on September 5, 1963, was to provide an inducement to municipalities to accelerate the construction of municipal projects as rapidly as possible and thus to increase employment. The inducement took the form of an offer of $400 million of loan funds at a modest rate of interest and an undertaking that 25 per cent of the principal amount of each loan would be forgiven in respect of project costs incurred up to March 31, 1966, whether or not the project had been completed by that date.
Municipalities in all provinces have taken advantage of the borrowing facilities provided by this legislation. The municipal development and loan board expects that it will have committed about $390 million out of the $400 million made available in loans to municipalities by March 31, 1966. In short, virtually every province will have fully used up its quota; indeed most provincial quotas are already fully committed. Some 2,300 loans will have been made to about 1,300 municipalities.
The bulk of the municipal projects being constructed under this program have already been completed, or are well on the way to being completed. However, some 200 to 300 municipalities are unlikely to be able to complete their projects by March 31, and will not therefore be entitled to receive the maximum forgiveness payment.
In some cases the delay in completing their projects is explained by the fact that some municipalities took a longer time than they had anticipated in taking all the steps necessary to bring their projects to the point of commencing construction. In other cases, after the necessary borrowing had been authorized by the province, bad weather, strikes, shortages of materials and manpower delayed the actual construction schedules. Some municipalities applied too late to expect to be able to earn much if any forgiveness. As a
1434	COMMONS
Municipal Development and Loan Act result, construction work corresponding to perhaps $50 million and covering some 200 to 300 separate loans will not be completed until after March 31.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
The act has fulfilled its main purpose, and it is not intended to propose any addition to the $400 million of funds made available or any extension beyond March 31, 1966 in the date by which projects must be approved.
As hon. members are aware, strong representations have been made to the government to extend the date for the calculation of forgiveness, most recently by a delegation of provincial ministers and their representatives. The suggestions ranged from extension for a few months to indefinite extension. The government has been giving careful study to these representations and has been impressed by the evidence of the difficult financial situation which some of these municipalities will encounter if, because of circumstances beyond their control, they are unable to earn the forgiveness they had expected to earn before March 31, 1966.
On the other hand, the government has also had to take into account that some municipalities decided not to apply or were prevented by their provincial boards from applying because they would not be able to earn full forgiveness before March 31, 1966. The government has also been aware, and I have no hesitation in saying this, that some municipalities have no expectation of earning forgiveness and are taking advantage of the act for its favourable financing facilities only.
Taking all these conflicting factors into account, the government has decided that it will ask parliament for authority, by means of a vote in the supplementary estimates for 1966-67, to pay to municipal borrowers under this legislation such additional amounts of forgiveness payments as may be necessary as a result of extending the relevant termination date by six months. That is, I am proposing that the 25 per cent forgiveness payment should be made with respect to all project costs incurred up to and including September 30, 1966. This extension will probably require additional payments amounting to about $12 million beyond those already contemplated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this might be a good moment for the Chair to unburden itself of a very weighty opinion prepared following the discussion in the house on Tuesday, February 15, when hon. members were invited to argue the point of order raised by the hon. member for

DEBATES	February 18, 1966
Cumberland (Mr. Coates). The Chair undertook to give a decision after considering the arguments submitted. I can assure hon. members that I have studied most carefully the several views expressed by those who participated in the discussion on the point of order.
As hon. members know, it has been the practice for some years that when a minister of the crown makes an announcement or a statement of government policy on motions, a spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly.
Beauchesne refers to this practice in citation 91 of his fourth edition. On February 1, 1954 Mr. Speaker Beaudoin stated that it was the practice of the house, when a minister makes a statement, to allow one spokesman for each opposition party to make observations, and he referred to a ruling in that regard made by his predecessor, Mr. Speaker Macdonald, on June 4, 1951.
Last year this practice was embodied in our rules and is now provisional standing order 15(2a), which reads as follows:
On motions, as listed in section (2) of this standing order, a minister of the crown may make an announcement or a statement of government policy. Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
In 1963 an amendment was brought to the Senate and House of Commons Act, which reads as follows:
There shall be paid to each member of the House of Commons, other than the Prime Minister or the member occupying the recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, who is the leader of a party that has recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House of Commons, an allowance at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum in addition to the sessional allowance payable to such member.
It has been suggested that provisional standing order 15 (2a) should be interpreted in the light of the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act in 1963 and that this amendment should be a guide to the Speaker as to the procedure to be followed in the matter of comments on ministerial statements.
There is obviously some merit to this proposition. However, one should bear in mind the following principle of parliamentary procedure laid down in subsection 3 of citation 8 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
In the interpretation of the rules, or standing orders, the house is generally guided not so much
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
by the literal construction of the orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been the practice of the house with respect to them.
We must take into consideration that after the 1963 amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act was enacted, standing order 15 (2a) was adopted by the house, and that in the same year such standing order was adopted the house accepted that the hon. member for Red Deer be permitted to make comments on ministerial statements, although at that time he had in his party fewer members than the number provided in the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Following such precedents, I do not see how I could come to the conclusion that standing order 15 (2a) is to be interpreted in the light of the amendment to the above mentioned act. At the same time I do not think it would be reasonable to conclude that independent members fall under standing order 15(2a). I do not think, also, that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who contributed to the discussion, comes under this category. But until such time as the house amends the standing order dealing with ministerial statements so as to define more precisely the right to comment thereon, I am of the opinion that I should follow the practice which prevailed during the last session and interpret the standing order as permitting comments on ministerial statements by the Leader of the Official Opposition and by spokesmen for the New Democratic Party, the Ralliement Creditistes and the Social Credit party.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest to the statement by the Minister of Finance with regard to this matter of the municipal development loan fund. Let me say, first of all, that this six months extension is not, in our opinion, long enough. I would remind the minister that when his predecessor introduced this legislation in 1963 he promised that should the municipalities have used the $400 million before the March 1, 1966 deadline there would be no hesitation in asking parliament to make further funds available. Apparently hon. gentlemen opposite have now changed their minds, and after having kept the municipalities waiting for a long time to see what would happen the minister comes forward today, February 18, to make this disappointing statement. This is not good enough.
I would point out that in areas such as the Atlantic area this fund has been of great
DEBATES	1435
Municipal Development and Loan Act assistance. Its continuation for a further six months only will be a keen disappointment. During the last reported period of 1965, unemployment in the Atlantic area amounted to 6 per cent according to figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The development loan fund was doing good work in areas such as mine where four schools within a radius of five miles were undertaken under this scheme. I do not know whether they can be completed within the six months period now allowed.
I am glad the minister and the government have listened to the representations of the official opposition and allowed at least some extension of the terms of this act but, as I say, the intention was surely to assist in providing employment, especially in areas like my own.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Finance will cause considerable disappointment among the municipalities of Canada. The concession to extend the period for another six months will be of some help, but the minister has not made it clear whether this extension will enable all the municipalities which now have projects under way to qualify for the 25 per cent forgiveness.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
It seems to me, in view of the very small sum of money involved, the very least the government might have done would be to agree that any projects commenced prior to this date would be allowed to qualify for the 25 per cent forgiveness because, as the minister has pointed out, there have been a great many delays due to causes beyond the control of the municipalities, which have accounted for the fact that they have not been able to complete their work. Some will certainly be unable to complete their programs by September, and it will be a very serious loss to them if they are denied the 25 per cent forgiveness provision.
The second announcement by the minister, that the government has no intention of extending the Municipal Development and Loan Act beyond March 31, is even more disappointing. I think the conference of mayors and municipalities felt fairly confident, when the former minister of finance introduced this measure, that we were taking the first step toward setting up in Canada a permanent municipal loan fund. The house has to remember that there are a great many
February 18, 196&
1436	COMMONS
Municipal Development and Loan Act municipalities, particularly smaller municipalities, which cannot borrow money at the same interest rates as can the larger urban centres. Many of these small municipalities must pay exorbitant rates of interest, if they can borrow money at all, and the absence of any federal municipal loan fund means that many of the more needy communities will be prevented from undertaking much needed municipal works.
We in this party had always hoped the government would establish a permanent municipal bank or municipal loan fund to allow the municipalities to borrow money at reasonable rates of interest. The federal government can borrow more cheaply than the municipalities, and without great cost it could save the municipalities a great deal of money. But even more important it could enable the poorer municipalities to undertake projects which otherwise would be impossible. This is one way in which the government could equalize opportunity as between the different municipalities and they will be disappointed, as are we, that the government has decided not to extend the Municipal Development and Loan Act so as to make this a permanent feature of our Canadian way of life.
[Translation1


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the measures taken by the government to assist municipalities through the granting of loans seem to me completely inadequate.
As a matter of fact, if we consider the situation in which most of our municipalities find themselves, we readily realize that they need government assistance all year round and not only during a given period.
The minister has just said that 1,300 municipalities have benefited from such loans and advantages provided under the federal act. He told us also that some municipalities have not undertaken any municipal works because they were unable to complete them by March 31, 1966.
The minister does not say if these municipalities can undertake works now, tomorrow or next week, and benefit from the provisions of the act until September. The hon. minister's statement is not very clear.
In any event, I endorse what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has just said about this municipal development and loan act. I feel this should be a permanent and not merely a temporary measure, because Canadian municipalities do not exist only until March 31, 1966 or September


30, 1966, but problems will still be facing them after that. Therefore, let us help the municipalities by making this act permanent, so that the municipalities may be treated equitably throughout the year.


Mr, R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many municipalities across the country which will be grateful for the announcement the Minister of Finance has just made. I believe that in so far as the previous act is concerned this new policy will cover the majority of needs where municipalities have not been able to complete projects and claim benefits in accordance with the previous deadline.
However, the need for assistance in financing capital development across this country, particularly as it relates to municipal governments, is urgent. The minister has said that the purpose of this change is to assist in relieving the unemployment situation, but the real need in this country as far as local governments are concerned is not direct relief for unemployment, but money for capital development which cannot be obtained except at exorbitant interest rates. In this regard the tax rate imposed on local taxpayers by many municipalities is made up more in interest charges than for capital for the necessary projects for those communities.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge upon the Minister of Finance that what we need is a permanent set-up to provide this capital. It would seem much wiser for the government to bring in permanent extension, rather than a temporary provision, which would give the type of assistance the government has given under the municipal loans fund in the past years. The need goes beyond that, and that is why we in the Social Credit party down through the years have asked for a definite and complete municipal financing set-up which we believe could best be done through a municipal development bank as part of the Bank of Canada, where such money could be obtained at a reasonable cost which would give hope of meeting the development needs of the country with some relief to the taxpayers.
[Translation1



MANITOBA-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING NELSON RIVER

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish
February 18, 1966

to table copies of correspondence between Mr. Roblin, Premier of Manitoba, and myself, concerning power development of the Nelson river. Mr. Roblin is doing likewise today in Winnipeg.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry asking whether the most unusual action taken by him and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) yesterday in connection with the government of Quebec, as to what that government ought to do in the field of education, however justifiable the objectives were, was taken as members of the government or on their own?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on behalf of myself and my colleague, a telegram was sent jointly by myself and the member of parliament for St. Lawrence-St. George as members of parliament for two ridings on the island of Montreal, to two members of the provincial legislature from the island of Montreal, to seek to obtain their assistance in finding out whether something can be done for the university of which I am a graduate.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that done with the approval of the cabinet or did the minister do it on his own? No matter how justifiable the objective, does the minister think this is constitutionally proper?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps this is slightly argumentative-


John George Diefenbaker: No, it is not argumentative; it is factual.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -but I do think it is constitutionally proper. As I explained to the right hon. gentleman, this telegram was sent and signed by me in my capacity as a member of parliament and a graduate of McGill university.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Starr:: You are a member of the cabinet. Have you got a dual role?
[Translation1 [Later:]


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Industry's telegram-incidentally, I commend him for defending the cause of minorities-would he and his colleague, in the same spirit, consider sending telegrams to the nine other premiers to point out discrimination against French Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. Did not the telegram contain information about grants from the National Research Council, was not the minister speaking partly in his capacity as the minister responsible for the National Research Council grants, and will the minister table the telegram?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has answered two questions along the same line. I have some doubts as to whether they are proper questions for orders of the day because to some extent I suggest the minister was not asked to answer a question in his capacity as Minister of Industry.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of this it seems the question was not entirely in order. In any event, I suggest that the minister has replied to the question as posed and perhaps we might go on to another matter.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of my intention to debate this matter at ten o'clock on Monday evening.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, one more supplementary question, because I think this has a bearing on the matter. The minister has replied that he sent the telegram in his capacity as a member of parliament from Montreal island. What significance, then, do we attach to the fact that no other Liberal member from Montreal island was concerned with this telegram but only two cabinet members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a proper question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with an earlier question, I ask the Minister of Industry whether he will table that communication which he and the Minister without Portfolio sent? Second, I ask the
February 18, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister whether he has been in touch with Premier Lesage, and is in agreement that the allocation by the province oi Quebec to McGill University is "a calamitous shortfall"?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: This is a matter for discussion between the province of Quebec and the university in question. I understand those discussions are taking place.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask, did the Prime Minister have communication yesterday with the premier of Quebec in this connection, and does he agree that the allocation of that $17 million is, to use the words of the Minister of Industry, "a calamitous shortfall"?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the first question might be answered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I had no discussion with the premier of Quebec on this matter.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry. Would he be good enough to table the telegram that he and the Minister without Portfolio sent to certain ministers of the province of Quebec in respect of university grants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier this telegram was sent in my quality or capacity as a member of parliament. I wonder whether it would be appropriate both to demand the production of this kind of correspondence and the tabling of it in this house. I will be only too glad to show any member who is interested a copy of this telegram.


Mr. Churchill:: How did you sign it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In reply to the aside which came across the aisle, I signed it "C. M. Drury, M.P., Saint Antoine-Westmount".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question whether ministers can bifurcate themselves and start directing what a provincial government ought to do is a very important one. I have a copy of that telegram here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, because the minister issued it to the press. But parliament cannot get that which was issued to the press. It says that the following telegram was sent by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order or a question of privilege, or to ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, sir. No minister can adopt the attitude of pretending that he is doing something in his private capacity when he sends a telegram to Hon. Eric Kierans and Hon. R. Hyde, one Minister of Health and the other Minister of Revenue, and signs it "Hon. C. M. Drury, M.P., Saint Antoine-Westmount" and "Hon. J. N. Turner, M.P., St. Lawrence-St. George". I say they have not ceased to be ministers because they are members.
It is most improper on the part of any minister to communicate with and direct or suggest to a province that moneys coming from the federal parliament shall be used for a certain purpose, however laudable and however much I agree that McGill University is being ill treated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a very complicated and difficult matter. Perhaps some light would be thrown on the propriety or otherwise of my hon. friends' conduct when we recall, as I remember it, that when the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister he attended a provincial Conservative convention in Saskatchewan. As I recall, he emphasized at that time that he was attending as a member of parliament from Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's recollection as usual has no basis in fact.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether the Chair is expected to rule whether or not there is a question of privilege. Perhaps it would be the better part of wisdom not to rule on the question at all and to go on to something else.
[Translation1


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Industry a supplementary question concerning his telegram to McGill University.
Does the Minister think that McGill University at this moment is being discriminated against in the province of Quebec as compared to the University of Montreal or Laval University?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege.
February 18, 1966

You allowed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to state in the house that McGill University was being ill treated by the Quebec government.
Now, I happen to have a question for the Minister of Industry who saw fit to deal with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making an interesting point, but the question, in its present form, is certainly not in order, since the hon. member is not seeking to obtain urgent information in the circumstances.


Gilles Grégoire: It is rather urgent.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Saint-Antoine-Westmount.


An hon. Member:: In his capacity as minister?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I will deal with that question. Did the hon. member release to the press a copy of his telegram to the Quebec ministers, and if so would he be kind enough to extend the same courtesy to members of parliament?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to suggest that questions addressed to individual members of parliament are not in order. I assume, however, that the hon. member is addressing me in my capacity as Minister of Industry. I shall be very glad, as I offered earlier, to provide copies of this telegram to any member who desires it.


An hon. Member:: Table it, then.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread interest in the visit to Canada of Sir Guy Powles, the New Zealand ombudsman, I should like to ask the Prime Minister about the commitment contained in last year's Speech from the Throne to the effect that the government intended to appoint a royal commission to investigate the desirability of appointing a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman for Canada. Does the government intend to initiate such an investigation, or has this been dropped from the program?

Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
We are looking into this matter, Mr. Speaker. It is more complicated here than in the case of a country like New Zealand because it has federal-provincial implications. Therefore it may take a little time before a decision is reached.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government promised to set up a royal commission to investigate this matter, has the government changed its mind about initiating such an investigation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; and the commission in question when it is set up will investigate not only the question of an ombudsman but an administrative tribunal.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister received a brief submitted by the Chamber of Commerce of Chibouga-mau with a view to obtaining free C.B.C. television service for this area which is not served at present by government-owned radio or television network?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless this question is of a very urgent nature, which I fail to see at the moment, I suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been urgent for at least three years, and it would be about time the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the MacLaren advertising agency has just received $151,000 from the federal government for advertising the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan, and in view of the minister's announcement yesterday that this advertising agency will be one of three participating in a $5 million advertising program
February 18, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry for the centennial, would it not have been better if this advertising program had been shared among some other advertising agencies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question also might be placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In order to assist the house in its consideration of the subject of national defence, will the Prime Minister inform us of his success during the last three years in fulfilling his promise to negotiate Canada out of its nuclear role?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very interesting question but it seems to me it is the type of question that would require a long answer and is not the type that should be asked or answered at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not have the opportunity to do so right after you indicated that the answer to my question might be lengthy. My point of order is this. How is it possible to determine in advance whether an answer will be lnog or short? I do not think that is possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I admit with the hon. member that it is very difficult, but it is one of the responsibilities of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Prime Minister which will require a very short answer. Is the Prime Minister going to fulfil his promise to negotiate Canada out of its nuclear role?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As my friend the Minister of National Defence indicated last night-it was too bad my hon. friend was not listening carefully-we are at present doing just that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I will straighten out my credentials later. My question is

for the Prime Minister. It arises out of an answer he gave a few minutes ago to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in which he indicated that the government was now in the process of negotiating itself out of its nuclear role. My question is, how does the Prime Minister reconcile that statement with the statement made last night by the Minister of National Defence that appears at the bottom of page 1418 and at the top of page 1419 of Hansard of yesterday's date, where the Minister of National Defence is reported to have said:
At that time our six squadrons in Germany will be fully operational in the non-nuclear attack role as well as in the nuclear strike role.


Gordon Minto Churchill: "As well as in the nuclear strike role".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is entering into argument when he asks one minister to try to reconcile one statement with a statement made by another minister. That is argument.


An hon. Member:: It is a possibility, surely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is an argument so far as the Chair is concerned.



VAL D'OR, QUE.-MAINTENANCE COST OF NUCLEAR BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence?
Are the operating costs of the nuclear base at Val d'Or paid in full by the Canadian government or does the latter get help from the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is very important and very interesting, but it is not so urgent that it cannot be put on the order paper.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Prime Minister whether, as reported, the government is giving consideration to an increase in old age pensions, and whether it is communicating with several provinces to secure consent on the part of the provinces to the acceptance by them of part of the cost load?
February 18, 1966	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government is at the moment attempting to put into effect as quickly as possible the Canada assistance program and is, in addition, considering what more can rightly be done to improve the position of pensioners in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Was the Minister of
National Defence speaking for the government when, as reported in the Toronto Telegram of yesterday, he said:
Defence Minister Paul Hellyer was asked if the pension would be increased.
"It's inevitable", he replied. But he declined to say when he thought it would happen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister agree with that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of National Defence was quite correct in that statement. It is inevitable because we have linked the pension to the cost of living; therefore it goes up as the cost of living goes up over the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: An increase of a dollar and a half in 1968.


Maurice Allard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order about the question put by the Leader of the Opposition to which you allowed the right hon. Prime Minister to reply. I should like to know what difference there is between the question I raised yesterday in this house concerning family allowances and the question of the Leader of the Opposition. It was a similar question and you said it was out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows these decisions are taken on the spur of the moment. If he wants to appeal from the decision of the Chair, he may refer the subject matter of his question for debate on the adjournment motion.


Maurice Allard: I wish to discuss this question at ten o'clock at the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, so many points of order have been raised that I have almost forgotten the question to which mine is a supplementary, but it relates to the question of old age pensions. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to the recommendation of the Senate committee on
DEBATES	1441
Inquiries of the Ministry aging for a guaranteed minimum income for all over 65.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I answered this question the other day and said at that time the government was giving very careful and immediate consideration to the important recommendations of the Senate committee, and that a committee had been set up for that purpose.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of an earlier question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of his reply in regard to old age security increases and the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River with regard to the rapidly rising cost of living, if he will tell us approximately what the date of that inevitability might be, as referred to by the Minister of National Defence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement earlier this morning that the government is anxious to proceed with the Canada Assistance Plan, can he say when this legislation will be on the order paper so that we all may have a look at it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, from the way we are now progressing, I am quite sure that it will be on the order paper before we are able to take it up, so that hon. members will have an opportunity of looking at it before it reaches the chamber.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I think it is of great national importance. Would the Prime Minister take the house into his confidence at an early date and outline the steps the government is prepared to take immediately to curb the ever escalating cost of living, particularly since he dealt with it in answer to the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this is the type of question that is very general in nature. The hon. member is asking for a general statement of policy. The question requires a detailed reply, and if the minister makes a long
February 18, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry statement there will be objections on the part of other members in the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask
for a statement today. I asked if the Prime Minister would be prepared to make a statement in the future outlining what the government intends to do. I did not ask for a reply today, but I should like to know if he is prepared to outline his policy in the near future, because we would like to hear it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member will have ample opportunity to hear it in connection with the budget presentation and in other ways.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General having to do with the appointment last Wednesday by the government of a judicial inquiry into the escape of four inmates from Collins Bay penitentiary. Can the Solicitor General inform the house whether such a judicial inquiry has been appointed, and if so why it was not announced last Wednesday when it was appointed?


Mr. Speaker:: A question of a similar nature was asked yesterday or the day before. It is difficult to remember whether it was in exactly the same terms as the one which is now being asked by the hon. member. However, it appears the Solicitor General is prepared to reply now. He may refer at the same time to the question which was asked before.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: In
reply to the hon. member may I say that the appointment of Judge Deyman was made under the Penitentiaries Act by the commissioner, and not by the minister. I do not know if all the details have been cleared and whether the judge has secured approval from the senior county court judge to act in this capacity. However, I believe this permission will be forthcoming.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to pose the question which I posed yesterday and which you invited the minister to answer but he did not. Yesterday I asked whether he had any statement to make about reports that (1) officials at Collins Bay penitentiary knew of an impending break and, (2) at least one of the guards' rifles was so mucked up with grease it would not fire.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. gentleman's assistance in reminding me of the question and confirming the fact that the question was out of order.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question of the Solicitor General. Do I take it that such an inquiry has in fact just been appointed?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The answer is in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker. I understand that if clearances are given the inquiry will commence next Monday.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question to ask of the Prime Minister arising out of a statement made last night by the Minister of Transport in committee of supply to the effect that the Prime Minister had received a letter from the premier of British Columbia in connection with the shipbuilding subsidy program. I ask the Prime Minister if he will table a copy of the letter from the premier of British Columbia and his reply to it. If so, when can he do this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was not a letter, it was a telegram. I have been working this morning on a reply to the telegram in the form of a letter. If the premier of British Columbia has no objection, I would certainly be glad to table the communications.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government given any further consideration to the possibility of extending or re-establishing the roads to resources program?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could take that question as notice.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, although it may come within the purview of the Minister of Labour as well; I am not sure.
February 18, 1966

In view of the strike which began Wednesday at the nuclear research establishment at Whiteshell, Manitoba, has the minister involved himself in any steps or action leading to an eventual settlement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. The nuclear establishment at Whiteshell comes under the jurisdiction of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which now reports to parliament through the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Then may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has that minister involved himself in any steps or taken any action to help settle the strike at this research establishment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I take this question as notice.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical whether certain directives have been issued operators at the Atomic Energy plant at Whiteshell, Manitoba. My question is, has the minister or the government issued any directive to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited relative to wage levels and wage differentials to be paid as between the Chalk River plant and the Whiteshell plant? Perhaps the minister may not want to answer at this time but would like to take this as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking whether certain directives have been issued to employees of the government. I suggest that in that form the question cannot be accepted at this time.



QUEBEC-WAGES PAID TO WORKERS IN GOLD MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Is the Minister currently considering the situation in the gold mines of northwestern Quebec where employees must work for starvation wages because of the price of gold.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question of a general nature. I presume the minister has noted the representations of the hon. member.

Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the general concern of civil servants over the proposed integration of their pension plan with the Canada Pension Plan, will the minister give assurance that amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act will be referred to a standing committee or special committee which may be established?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would not undertake to give that assurance, but I will certainly take this suggestion into consideration.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the minister advise if a decision has been taken as to whether members of the armed forces will be brought into the Canada Pension Plan and their own pension act amended accordingly?


Mitchell William Sharp: My recollection is that the matter is being studied. It is very complicated, as are all these matters.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he has yet been in negotiation with his opposite number in the province of Ontario concerning federal contributions to conservation projects.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am to meet soon the Ontario minister to discuss with him all kinds of problems presently pending between the federal government and the provincial government.



STEPS TO IMPLEMENT REPORT ON GREAT LAKES POLLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. On Wednesday the minister, in reply to a question which I put, commenced to read a fairly long statement on water pollution, and Your Honour decided that that statement should not be completed.
1444	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
May I ask the minister whether he intends to complete this statement on motions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I could do so in a few seconds by enumerating some of the things that have been done recently in the field of pollution.
A federal-Ontario committee has been formed by the International Joint Commission, and is very active. An interdepartmental committee is being set up by the federal government. I am meeting next week with the Canadian representative on the International Joint Commission. I am meeting with the Ontario minister in a few weeks on this same subject and others. I intend to be as active as possible in these matters, because I give them as much importance as does the hon. member.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question to the minister. Will all these meetings that the minister has mentioned be carried on sub rosal



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Does the minister intend to introduce legislation to change the pension act, as he promised last session and as recommended by the committee on veterans affairs in 1963?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I do not know whether it is proper to answer that question. I did promise, and carried out the undertaking last year on the question of amending the act.
I am certainly not going to commit myself to anything at this moment until I receive the report from the inquiry committee.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house when he expects this report from the committee which he has set up?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I will make inquiries and report.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to 
DEBATES	February 18, 1966
answer my question of last Monday concerning the possibility of bringing on Bill No. C-2, an act to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, for possible early passing.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if my recollection is correct, what the hon. member asked me last week was whether I would discuss this matter with the government house leader; really draw it to his attention. That I have done, and I have his assurance that it will be placed on the list of work for this session when developments in the house warrant so doing.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maslcinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
In view of the urgency of the situation and in the interest of national health, does the government intend to compel the tobacco companies to print on the outside of cigarette packages a warning about the harmful effect of smoking?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to tell the country the exact date when the cheques for the final wheat payments will be issued.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I am not yet in a position to announce this date. I have received the first recommendation from the wheat board for the transfer of the unsold balance, and I expect that within the next day or two I will be receiving their recommendation for the level of final payments.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Manitoba representative in the cabinet. I should like to
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
ask him whether he has received any representations from the mayor and city councillors of Portage la Prairie with respect to inclusion of that city as a designated area for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 submit to the hon. member that he cannot ask questions to a member of the cabinet in his capacity as representing a province, but only in his capacity as minister.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?


David Réal Caouette: Order paper.


Auguste Choquette: Could the minister tell us whether the federal-provincial discussions which took place yesterday were favourable to Quebec's proposals to include fodder under the insurability projects in connection with the application of the crop insurance act across the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Auguste Choquette: The federal provincial conference took place yesterday and we would like to know the results.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member could put his question on the order paper and thus get the answer he wants.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY INTO AMATEUR ATHLETICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister in charge of health and physical fitness. In light of the very strong statements made in the legislature of British Columbia and related questions in the legislature of Alberta in the last two days, is the government prepared to set up a federal royal commission to examine the status of amateur athletics?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No consideration has been given to this proposal, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	1445
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



HEAVY WATER-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SECOND PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that the time limit invitation to Canadian General Electric to review the possibility of developing a second heavy water plant in Canada is now drawing to a close, could the minister state when he will be in a position to report to the house on this important matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, responsibility for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited now rests with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Repeat the question.


Richard Russell Southam: My question is this, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the time limit invitation to Canadian General Electric to review the possibility of developing a second heavy water plant in Canada is now drawing to a close, could the minister state when he will be in a position to report to this house on this very important matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should anticipate a decision still pending. We are still within the time limit allocated to Canadian General Electric, and I think I should delay answering that question.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the very important hearings which the Board of Broadcast Governors will be conducting next Wednesday concerning the subject of the C.T.V. network, can the minister inform the house if the board will be up to full strength for that meeting?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I have to advise that Mr. Pierre Juneau, formerly of the National Film Board, has been appointed as vice chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors, and Mr. David Sim of Ottawa as the third member.
February 18, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
EDUCATION	EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REPORTED CANCELLATION OF TOUR BY GLASGOW STUDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I have a question to address to the Secretary of State. Would the hon. lady inform the house whether it is true that plans by the Glasgow educational authorities to send 1,000 children here on a special tour next year have been cancelled because of a lack of accommodation available for those young tourists?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if this question is so urgent that it should be answered at this time. Perhaps the hon. member might care to place it on the order paper.



RAISING OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE WITHOUT NOTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of all members of the house. I do so with reluctance because the hon. member concerned is not in his seat. The hon. member who is concerned in the question of privilege is the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member raises any question of privilege he must take into consideration that according to standing orders he is required to give prior notice to the Chair one hour before the opening of the house. Unless I am wrong the hon. member has not given such notice; therefore I suggest that he cannot raise a question of privilege of the type he appears to have in mind at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to put it off until Monday, when the hon. member I have referred to will very likely be in his seat.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: It is when you have complied with the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not because the hon. member referred to is not in his seat but because the hon. member raising the question of privilege has not complied with the requirement of the standing order to the effect that the notice must be given one hour before the opening of the house, that the question of privilege may not now be raised.



DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN AND U.S. MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he could inform the house as to the main purpose of the discussions being carried on today, I believe, between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and some ministers in Washington.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was in New York last evening and, as I think he indicated to the house, he was there to discuss matters of interest and importance with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with the United States representative to the United Nations. The main subject of discussion was the situation in Viet Nam. Other matters may have been discussed as well.
Today in Washington he is to meet with the Secretary of State and other officials of the United States government to discuss with them Viet Nam and other questions. He will make a report of his discussions to this house after he returns over the week end.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments win come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal last night I drew attention to the low state of morale in our armed forces and referred to some of the evidence which shows how serious the situation is. In particular I drew attention to the heavy loss of highly trained personnel which has left the armed forces unable to carry on effectively so far as some of its units are concerned.
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
In this regard I mentioned the situation in the navy where some 20 per cent or 25 per cent of our remaining fighting ships are tied up at Halifax and Esquimalt for lack of sufficient trained personnel to man them. Looking at the army, we find that every unit posted overseas for duty, whether in Germany, Cyprus or the Middle East, must have its numbers brought up to strength by postings from the units remaining in Canada, leaving the latter at greatly reduced strength. Apparently, sufficient numbers for the infantry required in Cyprus could not be obtained by posting men from units of the same kind. When the Royal Canadian Regiment was posted there artillery personnel had to be sent to the island to make up the numbers.
This is all too reminiscent of the conditions which existed in late 1944 and 1945 during the last war in Europe when the manpower policies of the government of that day resulted in units engaged in northwestern Europe, particularly infantry units, being seriously under strength. The result was that men from other units of all kinds, untrained in infantry work, had to take on infantry jobs for which they were not prepared.
I myself was in command of an artillery unit which had to hold some 12 miles of the river Maas line and during that time we lost a considerable number of men, killed and wounded, primarily because they did not know what they were doing. They were required to do an infantry job, first driving the Germans across the river and then patrolling across it. They had not been trained for this work and this resulted in unnecessary loss of life. The situation existing today, where we find artillery men being sent to do an infantry job, is all too reminiscent, as I say, of what happened in those days, days which all who experienced them hoped we would never see again.
Turning to the R.C.A.F., let me say first of all that it is well known this branch of the service is now seriously short of pilots, a situation which may not be surprising in view of the fact that only a year ago the minister compulsorily retired 500 pilots, a monumental mistake as has now become apparent and as should have been clear at the time. Possibly hon. members do not realize that the cost of training these pilots runs from $'75,000 to $200,000 per man or even more. But 500 pilots were summarily dismissed from the air force. Now a year later, we find ourselves seriously short of pilots.
DEBATES	1447
Supply-National Defence
Of course, in addition to the 500 who were dismissed a large number of air crew on short service commissions decided not to reengage on the completion of their terms. Many others also requested discharge from the service because of factors I mentioned earlier, the low state of morale and the feeling that there was no future for them in the air force. A large number of these applications for discharge were accepted. The measure of the shortage of pilots in the air force at the present time is such that pilots in Europe are now reported to be putting in some 70 hours a week on duty. My information is that R.C.A.F. officers with engineering degrees filling supposedly vital jobs in the technical services have been taken from this work and returned to flying duty in order to keep the R.C.A.F. squadrons in the air. The question immediately arises: What is the state of efficiency of these technical services and how will they continue to operate effectively if men are to be drained away in this manner?
The minister has put out a great deal of propaganda to the effect that the changes he has instituted in the department will save a great deal of money. Most of the newspapers have accepted this propaganda and supported his programs on that basis. In actual fact, however, the amounts spent by the Department of National Defence have not declined. If we look through the estimates for the past five or six years we will see that the money estimated to be spent-in each case, of course, the estimate has been exceeded-was between $1,525 million and $1,590 million. In the current year which we are now considering the figure is $1,550 million. According to the estimates tabled this week, for next year it is $1,572 million. In other words, the minister has not saved any money.
He has continually tried to make the point that he would save a great deal of money on personnel and administrative expenses with the result that there would be more money available to provide new equipment. But so far as this year's estimates and expenditures are concerned the actual situation is that only about 12 per cent of the defence budget is to be put into new equipment, the smallest percentage in many years. In other words, the minister's claim that he would make savings in administration and personnel which could be devoted to the purchase of new equipment has not turned out to be justified.
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence
Most important of all from a cost point of view is the fact that cost in relation to effectiveness has gone up substantially instead of decreasing. We are spending the same amount of money as we were in past years but we are not getting anything like the return in effective military units. I have called attention to the situation in the navy where the number of fighting vessels has declined to little more than half what it was when the minister took over. I have referred to the situation in the army and the air force.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The minister has attributed the severe losses of trained personnel and the difficulty in securing recruits to good economic conditions. He blithely says, "The reason we are having trouble keeping people in the forces or recruiting them is that conditions are so good under this beneficent Liberal government." That is complete nonsense. We have had good economic conditions in Canada previously but we never had the losses from the armed forces that we have experienced during the past two to three years.
So far as recruiting was concerned, in the past a high proportion of the people who enlisted in the armed forces did so because their parents or friends were members of the armed forces and encouraged them to join, but because of the state of morale in the forces at present no such urging is taking place. There are very few members or exmembers who will advise their sons and other young relatives to join the forces. That is one of the main reasons that recruiting is difficult and losses of trained personnel have been so heavy. It is not due to good economic conditions, although no one will argue that good economic conditions do not have some effect. Recruiting has always been slow when economic conditions have been good but it is not a major factor or anything like a major factor.
In order to try to correct the situation the minister is talking about pay increases and bonuses for men who re-engage. We also hear that requirements for entrance to the forces have been lowered. In addition, sea-going pay of $15 a month extra has been put into effect, this for people who in the past joined the navy because they wanted to go to sea. Of course navy personnel are glad to get it but they actually laugh at the minister for thinking he has to provide special sea-going pay in order to encourage people to join the navy. The question immediately comes to mind, what will be the effect of this on costs?

The minister is constantly talking about saving money and cutting down on costs but these increases in pay, bonuses and special sea-going pay will increase personnel and administrative costs.
The lack of morale in the armed forces is, of course, much greater in operational units and commands than may appear to be the case to the minister at national defence headquarters. He would get a much better idea of the dissatisfaction that exists if he would go to an operational command, secure the views of the men there and answer the questions of a cross-section of officers and other ranks in that command.
In his speech last night he indicated that a further integration of maritime command and R.C.A.F. maritime command took place in January, and I understand that at Halifax considerable unrest exists as a result. That would be a logical place for the minister to visit in order to find out the actual situation. However, he must be aware of the serious morale situation because he found it necessary to send an air vice-marshal to Trenton to try to sell his integration program to the personnel there and to try to stop the flood of withdrawals taking place. I am told this senior officer tried to field questions for over an hour after his speech extolling integration but the officers and other ranks did not buy what he was trying to sell.
I now turn to some questions with regard to integration and re-organization of staff at national defence headquarters. In 1964 the minister gave the defence committee an outline of the planned organization or reorganization, which is to be found in a chart at pages 140 and 141 of committee report No. 5, for June 4, 1964. This chart shows, in addition to the chief of defence staff, an assistant chief of defence staff. Then the staff is broken down into four main components or branches: First, the chief of operational readiness, with a deputy; next, the chief of personnel, with a deputy; next, the chief of logistics and engineering, with two deputies; and then a comptroller general, with one deputy.
I put a question on the order paper asking for the names and present appointments of all the officers of the rank of major general or equivalent rank and above and on February 7 I received a reply which appears in Hansard. This reply does not show anyone holding the appointment of chief of operational readiness or the appointment of deputy chief of operational readiness, nor does it
February 18, 1966

show anyone as assistant chief of defence staff. However, it does show a deputy chief of operations and a deputy chief of plans, neither of which is provided for in the chart which the minister gave us in 1964. The only conclusion one can come to is that the proposed organization has been found unworkable and has been drastically changed. No information with regard to this matter has been given to parliament or to the country. I should like to know what the situation is. This is one of the things the minister should explain before these estimates are passed.
On several occasions in the past I have pointed out that one of the great weaknesses in the proposed changes was the multiplicity of chains of command or lines of communication which this reorganization would produce, with a resulting great waste of time, inability to act quickly and general loss of efficiency. Instead of an operational command having one clear line of communication, as it had in the past and through which it received its orders and instructions, so far as I can make out it now will have ten lines of communication. An example is maritime command. It must have a line of communication to the assistant chief of defence staff and to the chief of plans, if these positions are what now exist, a line of communication to the chief of personnel, one to the chief of logistics, one to the comptroller general and one to each of the other commands, training command, air transport command and so forth. So far as maritime command is concerned, the situation will be even worse in that the R.C.A.F. is a component of it and it will have to have another line of communication dealing solely with R.C.A.F. questions.
It is quite clear that the result of this will be an extremely unwieldy and time-consuming type of organization tailor-made to create confusion, and one which will require more people to make it work than had been the case under the previous organization. In fact my information is that such a state of confusion, uncertainty and disorganization does exist and is one of the things which is contributing powerfully to the lack of morale in the armed forces.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Basic to all of this and the real cause of the existing difficulties is the minister's determination to institute a new system and new programs contrary in many cases to the advice of senior officers. He is attempting really,
Supply-National Defence to act as the commander in chief of the defence forces and is putting in programs, deciding on equipment, forcing resignations of officers and making promotions, not on the best advice of responsible officers but rather on the basis of his own amateurish theories and prejudices.
I should now like to say something about a few equipment matters. In this regard the minister's lack of knowledge of what was required when he first became minister at least, has been shown quite clearly, I think, by what has happened. I have here a couple of press clippings parts of which I should like to put on record.
The first clipping is from the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 14, 1962 and it is an account of a speech the minister made. This is what the minister stated at that time:
The federal government's proposal to purchase three submarines and eight frigates is a "complete and utter waste of $27,000,000-
Where that $27 million figure came from I do not know but I assume it is the cost of one frigate. The article continues:
-that won't be able to supply one dollar's worth of protection from Russian atomic submarines,'' Paul Hellyer said last night.
The second clipping I have is from the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 10, 1962, and is an account of a speech made by the minister in Vancouver. He is reported as having said:
What good are destroyer escorts and frigates against a nuclear sub they can't find five miles deep in the ocean.
The minister apparently knew so little about these things that he thought submarines were capable of penetrating five miles deep in the ocean whereas their limit is a few hundred feet. These are statements made by the minister not too long before he became the Minister of National Defence and they indicate his state of knowledge at that time.
In spite of that lack of knowledge the minister plunged ahead into all these new programs. He cancelled the general purpose frigate program which was well under way. Then in the course of time he found that if the navy was to be supplied with ships at all and keep up its strength some program along the same lines was required, so he revived the program. The same ships are being built with exactly the same hulls based on the plans that were produced at the time I was minister. Of course he now gives them a different name, helicopter destroyers or something along that line. He is only going to have four built instead of eight as originally planned.
1450	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence
So far as the Oberon submarines are concerned, the minister in his statement last night boasted about having obtained the first of these submarines and talked about how important this acquisition would be to the Canadian navy. I think that is an indication of how the minister has worked and the inadequacy of the knowledge he had before in this regard. He must have learned a great deal in the past few years because he has now gone ahead with the Oberon program and has reinstituted the general purpose frigate program, although on a reduced scale. His education in this regard has been expensive for the country. He has probably had the most expensive education of anybody in Canada.
In relation to the new ships which are being built, the general purpose frigate or helicopter destroyer, if the minister wishes to call it that-


The Chairman:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take only a very few more minutes. These new ships were to be powered by steam but I understand now that they are to be powered by gas turbine engines. Such an engine has not yet been designed for a ship of this size. I think the inevitable result will be all kinds of bugs and difficulties and no doubt a greatly increased cost. No one actually knows what the final result will be. I should like to know upon whose advice the decision was made to power these ships with gas turbine engines because I think this is a very doubtful proposition.
I should like to say something about R.C.A.F. equipment. The minister has been very boastful about the F-5 for which orders have now been placed. Following the evaluation of this aircraft in Viet Nam the United States Air Force has decided not to purchase any of them so it looks as though Canada will be the only country using the F-5.
I have before me some excerpts from a letter written by an R.C.A.F. officer who was fairly intimately concerned with the evaluation of aircraft, including the F-5. I should like to put these statements on record to give

DEBATES	February 18, 1966
some idea of the opinion of the R.C.A.F. regarding this aircraft. This letter states:
A second comment is on the statement of the F-5. It is not only considerably inferior to the other aircraft of its comparative size and performance, but also was the only one of the three aircraft evaluated by the integrated services, i.e., A-7, A-4, F-5, which was rejected as being unsuitable. The other two were considered to be acceptable, and were considerably more effective.
The other point which has been overlooked is that the F-5 is the only aircraft of the three which is not carrier compatible. The result of course being that there is no way now for the mobile command to achieve mobility in its fighter deployment since the F-5 cannot provide any protection to the command when it moves overseas, since the aircraft has not the range or navigation facilities to protect the force while underway. In addition of course the statement that the F-5 has an outstanding record in Viet Nam is nonsense. To date, unless there has been a recent change in policy, the F-5 has only been used in South Viet Nam in local short range sorties against rifle and small arms fire from ground forces. It not only does not have the range to operate in North Viet Nam but also has such a poor weapon load that it is uneconomical to operate. The minister's remark about Canadian modifications is partly true. Mainly so because without the improvements proposed by Canada, the aircraft is virtually useless. The F-5 was designed and built as a cheap high altitude interceptor, and to modify it for a low altitude strike aircraft, virtually destroys its worth. It is interesting to note that the small A-4 is flying over 80 per cent of the missions in Viet Nam and the U.S.N. is so pleased with its performance that it will be in service until 1973. Also of course the A-7 is its replacement and is being purchased by the U.S.N. and U.S.A.F.
Both the A-7 and A-4 as stated were selected by the Canadian forces over the F-5. Costs were of little significance when performance and cost effectiveness was applied. To modify the F-5 now of course to make it effective has escalated the costs considerably.
That is the opinion of a member of the R.C.A.F. In addition to that statement we have a considerable amount of evidence from Aviation Week and various other United States journals regarding the performance or lack of performance and the disabilities of this aircraft. The experience in Viet Nam showed, as indicated in Aviation Week, that the take-off roll, in other words, the amount of runway required for this aircraft to take off, was excessive. It is therefore unsuitable for the role the minister envisages for it.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
This is his statement in that regard:
Take-off roll of the MAP F-5 is felt to be too long to permit operation from short fields with a large combat load for close air support. A typical 6,000-feet or greater take-off roll is longer than a great many short fields. To clear an obstacle at the end of the runway, additional field length would be required.
February 18, 1966

In addition it was found that a well improved runway was required because the bomb load and the spare centre tank necessary to provide enough gasoline to give it any range at all were so close to the ground that if there was not a completely smooth runway there was the danger of the bomb load and the spare tank being knocked off the aircraft in its attempt to take off.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the range of the aircraft is very short, only 120 nautical miles. This does not give it sufficient range to carry out effectively the close support and strike role which the minister has been saying it is ideally adapted to perform. With regard to the simulator which had been ordered for this aircraft there is a rather peculiar situation. I believe one of my colleagues will deal with this matter in more detail However, just last Tuesday an article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen headed "Hellyer Denies He Ordered $50,000 Study Of Jet Plane". In this article Mr. John Walker dealt with an interview he had with the minister in which the minister said, "We never ordered the simulator". This reporter then interviewed the Minister of Industry who said, "Well, of course we would never have entered into a contract if it had not been ordered". So the minister is apparently in the position of not even knowing what was decided in this regard and then attempts to brush the matter aside by saying this plane is so good that you do not need a simulator for it.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Anyone with any experience in these matters knows that a simulator is absolutely essential to save money and time in training pilots, to save lives and to make any training program really effective and economic. This, of course, will be the only combat plane the R.C.A.F. has now or has had in the past for which there has not been a training simulator. The statement the minister now makes that it is not needed just does not stand up on the basis of all the experience in this regard. I think that undoubtedly the real reason the simulator is not being bought is that stated in an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail:
But other sources said the cancellation was ordered soon after the U.S. Defence Department decided to purchase the U.S. . . . A-7 attack plane for the U.S. Air Force and not the American Northrop F-S Freedom Fighter.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, with the Americans deciding not to order this plane there was not going to be sufficient sale and
Supply-National Defence use for a simulator to justify what the cost would be for Canada alone, in the minister's opinion at least. One other aircraft on which. I think we should receive more information is the Buffalo. It is a very good aircraft for its purpose but I think the costs given by the minister so far cover only the airframe. I should like to know the cost of the aircraft, completely equipped because I think it is considerably more than we have been led to believe.
There has also been talk of the proposal,, about which I have asked one or two questions in the house, to secure small, eight passenger French jets. I should like to know what R.C.A.F. requirements there are for these jets. There might be a requirement for two or at the most three, I believe, but the story given out that these are going to replace the present Cosmopolitans just does not stand up and does not make sense. The Cosmopolitan has a considerable carrying capacity with a side-door loading facility. It can carry 40 men. It therefore provides a considerable amount of transport capability to the R.C.A.F. These small planes which carry eight men would not meet that need in any way whatever.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, there might be a case for two or at the most three of these aircraft but in my opinion it would be very much better if we had at least two jet planes somewhat comparable to the Comets we had in the R.C.A.F. and which proved to be extremely useful indeed. I think this is one of the present deficiencies so far as the R.C.A.F. transport component is concerned, namely, the lack of jet aircraft with transport capability. The same amount of money spent on jet planes with a reasonable carrying capacity would be very much more justifiable and the money would be better spent than on any proposal for these small, French jets. I have a considerable number of other matters to raise, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the fact that I am already over my time I shall conclude at this point.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of anticipation and interest to the statement made by the minister last night when he outlined matters and policies affecting the Department of National Defence. It is my own personal opinion that the minister in the preparation and delivery of his statement must have followed the advice of his political strategists and public relations officers to continue his policy of camouflaging the true
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence state of affairs in the Department of National Defence with a cloak of generalities.
Listening to the Minister of National Defence I could not help but be reminded of gifts under the tree at Christmas time. They are very beautifully wrapped, with nice colourful ribbons and bows, and on the package are the words" Do not open until Christmas". The only difference between those beautifully wrapped gifts marked in this way under a Christmas tree and the statement of the minister last night is that his beautifully wrapped package on national defence policy and affairs bears the label "Do not open at any time". We are expected to accept this beautiful package, this picture, this wrapping and are not to be given the real facts, the real circumstances, the real answers and the real explanations.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The minister and his staff must have worked very closely on his statement. There is a strange but in my opinion understandable relationship between the speech the minister made last night and a recent talk delivered by one of his assistants, perhaps his chief assistant, in Montreal. I do not know how many members of the House of Commons read the Montreal Gazette. I read it every morning. I hope that once those who do read it have read the editorial page they turn to the comic page. If they do they will occasionally find most interesting information. I did yesterday. On that page, three columns away from the comic strips about Mrs. Fitzs, Mary Worth, Little Lulu, Li'l Abner and Steve Roper, there was a report of a speech made in Montreal to the Westmount Rotary Club by one whom I presume speaks with authority, Mr. William Lee, special assistant to the Minister of National Defence. According to this report on the comic page, Mr. Lee outlined the work of a committee which studied all types of conflict Canada might face. The recommendations of this committee led to far reaching changes in the defence structure. Mr. Lee, the special assistant, is a man of knowledge and has a marvellous personality, I know. In the article I find these comments:
It was unanimously agreed that the unlikeliest type of war Canada would face would be an allout thermonuclear conflict. The possibility of such a holocaust seems remote since it would be useless to all nations. Also in the event it should come about, Canada would play a very minor role in the conflict.
This led defence experts to think of Canada's role in small insurrection wars, with possible escalation to Korean war proportions.

We realized that we needed a very mobile and diversified armed force. Integrating our forces seemed like a good answer.
You know, that is quite a statement. Mr. Lee having made that statement in Montreal to the Rotary Club, we then heard the statement by the Minister of National Defence last evening. After comparing the statement by the special assistant with the statement of the Minister of National Defence, I can only come to the conclusion that the minister is trying to go in opposite directions at the same time. That is quite a feat if he can get away with it. In religious circles it is called hell-dodging. You go to a different church every week or every month in the hope you can enter heaven.
This is exactly what the Minister of National Defence is trying to put over in the House of Commons right now. As a matter of fact, he has been doing it very successfully in the past. The Minister of National Defence has been getting away with what I call an attitude of ebullient extrovertism and doing it very successfully. However, he cannot do that in this new parliament of Canada. We want the facts; we want explanations, not generalities. It is most interesting to read what Mr. Lee had to say and then read what the minister said last night in view of a question asked of the Prime Minister on orders of the day today about negotiating our way out of a nuclear role. I take it when that happens, as was promised in the house some three sessions ago, we will renegotiate our position in NATO.
What was the answer just an hour or so ago from the Prime Minister? Our position as a nuclear power, equipped with nuclear weapons, was being renegotiated, and he said that was referred to last night in the statement by the Minister of National Defence. The minister was kind enough when he started speaking to send over to our group a copy of his speech, which he read word for word. I should like to quote from his statement, page 1418 of Hansard, as follows:
The introduction of the dual capability for our strike attack squadrons in Europe is continuing and will be complete later this year. At that time our six squadrons in Germany will be fully operational in the non-nuclear attack role as well as in the nuclear strike role.
What happened to that promise some three sessions ago to negotiate ourselves out of the nuclear role? What was the meaning of the Prime Minister's statement in the house today that negotiations were under way, according to the minister's statement? What the minister told us last night was that he was continuing to completion the nuclear operational
February 18, 1966

strike role lor our squadrons in Europe and it would be completed this year. Talk about a two-faced Janus, talk about going in both directions at once. This is not only ebullient extrovertism but political effervescence. We, sir, have a right to know more than generalities. We have a right to know because it costs us at least a billion and a half dollars a year for national defence. What is the defence policy of Canada? We are entitled to know what has never yet been explained, why it is that Canada must spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make Canada a junkyard for obsolete United States equipment.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
If we check back over the years, what do we find? We find that we buy that which has been declared obsolete by the United States, what is no longer used as equipment by United States forces. Spokesmen from the office of the minister and the minister himself have much to say; yet they never explain these facts. It is never explained why official spokesmen from the minister's staff and the minister himself righteously and piously say, "No nuclear war". He is calling on the taxpayers of Canada to put up hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire and maintain equipment in a war which, if he is honest in telling us what he is doing, will never come. I have said before both in this house and in the defence committee that in any outright war there is not going to be an attack by manned bombers.
We may be stupid, Mr. Chairman, in our defence policy, but anyone who is going to start a world war is not going to be stupid in his plans for such a war. The question of manned bombers coming across Canada is eyewash. The minister knows it is pure unadulterated eyewash. The next war, if it comes, will be fought with missiles. So what do we do? The United States, during the term of office not only of this minister but of the previous minister, declares that Bomarcs are obsolete, so we buy them. The United States Air Force declares Voodoos obsolete, so we throw out our chests and say we are going to give the R.C.A.F. modern equipment and we buy Voodoos.
Even if manned bombers came across Canada I imagine the pilots would know where our two Bomarc stations were. All they would have to do would be to fly 425 miles away from them in which event we could not touch them. I understand from an answer given by the minister the other day

Supply-National Defence that it costs $3.5 million just to provide for personnel and the employment of dogs to protect our nuclear warhead installations for a type of war that will never take place. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the members of this House of Commons and the people of Canada are entitled to a more efficient and practical defence policy than that outlined by the minister. Surely the members of this House of Commons are entitled to something more than generalities. We are entitled to facts and to explanations.
When I speak of Canada being a high-priced junkyard for United States obsolescence I think not only of Voodoos and Bomarcs. I suggest that some questions must also be raised, as was done by the speaker before me, about the new Northrop F-5. It is not good enough for the minister to tell us what a wonderful aircraft it is and what a wonderful buy he is making. He is billing the Canadian taxpayers for $215 million. It is a new piece of equipment. Yet on January 24 of this year the President of the United States in his message to Congress said that the Northrop F-5 would not be on their schedule. He stated the U.S. air force would procure more McDonnell F-4's and the Ling-Tempco-Vought A-7's, the two aircraft which were rejected by the Minister of National Defence when he was considering the purchase of planes for Canada.
I am not going to take time by repeating much of what was said by the previous speaker but, Mr. Chairman, I always insist on being completely honest. Let it be noted that in a report concerning the testing of the Northrop plane in Viet Nam, written by C. M. Plattner who was in Viet Nam, he opened his statement by saying that the over-all performance of the Northrop F-5 light jet fighter met or surpassed certain expectations. However, as a result of the test he pointed out certain failures. One of these failures was the tendency of the guns to jam and difficulties with the bomb release mechanism were revealed early in the testing. The range is limited with even a moderate-sized bomb load. He goes on to say:
The F-5A in standard configuration-ordnance plus a 150-gallon centreline tank and two 50-gallon wing tip tanks-has a range that is considerably less than that of other tactical jet aircraft in the theatre . . .
Take-off roll is excessive-
The aircraft requires a 6,000 foot runway and I understand that this type of fighter should not require more than 4,000 feet. We are entitled to know, at a time when orders
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence are being placed, what kind of plane we are getting. It is an aircraft which is not now being bought by the United States and is one in which defects have occurred.
This reminds me, Mr. Chairman, very much of the time I had the privilege of being on an exercise with the Canadian Navy off Bermuda. Three destroyers were in line. There was a simulated attack by one aircraft and half of the guns of the three destroyers would not or could not fire.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When was that, a year ago?


Harold Edward Winch: Just over a year ago. We are entitled to know whether this state of affairs has been corrected. If there had been more than one aircraft in that simulated attack all of our Canadian destroyers would have gone to the bottom because half of the guns could not or would not fire.
These are the sort of matters that the minister should be dealing with instead of generalities. We should like to help. But we cannot help when all we get from the minister and the government is camouflage, not facts, figures or explanations.
I notice that my time is running short but I do want to deal with one other matter which I know is of concern. I refer to morale. Morale is of the utmost importance. If there has been a lowering of morale among the Canadian armed forces in the last 18 months or two years, then I say, having spoken to personnel in the forces, that it is not because of the plan for integration. It is my belief that, although there may have been some questions arise from the original statement, today there is not only an acceptance but an endorsation of the policy of integration. If morale has fallen it is because the minister and his department do not back up their statements. Last night the minister said that our Canadian armed forces are a professional group, and that is why they are of such high quality and have such high standards. I agree 100 per cent with that.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I remember, sir, that when our defence committee was visiting armed forces bases in Europe we were guests at a U.S. base. At the official luncheon I sat between two top-brass United States officers and they told me how much they admired the Canadian men and how much better Canadian men were than their own. I asked them why they said that and they replied, "Because your men are professionals. They are not conscripted. They

are not drafted. They are not waiting to get out in two or three years. It is their life and their profession. Therefore they have a different attitude and a different morale." I agree with that.
Does the minister follow through with the suggestion that these men are professionals, that service is a career and that they should be treated on that basis? The answer is no, Mr. Chairman. Last fall, when I as one of half a dozen attended a naval exercise off Bermuda, I drew as my lot the captain's suite on the Bonaventure as my place to stay. That was quite a week. However, I did not just stay in the captain's suite. I went through the entire ship. I can tell you that there is one hell of a difference between the captain's suite and the quarters of the other 1,000 men, many of whom work and sleep in a temperature of over 100 degrees. I understand that the Bonaventure is going in for a refit this year. I hope that we are doing something about the accommodation of the O.R.'s, the other ranks, because they are the backbone of every service.
I hope the minister is noting that they are professionals. We spend two, three or four years training technicians. Why do you not give them the remuneration they deserve as they progress and achieve experience? Any apprentice in the construction industry starts at 60 per cent of the journeyman's wage and gets an increase every year or every six months. Why not do that with the men of the armed forces?
On that trip some officers said to me, "We are not too badly treated but give some consideration to the men in the navy. Many are married. They have to leave home and, whether you like it or not, when the male member of the family is away other work and other expenses fall on the wife." They said to me, "Why not give these men an away from the shore allowance, because we travel the world? We are the ambassadors of Canada." The officers I spoke to said, "Are we to be allowed anything for being ambassadors of Canada? Unless we are cheapskates we have to return receptions and so on."
The answer is, "No, you are not allowed anything". Why do you not do something-


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


Harold Edward Winch: It takes years to train our technicians, but they only have to sign on for a period of service of three, four or five years. The minister will remember that I
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
raised with him in the defence committee 18 months ago the subject of having to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to train men. Why does he not give a bonus on re-enlistment? I spoke to him about that. However, what do we find in the minister's statement? That these matters are under advisement and consideration. That includes salaries and everything else. They are all under advisement and under consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They have a regular study group.


Harold Edward Winch: We need something better than having everything under advisement and consideration. It takes too much time. Last night was the time for the minister, when making his announcement as to what he was going to do to maintain morale and so on, to recognize that our armed forces personnel are professionals. It should be his policy to treat them as professionals and to keep them in the service. But no, we did not get that. Instead we got the usual platitudinous statement-"It is all under consideration and under advisement". We got double barreled statements going in two directions at the same time such as nuclear and non-nuclear and negotiating out and not negotiating out because we are proud to announce that we shall have completed our nuclear dual role at the end of this year in Europe. There was no answer at all as to the cost of obsolete weapons. There was no explanation why we spend $3,500,000 a year to maintain the warhead dumps for our Bomarcs, our Voodoos, and our rockets for the Honest John with the brigade in Europe.
I appreciate very much that no one has called me to order. I appreciate that others wish to speak, but I did want to outline defence policy broadly and make a few general remarks. May I say this that I regretted very much the way the minister concluded his remarks last night. His conclusion dealt with the defence committee. We appreciate his kind words but I am afraid I have a suspicious mind and I think my suspicions are correct.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired unless hon. member has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it unanimously agreed that the hon. member may continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	1455
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: I will not take more than a minute, and I appreciate the courtesy extended to me. I think I said I have a suspicious mind and I think my suspicions are correct. The defence committee of the House of Commons is now to meet as a standing committee. I think that the minister was giving us a great deal of soft soap in the anticipatory statement he made that when we meet as a committee for the third time we will be satisfied with generalities and the odd explanation and so on. I have had the opportunity of being a member of that committee since it was appointed and prior to that I was a member of the special committee appointed a few years ago to examine the accounts of the department. Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister I say that the defence committee is an all party committee. Having sat on it I know that it is prepared to be a non-political committee. I take pride in the fact that it has been a non-political committee. If the minister really means what he says about this committee, then he is going to have to change his strategy, philosophy and approach.
I do not think I have missed more than two or three meetings of that committee in two years. The minister does not ask the advice of the members of that committee. He does not take us into his confidence, explain his problems and seek advice. Nine times out of ten on that committee we are faced with a fait accompli from the minister and we are told what is being done. We are not asked for our advice as to what we think should be done.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
Admittedly in the final analysis the responsibility must be that of the minister and the government. But let him show a little more decency toward the committee. Use a little more honesty when dealing with this committee. Do not present it with faits ac-complis. Take the committee into your confidence and get the viewpoint of the members of the house who are members of the committee and who are interested in national defence, interested in defence policy, interested in seeing that we make our best contribution to world peace and that we get the best return for every cent of the Canadian dollars acquired by the department. I ask the minister sincerely and conscientiously to think this over. I am certain I am speaking for all members of the committee. Treat the members right and they will respond by treating you right.
February 18. 1966

Supply-National Defence


Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity to look over the speech the minister made last night and I must say that in the two years since he laid the White Paper on defence before this house a lot has been done in the department and a great many changes have been made. I know that at the time these proposals were announced there was a good deal of anxiety. Many people wondered how these measures would turn out. All in all, the minister seems to have handled the situation well. With regard to the integration of the armed forces in particular, I believe the hon. gentleman and his advisers should be congratulated. This was a touchy and difficult subject because the action to be taken required changes in the status quo and in the mentality in various sectors of the armed forces which had been built up over many years. I believe the minister handled this well bearing in mind the over-all state of morale in the armed forces. We must remember that these moves cut out a great deal of unnecessary expenditure of the texpayers' money.
A year ago I spoke on this subject when the minister's estimates were before us and I am glad to see that since then the minister has taken account of the importance of providing the Canadian armed forces with equipment which is reasonably convenient for their use. At that time we asked that our armed forces should be mobile, highly versatile and efficient so as to be able to cope with any local situation in which they might be called upon to act. I do not agree that we should always run all over the world to take part in operations of a military type whenever we are asked to do so and to send forces abroad with our eyes closed. Some criticism has been directed against the minister and the government because of the initiative shown in the past in this field. I am thinking, now, of Cyprus in particular. Sometimes, of course, these interventions are needed. But I hope the government will always act in such cases in the interests of Canada and not on the orders or say so of our neighbour to the south. I recognize that in this field they are an extremely powerful nation. We are just little dots beside them but we have a job to do and I think we can do it.
It is not my belief that we should try to compete with the other nations of the world in a nuclear race. We would be stupid if we were to try to win the race to the moon. We would be just as stupid if we tried to win the race for nuclear arms. When the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke of the Voodoos

we had purchased I was inclined to agree with him. Practically 100 per cent of such purchases consisted of leftovers for which the United States could find no further use. What do we suppose we can do with obsolete equipment? If we do not possess the means to get the best equipment, then I think we have to follow another corridor, to pursue another goal.
We belong to NATO and to NORAD. I have been on NATO trips and have discussed these questions with members of the parliaments of other countries. I think the minister was with us one year. There was one Canadian parliamentarian who got up and told the members of one of the committees to stop looking back and arguing as they had been doing. They had been arguing for eight years about the same point. They were still doing it and nothing had been accomplished. They always kept saying: we do not have all the money we need; contributions are not enough to realize our plans.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
I know this. But let us be careful not to follow in the footsteps of Turkey, for example. In Turkey one can walk through the menages militaires-armories, we call them- and see the history of Turkey written on the walls. Account is taken of all the wars they have had for a thousand years. They are proud of that. A visitor can go through these armouries and find the history of Turkey there. I believe that ever since that country has been a nation they have been fighting. But today they are poor as church mice. If that country had spent 10 per cent of its national defence budget on fighting poverty in their country they would today have a country which would attract tourists from all over the world. That is one side of the story. When they have nobody to fight they fight among themselves. It is all right to be able to defend oneself. That is a moral obligation of the government, but it is also its moral obligation not to go beyond its means and the means of the Canadian people. We have other ways in which we can help maintain peace in the world. The greatest example of this was when Pope Paul VI went to the United Nations not so long ago. We have a defence minister by the name of Paul. If he would just follow the other Paul's footsteps sometimes at least, I think I would agree with him.
The thing is that we do not have in this country the means and the money to build up our forces' equipment as is done by our neighbour to the south, by England, by the
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
Soviet Union, or by France for that matter. But we have other means France has not got, that England has not got and that the U.S.A. possibly has not got. We can produce in this country goods for any nation in the world.
Today we are trying to fight communist ideas with nuclear arms. We are taking nuclear positions and adopting every kind of defence we can imagine to prevent the Soviet Union from invading democratic countries. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, and through you the minister, that you will not defeat communism with arms, with bombs or with any kind of nuclear warfare. You will not and you know it, sir.
Today Latin America is in a very shaky situation. Give it another ten years and the fighting will not be in Viet Nam; it will be in Latin America. Thousands of people are dying from starvation there every day, but what do we do about it? We buy Voodoos and we buy Bomarcs. If the Canadian government and the Canadian people would help these underdeveloped nations, there would be much less chance of communist infiltration in these countries and we would not have to be so afraid and be on the defence so much. Possibly if we had helped Viet Nam when there was yet time to help it we would not be facing the situation we are facing today. We can help other countries by first giving their people something to eat. By that means we will help their morale.
The two great ideas that prevail in the world today are the democratic way of life and what we call the eastern block or communist way of life. It is up to us to prove that the democratic way is better but not by means of warfare or nuclear arms. We should not try to defend it after it is too late, but rather by proving beforehand that we can do something with it. One of the things we can do is not to let other nations starve.
We sit at home in the midst of our own wealth and say that everything is all right, but we forget that our neighbours do not enjoy the same kind of comforts that we do. Now is the time to help them. There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, which applies in this situation as much as anywhere else.
It is O.K. for Canada to have a defence role. We need national defence. We need forces with conventional arms, the best that can be got because we do not have the means to acquire other kinds. With these we can face local situations and on occasion help 23033-93J
DEBATES	1457
Supply[DOT]-National Dejence outside our own boundaries, but we should not try to compete in the world race for nuclear arms.
In 1962 and 1963 members of the government made certain statements concerning nuclear arms, but if you compare those statements with their stand today you will see that what they said more than three years ago was not quite the truth. At that time it was done to win an election. Today it is done to satisfy Washington. That is the difference. They change their story according to whom, they are addressing. When you want votes, you work for votes. When you want protection you have to work for protection.
The hon. member who spoke before me was right in saying that the government should give more information and should listen to recommendations. We do not just criticize the minister. He is not alone in this regard. He is responsible for the department but he is not responsible for all the government's policies.
I know the stand which members of the Liberal party took in 1962 when they were on this side of the house. I know the criticisms they made. Oh boy, sometimes it was not pretty, but what surprised me was that when they went across to the other side of the chamber they did exactly the opposite. That surprised the Canadian people also. That, Mr. Chairman, is done. There is nothing much we can do about it but we can try to prevent similar situations and further dealings of that sort.
I will be a proud man in this chamber the day we stop taking direct orders from Washington. I do not mind our receiving advice from Washington but I would appreciate the house being told about it. We say this house is the supreme institution in Canada. That may be true in theory but in practice I wonder whether it is so. So long as we have the government across the way with the attitude it has, especially with respect to national defence, you will not make me believe that we make the decisions in this house.
I would not be surprised if there were a direct telephone line between the two defence departments in Ottawa and Washington. It would be cheaper that way because they are always communicating. Regardless of what the United States may do they want us to defend their actions. Right now they have put their foot in the soup and have burned it. Let
1458	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence them take it out themselves. We have something else to do. I have suggested to the minister that we have a job to do in other underdeveloped countries. The only way we can maintain peace is to try to work for peace. The only way you will ever keep a man out of a boxing ring is by not training him to box. If you keep on training him to be a boxer he will end up getting into the ring.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
Let us have conventional arms and armed forces with great mobility and efficiency to be used to help in case of floods, conflagrations and other kinds of emergencies. In addition, let us do what we can to help underdeveloped countries instead of waiting for two or three years until a crisis occurs and then helping to defend them. Who will help to defend them in that event? It will be the Canadian youngsters of today. The minister said in his statement last night that the officers of world war II are now leaving the armed forces because they have put in their service and completed their jobs. We have to replace them and who is going to replace them? I say again that these people will be replaced by the young men of Canada. At this time many youngsters join the armed forces of their own choice. Let them be trained as professionals because that is their wish.
I think it is also our job at this time to help the underdeveloped countries that need food, clothing, medicine and doctors. Surely we are able to give them these things and surely we should give them these things to the best of our means. Countries like France are not able to contribute nearly as much because they have to buy a great deal of their foodstuffs elsewhere. By following this course I think we would be taking a great step toward maintaining peace in the world. This would certainly be a more beneficial policy than the policy we are now following of buying Voodoos, Bomarcs and the like in an effort to compete with other nations of the world in the arms race now taking place. We cannot compete with other countries so far as nuclear arms are concerned. We have not got the means. We do have the means, perhaps more than any other nation, to help the underdeveloped countries which are sliding toward the communist bloc. That is how communism gains ground in these countries. The people are hungry, they have empty stomachs and they suffer great misery. The communists move in and feed them and then we have to go in to defend them. Let us get out of our lethargic state, our dormant state.

DEBATES	February 18. 1966
Let us shake the sand out of our eyes and assist these countries in a proper manner.
I am glad that the government has finally decided after 25 years to declare war on poverty in Canada. Let us now take the same attitude and declare war on poverty in other countries which need such a program even more than we do. I think we would make better friends and better alliances if we would assist these countries which do not know where to turn for assistance. Surely we could make better friends in this way than by trying to defend them with our peashooters when a conflict occurs. That is about all we can do when the situation has reached that stage.
I am sure that if the government and the minister took the kind of stand I suggest they would have the support of every citizen in Canada. If they continue the policies started two or three years ago they will not obtain the support of a great many people of this nation, and they can be sure of that.
I want to refer to the policies followed by the government regarding changes in equipment. They come here and ask for large sums of money for, as they say, minor changes in existing equipment. I have found out that many of these so-called changes costing millions of dollars have in effect been replacements by new kinds of equipment rather than modifications of existing equipment. As an example, they will purchase a completely new type of aircraft use the same letters for it as were used on the old type with the addition of perhaps one extra letter. They have done this to camouflage the use of these large sums of money. I do not like that type of policy because it is dishonest. If they intend to purchase new equipment, why do they not say so rather than say they are making modifications? I think the minister and the government should take this suggestion into consideration. I hope in future he will come into the house and say that they have purchased new equipment instead of saying they need money for changes.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I should like to urge the minister and his colleagues again to move quickly to help the underdeveloped countries in the world to the greatest extent our means will allow before we are called upon to defend them, as has been the case in the past. I think that by the policy I have suggested we can maintain to a greater extent the peace of the world.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, in speaking during this debate on the estimates for the
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
current year in relation to defence I realize that we are speaking about money that for the most part is already spent. We are looking forward to next year's estimates which we hope will be before the house before too long. At that time we will be dealing with the expenditures for the 1966-67 fiscal year. In view of that I will attempt to keep my remarks as short and to the point as possible.
I do not speak in this debate with any claim of being an authority on defence but I do speak as a citizen who is interested in the value we are getting for $14 billion in expenditures of tax money and whether or not we in Canada are fulfilling our role in relation to defence responsibilities. After all, $1J billion is a lot of money. If that amount were used in other areas for the development of our own economy or for our war on poverty, it could make a tremendous impact on the nation. I trust that the Minister of National Defence and his department are careful in their consideration and determination of Canada's role in relation to defence and military expenditures.
What are we attempting to do as a nation in this particular area and what is it that we are actually hoping to do? Is our defence policy completely integrated with our external affairs policy? Are these two policies working together in co-ordination toward the same objective and are they in line with our trade policy? Unless they are I believe we stand in constant danger of not fulfilling the objectives of our role and actually wasting money that could be better used in other ways.
I should like to impress upon the minister and his department that attention must be paid to our own responsibilities when determining our objectives. We must accomplish something practical in relation not only to our own responsibilities but the responsibilities of our neighbours in the area of defence.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
Canada stands in a very peculiar position in this regard. No other country stands in quite the same position. This is because we occupy the northern part of a continent, and by reason of our tremendous barren areas in the north and our vast coast line it is impossible for us to institute a defence program that would adequately protect the country in the event of attack from outside. Because of our geographical position it is inevitable and reasonable that we integrate our defence pattern with that of the United States as it relates to
DEBATES	1459
Supply-National Defence this continent. I am speaking strictly in terms of defence.
This does not mean, nor should it mean, that we just have to follow along and dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the handwriting that American defence policy may lay out before us. But certainly we should not be so foolish as to think we can on our own maintain any responsible and effective national defence program without it being thoroughly integrated with that of the United States.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I think it is reasonable to assume that we could completely discard our whole defence program knowing that the United States would defend our shores more quickly perhaps than they would their own simply because of our geographical position. All this must therefore be part of the outworking of any defence policy that we have.
I think the minister and his department must be commended for what they have done toward the integration of our forces. I travel outside this country occasionally and meet people who are involved in the defence programs of other countries. I think these people look to Canada with a certain amount of envy and respect for carrying into effect what they have fought and talked about for years now. I believe there is no doubt at all that the progress achieved toward the integrating of our forces, particularly as this policy applies to smaller nations, is a pattern that will be copied by many of these countries. Therefore I believe a great deal of credit is due to the minister and those who work with him for bringing about this integration.
I think the minister and his officials have won phase one in the program of the integration of our forces. They have now taken the lead that makes completion of integration inevitable; it is part of an accepted pattern. On the other hand, I am concerned that they do not lose out on phase two, the actual implementation of those policies which have now been accepted and laid out as being the pattern for integration. Phase two of this program should make integration an actual and practical reality.
In my opinion the command organization that has been laid out on paper and the fact that we are now into the period where this is actually being carried out are important to he defence program. I have heard reports from service personnel and have also observed what is happening to their morale. When you see the confusion that exists at the
February 18. 1966

Supply-National Defence present time with regard to the allocation of certain defence programs and bases within the various command structures of the new defence organization, one realizes the minister could well lose that which he has gained unless the department is efficient and effective in implementing these policies within the new organization and do it quickly.
I am particularly concerned with this program as it relates to the new designation of various military bases in the country and the various aspects of the command structure into which they will fit. I can cite no better example than the heretofore air force base adjacent to my own home city. Here we have one of the better equipped and developed post-war air bases in the country and for a full two years now, because of the lack of a specific policy in the use of this base, nothing very much has been done about determining its role.
A waste of tax dollars is involved here because it is an accepted fact that this base is going to be part of the new training command and civilian and basic maintenance personnel are being retained. But unless the base is being used for a definite role it is a waste of money. I agree that time is a prerequisite in determining just how this or other bases will fit into the program. Nevertheless I believe there is need for urgent action in this respect. We understand that training command, for example, assumed authority only at the first of this year, which is only a few weeks ago, but I believe the Canadian people and the personnel of the armed forces are expecting action in this regard and quickly.
Actipn is expected not only in respect of the specific commands within the new organization but the correlation and integration of these commands as they make use of the various bases necessary for any defence organization in the country. I noted the remarks of the minister with regard to the Canadian Services College and correlating the various aspects of training into one program. This is necessary and it is good that it is taking place. But it is just one small area of many with regard to which similar quick action will have to be taken.
Another point about which I am concerned in the over-all picture relates to the strength of our armed forces and the recruiting programs being carried out. It has to do with the need for urgency in the development of phase two of the program of integration, because as the morale of our forces has suffered under


the integration program and its prospective application to them there has been a falling off of personnel and recruiting. So much in fact is this so that just one year ago when we were debating the estimates we were talking about pilots in the air force who were being laid off prior to their normal retirement time because they were not necessary.
The position today is that we do not have enough pilots in the air force. We are short of pilots as we are short of technical people and personnel for many other areas within the armed forces. This all points up the need for quick action in the implementation of what I have called, for want of a better name, phase two of the program of integration.
There are one or two points I should like to raise with regard to peace keeping. This question also refers back to policy. Where are we going, what are we trying to do, how long are we going to be carrying on our peace keeping responsibilities in Cyprus and is this expense really justified? It is a heavy expense because Canada is paying her own way in setting a good example to the world. But are we effective in what we are doing or just drifting into a passive situation in which the United Nations and others responsible for the political side are letting the matter drift because Canada and a few other nations are willing to come along and do more than their share in maintaining a peace keeping operation?
Here again, I think, is an area where external affairs and defence must have the very closest correlation so far as policy is concerned. I have mentioned Cyprus. What about the 1,000 personnel we have for years contributed to the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East? We hear reports that our troops over there lack a sense of purpose, that things are stagnating, that they really feel they are not making any worthwhile contribution. Is this just because on the political side matters are being allowed to drift without there being any real effort to reach a solution and bring an end to this particular situation?
We are spending a great deal of money in this area and Canada is willing to spend money if it helps to maintain world peace. Most of us in this house are willing to support such programs, but I think we should be very careful not to be caught in a trap whereby we are doing something that really is not necessary and which we never intended to do in the first place. We need direction in this regard and we need it urgently.
February 18, 1966

[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
I should like to refer also to the Zambian oil lift. We were good fellows and immediately sent some of our Hercules aircraft to help transport oil to Zambia. How long is this airlift going to continue? Is it effective? Are the reports that Zambia is allowing oil supplies to go into Rhodesia true? Are we just wasting the taxpayers' money without really accomplishing anything? This is the political side of questions which relate to defence policy and the defence budget. We are concerned that there should be some useful purpose for these programs.
I think mention should be made at this point of our training program for some nations in Africa, specifically Ghana and Tanzania, with relation to the current year's budget. Here is an area where our defence policy again combines with external affairs policy and we can make a tremendous contribution. I have seen personally what some of our men are doing out there and it causes one to be proud of the way Canadians fit into such a picture, create good will and make a fine contribution. I feel that this boosts morale. I think we should have a similar pattern of purpose and definition of objectives with regard to other areas of our defence program. Then we could give up just flailing our arms in the wind and accomplishing nothing worth while.
What about the whole NATO program? Has Europe today reached the point where the military objectives of NATO are antiquated? Is it not reasonable to assume that with the European countries having progressed politically and economically as they have and with the new pattern of defence programs as well as the increasing mobility of defence forces it is no longer necessary to spend millions of dollars in order to keep forces in Europe? I am not suggesting for one moment that we should shirk our responsibility to NATO. Here again, there is the possibility we are just drifting along and spending money without really accomplishing anything and at the same time wasting tax dollars.
I think we all agree that the new role of NATO relates more to the economic side than it does to defence. Could not some of our forces be brought home? Could they not fulfil any obligation in the event of a crisis in Europe from this side of the Atlantic as well as they could from that side? I should like to hear more about this. The minister really has not said anything about it. This is one of the

Supply-National Defence major parts of our over-all defence expenditure and I think we should hear more about it.
I believe that one of the weak spots of the defence department is its lack of public relations. They never inform members of this house or the public about what is happening. For example, there is the case of the F-5 fighter which is apparently being adopted by the defence department. According to news stories across the country this fighter has been rejected by the United States. The general public opinion, as near as I can determine, is that the purchase of this plane is a waste of money. If the department were more concerned about issuing constructive information concerning this plane, perhaps there would be a different opinion.
When I was going through some newspaper clippings I was amazed to find that nine allied air forces have purchased the same airplane. If they have done this there may be some advantage to it about which the public and the defence committee are not aware. According to one of these reports which appeared in December of last year, nine allied air forces have ordered some 700 F-5's. This is the same plane that we know as the CF-5. These countries are Canada, China, Greece, Iran, Korea, Norway, the Philippines, Spain and Turkey. This is the kind of information I think we should have and it is the responsibility of the defence department to see that we get it. Certainly the public have to have such information if the defence department expects the taxpayer to make his contribution to defence expenditures willingly.
These criticisms do not apply only to aircraft. We have heard criticisms in the house about the Bomarc missile. We cannot blame the present government for the fact that Bomarcs are in Canada. This was part of the defence policy crisis three years ago. Is it true that United States defence forces have discarded the Bomarc? Are they phasing it out and using it temporarily until something else takes its place? I should like an answer from the minister. If the Bomarc has no worth then it should be discarded. If it has we should be given this kind of information because it is the kind of information the country needs. I suggest the minister make sure this is done. After all, the original purpose of the defence committee was to secure such information. I am sure many of us here recall vividly the situation three years ago so far as defence policy was concerned. We did not know what defence policy
1462	COMMONS DEBATES	February 18, 1966
Supply-National Defence was. We had no idea and neither did the public, any more than the government did at that time, actually what our purposes and objectives were. After the election the Minister of National Defence wisely picked up the challenge, and I do not think I am amiss in saying that the recommendation for a Defence Committee first came from the members of this party.
As I say, after the election the suggestion was implemented and a Defence Committee established. This committee gave members a background of reliable, authentic information for their guidance as well as the advice of specialists who devote their time and energy to this field. It is not enough for the members of such a committee to go on occasional trips and then think about what would be a good defence policy. We want to carry on with a non-partisan attitude toward defence. That is what I think we in Canada should have. We are not a big enough country to waste our energies and our dollars pursuing some objective about which we may not know anything and which may not have any useful purpose.
There are many aspects of the defence picture which we should discuss at this time. However, we want to get on with the estimates as quickly as possible. I leave these suggestions with the minister and hope that before we reach a discussion of his next year's estimates he will endeavour to clear up some of these points which I believe are not just being raised by the members of this house but by the people of Canada. We would like to have some information.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose there is any riding in the whole of Canada to which the military program is of more signifiance than it is to the riding I share with my colleague and particularly to the cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. This is so for two reasons. One is entirely economic since a large proportion of our citizens are members of the armed forces and the second is a military consideration. The area still bears the scars of its contributions to two world wars. We of the Halifax area, I may say frankly, are concerned about the policies of the present government and the policies of the Department of National Defence.
We listened to the minister last night exuding a great deal of self-satisfaction. One could almost hear him say, this is the best of all possible worlds and that he, as Minister of National Defence, had provided the best of all possible policies to look after this best of all possible worlds.

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
This recalls, Mr. Chairman, the famous remarks of the philosopher Pangloss in Voltaire's "Candide", who always looked upon everything with a very sunny disposition. This philosopher went forth in the world and at one point he had an ear hacked off in an encounter and in another place he had an eye poked out. Though saying that this was the best of all possible worlds these lamentable things happened to him. His teeth were lost in yet another encounter and an arm hewed off as well. Still he insisted that this was the best of all possible worlds. Finally I believe half of his rump was hacked off in yet another war and at that point he felt inclined to change his tune and retreat to his garden. I can only say, in comparing the Minister of National Defence with this philosopher, that the Minister of National Defence has more physical staying power than that philosopher and will still insist that this is the best of all possible worlds.
Yet, sir, the former minister of national defence, in a remarkably fine contribution last night, shot down this contention very quickly. He pointed out that there was a total loss of manpower of some 7,200 per year and an attrition rate of 600 personnel per month in the armed forces. He also pointed out that part of the antisubmarine might of the Canadian navy was made ineffective because ships were tied up at Halifax, Dartmouth and Esquimalt. This I can certainly vouch for.
The minister says that the effectiveness of the navy has been increased. If this is so, then under his policies he should put more ships in a mothball state. I presume that if the number able to fight effectively were cut in half, then by some curious mathematical process which the minister uses this would thereby double the effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Navy.
This obviously cannot be so and it is a matter of concern to the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy. It is also, I imagine, a matter of concern to the minister himself because he is faced with the herculean task of bringing manpower up to the proper level.
I am critical of the minister for what he has allowed to take place. I think I and every other hon. member in the house would want to do what we can to help him overcome the results of his own follies. We should like to see the navy brought up to proper manpower strength and those mothballed ships back in action.
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
How can we improve conditions? I suggest several approaches to the minister. I know that a pay increase is one of the methods of making service life more palatable and I think this is important. From talking to naval personnel I know they contrast their pay envelopes with those on "civvy" street and I think this accounts, especially in this inflationary age, for the reason that many people are leaving the navy. I believe 13,412 have retired at early stages from the services at their own request. This is not only a remarkable figure but a very frightening one as well. Jobs with more attractive pay are one method to tackle the problem of bringing personnel back to strength.
There are other methods as well. As the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out very ably last night, the minister talked of computers and of cost effectiveness. He has brought all the techniques of modern and efficient office management to his department or so he says. But he is leaving out the human factor, the attitude of men and women, the matter of morale and confidence in the leadership given.
I think the minister would go a long way toward solving his problem if somehow he could convince the officers and men in the services that he, his government and the department had an idea of just what they were going to do in the field of national defence. I think a war of ideas would be a much more profitable war for the minister to win than simply a war using more money.
Another suggestion I would make is that the minister and his department give some incentive to service people in the field of housing. We have in the Halifax-Dartmouth area several large housing schemes for the navy. Apartments have also been built by private entrepreneurs and are filled almost entirely with naval personnel. I suggest this gives service personnel no particular advantage except whatever advantage they may derive from living among their own kind. At the end of their stay in these places they have collected a massive pile of landlord's receipts but they have gained nothing more than shelter and accommodation.
What I think would be a useful idea for the department to explore, and I hope the minister and his associate will explore it, is to give some incentive to service people to own their own homes by giving them a certain sum as a down payment either initially or at the end of a definite period of living in these houses. In this event the net result would be that
DEBATES	1463
Supply-National Defence after 15, 20 or 25 years of service the serviceman or woman would own the home and if he or she intended to move to some other place to retire that home could be sold at a profit.
I suggest that this would provide a method of savings for service people which would amount to say $15,000 to $25,000, thus providing a substantial sum indeed when these people retire. I have mentioned this idea before and I hope the minister and his department will study it, perhaps in consultation with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think it has advantages. It would give service people more of a stake in the communities in which they serve.
Two years ago I had the advantage of going to Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick where for the first time the special services battalion was engaged in an exercise. I should like to deal with this point in making some remarks on integration because I think the minister is half right and also half wrong in his approach to this matter.
As I say, I had the advantage with other newsmen of going into the field with the special services battalion made up of elements of ordnance, engineering, R.E.M.E. and the like when they were engaged upon a special operation. I thought they were very pleased to have this form of integration of the supporting services.
Therefore I think I can agree with the minister's concept of integration up to that point in that the supporting services can indeed be usefully integrated into one. It did not seem to me that the dental corps or the engineers-as we know, the engineers are a very proud race, almost a race apart-felt that they had suffered a loss of tradition by being so combined.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
When it comes to what might be called the fighting arm of the services I think different considerations have to apply. I know opinion on this is somewhat one-sided one way or the other. The older people in the services, I think, rely very much on the traditions of the ships to which they have been posted or their squadrons or regiments. For younger men this may not necessarily be so. A very senior officer has told me that he would hate to be around on the day that the men of the Black Watch were told to give up their kilts because he knew that whoever gave such an order would be murdered. I suggest to the minister that in his consideration of integration and the provision of common ranks,
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence common units and the like, that he concentrate on the supporting services first until he can be sure that they have reached the efficiency he desires before moving into the field of the fighting services.
In dealing with the problem of proper working conditions and the morale of the armed forces I should not like to omit the civilian prevailing rate and civil service employees. In the Halifax area we have a large number of prevailing rate employees who for some years have been restive about the methods under which they have been paid. I would suggest to the Associate Minister of National Defence, since I believe this is largely his field, that he give considerable thought to the form of collective bargaining which I understand will be introduced some time later this session. I see that the Associate Minister assents so I take it that we shall tackle this later.
May I suggest to the Associate Minister that it be a bona fide, collective bargaining procedure in which considerable authority is given to those who bargain for the government, the people who sit across the table, to deal honestly and effectively with the demands presented to them. This should be done instead of having them appear at collective bargaining procedures in which they are simply messengers sent in this case by the Department of National Defence or in other cases by other government departments. If this assurance can be given when collective bargaining arrangements are brought in, I think that the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence will have done a real service to the prevailing rate employees not only in the Halifax area but in other areas as well. The ministers are undoubtedly aware that from time to time protests have arisen about this matter and that it has been hard to satisfy employees that they are getting their just desserts.
Finally, sir, I should like to make the point that the people of my area, and I imagine people in other areas of Canada, are very concerned about the removal of the mine sweeping squadron. To us that is an almost incomprehensible act. We do know that the Russian navy has submarines capable of laying mines. One need only to look at the globe to see that off the western coast of Norway lie sea lanes forming a gigantic arrow pointed at the east coast of Canada down which submarines can come. Yet the mine

sweeping squadron has been consigned to oblivion. I do hope that the minister will make an explanation to the house later in the debate. As I understand it, this measure has been brought about strictly with a view to economy.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the worst should happen, and I presume the minister must prepare his policies assuming that the worst will happen, Halifax harbour, ports on the St. Lawrence River and all other major ports on the east and west coast will be out of action in the next world war in the first couple of hours. Our naval strength will also be out of action because if the navy cannot venture out of harbours on account of mines ships will be bottled up inside the harbours. My understanding has always been that our role in NATO is an antisubmarine role. I would think that the minister could perform a useful service if he could assure us that the mine problem is going to be met in some way. I do not think that he can give that assurance because naval officers I have talked to are completely baffled why this particular policy was adopted.
I suggest to the minister that he read Samuel Eliot Morison's history of the United States. He was an old sea dog, philosopher and historian, and he did say certain things which are true. Admiral Morison makes a very strong point, that to be a good maritime nation you have to act as a maritime nation. I suggest that by adopting a policy directed away from having a strong and effective Canadian navy Canada is forfeiting much of its right to be considered one of the world's leading maritime nations. I am afraid, sir, that the minister has adopted policies which one could consider to be of a landlubber variety.


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few remarks in extension of those by the senior member for Halifax. As the junior member I defer in most cases to his wisdom. The question of the housing of service personnel raised a moment ago by my colleague is indeed a very important one. Very pressing sociological patterns are developing not only in our area where we have a large number of service people and their families living in housing supplied by various departments of government but also right across Canada. Many of these problems have apparent and obvious reasons. Families are growing up and
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
"the question of compatibility with other service families around them must be considered. It is true that naval wives whose husbands are at sea are provided with certain *comforts but they have common problems. I think, however, that far graver problems arise with the younger generation at the school level as they progress toward maturity.
We have evidence that it takes a full academic year for the children of service families to adjust properly when they reach the secondary level if they should ever leave the service community and service schools. I hasten to suggest that this is not because of the level of teaching or the qualities of the teachers or the services provided by the .government. I think it is simply the effect of the social upbringing of the children which makes it very difficult for them to adjust properly because they have not had the advantage of growing up next door to a doctor's son or daughter or going to school with a mechanic's child.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Instead the pattern of the family unit is [DOT]constant. The child has the same companions, the same day to day friends.
In this context I would urge the minister to consider not only a method of providing equity ownership in homes which fall in the category of service housing but to carry the thought further and give consideration to the possibility of spreading such housing at ran

dom throughout urban centres. What has been done in Halifax is a prime example of what I think might be avoided. Remember we have well over 100 suburban developments which could easily accommodate ten or fifteen units, either single or multiple dwellings. This would at once achieve two basic needs. First, it would remove service men and their families from what has been described as ghetto-type living and enable their children to grow up in a community where they can go to school and enjoy the benefits of living in the free run of society as most of us understand it and enjoy it.
The second purpose is to achieve the aim put forward by the hon. member of providing an easy and practical method of permitting the building up of equity ownership in these properties. Service people would pay a portion of their rent to help the government pass along to successive tenants the continued responsibility for a portion of the upkeep and *maintenance of these properties. This is not impossible, I suggest. Indeed, it is a matter of
DEBATES	1465
Supply-National Defence current discussion among naval, air force and army people in the Halifax area.
My hon. friend spoke also of the removal of the minesweeping squadron from the concept of defence as we know it today. This is a matter of grave concern to those who are aware of the capabilities of other countries to lay minefields under water. These advances have left major questions in the minds of some of our senior people in the Halifax area. They are thinking aloud about this matter. Perhaps they do not have the opportunities of putting forward their thinking which are available to us in the House of Commons so I would re-emphasize what my hon. friend said on this question.
There is a third matter on which I wish to speak. I have raised it in another context and I do so again. It involves the utilization of certain military air bases by private aircraft operators and regional air carriers. The suggestion has been made in the house that the removal of Greenwood as an alternative landing site for Air Canada planes has created many difficulties. I know this to be the case. I have experienced them more than once myself. I have made the grand trip around the circuit and wound up back here in Ottawa. On another occasion I wound up in Newfoundland. I am not suggesting that private operators be allowed to use the facilities at military bases such as Chatham which are vital centres for our air defence and our support role in any defence of this continent. But I would suggest that airports such as Greenwood, Shearwater and others outside the maritime area are completely capable of accepting arrivals and departures of nonmilitary aircraft without upsetting the routine or the readiness of the station, as I think the term is.
The efficiency of these stations would not be impaired by the occasional use of these bases without the formality of prior notification and permission. When a private flier lands at Greenwood because of a snowstorm or some other difficulty he is put in an embarrassing position by having to explain his presence though in all likelihood it has been caused by circumstances which prevented his going anywhere else to find a suitable and safe landing. I also think private fliers should be allowed to use certain landing and navigational aids which are the sole property of the Department of National Defence. On many occasions the possibility of using these navigational aids would be of advantage to operators of private aircraft and to small
1466	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence commercial regional operators. These privileges have been denied up to now except in special cases where prior permission has been sought and obtained.
There is one further matter which is of immediate concern because of disturbing rumours which have come to my attention. I have discounted these rumours on the basis of their not having been confirmed and I will not refer to them in this context. Instead, I would urge the minister to give consideration in the preparation of specifications for new naval vessels, as well as when repairs are being carried out, to the inclusion in those specifications of plans for an adequate air conditioning system. I have spent some time in southern waters in South American countries and I know a little of the discomfort of being in the engine room of a ship without adequate ventilation. The anxieties which manifest themselves among men forced to work constantly in conditions of extreme heat are real only to those who have experienced them. They have been the subject of medical inquiry as an oddity or phenomenon encountered among people exposed to living conditions of this type.
The urgency of this need is borne out by the complaints of many lower deck personnel on their return from southern cruises. As much as they enjoy an opportunity to go south at this time of the year, as I am sure we all would, it is not a holiday and for those who must live and work below deck most of the day it is more of a nightmare. I would again urge the associate minister and those in his department to give serious consideration to the problem of ventilation if they have not done so already.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It would be very easy to go on and get into the question of morale in the armed services which has been touched upon by other hon. members. There is little need to pursue it further except to comment generally that sometimes we complain too loudly about low morale in the services. Stemming from that, I would simply note that it is not low morale that is causing the problem in recruitment. The lack of equipment and the lack of trained personnel to man the ships we have in Halifax harbour, not taking into account the one or two out on the west coast, have already been made clear. To that plea I would simply lend the voice of the junior member for Halifax.
Morale in the navy and the other services, is not low nor is it high. Morale is somewhat
[Mr. Forrestall.J
DEBATES	February 18, 1966
confused. In spite of continuing explanations the men remain somewhat in the dark as to their own personal positions in what we used to understand were the navy and the army. They are not certain of their tenure of service. They are not certain whether a career in the armed forces is a worth-while venture. They are doubtful about promotions. The question of seniority has disappeared almost completely in the lower ranks.
These are the things that lend support to the argument that morale in the services is low. I do not believe it is low. I believe it is just confused. Many of these people went into-the service with the hope of making it their career but now they are confused and uncertain whether they have chosen well. They would like to stay on and take advantage of the training they have. They would like to continue to make the contributions they are capable of making as skilled craftsmen. But they need direction at their immediate command level. They need clarification of promotions, of continuity of service and the possibilities of promotion.
Finally, many of our problems with regard to morale stem from the fact that most people in Canada-I am sure the department is equal ly as guilty-think of trained servicemen as nomore than a fighting arm extension of the political process. I suggest to the minister that this is 1966. A pilot flying an aircraft off the Bonaventure is not a trained fighting man and God forbid that he ever becomes one. Quite to the contrary, he is a highly skilled, well trained individual. He merits respect and the treatment that is accorded those outside the military who have achieved equal skills.
When we talk about increasing such a man's level of income we tend to think that perhaps he should get another $1,000 a year or another $1,500 a year and that this would compensate him. There are a certain number of ex-military people employed in the company with which I was once closely associated and I know they can earn in the public field of endeavour not $1,000 a year more, not $1,500 a year or $2,000 a year more but in many cases $8,000 to $15,000 a year more. We must stop thinking of these people as soldiers. They are not. They are skilled, well trained people. In most cases on the upper decks they are college graduates who when they go home in the afternoon or evening take trade journals and trade publications with them. They do not take home war manuals. They take with them those sources of information that are going to enhance and increase their
February 18, 1968	COMMONS
understanding, knowledge and skill in their respective jobs, whether they be in electronics, aviation or captains of these ships. No matter what it is they do as most businessmen do. They spend their time keeping themselves abreast and acquainted with what is going on in their business.
With these remarks I think Halifax has now said what it can until such time as we reach the 1966-67 estimates. In most cases the money has pretty well been spent under the estimates we are discussing. I leave the minister with these three or four thoughts respecting service housing, pay, and the utilization of militairy airports by private and small commercial operators.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to congratulate the Minister of National Defence for what I would describe as his tactical success on the narrow front on which he has no doubt concentrated considerable effort and attention. I refer to the field of public relations. Behind the smokescreen of integration he has succeeded in concealing a conservative-I use that word as a descriptive, not a condemnatory term-sterile, and unimaginative defence policy. The vital question of the role to be played by Canadian [DOT]defence forces has been virtually concealed, ignored and bypassed. The Canadian defence effort today consists of doing virtually the same old things, in the same old way, at the same old level of expenditures, namely, $1J billion a year.
It is interesting that in this age in which strategies as well as weapons become rapidly *obsolete the minister's statement to the committee almost completely avoided any discussion of changing strategic concepts or any *critical analysis whatsoever of Canada's plans for the future. No doubt the minister would reply that the strategic plans of Canada were contained in the White Paper on defence that was issued in March, 1964. But the White Paper itself was cryptic in regard to most of the major issues.
It does not appear that the government is even contemplating withdrawal from obsolete and even dangerous and provocative strategies. If it is, it is silent on the subject.
I think the public has been lulled by the minister and, indeed, I must say by the press, by the magic word "integration". In press releases which extol the bold new initiatives of the minister the public are induced to accept, with a sort of fatalistic resignation and complacency, the vast expenditures which we are making in defence.
DEBATES	1467
Supply-National Defence
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
These expenditures are more burdensome to the taxpayer than any other form of expenditure that we have to consider in this parliament. The Canadian public is asked to forget the vital question, namely, how much of the money spent might just as well be poured down the drain?
We have no objection to the limited integration which has been carried our so far. We do not believe, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said earlier in the debate, that this limited integration is responsible for the low morale of which the hon. member for Calgary North has spoken. But there will not be and there cannot be any effective integration of the Canadian forces until there is a much more realistic acceptance of the limited role which Canadian forces can be expected to play. This role in our view would be the maintenance of integrated mobile conventional forces in support of the peace keeping activities under the UN, upon which we should mainly concentrate, and a useful role within the alliance of which we are a part. This and this alone would enable real integration to take place. Without it integration is more of an incantation than it is, to borrow a phrase the Minister of Transport used in the debate the other day, the actual factual situation.
I do not propose to discuss the details of weapon systems or the acquisition of particular hardware, as we have learned to call it. I propose to review the role or tasks that Canadian forces are now fulfilling to indicate why I have suggested to the committee that some of these are obsolete and why some we are not yet adequately equipped to fulfil.
I assert that if we could penetrate the smokescreen of favourable publicity the defences of Canada under the present administration would be seen to be misdirected, expensive and inadequate. I hasten to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is in no way the fault of the men in the services. They have justly earned a high reputation for efficiency and effectiveness wherever they have served. We echo the tributes paid to them by the minister. The fault is the fault of political direction. The political direction of our armed services under the present administration is timid and traditional, fearful of a searching examination of Canada's place in over-all strategy and fearful above all of any radical change.
What are the main roles played by our armed services? They include, first, the
1468	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence maintenance of a brigade in the forward lines in West Germany armed with tactical nuclear weapons; second, the maintenance of eight squadrons of the R.C.A.F., six in West Germany assigned to a strike role and two in France in a reconnaissance role. These are now or, I think the minister told us, shortly will be equipped with both nuclear and conventional loads. The third is the role of active air defence of North America under NORAD. The fourth is a share in the antisubmarine role under the Atlantic command of NATO. The fifth is the so-called mobile command designed to provide a mobile conventional force available both as a mobile reserve in NATO and for United Nations peace keeping operations anywhere in the world.
The first role, Mr. Chairman, namely, the maintenance of a brigade of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, is part of the outdated tactical nuclear strategy that was adopted in 1958. It has been criticized by a host of qualified military authorities. They say it is based upon a mistaken reliance on early or immediate response with tactical nuclear weapons to a full scale conventional invasion of west Europe. This role overlooks the fact that such an invasion is today unthinkable as it would almost certainly escalate into a devastating strategic nuclear holocaust. It overlooks the fact that a tactical nuclear response to some lesser eruption of violence in Europe would also create the dangers of escalation.
From the point of view of a useful Canadian contribution, it further overlooks the fact attested to by Mr. McNamara that the western allies have overwhelming superiority in such tactical nuclear weapons. It completely overlooks the fact that, as General Foulkes informed the defence committee, it was agreed by General Norstad and military authorities of NATO as long ago as 1960 that our brigade group should go into mobile reserve. General Foulkes said that such action would cause the brigade group to be reorganized as an air portable formation with an airborne element which would suit Canadian aptitude and training.
The only excuse advanced for the failure to carry out this military recommendation in 1960 is not in the realm of good military thought but is due to some alleged political reason. On the contrary, it seems to us that political reasons would dictate a thinning out and withdrawal of the massive confrontation of tactical nuclear forces in Europe and that Canada might well initiate this process.

DEBATES	February 18, 1966
The White Paper, despite the bold words used by the government when it promised a review of Canada's role, opts for the indefinite continuance of this role in Europe. The North Atlantic council met in Paris in December, 1965 and issued a communique. This: is what they said:
Force goals for the period 1966 through 1970 are being worked out, as the first of a series of steps designed to secure a closer alignment between NATO military requirements and national force plans within the agreed strategic concept of a forward defence posture. They-
I take it that means the delegates of the NATO countries.
-accepted in principle the introduction of new procedures designed to improve the annual process of reviewing the defence efforts of member countries and agreeing upon their force contributions. These procedures, by protecting alliance force goals and country plans five years ahead each year, are designed to enhance the capacity of the alliance to adapt its defence plans to changes both in military technology and in the international situation.
What country plans are as distinct from the alliance force goals I am not sure, but I presume it means the plans of each country.
So far as I know the minister has failed to reveal whether or not Canada at this NATO council meeting accepted this five year plan, what force goals it committed itself to, whether any suggestion was made that was critical of the continued reliance on tactical nuclear response, whether the military proposal approved in 1960 for the withdrawal of the Canadian brigade to a mobile reserve was discussed or brought forward by the representative of Canada and what, if any, the current proposals are to adapt the defence plans of NATO to changes in military technology and the international situation. We in this house have a right to know what our representatives in NATO have committed themselves to or propose to commit themselves to for the next five years or if they did propose to commit themselves to anything for the next five years. We have the right to know whether or not the promise to negotiate out of this role has in fact been forgotten, or whether any steps have been taken to do so. We are told there are political reasons for maintaining the brigade group in the forward role, but the future military necessity for it, as agreed by all military authorities, is finished. We want to know what these political reasons are and have them explained to the house. The same questions are even more insistent with regard to the eight air squadrons that we maintain in Europe. These air
February 18, 1966

squadrons, as the house knows, or at least those members of it who follow this subject, have the role of interdiction or striking with nuclear or conventional capacity well behind the lines of any conflict that might develop in Europe.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
These tactical nuclear weapons are in theory under the control of the United States political administration but it has been revealed recently-I do not know whether I have the clipping from the New York Times here-that the warheads, that are in what is supposed to be American custody and in theory cannot be used without the specific approval of the United States, are in fact mounted on allied weapons systems and are inadequately controlled. This is the view of the people in the American administration.
The danger constituted by the existence of these air squadrons is that they are highly vulnerable. We were told in the defence committee that Russian rockets are trained on them. I ask the house to consider seriously the danger that in a moment of tension the military incentive, the almost overwhelming military incentive on either side to take action before their own air squadrons on the one side or their rockets on the other were destroyed. The need to anticipate even in a matter of seconds the action that may be taken on the other side would: be intense.
A little while ago the Right Hon. Fred Mulley, who is the British Minister of Defence for the Army, wrote an article for the Institute of Strategic Studies. This article was published in "Survival". I invite the attention of the committee to these words of a man who is daily concerned with these problems. He said that the greatest danger of nuclear war comes from the risks of nuclear escalation and it is unfortunate that our preoccupation with the less relevant issue of strategic nuclear policy has prevented discussion of what seems to Mr. Mulley the real question facing NATO, the role and command of tactical nuclear forces.
We do not get a word from the minister here about what Mr. Mulley tells us is the chief issue. We are not even distracted by discussions of strategic nuclear control; we are left with discussions of integration at headquarters. Mr. Mulley goes on to point out that the allied air forces in Europe may fit into the concept of a generalized nuclear war, but he says they do not match the political requirements of avoiding nuclear escalation

Supply-National Defence and the attempt to compel a pause in a limited war situation. This constitutes in fact, whether we choose to realize it or not, as Mr. Mulley says, the major danger of a nuclear war; yet we maintain our role in this connection and the minister does not choose to even discuss it with the house.
The minister, so far as his statements and the White Paper reveal, is totally unconcerned by this vital problem. So far as we can tell, he commits Canada to a continuation of this role. I must say that in the White Paper it is indicated that the CF-104 aircraft would not be required in the future and that the numbers of operational squadrons will decline as the result of normal wasting away over the next 10 years.
The minister tells us nothing as to whether Canada proposes to accept in NATO some alternative role or replacement of these aircraft or whether, as the CF-104 has become non-operational, the Canadian air contribution will just fade away. The whole concept of our contribution to the tactical nuclear air force in Europe was described by John Gellner to the committee-and I think I have his words right-as a $500 million blunder. It is typical of this government and this minister-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been saying that for five years.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -that we are to continue the operation of this blunder until, in the language of the minister, it is phased out. It is typical of the minister that he can make a statement on defence without comment on these vital issues.
There remain the antisubmarine role and the active defences under NATO. That the first constituted a massive contribution to fighting the last two world wars and will probably have no relevance to any imaginable war in the missile age does not seem to have attracted the interest of the minister at all; nor does, obviously, the obsolete nature of our active air defence under NORAD provoke any reaction in the minister except vague hints that the Bomarc squadrons will be gradually phased out as the relative threat of the manned bomber diminishes.
The plain fact of the matter is that the threat caused by the manned bomber no longer exists and defence against it is useless. This brings me to the last role to be mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the so-called Mobile Command. I say it is good news to hear from the minister that this special service force
1470	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence concept is to be expanded. It is to be hoped that not only the concept will be expanded but the actual ability to perform this function. It is reassuring to hear the minister say that current plans call for two brigades to be converted to the concept of air transportability. I should like to hear more from the minister about how and when these current plans are to be carried out.
The minister told us in his statement about the purchase of 20 additional C-130 Hercules aircraft to provide strategic airlift for the Canadian armed forces. This is welcome news to us. I note the statement of the minister that the capability of this command must be further examined in the years ahead in order to meet adequately the philosophy of mobility set out in the White Paper. Studies, he tells us, of the best cost-effective equipment for this expansion are under way. With these proposals for greater transportability we agree; we believe this to be vital, but we are anxious to obtain the details of these plans. After all, it is nearly two years since the White Paper was published which contained this promise. How long are the cost-effective studies going to take? What are the plans for the further expansion of the capability of Air Transport Command? What is the size of the forces that it could transport by air at the present time, and to what parts of the world could it transport these forces?
The philosophy of mobility as set out in the White Paper is all very well; in fact in my view it is the best part of the White Paper. But philosophy must be translated into action. While we continue to try to maintain obsolete roles within the financial ceiling of roughly $1| billion, is there a danger that the steps necessary to transform the philosophy of mobility into actuality may be starved? We fear this may be the case.
This party believes that these are questions which require answers. It is our conviction-this has often enough been said but not so often practised-that defence policy must fit into political objectives. The political objectives that Canada, as a result of her membership in the alliance, is best able to fulfil through her defence services is the provision of peace keeping forces, highly mobile conventional forces. In our view we should concentrate on this role and move with far greater speed and determination than the minister has shown away from the obsolete roles of the past.
[Mr. Brewin.l
DEBATES	February 18, 1966
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
[Translation1


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I failed to take this opportunity of telling the house about the gratifying experience I have had in the year since I have been appointed to the Department of National Defence. More specifically, in this last year I have had the opportunity of visiting many units of the Canadian Army. I feel duty bound to bear witness not only to the good will the forces have shown in accepting the integration program put forward by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), but also to their understanding of the essential part they are currently playing in the future, the security and the stability of our country.
The debate on National Defence estimates has just begun, yet a number of opinions have already been heard, some contradictory, some favourable and others hostile to the integration of our armed forces. In certain circles, the opinion seems to be that the Minister of National Defence, myself and the personnel concerned with national defence do not realize the problems connected with implementing the integration program.
This is quite wrong, Mr. Chairman. We know the problems involved, and we also know that sometimes they are very hard to solve. On the other hand, that is no reason to stop and fail to carry out a project which seems likely, even at this early stage, to bring about so many advantages, and which also allows us to look forward to armed forces designed for the future rather than for 50 years ago. Through this experiment, we had the satisfaction of finding also that many foreign countries envy us for the very reason that we are of the stature needed to try such an experiment.
During the past year I met several representatives from foreign countries, from friendly and commonwealth countries, who came here to inquire about the progress made in the development of the integration of our forces and every one of them told us that, in their own country, the implementation of such a program had already been considered, sometimes quite often.
In certain countries, it was found that the armed forces were perhaps too numerous to arrive at such a clear integration, and they wanted to know how it had been achieved.
February 18, 1966

Obviously, the problem here is to know if we have in fact achieved, since the publication of the white paper in 1964, the progress we had expected. I think, Mr. Chairman, that this progress has been not only achieved but that the ambition shown at the start was even surpassed and now we are in a position to conceive the logical sequence of this preliminary stage which is called integration and which will be completed by unification of the forces.
This morning the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Winch) asked us to define the policy of the department. We did that in 1964. This policy is, I believe, stated quite clearly in the white paper and shows both the shortterm and the long term policy of the Department and of the government.
If the members would read once again the white paper, I believe they would find a definition of the principle behind all the subsequent steps taken to bring about first the integration then the unification already discussed in 1964.
Although he seems sympathetic, the member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) says to us: we want faster action.
Is this possible? Those services, while having to redefine themselves, have been able to integrate in a single command and reform in depth. This was done swiftly and could not proceed any faster.
We overcame difficulties and confusion, and we can now conceive a coherent general staff where people of the various services can work toward the same goal, because they have understood the interests, needs and advantages, and they can now fully co-operate to the building of a single force which will make Canada a forerunner in this field.
Our foreign responsibilities have not been ignored either. We explained in the white paper that until further notice, so far as the defence department was concerned, we must respect our commitments taken within the alliances to which we belong. We understood our role and we go along with the policy of this government and I believe that overseas, precisely in the carrying out of these various tasks, the Canadian forces are our country's best ambassadors whether in Cyprus, in Germany or in that operation to which we are involved in Zambia. They are the uniformed emissaries of Canada, ideal ambassadors for our cause.
Thus we exert the influence the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) wishes we

Supply-National Defence had, that is the influence of a peaceable country which knows how to implement war operations while practising international charity and which knows how to act as a peacemaker, such as in the case of Zambia where it is acting as a go-between in order to prevent the development of a more serious situation.
I do not intend to deal with all the problems that have been raised. I know that the Minister of National Defence is far more competent than I am to answer these objections, and he will do so at the proper time. However, it seems to me that there have been many contradictions among opposition members since the beginning of this debate. For instance, we are blamed on the one hand-by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), I believe-for the purchase of this aircraft called the CF-5. We are told that this plane has been rejected by the American forces after their experiments in Viet Nam, that no country in the world will buy it and that, as a result, Canada will find itself in the position of having in its possession a specimen or unique samples, that it will complicate in a fantastic manner the costs involved for unkeep, maintenance, and operation of these planes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not borne out by the facts. Tests were made in Viet Nam, but they have not been completed yet. Tests are being conducted now and the findings have not been announced yet. I cannot see how the hon. member for Calgary North can, on his own, come to the conclusion that the CF-5 is not a valuable aircraft, that it does not fall within our specifications and the role we had in mind for it.
On the other hand, I cannot understand either his saying that we will be the only ones to have that aircraft when we know that several hundred planes have been sold already to at least nine other countries, allies of Canada.
Something has been said also-and both hon. members for Halifax mentioned it-about the problem of housing for the armed forces. We know about that problem, we understand its importance, and we agree with both hon. members in saying that a way should be found to improve the general situation with regard to housing for the armed forces.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Crouse:: Would the minister permit a question at this time?
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence
It is with regard to his statement which he just made about the CF-5. Would the minister not agree that this aircraft requires a longer runway than an Air Canada DC-8 jet? With its underslung bomb load it requires an even longer runway, and a perfect runway, which would not be available at certain airfields at the present time.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I note that the hon. member puts his question conditionally.
The information I have, and which I give without committing myself, is certainly not complete, because for instance, in the preliminary experiments in Viet Nam, this aircraft took off on a normal strip ranging between 4,700 feet and 6,000 or 7,000 feet but on a 4,700 feet strip, the aircraft took off perfectly.
Now, I say again that I do not have any final information no more, I am sure, than the hon. member who asked that question. Personally, I will be satisfied with extended trials which are now taking place in Viet Nam and with a report which will be forwarded to us, following the conclusion of such trials. But I think that, theoretically, this aircraft does not require a longer take-off strip, certainly not longer and even not as long as the aircraft used by Air Canada.


Mr. Ricard:: Your answer is, therefore, conditional.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister permit another question. I believe the minister's statement that it would not require a longer runway is incorrect. But with its underslung bomb load it is my understanding that it would require a perfectly flat runway in order for it to take off and land. This type of runway is not generally available in some of the areas in which this aircraft will be used. This is why I question the advisability of purchasing this type of aircraft.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: In answer to that particular question, Mr. Chairman, I can say this much, that the basic plane which has been purchased is going to be modified to a certain extent. I think this was one of the things which were considered in the recommendations of the R.C.A.F. specialists. Until the complete aircraft we have purchased in a modified way is in service, I do not think you can assess it and say it is unable to use a rough landing field.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It can land on the grass.
{Mr. Crouse.]


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I will now deal with military housing for servicemen and their families.
I appreciate the interest shown by members of the Halifax region in this regard. I can tell them that officials of the department are most concerned about this matter and that they are constantly endeavouring to make military housing more pleasant and more comfortable. But, for the information of the senior member for Halifax who suggested that the minister should do something to encourage members of the armed forces to eventually own their home in the general area of their postings, I wonder how he can reconcile the nature of military life with this permanent residence requirement which means that a soldier would have to live 15 or 20 years in the same place in order to acquire a reasonable equity in the house in which he lives?
In my opinion, these two proposals are mutually exclusive. When a man enlists in the armed forces and accepts postings which may last from three to five years, he accepts at the outset a relatively unstable life and also certain conditions which will prevent him from owning a house after having lived in it for a number of years.
Mr. Chairman, I was extremely flattered last night by the minister's remarks about me and, with deep humility, I should like to pay him the same compliment. I think he deserves it and I would also like to say that it is easy to co-operate with a man who knows what he wants, who is not afraid to take his responsibilities, who is familiar with every last detail of the problems of his department and who knows how to proceed, like a determined and patient man, towards an objective which is difficult to attain.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been mentioned already in the course of this debate about morale in the armed forces, and the opinion has been expressed that morale is lower at the present time than it has been for many years-perhaps in the history of the forces. This judgment has been based principally on the increased numbers of members of the force who have been retiring at their own request.
I have in the course of the last several months visited a number of the Canadian forces bases, and from my personal observation morale continues to be of a very high standard.
February 18, 1968


Mr. Lambert:: It is not what it should be.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: If I recall the testimony given a few minutes ago by the junior member for Halifax, he said that morale was not low.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You are confused.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am wondering who is confused, whether it is the armed forces or hon. members on the other side.
I recently visited the Valcartier camp, the home base of the Royal 22nd. I found that morale there was exceedingly good as members of these regiments look forward to the long-needed expansion of their training facilities and the improvement of the base facilities that is planned over the next few years. The fact that it has been possible, as a result of integration, to incorporate in the plans of the armed forces better equipment and better facilities in undoubtedly resulting in improvement in the morale of the members of the forces. As you know, Mobile *Command recently took over the Valcartier base as part of its command, and the new role of that command with its emphasis on quick reaction time and mobility has been accepted by the forces in that command with the greatest enthusiasm.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
An examination of the voluntary and nonre-engagements among N.C.O.'s and men of the services leads to the conclusion that the increased numbers leaving at their own request has very little to do with the policy of integration. The figures of voluntary releases and non-re-engagements over the last five years show that 4,142 were released in 1961, 4,325 in 1962, 6,119 in 1963, 7,893 in 1964 and 8,097 in 1965. There has clearly been an increase in the number of voluntary releases from the forces in this five year period, and I suggest that this is a reflection of the steadily improving employment conditions in this country and the sharply increased competitive situation that now exists. My own observations in this field support the conclusions that are evident from these statistics, that is, that the problem of recruitment and retention in the forces today is associated with matters of pay and other conditions of service related to the opportunities in the civilian employment market.
The department is in the course of completing a number of studies designed to deal with these particular problems, both for officers and men, that cover the conditions of

Supply-National Defence service of the forces, the system of remuneration in the forces, the fringe benefits that are available and other conditions of service that affect the individual. We expect that these studies will all have been completed in time for the conclusions to be applied in respect of the next cyclical pay review for the armed forces which takes place effective October 1, 1966. In the meantime we are taking steps and will continue to do so to meet these areas in which obvious adjustments are necessary. I am happy to be able to announce today the approval of a re-engagement bonus system for N.C.O.'s and other ranks in the armed forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You were forced into it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all. It was good business management.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This will provide for a re-engagement bonus at each reengagement which will be calculated at the rate of $200 for each year of the period of the re-engagement. On a five year engagement the bonus will be $1,000 and this will be payable at the time of re-engagement. At the same time, on the introduction of this bonus, all those who have re-engaged and are presently serving in a re-engagement will be paid a pro rata bonus based on the period remaining to be served in their engagement. A man, for example, who re-engaged in 1964 and still has four years to serve in his engagement will receive a bonus of $800.
I believe that these bonuses will be welcomed by the men of the forces and that they will have a significant effect in influencing men in their decision to stay in the forces. I think hon. members are aware that the cost of training members of the forces is considerable and I have every confidence that much of the cost of the bonus to which I have referred will be met by improved retention rates and consequentially reduced training costs.


Raymond Langlois: May I ask the
associate minister a question?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes.
Mr. Langlois, (Megantic): I would like to ask the associate minister about this $200 bonus. For example, on a five year re-engagement it would be $1,000. Is that $200 for the first year, and $200 for the second year, or is that total of $1,000 considered as an amount, over all, to be paid in the first year.
1474	COMMONS
Supply-National Defence
[Translation1


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think I said clearly that, in the case of a five-year reenlistment, a sum of $1,000 was paid at time of re-enlistment.


Raymond Langlois: $1,000?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to conclude these remarks-I really did not intend to speak so long and I apologize-by saying that I am personally convinced that the way in which the minister is now doing the job he has undertaken is, in my view, extremely comforting and is such that we can hope to have, at least, perfectly integrated armed forces, and efficient military service, because the prime objective of integration was not necessarily saving money but ensuring a higher degree of efficiency-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is not what you said a few moments ago.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -and that is what we are accomplishing daily-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is not what you said a while ago.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -and that is what we are accomplishing daily.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There are contradictions.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There is no contradiction. I said that efficiency came first and then economy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is not what you said a while ago.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: And we have accomplished both, namely greater efficiency and, at the same time, savings of more than $100 million already.
In my opinion, we also have a much more flexible administrative formula by which we can study an over-all budget for a five-year period. This permits us to project the administration and this, I think, is the modern way to administer because an important service is involved. I remember it was one of my first reactions, 25 years ago, when I came in contact with the Department of National Defence for the first time. I met an old brigadier of my acquaintance who told me: "This is big business". When we are handling a budget of $1J billion and when we administer a service involving nearly 135,000 people, I think that it is logical to hope for modern administration, management and control
[Mr. Langlois (Megantic).l
DEBATES	February 18, 1966
methods, and with the integration we are now trying to implement, we are getting good results. I think the whole house should rejoice that the efforts made up to now have-met with such great success.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, two years: have elapsed since we had a debate on defence. It is high time that we examined this-department and examined it thoroughly with regard to policy, and with regard to the statements and promises which have been made, to see if there has been any fulfilment of those. It is rather interesting to look back at May 8, 1964, to page 3086, when I said' this:
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.
We have that again. We have the associate minister, and he gets pulled into this Hellyer complex and pats the minister on the back and gets a return pat on his back.


An hon. Member:: That is part of his job.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was disappointed in the associate minister. I thought he would stand up on his own feet and establish himself, as the former associate minister suggested, on an equal basis with the Minister of National Defence, and not just tag along behind this great, self-appointed commander in chief of the Canadian forces. The associate minister in his opening remarks said that he was going to-tell us-and this is what I heard through the translation system-about the experience he had lived through during the last year. It has been pretty terrible living through experience with the Minister of National Defence. I have-some sympathy for the associate minister- but not very much, because he has disappointed me today. He said that the armed forces are not conceived with 50 years of the past in mind, but with the future in mind. Two years ago the Minister of National Defence introducing a bill into this house did: not go back 50 years. He went back 60 years to introduce a system which was discarded by the British 60 years ago.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think the word to describe the situation today as we enter upon a discussion on national defence after a two years lapse is "disillusionment". That is the impression I
February 18. 1966	COMMONS
received while listening to some very able people speaking this afternoon-people who are not necessarily more able than some others who spoke, but they have been around here for a long time and they are or have -been members of the committee on defence. I *am thinking of the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Vancouver East, the hon. member for Megantic and the hon. member for Greenwood. They are all familiar with the Minister of National Defence and they all expressed disillusionment. This is what has happened after almost three years of this minister being in office. I was disillusioned with him before he ever took office, because I listened to him when he was sitting on the opposition benches and I heard his extravagant and irresponsible statements with regard to national defence. I will read out some of them to the committee this afternoon if I have time. When I was on the standing committee on defence in 1963 I was profoundly disappointed because one could get no information from the minister at all. The other members I have mentioned have reached the stage of complete disillusionment with this minister and the policy of his *department.
Yet I do not know of any minister in the present government who has carried on a more extended campaign of grandiloquent praise. Everything, according to him, is better. Everything is more efficient. Everything is saving money. Whoever is working for him in public relations must be getting an annual bonus, because the minister is paraded across this country on radio, on television and in the press as being the wonder boy of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Wait till the Minister of Finance and some of those other people who are interested in the leadership hear that. There was quite a bit of applause this afternoon from those benches for this man.
It has been a great build-up. There has been a lot of talk about all the wonderful things which have been done in the department of defence. But today we have had an analysis of the failure of this minister. The balloon has been pricked. I will deal with that in a few moments.
There has been far too much propaganda across this country with regard to our national defence. People have been bemused. I *doubt whether there is one person in a thousand who understands what is meant by
DEBATES	1475
Supply-National Defence integration and unification. We have had no explanation today from the associate minister. He said this was all in the White Paper. I have the White Paper in front of me. We shall see whether it is explained in that document. We were told about the great saving of money which would be realized. Well, the minister will have an opportunity to put the facts in front of this committee before we finish examining these estimates. Let us have the facts and the figures, not a general statement.
The hon. member for Calgary North said the saving of money which had been effected for diversion to the acquisition of military equipment or, to use a colloquialism in which the minister indulges, hardware, is lower than it was seven years ago. It is down to 12 per cent. Yet a few years ago the minister was complaining, in opposition, that insufficient money was available for the purchase of military equipment.
Look at the White Paper. This is what hon. members will find on page 19: "Sufficient savings should accrue from unification to permit a goal of 25 per cent of the budget to be devoted to capital equipment." Let the minister put the facts and the figures in front of us, instead of propaganda which is going out in this country, building him up. I say it is not true. If it is true, the minister can disclose to this committee by giving us actual figures whether he has reached this figure of 25 per cent or not.
The minister's speech yesterday was a soporific speech. As the member for Calgary North said, the hon. gentleman seems to have lost all his vitality. He was worn out. Perhaps he should be shifted to some other portfolio. There was no drive or vitality in his speech yesterday-or perhaps he was trying to drag it out so that the hon. member for Calgary North could not take the floor to reply to him.
What was contained in that speech of the minister's last night? It was just a rehash of administrative action, to use an expression which the hon. gentleman himself has used. And there were some mistakes in it. I will point out two mistakes right now. I presume the minister wrote his own speech. In any case he has to take responsibility for it. On page 1419 of Hansard he is reported as saying "-from the very first days of our air division in Europe; first flying Sabre jets and then CF-lOO's-". He has put them in that order. But the CF-lOO's were retired to make way
February lb. 1966

Supply-National Defence for the Sabre jets. It is not a serious mistake, but it is an obvious one.
Then, as reported at page 1418, he speaks about the personnel carrier. I will read the hon. gentleman's words:
The introduction of the M.113 armoured personnel carrier to our NATO brigade group in Europe is now nearly complete. This has given the brigade group a greatly enhanced operational capability and, for the first time the armoured protection it would need in the face of a fully mechanized opponent.
I agree it gives them greater operational capability. But it is simply ignorance on the part of the minister, or whoever wrote this for him, to say that it would for the first time provide the armoured protection needed "in the face of a fully mechanized opponent". Incidentally, the word "mechanized" as applied to these units dropped out about 25 years ago. Today we speak of "armoured formations" and "armour". It is completely wrong. An armoured personnel carrier gives the infantry inside it protection against small arms fire, mortar fire and small fragments of shells but it does not give them any protection at all against tanks and the missiles which come from tanks. These will go through an armoured personnel carrier like a knife through butter. For the minister to indicate that this carrier gives troops protection in the face of a fully mechanized opponent is completely wrong and misleading. It shows gross ignorance and I am surprised he should have introduced such a sentence in a description of an armoured personnel carrier. The armoured personnel carrier used in the second world war was a much heavier machine and a German 88 millimeter shell would pierce it as easily as one would tear a piece of paper.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Why the minister should be responsible for that I do not know, except that most of the time he does not know what he is talking about.
This morning at the question period I asked the Prime Minister what progress was being made about negotiating out of the nuclear role, something which he promised three years ago. In his reply, and I quote his words, he said:
As my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence indicated last night .... we are at present doing just that.
But there was nothing in the minister's speech last night to indicate there is any attempt whatsoever to negotiate out of the

nuclear role. That was the promise made by the Prime Minister prior to the 1963 election, but nothing has been done in the three years that have followed. If something had been done we would have heard from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Minister of National Defence. I have been asking that question in one form or another for the last three years, and I have been brushed off. That promise is just another one of the unfulfilled promises of the Prime Minister.
Let me draw attention to the Minister of National Defence and his position in 1961. He was then sitting in opposition and was very critical of the then minister, the hon. member of Calgary North. He was critical about the equipment that should be bought for the Canadian forces, and you will find these words of his recorded at page 8230 of Hansard of September 12, 1961:
It is interesting to note that in the long list of priority items presented by President Kennedy to Congress on March 28 last there did not appear one of the major items on which the Canadian government is relying. Not one American penny for the Voodoo, the F-104, the Bomarc or the Honest John. The Canadian defence department has become a pawnshop for second hand American hardware.
That was the minister in 1961. He has retained all this second hand American hardware ever since, and he has been acquiring more.
Quite a bit has been said about this plane, the Super F-5, or whatever it is called. Let us see what is said about that by James Eayrs, professor of political economy at the University of Toronto, author of a book "In Defence of Canada," who wrote in an article in The Globe Magazine on October 23, 1965:
The Canadian government has recently contracted to purchase for the R.C.A.F. more than 100 Northrop Freedom Fighters, the Super F-5. A recruiting advertisement of the Department of National Defence describes it thusly:
"The Super F-5 is just one of the many new exciting things that's happening in the air, on the ground and at sea in the Canadian forces. Fast, versatile, and rugged, the Super F-5 is an ideal partner for our ground forces. Operating from sod fields, it's deployed right up front where the action is, ready to step in and back up Canadian troops- with authority."
It is obvious that this description of a strategic role for an extensive new weapons system is a complete fantasy. I don't doubt for a moment that the aircraft can take off from sod fields and the rest of it; but there is nothing in Canada's military position to suggest that it will ever be called upon to do so.
A few weeks ago, I chanced to meet a senior official of the Northrop Corporation, who told me that there was joy and amazement in Beverly Hills
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
in about equal proportions-joy that the Canadians had bought the F-5 in such large quantities, amazement that we would have any useful purpose for it.
We will let the minister and the associate minister think that one over. Other evidence has been produced this afternoon with regard to that machine. I wonder will the minister tell us on Monday, using his words, that, "the Canadian defence department has become a pawnshop for second hand American hardware."


Harold Edward Winch: I said a junkyard, not a pawnshop.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was using a more polished phrase.
This morning the hon. member for Calgary North exposed the weakness of the minister's position when he talked about low morale, loss of manpower, shortage of equipment, disruptions in the lines of communication under the new organization system, the ineffectiveness of the naval program, the great mistake with regard to the F-5, and the corresponding error with regard to the simulator which apparently the Department of National Defence ordered through the Department of Defence Production, and they are having their own internal war to decide who did what, and when, and why.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it not correct that it was never ordered?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the minister will clear this up for us when he has a chance to speak. But with all the study groups that are operating in the department, with all the slide rules and computers available, you would think no mistake would be made. Whenever anything crops up the minister or the associate minister says, "Let's set up a study group." I would like to have a return showing the number of study groups set up in the department over the last three years. I wonder whether the officers, non-commissioned officers and men have been doing anything else except working on study groups and in seminars. I wonder do they ever do any training. They must be terribly unfit physically if they are sitting around studying all the time. Apparently there was no study group to deal with the simulator, and so they messed it up.
Two years ago, when the minister was changing the set-up and arranging to have a commander in chief, a supremo as we called
DEBATES	1477
Supply-National Defence him, who would operate with an advisory council, I drew attention to the trouble that would be encountered. Now I understand the minister has set himself up as commander in chief of the Canadian forces. If the information I have is accurate, and I think it is because it comes from a very responsible source, the minister is taking upon himself to retire very senior officers against the advice of other senior officers, to make promotions against the advice or without the advice of his advisers, and generally to act as a commander in chief.
Where does this put the chief of staff? On July 6, 1964, I drew attention to the trouble that might arise under such circumstances. I said:
If the supreme commander is adamant, what does the minister do? On the one hand, the minister becomes just a satellite of the supreme commander and has to take his word for everything. On the other hand, if the minister enforces his will on the supreme commander and tries to get him to do something contrary to his military experience, the supreme commander either becomes a tool or puppet of the minister or he resigns and you have an upset in the system.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Are we reaching that stage where there is a conflict of interest between the chief of staff and the Minister of National Defence? What is going to happen? This is a weakness of the present system that the minister has set up, and these weaknesses are beginning to show. Who is the satellite and who is the puppet as between these two men?
I mention in passing that the minister has given no report whatsoever with regard to the NATO conferences that have been held during the two years when we have not had an opportunity to receive a report in this house. As the hon. member for Greenwood has asked, what commitments were made at the last NATO conference, and what are we committed to for the next several years? The minister should report in that regard.
I shall conclude my remarks on this occasion, if I have some time left, by dealing with the brigade in Europe and the question of its mobility. When the minister was here on the opposition side he talked about the mobility of that brigade in Europe. I talked about it years before that when we were formerly in opposition. I wonder what he has done about it. The only mobility that he appears to have applied to that brigade in the three years he has been in office relates to the addition of the armoured personnel carriers. I raised the question about armoured personnel carriers
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence back in 1951 when I first came to this house. It has taken a long time to get that type of proven assistance for the fighting infantry soldiers incorporated into our army. However, we have reached that stage finally.
There were a few helicopters being used by the brigade in Europe when I was there three years ago for the purpose of reconnaissance. What further work has been done in this regard to improve the mobility of that brigade? Is its supply column still a wheeled column tied to the roads of Belgium and France? We have gone through two world wars with our supply columns tied to those roads. Where is the plan that the minister should have to make this brigade completely mobile by the use of tracked supply vehicles or an air lift? We have not heard from the minister in that regard, yet he would give the impression that because armoured personnel carriers have been provided for that brigade it is now completely mobile. It is not and will not be completely mobile, from the point of view of a supply column, until it is furnished with either tracked vehicles or an air lift for that purpose.
Some years ago the minister talked about the fact that we were not purchasing Otters, Beavers or Caribou from de Havilland but we were getting planes from the United States. Would any of those or other types made by that company be available for an air lift? What about the helicopter; is it being used as it is being used in Viet Nam, or is it being used for just reconnaissance purposes as it was when I was over there three years ago? Why do we not make the brigade in Europe completely mobile and extend that mobility to other formations we are training here in Canada? Are we just going to go on fighting the last war over again with wheeled vehicles tied to roads providing supplies of ammunition, food and other materials?
The minister should get active on this and live up to some of the things he suggested when he was sitting here on the opposition side. He does not even need a study group in this regard because there is plenty of experience available. If he thinks he needs more experience and advice why does he not send military observers to South Viet Nam to see how the United States airborne cavalry division operates in action?
The minister should find out the type of helicopter used in Viet Nam and how the chain of command is operated. When I suggested that he do this the other day he shielded himself behind the fact that we have

membership in the international joint commission in South Viet Nam. That is not a good enough excuse.
It has been pointed out, and the minister mentioned this in his speech last night, that the experienced officers and men who are survivors of the second world war are reaching retirement age and will be leaving the armed services soon. That is all the more reason for training younger men who have had no experience in warfare, other than those who were in Korea. They should be given the chance to see what warfare is like in South Viet Nam. Let them hear the sound of bursting shells and the whine of machine gun bullets. They could be kept safely out of the way in fox-holes or behind some kind of protection, but they should see what happens in battle and the effect of fire under battle conditions. Let them see how an army is supported under battle conditions.
In a very few years there will be virtually no one in our armed services who has had experience in actual warfare; yet it is essential, if lives are to be saved, that we have men with this experience. If our forces are committed to other than peace keeping duties, which perhaps involves little risk, it is essential that our officers and senior N.C.O.'s at least have some knowledge of how to look after troops under war conditions. That is why we should have observers to see what is being done in South Viet Nam. I do not suggest they risk their lives, but they should find out what is being done in South Viet Nam and bring that advice and experience back to our forces in training. Our forces must be kept to peak efficiency in the event of war.
There is no point in talking about national defence with the idea that there will not be a war. We all hope there will be no war, but I know of no period in the world's history when there has not been some kind of struggle taking place in which lives have been lost. Canada has had a long and difficult time in the 100 years of its history, with men of each generation engaged somewhere or other in warfare. I see no possibility of that situation being changed in the immediate future. This is unfortunate, but let us make sure that our forces are efficient. There is no point in telling us here that they are efficient, because they cannot be efficient unless there are senior officers and N.C.O.'s in our forces experienced in warfare. Under present-day circumstances we must have not only good and effective field training with good, effective modem
February 18, 1966

equipment, but we must keep abreast of developments in warfare taking place elsewhere in the world.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not going to take up more than two or three minutes of the time of this committee because I want to see the estimates passed. I will have plenty of opportunity to speak on matters of defence when this year's estimates come before the committee. I do wish to make a few remarks because of the very interesting words that have been said in the house today. We are speaking of matters of broad policy concerning defence when we speak on this section of the estimates. We have heard a lot of talk today about the morale of the armed forces, but we have heard a lot which is in my opinion nothing but hot air.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As far as morale in the armed forces is concerned, I like to think I am still able to keep in touch with some of the services and their activities. In my own riding there is a large naval base and I have many naval friends. We also have a fairly significant army base in Victoria. From the discussions I have had with servicemen in recent years I realize they are unquestionably going through a very difficult time. But I do not believe this is by any means all due to the minister or the policies he has introduced since becoming minister. Of course, some of the policies the minister has introduced have contributed to these difficulties, because change always does, particularly change within the armed forces.
However, Mr. Chairman, I believe most servicemen agree that the time had come when change was necessary. I also believe most servicemen agree that these changes are in the best interests of our nation. To begin with, what the minister has done in recent years by these changes is that he has given a sense of purpose to the personnel of the three services, and they appreciate this. When we are talking about morale we must remember that it is not made up of just one thing, and I believe it is wrong to claim that all the troubles besetting the services today are due to integration. This is part of the difficulty but only a small part.
I wanted to recommend to the government that they pay re-engagement bonuses because I think the lack of re-engagement bonus was contributing to the difficulties of re-engagement. I was very pleased to hear what the associate minister had to say just now about 23033-94

Supply-National Defence re-engagement bonuses. I think this step will be received very well by the armed forces. 1 might say I would have preferred the reengagement bonuses to have been larger because I believe the savings will be out of all proportion to the cost involved. The saving is not just in dollars, but in the effort that has been spent in training persons who would have stayed in the forces had they been given a little more financial encouragement to do so.
This financial encouragement is now being offered to them to remain in the services. The financial outlay and expenditure of effort in training a serviceman is far higher than the average member of this house visualizes. In my humble opinion the cost of training any serviceman in his first three-year engagement would be well in excess of $15,000. Therefore to offer him $1,000 to re-engage for another five years will constitute a great saving and I think this step will be very much welcomed by the men in the armed forces.
I said I would only speak for two or three minutes, Mr. Chairman, and I intend to keep my word. In conclusion I should like to urge the minister and this government to press on with their plans for integration. For reasons of adventure and patriotism, young men today are just as keen to serve as they ever were. I want the minister to press on to conclusion with his plans for integration and then to stabilize the situation so we will no longer be faced with continuous change and the unsettling effect this has upon service personnel. I should like to assure the minister that the service personnel in my part of the country are behind him in what he is doing.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, last night I listened carefully to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). He made a point of describing the policies of his department and the efforts made to complete the integration of our armed forces.
On the latter score, according to the minister, integration has produced satisfactory results up to now. We will wait until this unification program is completed before passing a definite judgment on its value and effectiveness.
But I will deal today with the military role of Canada and what would be a more realistic Canadian policy in this regard.
Indeed, what must be Canada's military role? Last night, at the beginning of his speech, the minister laid down two principles
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence according to which this country aimed first at defending Canada and second, at helping to maintain peace throughout the world.
I think those are two very commendable objectives, but they are expressed in terms that are too general. I expected the minister to set forth, in this important speech at the beginning of consideration of the estimates of that very important department of our country-[DOT]


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The simultaneous translation system is not working. I am sure many members who cannot understand the very fluent French of the hon. member for Sherbrooke have difficulty without the simultaneous translation, and I am sure they do not want to miss the hon. member's very excellent words.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair has already noticed that there is no simultaneous translation and steps are being taken to have it restored. Perhaps the hon. member would proceed for a moment or two without the simultaneous translation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that yesterday I expected the Minister of National Defence to take the opportunity, at the very start of consideration of the estimates of his department, to set forth in this house and for all Canadians, a well-defined policy.
We find that in the physical organization, the minister and the officials of his department have shown great concern in the past few years, they have obtained some success, up to now, in the physical organization as concerns integration of the armed forces. Very well, I grant that.
But what Canadians want to know is the short term and long term policies of the government and of the Department of National Defence.
It seems that they are acting blindly. "Marlbrough is going to war", but where is he going, when will he be coming back, and how far does he want to go?
You often get the impression, when considering the estimates of national defence, that you are somewhat like a Don Quixote swinging his blade in the wind. One does not know, one does not feel and one is not told in this house what is involved, on an efficient basis,

in most of those expenses or at least in the more substantial amounts.
Obviously, the principles laid down by the minister were too general. They do not take fully into account the Canadian reality, the wishes of this country, and that is why the Canadian people, who have a lot of common sense, made their position known by returning three minority governments in the last three elections. The Canadian people do not know where the administration of National Defence is going.
National defence is a very important matter in this country. One feels that the ordinary citizen, the worker, the farmer, the white-collar worker as well as the ordinary member like me is treading on dangerous ground when it comes to national defence policy.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I want to point out very humbly to the minister and his colleagues a few facts, a few principles on which a Canadian military policy should be based.
The first principle is that Canada must organize its own defence and co-operate with its allies according to its means and a reasonable proportion of its national budget.
No useful purpose is served-because too often we feel tempted to forget our limitations-by wanting, in the concert of nations, not only in the peaceful field of external affairs but also in international military circles, to take and participate in initiatives which are beyond our capacity from the standpoint of defence or even financial means.
At the present time, there is no immediate crisis or impending world conflict which is inciting our country to spend too much for military purposes. Far from it, because the minister said in his speech last night that, on the international horizon, the situation did not look alarming and that relations between the communist block and the allies seemed much improved.
We should, therefore, take advantage of this period of relaxation, this period of conciliation to reduce our military expenditures and devise a true long-term military policy for Canada. A greater part of our resources and revenues should be used to fight poverty first in Canada and then abroad. We should reduce our military expenditures and increase family allowances, old age pensions and our help to famine-ridden countries.
That is what Canada should do, Mr. Chairman, but it does the opposite.
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
The present government-and that is nothing new, previous governments did it too -increases military expenditures year after year, reduces help to foreign countries, as can be seen from the estimates tabled recently, and postpones increases in family allowances and old age pensions.
Compared to other countries, the share of our national budget earmarked for defence is much too large. I should like to call the minister's attention briefly to a few statistics. Even though I have previously referred to this matter, in order to define a national policy, one must necessarily proceed by comparison and study other countries whose aims, whether national or international, are similar to Canada's, to find how much of their budget they earmark for defence purposes compared to their total budget.
Allow me to quote a few statistics I obtained in the library of parliament, and in case the minister should want further details,
I could give them to him.
For the fiscal year 1964-65, Canada spent 24.7 of the national budget potential on National Defence. New Zealand spent 8 per cent; Australia, 18 percent; Belgium, 12 per cent; Norway, 17 per cent; Sweden, 17 per cent; Italy, 15 per cent; Japan, 8 per cent; Czechoslovakia, 8 per cent and France, which is a large country and a major power with the United States, Great Britain and a few others, earmarks only 23 per cent for the fiscal year 1964-65.
And we, in Canada, are pipe-dreaming. We go off to war and get involved in all types of military adventures to spend 24.7 per cent of our national budget solely on National Defense.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I say we are not being realistic in our policies when we spend beyond our means in this area of national administration.
The second principle which a Canadian national defence policy should follow deals with the question of effectiveness.
Everything produced for our national defence should be for effective use and not as a symbolic or empty gesture.
The hon. members for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) have very aptly pointed out the problem of the Bomarc missiles, obsolete according to many experts, and which the United States has discarded.
Well, this was accepted and there was, at the time, talk of an agreement of which we 23033-941
DEBATES	1481
Supply-National Defence Canadians know nothing. We would like the hon. minister to give us some specific information on the subject: when will this agreement expire; what is the precise nature of our participation with the United States?
Also, are there conditions in case we withdraw? What efforts are made at present and, it seems, for the last two years, to repatriate our point of view on this question and to get rid of something which perhaps had to be accepted under the terms of an agreement about which we Canadians know nothing?
Mr. Chairman, I am saying simply that this Bomarc characteristic is precisely a criterion which proves there is a lack of efficiency, in many respects, with regard to the Department of National Defence expenditures.
If the Department of National Defence endeavoured to spend every cent of the taxpayers' money with maximum efficiency, keeping in mind the practical Canadian realities, we would not have this kind of budget. I feel that our policy would then be more profitable for Canada itself as well as for our relations with foreign countries.
At any rate, that agreement or participation with regard to the Bomarc is greatly detrimental to Canada's role as a peace maker, and to our sincerity with regard to nuclear disarmament.
Mr. Chairman, how can our representatives on disarmament commissions in Geneva, at the United Nations or elsewhere succeed, by means of high-sounding statements, in preventing the extension of the nuclear club if, at the same time, they advocate with an impressive eagerness the dissemination of nuclear weapons throughout the world?
If our own country accepts such weapons and if we are unable to define to the Canadian people or other countries our policy on this matter, then do we have a nuclear or anti-nuclear policy?
I am sure Canada is highly esteemed by all. One only has to travel throughout the world to feel that Canadians are welcome everywhere. Our role is one of pacifier and mediator, and we shall only succeed in playing that part fully if we give other countries, through our actions and our stand, the assurance that we are a peace making country, that we are not part of the nuclear club, and that we do not promote the dissemination of nuclear weapons throughout the world.
The hon. minister is to give us details on this point and also indicate clearly when our
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence troops will put aside the nuclear warheads within NATO framework.
To a question I raised during the session I was told-the replies are always vague-we do not know where we are going-in brief: The warheads will be recalled as the planes are taken out of service. Truisms, Mr. Chairman. What is the Canadian policy, the national defence department policy on this difficult, important and national issue of nuclear weapons? I do not know. Other members of different parties do not know. Canadian taxpayers, who pay for them do not know. This is why I often repeat it and say to the minister-the people, undecided about many areas of federal affairs, have elected three minority governments in the last three elections.
There seems to be a lack of firmness in the administration of the Department of National Defence. This point must be stressed because a lot is expected from the minister in whom we have confidence, for he seems to be a most sympathetic fellow.
The third principle which should guide our Canadian policy is that, as far as our military expenditures are concerned, extravagance and costly ventures should be avoided. In both cases, the minister could show much more firmness and caution.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The recent report of the Auditor General contained some unpleasant and disquieting surprises for all Canadian taxpayers.
For the fiscal year 1964-65, this report showed unauthorized expenses totalling about $23 million in the Department of National Defence. There is particular emphasis on unproductive expenses on a bombing computer and the Bobcat armoured carrier. But now someone with an objective and searching mind-I refer to the public accounts auditor-shows to the Canadian population that $23 million has been wasted.
Mr. Chairman, do you know what that means for the taxpayer, for the father who has an annual income of $2,500, $3,000, $3,500, for the unemployed, for the Quebec farmer whose income does not even reach $3,000 per year and who has a large family when they find that their country's government has wasted $23 million? That is why I suggest that the minister should establish in his department an organization for the control of expenditures and experiments.

I know too well that the minister, with his heavy responsibilities, cannot see to everything, from coast to coast, 365 days a year. But it seems that there has been a lack of control for a very long time.
I remember that about 20 years ago, horses were put on the military pay list at Petawawa. There is nothing new in this way of wasting the taxpayers' money. Therefore, because of this waste, the minister should personally set up a control agency within his own department.
And the fourth principle is that the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs should work to build a sovereign, more independent Canada. They should try to give Canada a definite identity, avoid putting our country at the service of foreign countries, thus furthering their military purposes and economic ambitions.
What are the enemies of Canada, Mr. Chairman? Tell me. Personally, I do not know any. If we minded our own business more often, would we have enemies?
There we are with the United States, with England, in other countries.
Economic interests are often a source of conflict. Will Canada get involved in such things? If we minded our own business more, it Would help Canada's identity and sovereignty. Moreover, it would enable us to keep more money for our people.
The fifth and last principle I want to mention is that the activities and extension of our national defence should not hinder the great role of mediator and peace maker that Canada is called upon to play in the world.
Thus a budget of $1,559,300,193 is excessive considering Canada's means and role. In the future, the government should consider a 40 per cent reduction of military expenditure and use these savings to fight poverty. That is the battle we should really be fighting, for indignation and rebellion will vanish along with poverty.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of National Defence to a certain matter in the county of Sherbrooke. In 1964, the minister closed the Sherbrooke university division of naval instruction which I had managed to establish in 1960. I must tell the minister that this was a great disappointment for the people of the county of Sherbrooke, the eastern townships and the province of Quebec.
The minister should consider re-establishing this training unit at the university for a
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
number of reasons; for one, it had a useful purpose.
When the minister reduced the strength of that reserve unit at the University of Sherbrooke, he should also have considered the strength of reserve units in the other provinces. Money had been expended on this unit and it should have been maintained in Quebec. It had the effect of encouraging Quebecers, particularly French Canadian students, to participate in the defence of their country. There were complaints in the past to the effect that French Canadians were losing interest in the defence of their country and were not doing their share. A great deal of efforts went into obtaining a naval reserve unit at the University of Sherbrooke, and now we are dealt this back-handed blow. Re-establishment of this reserve unit at the University of Sherbrooke would mean that French Canadian students would get their fair share.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made an appeal to history, always a very rash and dangerous thing to do. The hon. member's appeal to history was to prove what I suppose all of us know, that the history of mankind has been painfully bloody ever since it was first recorded.
But history can be appealed to in another way also, and I would suggest to the hon. member and to those who think like him that you cannot pick up the thread of history at this point and say that this is the end, that it is at this point that you will make your appeal. Because history will now tell us that never before in human existence have great powers had at their disposal such tremendous powers of destruction by which they may eliminate not merely civilization but mankind itself. This, I submit, Mr. Chairman, is the supreme fact of today, and it is a fact which is entirely overlooked by those who propose plans for military expenditures and those who criticize them on specific points.
It appears to me that this great fact of history renders virtually all this debate quite senseless, without value. It is sometimes imagined that science has placed tremendous power in the hands of the war makers, whereas I think we have already had historic evidence that, so far from doing this, the juggernaut of science and technology has overwhelmed war and military planners and
DEBATES	148?
Supply-National Defence renders and rendered them, helpless and impotent. Consequently we must get the idea through our heads, and the sooner we do so the better, that we must devise a reasonable and practicable method of dealing with our neighbours in this troubled world.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let us examine for a moment, Mr. Chairman, the arguments that are advanced for Canada's so-called defence expenditures. I think they have to be divided quite sharply into two categories. One with which I propose to deal more extensively later is the category which concerns our commitments under the United Nations for peace keeping services throughout the world, and the other is as a contribution to the power of the great neighbour to the south, the United States of America, to aid it to contain communism and to protect the west from the evils of communism. Let us boil it down to real facts, because we talk about alliances, and so on. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this breaks down into a contribution to the power of the United States to protect the free world, and to another part where we should actually contribute forces which will be actually deployed in combat against communist areas of the world. I suggest that this is a very feeble argument, because any contribution that we can make on that score would be so minuscule as to be derisory.
We have passed the era in history where nations such as Canada can make a measurable contribution to the waging of war. Let us get that straight through our heads. Let us not look at the first or the second world wars, when things were different, because that is not the situation today. The argument is produced that the growth of armaments in the present world is due to their deterrent power. This may be true. Again, I suggest that Canada is in no position whatever to add to the deterrent power of the United States. In fact, it is ridiculous to suggest that we are in that position. The only occasion upon which that deterrent power has actually been deployed was during the Cuban crisis some two years ago when Canada was not even informed, let alone consulted. Our neighbour to the south realized that we could contribute nothing. Their deterrent power was the only power they had, and the only power with which they could accomplish what they sought to accomplish. Any contribution of ours would have been completely pointless and meaningless. I suggest it is in this context that we ought to be considering these defence expenditures.
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence
1 now want to return to the category I mentioned when I began speaking, the category of our contributions under our commitments to the United Nations. These, I think, are extremely important. I have had the opportunity of observing some of the forces we have deployed throughout the world in this work and have been impressed, as I am sure most members of parliament who have had that opportunity must have been impressed, by the manner in which the Canadian armed forces are carrying out their extremely difficult task. Nor would I suggest for a moment, sir, that we should consider reducing our role in this field. Rather I would suggest that these contributions should be made much more effective than they are at the present time. It distressed me when I was on the Gaza strip last year, or the year before last, to see that after eight years we were in precisely the same position we had been in at the beginning. There had been no advance. We had been acting as policemen to keep two possible combatants apart.
We have the same situation in Cyprus. I hear from reports which have come from Cyprus that the Canadian forces have played an outstanding role in keeping the potential combatants apart. However, in neither instance have any steps been taken to try to solve the political problem which has lain at the back of the military problem we have been trying to cope with.
I feel that this is the era in which Canada can play an important and decisive role in the world of today. I think it is a role that the men in our armed forces would welcome. We have heard a lot of talk about the low morale of the men in the Canadian armed forces. I do not know whether it is low, but I know this: I know that those with whom I have talked are very concerned as to what their role is going to be in the years to come, not merely from the point of view of whether they are going to have a job, or whether their careers are going to come to a satisfactory conclusion, but as to whether the work they will be engaged in is going to be of value.
I have taken the occasion whenever I have been overseas and have come in contact with men in our armed forces to try, if I can, to get some fairly high ranking air force officers to one side. I have succeeded in doing that on a number of occasions, and I have always put one question in which I have asked: "What do you think is the future for the Canadian armed forces?" Always, Mr. Chairman, I have had the same reaction. Always there is

first of all a rather perfunctory genuflection toward our military commitments in NATO and NORAD, but always they have eventually come out of the bushes and said something like this: "We should be doing something that we do superbly well, and better than anybody else in the world. We should be concentrating entirely on supplying transportation, communications, and delivery of goods and materials to the forces of the United Nations throughout the world." Our armed forces are doing that today, and are extremely proud of the role they are playing.
Not long ago I was speaking to a number of students of the University of Victoria. I must say I was somewhat dumbfounded when I got to where I was to speak to have the young man who had asked me there tell me, in a rather embarrassed way, that 50 sailors from HMCS Naden, the Royal Canadian Naval Base outside Victoria, had come to hear my talk on Canada's foreign policy. They marched in shortly afterwards, took their seats, and I proceeded to outline what I thought should be Canada's role in the world of today. During the course of my speech I outlined particularly the role that the men in our armed forces should play in that regard, and I said to them that there was a very great part that they should play, if they were equipped to do so. I pointed out to them that one of the most important aspects of our foreign policy, and one which must be given more and more importance as the years go on, is the provision of technical and material assistance to the areas of the world that are now beginning to emerge into the twentieth century, and I could see no reason why the men in our armed forces should not be getting the extra technical and administrative training that would permit them to play an important role in the development of skills, financed and aided by our external aid program.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It seemed at that time that the sailors accepted this as something worth while. It was a relief to know that there might be some positive, worth-while role in the world, not merely a role of standing by out of fear that a catastrophe might overcome us, in which they might be the first victims. This would strike me, Mr. Chairman, as being a much more realistic defence program than one which is based on the outmoded idea that war is today a feasible or practical means by which to promote national policy. I think this is one of the things we must get through our
February 18, 1966

heads: War is no longer feasible; science and technology have overcome the war planners and rendered them impotent.
But science and technology have placed other weapons in our hands and there are innumerable places in the world where these weapons should be employed today. Sometimes we forget that there are more than two nations in North America. A month or two ago ago I visited the third, the nation of Mexico, a country upon which some of us have been inclined to look patronizingly perhaps, as one which has not been well developed and where there are vast differences between wealth and poverty. However, when I was there the Mexican budget for the current year was presented-and 80 per cent of that budget is being devoted to education.
I would suggest that on any scale of civilized values a nation which devotes 80 per cent of its budget to education is vastly superior intellectually and morally to a nation which devotes 25 per cent of its budget to a war which will never take place, or if it does, to a war which the contribution of that country would be pointless.
I would recommend to the Minister of National Defence-and I know he has done something along these lines-to set up a program of training the men in our armed forces to undertake such tasks as this. And I would suggest that he return to the treasury of Canada the vast bulk of the sums which have been provided in respect of what are useless expenditures, expenditures which can provide us with no real defence. Further, I suggest the establishment, for one thing, of a comprehensive program of administrative training for people in those areas of the world which are now emerging into the twentieth century. This could be merged with the role the men in our armed forces might well play in the world of tomorrow. If we could achieve this, we would have less antedeluvian talk about whether this weapon is better than that weapon. In the world of today no weapon is of any value at all in the face of the enormous, the devastating advances in science and technology.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It has been some considerable time since I had an opportunity to take part in a discussion of defence. Unfortunately, in the limited time at my disposal this afternoon I shall be able to make only a few introductory remarks before we reach the hour of five o'clock.
It is not that my interest in defence matters has diminished over the years. I think my

Supply-National Defence interest in the operations of the Department of National Defence has increased rather than diminished. The reason I have been less active in recent years is because of other responsibilities and because I personally got out of touch with the activities of the armed forces, having myself become obsolete in 1957. Up to that point I was active in the excellent MATP program as a reservist. But the year 1957 was the beginning of the streamlining process, which had become necessary within the armed forces of Canada by reason of the crash program launched in the early fifties consequent upon Canada's participation in the Korean conflict.
Immediately after the war we scaled down our armed forces to an irreducible minimum, as seems to be typical of the approach Canada has taken over the years in defence matters. As a result, by the mid-fifties we had built up a defence force of a comparatively large size upon the basis of what the minister of that day, Hon. Brooke Claxton, referred to as a crash program. Then it became necessary in 1957 to carry out some streamlining.
Since there have been bouquets handed around the chamber this afternoon, and the name of the present Minister of National Defence has been mentioned, together with that of the associate minister, I think I should pass a bouquet to a former minister of national defence, Hon. George Pearkes, who is really the man who began the streamlining process designed to increase efficiency in the armed forces. We are all aware of some of the strange anomalies which occurred during the early fifties as a result of the crash program. The situation produced errors of huge proportions, as well as humourous aspects. I refer of course to the Avro fiasco which was debated furiously in the house at one time, and also to the lighter incident, the famous "horses on the payroll" episode which the minister will remember so well.
The first point I wish to make is that Canada has had this "on again, off again" attitude toward defence matters for most of its history; we can look back over the history of the past 20 or 30 years and find this to be the case. While integration is important, and while it was initiated by the former administration, particularly by the minister to whom I have referred, I wish to point out that under the present minister there has been frantic haste and frantic public relations in the spirit of the 60 days of decision-an approach which has created
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence difficulties to which I will refer when this discussion resumes.
May I call it five o'clock?
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that after discussion with the house leaders of the other parties I have undertaken to ask that the private members' hour today be forgone and that we continue during the private members' hour with a discussion of the Department of National Defence estimates. Further, in order to overcome a difficulty that may arise in the next few days, I have undertaken to ask leave for unanimous consent of the house to proceed through all stages of a bill to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which merely changes the period "within 15 days" as it appears in section 20 of that act to "45 sitting days", and which makes the amendment effective only on the current redistribution. The effect of this will be to allow us to proceed with the business of the house in an orderly fashion over the next few weeks.
If we have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we could proceed with that bill now. I might add that copies of the bill in English and French are available for hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to suspend the private members' hour at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REDISTRIBUTION


George James McIlraith: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-126, to extend the time for consideration of objections pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act with respect to the reports of commissions established for the decennial census taken in the year 1961.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By consent, now.


George James McIlraith: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the house leader, just for clarification, whether the amendment that is being proposed will be a permanent amendment to the act?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman, its effect is limited to the current redistribution.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the house leader whether, when the proposals for amendments to the electoral boundary districts come before the house, hon. members will have an opportunity to speak to a motion recommending changes in this respect?


George James McIlraith: If I understood the question correctly it was whether hon. members would have a right to speak to the motions presented by way of objection to the reports of the redistribution commissions. If I understood the question correctly, the answer is yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this Department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank hon. members of the committee for their co-operation when we were sitting in the whole house.
February 18, 1968


Mr, Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the same spirit of co-operation will continue as we resume discussion of the defence estimates. At five o'clock I was indicating that because of the frantic haste generated by the slogan "60 days of decision", the changes that were taking place in the armed forces over the past seven or eight years reached such a speed that the difficulties already referred to by previous speakers were inevitable. I refer, of course, to problems of morale and problems of confusion.
It is difficult, both for hon. members and the press, to receive concrete information on the changes taking place in the department as a result of the stepped up program of integration and the secrecy that must prevail. As a consequence it is necessary for ordinary members to get the information, as it were, through the back door. One of the sources of information I find most useful and helpful with respect to this problem of morale, and the uncertainty and confusion in the armed forces, is to attend receptions. When the conversation becomes animated, when the inhibitions are lowered, then in talking to people who are closely associated with our defence forces we discover all is not as rosy as the picture painted by the minister in his speeches both here and across the country.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I have pointed out, we in the Conservative party believe in orderly change. Certainly as a result of the confusion in the early 1950's a change was long overdue. However, if you are going to have orderly change it cannot take place overnight but should be done on the basis of long term planning. For instance, you might map out a five or ten year plan, particularly when there is going to be a comprehensive program of reorganization. From talking to people closely identified with Canada's forces I have the impression that there has been a slamming together-even a knocking of heads together-which has left some of the persons involved somewhat stunned.
I think the minister has given us a clue to this situation in that every statement he makes is full of optimism. There seem never to be any problems to be confronted or solved; everybody is moving smoothly toward the ultimate purposes the minister has in mind. In other words all is for the best in the best of possible worlds. When things move as smoothly as that we are reminded of the words of Shakespeare when he said; Me-thinks he doth protest too much. In no field

Supply-National Defence of human endeavour, particularly in public, political and military life is it possible to conceive of a situation where everything is ideal and no problems exist. The minister is like a salesman who talks beyond the sale. In attempting to make a sale he keeps on extolling the virtues of the product. I think because he is so importunate in this matter there is reason to be suspicious of what goes on behind the facade that has been erected.
Perhaps I may use another simile, Mr. Chairman, and go back in Greek mythology to Procrustes, who tried to make every traveller fit his magic bed, with the loss of course of a few limbs, heads and lives. The minister in attempting to make everybody fit into the pattern he has devised in reorganizing the armed forces has not lost any limbs, heads or lives, but obviously he has lost a considerable number of personnel. I suggest, as others have suggested, that this is indicative of problems of morale, confusion and frustration resulting from the 60 days of blazing decision atmosphere that has prevailed in the Department of National Defence.
Psychologists carry on tests with animals and have found that one sure way of creating disorientation is to subject these animals in experiments to constant and rapid change. I think that is the difficulty which prevails in the armed forces at the present time.
We are not sure even after the White Paper and the deliberations of the committee, on which I have not been privileged to serve in recent years, how far the minister intends to go in his reorganization; whether he is going beyond integration to unification. This is still a matter of debate, although I noticed in his statement yesterday that he did use this phrase, as it appears on page 1417 of Hansard, that the various services-
-would be integrated on a functional basis as a first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
We will be able to consider these matters later in the committee, but I question whether complete unification is in the best interests of Canada's armed forces. What is needed is unity of purpose and motivation. That must be a requisite to the maintenance of morale in the armed forces. If you try to press, by force, every branch of the armed forces into one common mould you are going to get monotony and frustration rather than strong morale and motivation.
We do not need similarity of colour and structure to meet Canada's defence requirements, we need flexibility. Flexibility is not
February 18, 1866

Supply-National Defence usually achieved by reconstructing ourselves into one organization as one unit with one system of operations, logistics and all the rest of the paraphernalia. We must have sufficient diversity of background and approach to provide the greatest number of solutions to meet our problems lest, to use a famous quotation, one good custom corrupts the whole world. This sort of regimentation toward solidarity and uniformity is bound to destroy the high morale and spirit of the armed forces. I think this is the major difficulty which is of concern to Canada's forces at the present time. I am not going to pursue that matter further, but I should like to mention one other point very briefly.
By the program that is under way are we not tending to reduce the Canadian defence forces to the role of a glorified police force? I know the minister is aware of this danger because I recall reading an article which appeared in the armed forces magazine in 1964 regarding the minister's approach to greater efficiency and reorganization in the armed forces. At page 54 of that publication the minister is quoted as stating:
The surest way to lose our sovereignty is to have someone else do our fighting for us.
I understand from that statement that the minister is fully aware of Canada's unique position which established Canada historically and geographically as a nation. It is almost trite to say that we are a nation because of a freak of history, because of an accident of history and circumstance. As we look at the pattern that has unfolded in the past three years during the administration of the department by the present minister and the Liberal government we get the impression that even though he uttered that warning not to have someone else do our fighting for us, he is unwittingly falling into that very error.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is obvious to everyone that there are strong American overtones within Canadian defence policy not only in terms of equipment, to which reference has been made by at least two previous speakers, but also on major policy matters. For example, Mr. Chairman, there has been kite flying recently about the possibility of organizing a marine corps along American lines in the Canadian forces. I think it would not be boasting on my part to indicate that the Canadian armed forces in world war I and world war II achieved fame and established a reputation that would be equal to if not beyond that
[Mr. Dinsdale.J
established by the famous United States marine corps. I could refer to many incidents in this regard from world war II, such as Dieppe and the various campaigns of that most recent conflict.
The minister when in opposition was aware of this problem because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre pointed out in his remarks he criticized the Conservative government for its tendency to accept the obsolete hardware-that is the word the minister likes to use-of the American armed forces.
This is not the time to resurrect the famous nuclear arms question, but I have always regarded the essence of the nuclear arms controversy of 1963 as being whether Canada should maintain its important posture of sovereignty or knuckle under to the dictates of another nation, in this instance the United States government.
I believe that the stand the Conservative government took at that time was in the best interests of preserving Canada's sovereignty and national identity in the face of the pressures that are constantly pushing in on us from the south.
So, as we move toward armed forces solidarity, as we move forward to create this highly trained, mobile, air-portable striking force, I believe serious second thought should be given to whether Canada is not abandoning completely its role of defence forces and substituting rather a role of a glorified police force. It seems to me that while we must have a bit of both, the fact that morale in the armed forces has declined in recent years would suggest that the defence and fighting role is diminishing at the expense of the glorified police force role.
I should like to make just one more observation, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the air force. As a former member of that service I should like to point out to the minister that integration in the R.C.A.F. can only be achieved to a limited degree. Certainly you can have integration at the training level. This of course was demonstrated in the early reorganization which took place back in 1957, 1958 and 1959, I believe it was, when all military flying training was taken over by the R.C.A.F., even to the extent of removing the training of air observer pilots from the various Royal Canadian Flying Clubs which had done an excellent job up to that point. But beyond this level the problem becomes rather complicated.
February 18, 1966

With reference to the CF-5 discussion that is under way in the house and the country at the present time, the surest indication that this plane has deficiencies, which have been pointed out in press comments, is the fact that there is to be no simulator provided for training. The minister likes to use the phrase that weapons systems have become sophisticated and complex. One of the reasons for phasing out air force auxiliary training, for example, was that the planes, weapons systems and techniques had become so sophisticated and complex that it was no longer possible for we reserve types to maintain a level of operational efficiency.
Whatever might be the qualities of the CF-5 aircraft-and the minister, again, has gone into rhapsodies concerning the qualities of this airplane and has been so extravagant in his claim for its merits that I am persuaded to be somewhat suspicious-I have no doubt that some problems do exist in this regard. From my experience any new aircraft, even the old, unsophisticated aircraft of world war II, the introduction of any new aircraft-even a modification or a new mark of an existing aircraft-has always produced a whole new generation of gremlins.
I do not know whether the minister has heard of gremlins, but it would seem to me that the CF-5-and we will no doubt get some further information in the committee on this matter-must be an aircraft that is particularly infested with this mysterious creature.
Coming to the question of the simulator, Mr. Chairman, it is well established in flying training procedures, particularly with the complexities of modern aircraft, that you cannot carry on an adequate training program without some sort of ground simulated training. The very fact that Canada has decided to withdraw from the contract for this simulator would suggest that the Americans have decided that this aircraft is not suitable for operational purposes.
Just a short time ago the Associate Minister of National Defence suggested that many CF-5's had been sold to other countries. If there is such a demand for this aircraft it might still be possible, to proceed with a simulator. You will not achieve an adequate training program if you depend entirely on airborne training procedures. Not only is it expensive but it is highly inefficient, because only on the ground, in a ground trainer or a simulator can you get the controlled situation that is necessary to train aircrew in the first 23033-95a

Supply-National Defence instance and is then necessary to maintain operational efficiency.
Even in world war II, with relatively slow aircraft and relatively unsophisticated techniques, aircrew were not allowed to fly operationally until they had a minimum of one hour in the Link trainer before going on ops. I am referring to night fighter pilots, who had a particularly difficult problem to cope with in terms of instrument flying. But again, we have made such tremendous advances since world war II that I would suggest to the minister that if he persists in going through with the purchase of the CF-5 he should re-examine this question of the availability of a simulator.
To sum up-and I think my time has expired, Mr. Chairman-I should just like to repeat what I said in the opening part of my remarks. I would suggest to the minister that if he wants to overcome the obvious difficulties that prevail in the Department of National Defence at the present time he should give the command structures a chance to gel and work out the kinks before going any further, o (5:30 p.m.)
Let us lay down some five year plans; let us lay down guide lines. It is not good enough to reorganize armed force headquarters and then give the command to integrate. It is all fine and good to go through the motions of integrating, but you have to provide guide lines, otherwise you get a glorified situation of confusion. You are dealing with human beings who can only adjust at a certain rate of speed. We all know that perhaps the armed forces are a little more rigid in this respect than any other type of human being. You have to take into consideration the psychological factors in the field of human adjustment. I know, as a member of the opposition, that this is a difficulty that has bothered them, that is gnawing away at the members of the armed forces. This is what is destroying the morale of the armed forces at the present time.
The minister made reference yesterday to economy in the armed forces. Perhaps he might find greater success in achieving real economies if consideration were given to managerial systems in connection with budgeting, tendering and the other aspects of defence planning, which obviously have not been under control in years gone by. I need refer only to the Avro fiasco to point out the situation which has prevailed and which no doubt has prevailed up to the present time to
February 18, 1986

Supply-National Defence a substantial extent. If we are going to have efficient and effective armed forces, we must retain unit spirit; we must retain opportunity for promotion; we must retain opportunity for competition. Otherwise I am afraid the Canadian armed forces are going to decline in efficiency, to degenerate in effectiveness, rather than move forward along the lines that were first contemplated when Hon. George Pearkes set this machinery in operation.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I have just a few remarks to make, Mr. Chairman, particularly with regard to the morale problem in the armed services. My comments are not made as a result of information I have received from various assistants. I am speaking now at the request of many members of the armed forces who have approached me personally and expressed their concern about the way things were going in the armed forces today. They themselves offered to me what I thought might be solutions to these problems. If I may be presumptuous, perhaps I could suggest to the minister what the solutions might be.
Primarily, I should like to refer to jet pilots in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I placed question No. 419 on the order paper, which read as follows:
What are the numbers of R.C.A.F. jet pilots under the age of 28. who have retired voluntarily from the R.C.A.F. in each of the following years-
The years mentioned were 1957 to 1965. I think the figures are most interesting. You will notice that in the year 1957, only 4 retired. In the following years there were 3, 1, 8, 7, 6 and 8. In the year 1964, there were 26 who retired. These are highly trained specialized members of the Royal Canadian Air Force who retired voluntarily. They are young men, still under the age of 28. In the year 1965 there were 27 who retired voluntarily. There must be a reason for this. The reason they retire under the age of 28 is that in order to get a job in civilian aviation in the United States, where most of them have gone, they have to be under the age of 28.
I spoke to many of these pilots and asked them why they were leaving the Royal Canadian Air Force. The first thing they said was they liked the Royal Canadian Air Force; they enjoyed the life. However, they were concerned about the security of their tenure. Many pilots had been retired by the minister, at the minister's orders, as I understand. These pilots wondered whether they could get

a permanent commission in the force. They never received a positive answer. They did not know whether they were still going to be pilots when they were in their thirties.
If they were let out of the air force when they were in their thirties, what would happen? They would be out in civilian life with no job, and there would be no job for which they were qualified. They would be too old to go into the field of flying passengers for large air lines, unless they were exceptional. The average man is just too old for this work. He has had tremendous training which I understand costs, if I heard the minister correctly, between $200,000 and $250,000. If we lose to the United States 26 pilots, each of whom was trained at this cost, then we have lost $7J-million or more to the United States.
When I heard that they did not have training which they could use in civilian life, I asked these pilots what they felt should be done. They had what I thought was a very good solution. They suggested that perhaps their training could be tied to a university, which it most certainly is in the type of work they do in the aeronautical engineering field, and while they were training with the air force they could receive a degree from some affiliated university.
Then, if these men were retired at an early age from the R.C.A.F. they would have a degree with which they could approach prospective employers and obtain a job in this manner. There is a precedence for this in the armed forces colleges which grant degrees in engineering and so on. I feel the idea has some merit, Mr. Minister, and I should like the ministry to look into this matter, and particularly to discuss it with the men who are thinking of leaving. Perhaps these discussions would be most revealing.
When I heard the associate minister refer to the increased number of voluntary releases over the past few years from all the forces, and attribute this to increasing opportunities for employment in the country, I began to wonder if that was not more the type of statement a person would make on the hustings before an election campaign. It seems to me that directly tied with that statement is the opposite one that by virtue of their training they are unable to get employment in civilian life.
Today we heard the associate minister saj there are increased re-employment opportunities. I have talked to members of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Army and I have
February 18, 1966	COMMONS
asked them why they left the forces. Their reason was dissatisfaction with what is going on; they did not know what the future held for them. Believe you me, Mr. Minister, if this is not a morale problem I do not know what else you could call it. There is something very wrong indeed when there is this sort of increase in voluntary releases, as the associate minister pointed out.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There is one other point I should like to make. Both ministers have commented on the tremendous economies effected as a result of this integration of the armed forces. I am sure there are many areas in the armed forces which for many years have required integration. I certainly agree with this and the general tenor of what has been done.
However, when I look at the estimates at page 252, it seems to me, though I am not a chartered accountant and perhaps cannot understand this, that instead of a decrease in 1965-66 over 1964-65 there are increases all the way down. I see one decrease, and that is with respect to mutual aid.
I would ask, what about this efficiency we keep hearing about? I also see a decrease in pensions, due to efficiency I presume. But in every other item there is an increase, with perhaps one exception. The amount of money paid for the permanent personnel of the army has increased, and the navy is about the same. If I remember correctly, the amount to the air force has gone down, which is directly related, I presume, to the number who have left the air force as a result of voluntary release and other releases practised by the minister in his wisdom.
I would ask the minister whether he would consider looking very carefully once again at the loss of these highly trained personnel. I do not think the Canadian tax dollar should be used to provide men to fly aeroplanes in any other country than our own. This is something that I am sorry to say extends to other fields in our country as well as national defence; but surely it is something to which we should not turn a blind eye. I suggest we examine this problem as closely as possible to see what we can do to retain these highly trained people. Although the re-engagement bonus is a wonderful idea-and I agree with the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) that it is not enough-this is surely closing the stable door after the horse is stolen.
DEBATES	1491
Supply-National Defence
I should like the minister to look into the reasons for this and perhaps come up with some conclusion which would be to the benefit of all armed forces in Canada today.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any length but I do want to express our point of view on one or two matters.
First of all, the minister's defence policy reflects our Canadian foreign policy, and he has to adjust his defence policy to our foreign policy. To that extent his hands are tied, and we know it. We give the minister full credit for any savings accomplished as the result of integration, changing circumstances in the world today, improvements in technology and customs, and so on.
However, from our point of view the formulation of defence policy for Canada is more difficult than it is for many countries. Our defence policy, as we see it, in some respects does not add to our national security.
I want to bring to the attention of the minister an article I read recently in the Globe Magazine written by Professor Eayrs, an economist at Toronto University. I suggest the minister would be well advised to read it, because there are some good suggestions in this article, some of them critical of the defence department's policies. I think there is a great deal of thought behind it.
I might say that in conversations I have had with people I have met who are interested in our foreign policy, our defence policy and so on, there has been growing criticism of the amount of our expenditures on defence at this time-the expenditure in our budget which has been going directly for military purposes and which is not being used in other directions.
This article is entitled "Canada's military establishment: a waste of money?" Then there is the subheading:
Politics, rather than strategy, has guided the nation's defence policies, says a political economist who suggests military spending could be cut by two thirds.
I should just like to quote two or three paragraphs from this article; I hope the minister will read the rest of it.
I began by stating that the formulation of national security policy is made more difficult for Canada than for most other countries by the fact that what we do in the name of our own security demonstrably does not contribute to our security. Our contribution to North American defence has been undertaken largely for political reasons, and has had less to do with Canadian-Soviet relations than with Canadian-American relations: moreover,
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence
our contribution has been marginal throughout most of the past and, citing McNamara's testimony, is likely to become less significant in future, as the threat of bomber attack recedes and as antiballistic missile defences are perfected. Our contribution to Western European defence is largely symbolic-
I have heard similar statements made by persons well acquainted with military affairs in Europe.
-and its rationale must be provided by a series of arguments which can hardly be tested and never be proven. The use to which we might put our military establishment in maintaining order along the peripheries is severely restricted both by our own internal inhibitions and by developments in the environment of interposition over which we have no control.
Then he goes on to say:
My own feeling is that we have been paying too much for it-much too much. I would think that a really ruthless Minister of National Defence could justify a military establishment for Canada costing no more than about one third of its present annual upkeep-about $500 million-without worrying that his countrymen would fall prey to aggressors as a result.
Then he goes on to develop his argument.
So that there is no misunderstanding as to what is our policy in this respect, I wish to quote what it is. The minister will understand that I am quoting the New Democratic party policy with respect to defence. I am going to refer to the program which was adopted at our August 4, 1961 convention, at the Regina convention in August 1963, and of course carried on to our last convention. This is what our program says:
NATO has played its part in the maintenance of west European security. However, it has concentrated on a military role and has failed to adapt its policies to the growing importance of the economic and social front in the present world struggle. The New Democratic party believes that we should seek a reappraisal and change of NATO's policies and objectives.
The New Democratic party believes that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and alliances threatens disaster to the world. It therefore opposes Canada's troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad. At present, except for those nations which have independently developed atomic capacity, neither NATO itself nor its members individually possess or control nuclear warheads. Should they do so, Canada, must make it clear that it cannot remain in the alliance. To relieve tensions, Canada should press for a demilitarized zone in central Europe and for the simultaneous disbandment of the Warsaw and NATO pacts.
That is the position of this party with respect to our continued support of NATO. I presume the minister will agree that NATO is a nuclear power or component part. I see the minister nods his head.
[Mr. Herridge.j


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is a nuclear-armed alliance.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I think that is a better description. I understand his position in view of these changing developments.
Then we go on with the other questions relating to our policy. We are told that the New Democratic government will make a general and searching reappraisal of Canada's defence role. Much of the money which Canada now allocates to defence could better be spent on providing such conventional troops and civilian personnel as the United Nations may require, and on aiding underdeveloped countries.
We believe in maintaining efficient defence forces in Canada, to provide for the defence of this country. We also think that we can provide troops that should be utilized by the United Nations anywhere in the world, with the transport that should be necessary, and other materiel and equipment that might be required. We also would agree to our naval forces being used in patrol of the seas, off both our coasts.
Then we go on with the question of NORAD. I am quoting from the New Democratic party program, page 51 which reads as follows:
It is questionable whether NORAD ever made any significant contribution to the defence of Canada and in any case it has outlived its usefulness. Furthermore, there is every danger that the Bomarcs will be equipped with nuclear warheads. The NORAD agreements should therefore be terminated.
That is the attitude of the New Democratic party with respect to NORAD. I continue to quote:
The New Democratic party demands an immediate ban on nuclear tests, both to avoid the dangerous effects of fall-out and as a first step toward nuclear disarmament.
Then we go on to deal with it.
We believe that that should be our defence policy. I fully admit that the minister has to give effect to a defence policy which reflects foreign policy, because he knows that we stand for an independent foreign policy for Canada which is western oriented. We believe that we can make a worth-while contribution to the development of peace in the world by providing what we would term the police force necessary to police the world. I think my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris rather objected to the words "police force". We will be very happy if we can refer to the forces of the United Nations being used as police forces anywhere in the world, rather than as armies, navies, and air forces.
February 18, 1966

In addition, I understand that we ought to be able to save our present costs of maintaining our forces in NATO, which I understand amounts to $500 million a year. Is that correct, sir?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should not want to comment on the figure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister does not want to comment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It depends how you apportion it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I used the figures that I read. However, here we are denying to our old age pensioners an increase of $25 a month.
We are very concerned about the education of our young people. We, in the New Democratic party, suggest that we could use this approximate sum of $500 million a year for those purposes. In addition to that, other savings could be effected. These could be achieved by a change in the requirements for foreign forces and defence policy, to provide greater economic aid to those areas that require it throughout the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? He used the phrase, that there would be a savings of $500 million a year. I suggest that no actual saving is to be effected anywhere. Did the hon. member not mean that the defence estimates might be reduced by that amount and be available for these other purposes?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, possibly I did not use the correct words. The reduction of $500 million could be applied to the uses I have suggested. Of course there would be other savings brought about by reduced need for expensive equipment, such as landing ships, and so on, for which at present we have to pay. That would be reduced by a certain proportion.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the minister's estimates presently before the house. In his opening remarks he used, in effect, these words: The fact that our progress toward a completely unified force is well in advance of what might be hoped for reflects the spirit of enthusiasm in our task which has been undertaken. It is evident, Mr. Chairman, that this spirit of enthusiasm is not shared by the enlisted personnel of our armed forces as evidenced by the manner in which they are presently forsaking the services. I would say to the minister that his

Supply-National Defence program has not been one of integration, but one of interruption or, as my colleague suggests, one of disintegration. We have had interruption of the planned program in the navy. We have had interruption of personnel enlistment. We have had interruption of the role of the Royal Canadian Air Force, as the supporter of Canada's mobile defence force. I believe that Canadians generally are beginning to wonder just what is happening in our defence department.
For example, no keel has been laid for a service vessel since the minister introduced what is commonly called in Nova Scotia the "Hellyer plan". He has yet to produce one practical alternative for defence in mine warfare. He started a program to cut back personnel, which snowballed to the extent that our services are now suffering from manning problems. As a result we see him introducing a re-enlistment bonus program. I am pleased to note this, because I would point out to the minister that this was proposed by the Progressive Conservative party when we met at Moncton, prior to the election of 1965. We are happy to endorse this. I think it will be helpful. I am glad to see that the minister has adopted in one of his policies something previously advocated by Progressive Conservatives.
Under the economical guidance of the minister the department made a decision to buy 125 improved versions of the Northrop CF-5. This, I understand, will be the R.C.A.F.'s new multipurpose aircraft which will be acquired at a cost of $215 million to the Canadian taxpayers.
Just how good is this aircraft? In a recent exchange with the Associate Minister of National Defence in regard to this subject I learned that this aircraft is to be modified. Apparently there is need for a great many improvements. We are told that the United States defence department rejected this aircraft after carrying out extensive proving trials with a number of them. The faults listed were not all in keeping with Canada's international or intended role, for which purpose this aircraft is being bought.
The CF-5 is intended for deployment anywhere in the world in support of Canada's mobile defence forces. However, according to all reports it is difficult to refuel this aircraft in flight. Four of these aircraft made the trip from the United States to Iran, taking eight days in transit, with ten refuelling stops.
February 18, 1966

Supply-National Defence
The minister and the Associate Minister of National Defence have stated that this aircraft can take off from short clearings in fields. However, I am informed that because of its underslung bomb load, necessitating a perfect runway, it requires greater length of runway than an Air Canada DC-8 jet. Even operating from perfect airfields, which might be few and far between in brush-fire wars, the aircraft is limited, with a moderate bomb load, to a range of 180 miles.
The Minister of National Defence has been careful to deny that at the present time there is a problem respecting morale in his department. However, the numbers of men receiving discharge in the last 18 months, being some 13,142 who have retired from the defence forces prior to normal retirement age, would indicate that he has been singularly successful in producing rivalries long forgotten in the Canadian services. His policies have caused discontent among the troops. He has disrupted planned programs in the navy, setting construction back by at least five years, with no clear objective. He has generally made so many serious errors in judgment, such as the retirement of 500 pilots who now are required by the Royal Canadian Air Force, that there seems little reason, except the old school tie, for him to hold his post.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
It is readily understandable that the navy, in the Atlantic provinces, and especially in Nova Scotia is our prime concern. However, what did the minister do? He cancelled the general purpose frigate program and then, many months later, he produced another, smaller construction program. But to date no action has been taken.
In his so-called wisdom he decided a minesweeping capability was not required by the R.C.N., so he mothballed every minesweeper in the fleet. I ask him this: What alternative is he going to introduce in place of these minesweepers? It is true that if he
keeps on at this present pace it may well be that Canada will not have any navy to protect against mines. But we do have a large and growing wooden and steel fishing fleet, and in time of war these ships would be entitled to some protection, if they are to be expected to continue producing food for the nation.
The minister stated today that our six squadrons in Germany will be fully operational in the non-nuclear attack role as well as in the nuclear strike role. However, I think he should give us a clear explanation of what is being done in support of our NATO requirements. Does this mean we have now gone full cycle and become a non-nuclear power? Will the Bomarcs in Canada be scrapped, or will this arrangement be expanded, with Canada becoming part of an anti-missile missile system?
There are many other questions I could put to the minister but I see it is six o'clock. I hope he will answer some of those I have been able to pose during the short period of time at my disposal.


Mr. Nowlan:: May I call it six o'clock?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understood there was some general feeling that we might finish tonight -that it had been discussed earlier.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Misinformed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the
Minister of National Defence about the business for Monday. I understand there will be a continuation of discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Defence followed then or later by the estimates of the Department of Justice. Is that correct?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, that is the intention, if that is agreeable to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 21, 1966