1966-12-07

[Stage Direction]
FAILURE TO SETTLE LONGSHOREMEN DISPUTE ___LEGISLATION TO APPOINT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR-POSSIBLE MORNING SITTING
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, my deputy minister, or rather my assistant deputy minister and I went to Vancouver on Friday last with a view to trying to bring about the resumption of work in the docks on our west coast. Several approaches to a settlement were tested during the past few days but I regret to report that my efforts were unsuccessful.
I reported to the Prime Minister on my return, and it has been decided that in the national interest legislation must be submitted to parliament forthwith-legislation which will include the appointment of a public administrator so that operations on the waterfront may be resumed in the shortest possible time.
As one might expect, when this regrettable situation developed instructions were given for the preparation of draft legislation. I have been working on this legislation all morning and will be working on it again this afternoon, because in view of the different factors involved I can assure the house this is an extremely complicated matter. It is not like the British Columbia coast steamship case; it is not like the maritime trusteeship. There are a number of special factors to be considered, including the extent of the coverage and the number of institutions which might be affected.
I have suggested to the leader of the house that arrangements might be made for a special sitting of the house, possibly tomorrow morning. The improvements in the original draft legislation may well take several hours. Since I shall be making a statement when the bill is presented to the house, I would prefer not to make any further statement at this time.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: At long last the government
has decided to act. I do not know of any previous occasion when the economy has been allowed to suffer to such a degree as in this case, certainly not in the last few years. There was a total disregard by the government of the need for action.
Today, finally, after days and days of uncertainty-


Mr. Pearson:: Negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: -the government has decided to do that which it should have done earlier. As to the suggestion of the appointment of a public administrator, I put that before the house yesterday. For the past ten days, day after day, the people of Canada have witnessed a government uncertain in its course. However, now that they have finally decided to act, we can at least say that this matter will receive the attention by parliament which it should have received days and days ago.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: We
all regret that the minister has not been successful in bringing both parties together in the dispute which has tied up the British Columbia ports for the past ten days.
We in this party have been pointing out for some time that this situation constitutes a national emergency, with grain cars backing up to the prairies, with perishable goods not being unloaded, and with men being laid off in other industries because of the lack of shipping facilities. I think it is unnecessary to make any comment on the legislation the government intends to bring down, until we see the bill.
I hope the government will keep in mind the fact that the compromise proposal which the minister drafted while he was in Vancouver was accepted by the workers and that the stevedoring companies refused to accept that compromise. Therefore in any legislation to set up a public administrator it seems to me totally unnecessary to place the union under a public administrator. It is the companies in this case which are refusing to end their lockout. They are the ones that

December 7, 1966
Labour Relations
need to be brought under a public administrator, in order that the ports can be operated. We are anxious to have the ports operating as quickly as possible and we will do everything in our power to facilitate the consideration of this legislation. We hope the government will bring it down just as soon as possible.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, since this strike is quite similar to the railway strike with which the government has been faced recently, I think the minister is making a very wise decision for the time being when he says he will introduce a bill designed to appoint a public trustee in order to get both parties concerned to enter into an agreement.
Some will say, as just did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the government is acting too late, but I believe the minister has given both parties concerned, employers and workers, enough time to discuss freely and he intervened in an attempt to submit proposals to either group. In my opinion, it was necessary for the government to allow time to both parties lest it be accused of restricting the rights of management and labour.
In my opinion, since all other means have been exhausted, I trust that the bill will finally enable the cause of the majority to prevail; indeed, parliament must see to it that the common good takes precedence over private interests. Therefore, I think that our discussions should be directed to that end, since it is our duty to protect not only a group of citizens, but the entire community. I hope that this bill will help to bring out that principle.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we had an opportunity to debate this particular problem to some extent on an adjournment motion moved by my colleague from Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston). During the course of that discussion I said that we sympathized with the minister in his desire to give all possible opportunity for the dispute to be settled without government interference or participation. But now the time has come when some definite action must be taken.
We appreciate the measure that is to be introduced, because we believe it is very urgent that shipping get under way immediately. The results of a continued stoppage 
at this time will be catastrophic so far as the Pacific coast and the entire western part of Canada are concerned, and therefore action must be taken immediately. However, Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to the compromise proposal that was offered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). I can understand the reluctance with which that was greeted, because there are certain very fundamental principles involved. For instance, there is the matter of the position of the foremen in the labour-management picture, and also the relationship between the minister's proposal and decisions by the Labour Relations Board. All these things have an important bearing on the matter, and must be gone into thoroughly before we can pass judgment on the legislation. However, once again may I say I believe it is absolutely imperative that shipping get under way, and that we would welcome legislation in order to achieve that objective.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Allard: Has the government received from the officials of Expo '67 the program for Inauguration Day and, if so, who are the Canadian and foreign personalities who will participate in the inauguration ceremonies?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Board of Expo '67 has drawn up a tentative program for Inauguration Day. This is now under consideration and will be made public as soon as final agreement is reached.


FLUORIDATION OF FEDERAL WATER SUPPLIES
Mr. Winkler: 1.	Have any steps been taken under the authorization of the Department of Health and Welfare to fluoridate water supplies or resources which came under federal jurisdiction since the first of July, 1965 and, if so, what are those steps?
2.	Are water supplies for the armed forces being fluoridated and, if so, since when, and under whose orders?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Departments of National
December 7, 1966

Questions
Health and Welfare and National Defence as follows:
1.	No. The Department of National Health and Welfare provides on request technical and consultant services to federal agencies regarding the fluoridation of their water supplies. The department has supported the fluoridation of the water resources of certain Indian schools.
2.	Not yet. However, the Minister of National Defence on 23 November, 1965 approved that water for human consumption in defence establishments not already served with naturally or artificially fluoridated water, be artificially fluoridated.


EASTERN QUEBEC-INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRY
Mr, Bechard: In pursuance of the program of incentive to the establishment of new industries and to the improvement of existing industries in designated areas (a) have applications been made to the Department of Industry by industrialists from the Gaspe region or others to establish new industries or improve existing industries in the constituencies of Bonaventure, Gaspe, Matapedia-Matane and Iles-de-la-Madeleine since the inception of this policy (b) if so, have the applications been received favourably, and what is, in each case, the amount in dollars of the grant or tax exemption which benefited each of the industries involved?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: (a) and (b) The constituencies of Bonaventure, Gaspe, and Matapedia-Matane comprise five Canada Manpower Centre areas and, in the case of the constituency of lles-de-la-Madeleine, a part of a sixth C.M.C. area. Ten firms have declared their intentions of establishing or expanding manufacturing or processing operations in the areas in order to qualify for the benefits of the Area Development Incentives Act or Section 71A of the Income Tax Act, and have received provisional letters of assurance concerning eligibility. The ten projects are distributed as follows:
Area
No. of Projects
Causapscal	1
Chandler	2
Gaspe	2
Matane	2
New Richmond	1
Moncton (Iles-de-la-Madeleine) 2
Grant payments will be made and tax certificates issued for the eligible projects when they are in commercial production.


HISTORIC PLAQUES, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	What is the explanation of the discrepancy between the answer to Question 2,033 (Hansard page 9023) and the statements appearing at page 21 of Part I of the National Capital Commission's sixty-sixth Annual Report 1965-1966?
2.	For what buildings in the National Capital Region have historical plaques been designed and where are such buildings located?
3.	Upon what buildings have they been placed and when will they be placed on each of the other buildings mentioned in the answer to Question Part 2?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The chief work involved in the historical plaque program of the National Capital Commission was at the design and preparation stage during the 1965-66 fiscal year. Parts of the Commission's sixty-sixth Annual Report were drafted before the end of the fiscal year. At that time, it was anticipated that one or more plaques would be in place before 31 March, 1966. Unforeseen delays in determining the details of the design delayed the production. Consequently, none of the plaques was placed. The words "or placed" which appear on page 21, paragraph 2, first line of Part I of the Commission's Annual Report should have been deleted before the draft was sent to the printers, but this, unfortunately, was not done.
2.	(a) Historical plaques have been designed for the following buildings: County of Carle-ton Court House, 2 Daly Avenue, Ottawa; Billings House, Park Hill Road, Ottawa, and Institut canadien-frangais d'Ottawa, 18 York Street, Ottawa, (b) Arrangements are being made for the placing of plaques on about 12 other buildings.
3.	The plaques already have been placed on the three buildings listed in part (a) of the answer to question No. 2.


CONSUMER SECTION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	When was the consumer section established in the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What personnel does it include?
3.	What is its budget?
4.	What are its functions?
5.	Does it undertake consumer research?

December 7, 1966
Questions
6.	If so, what are its techniques?
7.	How does it communicate with the consumer?
8.	Has it any regular channels or communication with the Consumers' Association of Canada and, if so, what are they?
9.	Have studies been conducted to determine what the consumer wants in the way of package and container sizes?
10.	Have studies been made to discover what specific fields of consumer education should be stressed?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The Consumer Section was formally established in 1939 but home economist service was provided earlier through divisional staff.
2.	Authorized establishment includes: 11 home economists, three technicians, five clerical staff, one part-time kitchen assistant.
3.	Expenditure for 1965-66 was $107,366. Budget for 1966-67 is $178,000.
4.	The functions of the section are to provide a national service to consumers on the buying and use of Canadian food products of agricultural origin, to increase the consumption of such foods, to broaden consumer understanding and appreciation of grading and marketing regulations administered by the department, and to collaborate with commodity divisions of the department in the development and evaluation of grade standards for agricultural products.
5.	The section conducts consumer research alone and in conjunction with other divisions of the department.
6.	Techniques vary with the project. Taste panels are utilized to keep abreast of consumer preferences. Supply and demand studies of the Economics Branch are used for short term consumer price outlooks. Trends in consumption patterns are studied as a guide to determine current and future consumer requirements.
7.	Information is conveyed to the consumer by publications, exhibits, press releases, radio tapes and scripts, television films, and speaking engagements. Consumers communicate with the section by letter, telephone and in person at exhibits and meetings at which staff speak to groups.
8.	There is constant communication with the Consumers' Association of Canada by letter, telephone, staff membership in the organization, and personal contact.
9.	No formal studies have been conducted by the section but certain commodity legislation administered by the department sets

out container size limitations. These limitations were developed based on consumer preferences for container sizes then on the market.
10.	The specific fields stressed are those related to the section's functions and no formal studies have been made to determine which of these should be stressed at any particular time. Commodity consumption promotion is accented in relation to supply and price.


LANDS EXPROPRIATED BY NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the National Capital Commission expropriated since January 1, 1966, additional lands for the Gatineau Park?
2.	If so (a) what lands (b) in what locality (c) how many acres are there in each expropriated parcel (d) from whom were such lands expropriated (e) has any settlement of price been (i) offered (ii) negotiated (iii) determined for any such parcel (f) if any answer to (e) is affirmative, at what amount in each case?
3.	When was the last previous expropriation of lands for the Gatineau Park made?
4.	What is the reason for the resumption of expropriation proceedings?
5.	Is it proposed to proceed now with expropriation of all remaining lands, including those of the Crown in the right of Quebec, lying within the defined limits of the Gatineau Park?
6.	If not, upon what basis is the National Capital Commission selecting lands to be expropriated?
7.	If the answer to part 5 is affirmative (a) what parcels of land remain to be expropriated or otherwise acquired (b) what is the acreage of each parcel (c) who is the owner of each?
8.	In the case of lands expropriated by the National Capital Commission, the announcement whereof was made by press release 111E dated November 4, 1966 (a) from whom were such lands expropriated (b) when, according to the search of titles made by or on behalf of the commission, were such lands acquired by the party or parties from whom they were expropriated?
9.	What price or prices did such searches of title disclose was paid for each of such parcels by the persons from whom the lands have now been expropriated?
10.	Are any of the persons from whom such lands were expropriated known by the National Capital Commission or the Minister of Public Works to be either (i) in their personal right (ii) as partners in any firm or (iii) as shareholders and/or directors of any corporation, the lessors of any building or buildings located in the National Capital Region to the government of Canada or any agency thereof?
11.	If so, what building or buildings?
December 7, 1966


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
(a)	(b)	(c)What lands	Locality	AcresLots 17B, 18B, 18C, 19B, Range 7, and Lot 18, 19A, Range 8, Twp. of Onslow	Lac Lapeche	appr. 543 appr. 28Pt. Lot 1, Range 6 Eardley Twp.	Mountain Road	27.6Pt. Lot 8, Range 4 Twp. Hull	Mountain Road	2.153
In the case of the George Steele expropriation, a proposal of settlement has been negotiated based on a land exchange. This proposal provides land owned by N.C.C. outside Gatineau park in exchange for the parcel expropriated in the park.
3.	10 February 1965.
4.	It has been necessary to use expropriation proceedings at various times during the past four years.
5.	No. The commission does not plan to proceed now with expropriation of all remaining lands.
6.	It has been the policy of the National Capital Commission to acquire in the long term all the property within the park. When properties are offered for sale at a reasonable price, they are purchased by the commission. Privately owned properties are also acquired by expropriation to forestall developments which would significantly increase the cost to the government of acquiring such properties if the developments were undertaken. Negotiations are continuing between the National Capital Commission and the province of Quebec for the acquisition of the latter's properties in the park.
7.	See the answer to question five.
8.	Lands mentioned in Press Release No. 11 IE, dated 4 November 1966, were expropriated as follows:
(a) From whom:
E. and P. Bourque E. and P. Bourque George Steele
Questions
2.	The answer to part 2 of the question is shown in the following table:-
(d)	(i)	(e) (ii) (iii) Settlement nego- Price	From whom	Offered	tiated	minedE. Bourque P. Bourque	No	No	NoG. Steele	No	Yes	Land ExchangeNorwin Molybdenite Mines Ltd.	No	No	NoBenedict Bros.	No	No	No
(b) When
28 Sept. 1966 from John Garvin Steele 28 Sept. 1966 from James Steele Not registered-may be original grant from the Crown.
9.	No report from the Department of Justice regarding searches of title of any of these properties has as yet been received by the National Capital Commission. The arrangement between the vendors and the purchasers are recorded in the Registry Office for the county of Pontiac, Township of Onslow at Campbells Bay, Quebec, and are recorded as: Instrument 79363, Garvin Steele to E. and P. Bourque, registered on the 28th day of September 1966. Instrument 79364, John Steele to E. and P. Bourque, registered on the 28th day of September 1966. These records have been inspected.
10.	Yes.
11.	The following: (a) 140 Queen Street, Ottawa; (b) Sir Wilfrid Laurier Building, Laurier Avenue, Ottawa; (c) Bourque Memorial Building, Rideau Street, Ottawa; (d) 156 Main Street, Hull, Quebec; and (e) 211 Montcalm Street, Hull, Quebec.


* CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Fulton: With respect to (a) the work being done on the grounds of parliament hill at or near the main gates (b) the work being done at Confederation square:
1.	What is the nature and purpose of the said projects respectively?

December 7, 1966
Questions
2.	When was work first started on the design or concept of these projects respectively?
3.	When were tenders first called and contracts let, respectively, and in what amounts?
4.	Is any extra cost involved in the fact that these works are being carried out In winter weather, and if so, how much?
5.	With respect to project (a) was this project, involving substantial alteration to, and the erection of a substantial structure on, the grounds of parliament hill decided and authorized by the government alone without discussion in parliament?


George James McIlraith: The answer to this question is rather lengthy. I am quite prepared to give it orally, but as it is lengthy I wonder whether the interest of the house would be better served if I merely turned the answer in?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the rules provide that where an answer is lengthy the minister has the right to make it an order for return. However, provided that the written answer will appear in Hansard for today, it is agreeable to me that the minister not read it at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to follows:]
1.	(a) The work being done at or near the main gates is the installation of the centennial flame which will be in use during the centennial year, 1967, and a small supporting structure; the restoration of the pillars of the centre gate on their former sites; the opening of an entrance to Parliament hill in line with the end of Metcalfe street; and the opening of an exit from Parliament hill an equal distance west of the centre gate. This will permit the centre gate to be used as a pedestrian entrance except on special ceremonial occasions and will improve the flow of traffic to and from Parliament hill. It will also permit the gate near the East Block to be restricted to pedestrians so as to improve the flow of traffic near Confederation square.
(b) Work is being done at Confederation square both to assure greater safety for pedestrians and vehicles and to improve the appearance of the square. Wellington street is being made a two-way street continuing directly into Rideau street. Consequently, a larger and more impressive plaza can be developed immediately south of the memorial island.
2.	(a) The formal proposal from the Centennial Commission that a centennial flame

be installed dates from November 25, 1965. Preliminary sketches for the additional entrance are dated June 29, 1965. (b) In January, 1966.
3.	(a) The structure to hold the centennial flame was constructed by the Department of Public Works at a cost of approximately $9,000, including some minor contracts for the provision of electrical and gas services. Tenders were invited in October for the installation of a foundation for the structure; and a contract, in the amount of $4,736, was awarded on October 12, 1966. Tenders for the construction of the gates were invited in September; and the contract, in the amount of $7,300, was awarded on September 20, 1966. Tenders for the roadwork, curbs, and sidewalks related mainly to the entrances, but including certain upkeep work, were invited in October; and the contract, in the amount of $11,368, was awarded on October 18, 1966. (b) Tenders for the work at Confederation square were invited on August 4, 5, and 6, 1966. A contract was awarded in the amount of $195,000. The work began on October 17, 1966.
4.	(a) No winter work is involved, (b) No.
5.	This project was not submitted to parliament for discussion. It was authorized in the usual way. The centennial flame is for temporary use during the centennial celebrations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouette: Among senior civil servants what is the number of those whose mother tongue is (a) French (b) English (c) other, and (d) those who are bilingual, in each of the following agencies, departments and crown corporations: Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of External Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Public Archives, Department of Insurance, Unemployment Insurance Commission, Export Credits Insurance Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada, Industrial Development Bank, Bank of Canada, National Library, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Canadian Wheat Board, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, National Capital Commission, Halifax Relief Committee, National Battlefields Commission, Dominion Coal Board, Canadian National Railways, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Department of Trade and Commerce, Canadian Maritime Commission, International Joint Commission, National Advisory Council for Fitness and Amateur Sport, Canada Council, Comproller of the Treasury, Canadian Commercial Corporation, Farm Credit Corporation, Defence Construction Limited. Department of National Defence, Chief Electoral Officer,
December 7, 1966

Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, Atomic Energy Control Board, National Energy Board, Northern Canada Power Commission, National Council of Industrial Design, National Film Board, Department of Finance, Department of Forestry, Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board, International Boundary Commission, National Gallery of Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Public Printing and Stationery, Tax Appeal Board, Department of Justice, Historic Sites and Mounments Board of Canada, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Northern Ontario Pipeline, Department of Fisheries, Canadian Pension Commission, Polymer Corporation Limited, National Harbours Board, Post Office Department, Department of Defence Production, National Productivity Council, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Board of Broadcast Governors, National Research Council, Department of National Revenue, Department of National Health and Welfare. Department of the Secretary of State, Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Tariff Board, Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, Yukon Territory Council, Air Canada, Department of Transport, Air Transport Board, Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada. Department of Labour, Department of Public Works, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?
Return tabled.


FINAL REPORT OF COMMISSION ON BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date does the government expect to receive the final report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?
2.	What amount has been spent to date on this Royal Commission and what is the estimated final figures?
3.	How many researchers and administrative officers are still associated with the Royal commission?
4.	What are the names and salaries of these individuals?
5.	On what date was the commission established, on what date were the commissioners appointed, and what amount has each commissioner received as of this date for services rendered?
6.	What is the estimated final amount that each commissioner will receive for services rendered?
Return tabled.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have had on the order paper since May 16 starred question No. 1,500, and since September 8 a supplementary question, No. 1,940. In view of the recent revelations in the newspapers I think it is only right that members of this house and the people of the country should have an opportunity to hear the answers to both these questions. I wonder whether we could hear from the parliamentary secretary to the minister when these questions will be answered.
Shipping


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the minister will deal with these questions when she returns.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In
a similar vein, Mr. Speaker, since October 14 I have had question No. 2,027 on the order paper. It is a simple, factual question regarding a very limited matter, the appointment of returning officers in the province of Alberta as referred to in an answer to a previous question. I think it extraordinary that no one has been able to give the answer to this question. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) that it does not require this length of time to answer such a question.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I will make a point of drawing this question to the attention of the minister.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I too would like to draw to the attention of the government that question No. 2,076 has been on the order paper since October 21. Similar to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I do not see any reason why this straightforward question should not have been answered long before now.


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I also have had a question on the order paper since June 13. It is question No. 1,675. I do not think it would be too difficult to give an answer to this question, and I would welcome an answer. I would like to know when I might receive an answer to this question.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, all those questions will be answered in the near future.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



SHIPPING


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a motion under standing order 26 for the adjournment of the house and to this end I move, seconded by the

December 7, 1966
Shipping
hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe: That the house now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: winter shipping on the St. Lawrence river up to the port of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) kindly comment, for the benefit of the house and the Chair, on the urgency of such a debate?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the urgency arises because, first of all, the house will have no further opportunity, except through a motion for adjournment, to discuss such a matter. As all supply motions have been passed and as there are no more interim supply bills to examine, we will have no further opportunity to deal with this matter until next year.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) recently issued a press release to the effect that, again this year, ice-breakers on the St. Lawrence will not be commissioned to clear the seaway for shipping, but will simply prevent ice-jams and floods occurring in the spring.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to show that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance, let me remind the house that last year 120 ocean-going ships reached Montreal and that 200 are expected to this year. However, if the St. Lawrence river is not cleared, it will hamper and interfere with winter shipping. It is urgent that the matter be discussed without delay and that decisions be taken as soon as possible, so that shipping companies, knowing that the St. Lawrence river will not be open to shipping again this year, will not plan to use that great seaway. If we now have a fruitful discussion on the problem and if the Minister of Transport is in a position to announce that ice-breakers on the St. Lawrence will clear the way for ships to reach the port of Montreal, shipping on the St. Lawrence will increase as well as port operations at Montreal, for the benefit of the whole country.
A debate is most urgent, Mr. Speaker, as is evidenced by the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) intends to ask leave to have a special sitting of the house tomorrow morning to deal with the matter of the west coast tie-up due to a strike.
The port of Montreal and those along the St. Lawrence are closed because of ice conditions and the Minister of Transport can easily put at the disposal of the authorities of those ports the icebreakers required to ensure year round navigation on the river.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the cases are similar: on the one hand the ports are closed because of a strike, on the other, because of ice conditions. It is possible to solve both problems provided we can discuss them and arrive at a decision.
That is why I believe the matter is pressing, for winter will soon set in.
You are undoubtedly aware, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as your home is close to the St. Lawrence seaway, that according to the latest news the St. Lawrence seaway will be closed tomorrow morning for fear of a freeze-up in the next few days. Under those circumstances, I feel the matter is urgent. If we wait another week, our winter navigation may be a failure, and the shipping companies in Europe, South America and Africa, which might otherwise be interested in shipping by way of the St. Lawrence, may not do so because of the recent statement of the Department of Transport. For that reason, I would ask you to allow debate on this urgent and important matter of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that Your Honour needs any assistance in deciding this question, but in case you do, let me suggest that it seems to me this does not fulfil the requirement of urgency, because this situation has existed for a long time. My estimates were before the house for consideration about two weeks ago and this subject could have been discussed without difficulty at that time. I indicated in an answer to a question put to me in the house a day or two ago that this situation had not changed in any particular whatsoever from that which existed last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish I could express myself as eloquently as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) concerning the motion just introduced by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).
I listened to his comments attentively and with interest, but I must say that I am not overly impressed by the ad hominem argument he used to convince the Chair. However, I believe, as the hon. Minister of Transport explained that this is perhaps a grievance, or certainly a problem, which has existed for a long time. I am sure the hon. member might have suspected for some time that there would be ice in the Montreal harbour in the next few weeks and months, and it would
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
have been permissible for him in the past to suggest the remedies he wishes to present now. For these reasons, I do not think it possible to accept the motion he is introducing at this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Would Your Hon-nour be good enough to call notice of motion No. 186?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 186 stands.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister give a report to the house regarding the matter of the British government placing before the United Nations its petition for the application of mandatory sanctions against Southern Rhodesia? At the same time, in view of the incendiary nature of any action along this line, is the government giving any consideration to the acceptance of the suggestion made by Prime Minister Smith of Southern Rhodesia that an independent commission be set up to look into this matter?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Smith-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, rather. For the information of hon. members, Smith is a well known Canadian name.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the reported suggestion of Prime Minister Smith, I have seen no details about it, if indeed Mr. Smith gave any at all. A constitutional settlement in Rhodesia is of course the responsibility of the British government. In these circumstances even if the details were available I
Inquiries of the Ministry would take the position that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.
With regard to the situation in the United Nations I can only say, as my right hon. friend knows, that the British foreign secretary is now in New York to initiate a proposal on behalf of the government of Britain with regard to a commitment made at the Prime Ministers Conference for the imposition of mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII. Yesterday at the sanctions committee in London the British secretary of state for commonwealth relations appeared before that committee and indicated that the terms of the resolution to be presented by the British government would be discussed with delegations in New York. That discussion is under way at present and consultations are taking place. The Security Council is to meet tomorrow afternoon at five o'clock. Beyond this there is no further information I can give.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell the house what particular commodities in the selective list uder the mandatory sanctions plan are produced in Canada, and the extent to which Canadian exports would be reduced?


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, until the form of the resolution to be presented to the Security Council has been decided on and made known fully to the Canadian government, of course it would not be possible to answer this question. However, I cannot think of any commodities which would be included in such a resolution before the Security Council which have not already been embraced by the embargoes placed by the Canadian government during the course of the present year.



RHODESIA-BREACH OF EMBARGO THROUGH SHIPMENTS OF GASOLINE AND BEEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the minister this. According to the press certain Canadians have made available by presentation to Southern Rhodesia 1,500 gallons of gasoline. I do not recall the exact quantity. This was done some time ago, within a matter of weeks. What action if any has the Canadian government taken against these people in Canada who broke the sanctions applied by Canada under the embargo?
December 7, 196B

Inquiries of the Ministry


Murdo William Martin: This is the first intimation I have had of this. I will make an inquiry at once. I also recall that on another occasion my hon. friend said that there was Rhodesian beef in Canada which had entered this country contrary to the embargo. The inquiries I made about this Rhodesian beef indicated that this commodity had come into Canada before the embargoes were authorized.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not enter into a discussion regarding beef-I have my own "beef" in that direction-but the minister's information is not correct.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CZECHOSLOVAKIAN FOREIGN MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention the presence in the galleries of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board in connection with the press reports this morning that the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association have set a strike deadline because of the government's failure to implement the recommendations of Mr. Justice John B. Robinson. In view of the fact that we have gone through one air strike and most people do not want to experience another one, I want to ask the minister what action is being taken to resolve this dispute before it ties up air traffic in Canada.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: To my knowledge no strike deadline has been set. I would point out, however, that the staffs of the Treasury Board and of the Department of Transport met with members of the three associations representing this group on Monday, and another meeting is taking place this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister ascertain in his meetings with the representatives of these groups that no strike deadline date has been set, and that none will be set until the negotiations proceed further?


Edgar John Benson: I will certainly see to it that I am informed as to whether or not a strike deadline has been set.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: On a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is considering bringing in legislation which will remain on the statute books of Canada to be used in the event of deadlocks in all labour and management matters involving the essential industries, in view of the fact that these deadlocks are destroying the economic fibre of the nation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this is a real supplementary question. It is a related question. I think the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) might have a supplementary question.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask him whether or not he is contemplating including in the draft on which he is working at present, policies which will make it possible for the government to deal with any strike situation involving essential services such as air traffic and sea shipping?


Mr. Speaker:: The question now asked is along the same lines as the one asked by the hon. member for Bow River. Perhaps the minister can answer both questions at the same time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to raise this matter at ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There will be no "ten o'clock" today.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this applies also to the hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it would apply unless the minister would like to give an answer to the question at this time.
December 7, 196S


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My answer must be that I cannot disclose at this time the contents of the legislation. I hope hon. members will restrain themselves until tomorrow morning, and I hope the house leader will arrange for a sitting of the house tomorrow morning to deal with the proposed legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the minister's answer, which seems to have placed the question in order, may I ask a supplementary question?
It does not refer in particular to the present strike. I am asking whether the government anticipates introducing legislation with reference to all labour management problems, so that the essential industries can function without destroying the economic fibre of the nation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This is a matter of government policy. Every member of the house knows that these problems have been and are the subject of very serious consideration, and when government policy has been decided it will be announced in due course.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Wait and wish.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: With reference to starred question No. 2,216, the answer to part 5 indicates that a very substantial project is being undertaken at the parliament gates involving the erection of a large structure, and alterations to the entrance and exit to the parliament grounds, without any reference to or discussion in parliament. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he will give the house an assurance that no such alterations to the grounds of parliament hill will be undertaken or commenced in the future without adequate notice and opportunity for discussion in parliament.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): I do not think it would be possible to do this, because from time to time demands arise in connection with certain ceremonial occasions, when temporary structures of the nature of the centennial flame have to be erected. I do not think it would be practical to give the assurance asked for.


Mr. Fulion:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thought the terms of my question
Inquiries of the Ministry were clear. I want to reiterate that I am referring to alterations or structures of a permanent nature. With respect to such alterations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question asked by the hon. member indicates that it is not a matter of immediate urgency. In view of this fact the question should not be asked at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I submit with deference that I am not asking for an assurance with respect to what has already occurred, but am pointing out that it is a matter of urgent concern to all hon. members to have the assurance that no alterations of a permanent nature will be made in the future without adequate notice and an opportunity for discussion. Can the minister give us this assurance?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be possible to give the assurance in that form. There are requests virtually every day for some permanent alterations on Parliament hill. For instance, there are doors for the new entrance; there is permanent simultaneous translation equipment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer given by the minister indicates that perhaps the question should not be allowed at this time. The hon. member has referred to something to which there may be much merit. The suggestion he makes may be raised in future in some way, but I do not think he should ask his question at this time.



BIRTH CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recommendation of a committee of this house that matters relating to birth control and family planning be removed from the Criminal Code of Canada and put into the Food and Drugs Act, will the government consider bringing in legislation to this effect at an early date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, certainly this matter will be under consideration in the light of the report which has been made.
December 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



ASSISTANCE TO DEFRAY EXPENSES INCURRED THROUGH ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the staggering costs newly arrived immigrants face due to illness, would the minister not consider alleviating their situation by having the Department of Manpower and Immigration assume the responsibility for these staggering costs, which have to be borne by the immigrants during their first three months in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a matter of general interest, but I suggest to the hon. member that the matter might be placed on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the difficulties accruing in the committee of finance, trade and economic affairs, can the minister now give us a clear indication of when he will bring in legislation with regard to deposit insurance, so that we may discuss this matter generally within the discussion on the Bank Act.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a progress report from my officials this morning. Perhaps I can answer the hon. member tomorrow.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing crisis in the home building industry, and bearing in mind that during the last few days the United States has released some $750 million for home construction in that country, is the minister contemplating any similar policy for this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the action announced recently to increase the maximum rate under the National Housing Act will, we hope, add some funds to housebuilding. When the Bank Act

revisions are completed I hope that they will have a further effect on the matter. I can assure the hon. gentleman and the house that the moneys required by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during this coming year will be very substantial, and very much larger than in some past years.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am trying to obtain information that other people have been trying to get. Is it true that the cost to the federal and provincial members of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers of the conference on pollution in our environment, held in Montreal recently, was about $272,000?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, strangely enough we have the same figure.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has there yet been set up or arranged a ministerial meeting in connection with a follow-up of the conference on pollution which has just been referred to?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, the results of the conference are being computed-that is the only word that comes to my mind-and on the basis of that I would ask the other members of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers for a special meeting, or for a special conversation on this subject. At the same time another important subject, our participation in the Water for Peace conference in the United States, may also be discussed by the same ministers.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would include the C.B.C. in this pollution.



REPORT ON POLLUTION OF KOOTENAY AND COLUMBIA RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: While I am on my feet may I answer a question posed yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay West. He asked:
Has the government of British Columbia requested assistance from any of his technical advisers in the department in connection with the
December 7, 196G

studies now being made by the province of the causes of pollution of the Kootenay and Columbia rivers?
The answer to this question is no. The hon. member might be pleased to learn, however, that within the framework of a nation-wide program on purity quality water control, my department is setting up two stations on the Kootenay and three on the Columbia. These are part of the 13 stations which will be set up in the hon. member's province.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is he making progress, or has he progress to report with regard to the extradition proceedings in the case of Hal Banks?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my answer earlier, this is a question that ought to be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Justice. I shall bring it to his attention immediately.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I refer to questions on the order paper that were asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon, the answers to which have been in cold storage for a long time. Would the Prime Minister be prepared tomorrow to make a statement on the whole question of whether members of parliament who accept a fee from the C.B.C. place their seats in jeopardy, and whether members of the Senate who accept a fee are subject to penalty.
Did not the C.B.C. or the government, in 1964 and 1965, or in one of those years, receive a legal opinion from the law officers of the crown as to the effect of accepting any payment, emolument, expense, compensation or the like?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is at present being carefully looked into, not only with respect to 1964 and 1963, but also with respect to 1962, 1961, 1960, 1959 and 1958.


Michael Starr: How about 1956 and 1955?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, 1955, 1956 and 1957. It is a very important matter of course, and I appreciate my right hon. friend's bringing it up. One of the reasons I prefer not to answer these important questions now is that they may be answered in the context of the information we are getting on the general situation. I think it is quite appropriate that a statement apart from an answer to this question should be made, and I will undertake to have it made, if I do not make it myself, early next week.


John George Diefenbaker: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did not the law officers of the Department of Justice, referring to part of the question I asked previously, give as their opinion that the acceptance of any such fee or emolument endangered the seat of the individual accepting the fee, if he were a member of the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the legal significance of the participation of a member in broadcasts of this kind is at present being investigated, and I prefer not to say anything about it until I get a final opinion in the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: You had the opinion in 1964.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Would he agree to communicate to the Quebec government the results of his observations, in France, concerning the increased French immigration, and the plans of the federal government in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question in its present form is out of order.


Maurice Allard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will note that the question has been ruled out of order. Perhaps the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) wishes to ask a different question.


Hon. Marfial Asselin (Charlevoix):: This is the question, Mr. Speaker, I want to put to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
December 7, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
I should like to know if, as a result of his recent trip to Paris, we can expect an increase of French immigrants to Canada in the future?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned publicly, it would not be reasonable to expect a mass immigration from France to Canada. However, I think that it is possible to improve the present situation.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Before the minister left for Paris, did he himself or his officials have any consultations with representatives of the Quebec government on the Canadian policy with regard to French immigration?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be
placed on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roseiown-Biggar):: have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Are the pay increases recently given to certain bilingual civil servants exempt from income tax?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour relating to housing. Is the minister in a position to tell us what response the private lenders have made toward a solution of the problem of building new homes in Canada and, if no response has been forthcoming, when does the government propose to bring in new legislation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: will take the first part of the question as notice. I believe the second part has already been dealt with effectively by the Minister of Finance.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the hon. gentleman tell us what action he is taking as minister of manpower to assist those who are unemployed as a result of the large scale lay-offs at the Dosco steel plant in Sydney?


Jean Marchand: I believe such assistance is part of what we are doing in Nova Scotia. If the hon. member would allow me, I will take this question as notice and answer it in detail tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.



MILK COOLERS-REQUEST FOR RECIPROCAL TARIFF TREATMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that milk coolers made in the United States are allowed into Canada duty free, would the minister not take immediate steps to have reciprocal arrangements made with United States authorities so that coolers manufactured in Canada would receive the same preference?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister has noted the representations made by the hon. member, but it seems to me this is hardly a question to be asked now.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I think the minister is ready to answer the question.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I rose to answer another question, Mr. Speaker. I might say, however, that I shall be glad to look into this matter, in cooperation with the Minister of Finance who has primary responsibility for Canadian tariff questions.



MANITOU WHEAT-DESCRIPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF VARIETY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: I rise to answer a question asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition having to do with Manitou wheat, which is a
December 7, 1966

variety of seed wheat recently developed by the scientists. Because of the particular nature and qualities of this wheat, its export is guided by the Department of Agriculture, and perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, would be able to answer the question more fully.


John James Greene: As the right hon. gentleman may know, Manitou wheat is a new variety of hard wheat developed by the research branch of the Canadian Department of Agriculture. It is resistant to stem and leaf rust, and in addition has out-yielded all other varieties by 10 per cent in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan and is at least equal to or superior in yield to other varieties in all other areas in western Canada. It is estimated that when sufficient quantities of seed have been produced this variety will be seeded on approximately 15 million acres across western Canada.
My department released some 4,600 bushels in 1965 to registered seed growers, for multiplication. The department entered into agreements with these growers and the seed trade for the sale of the 1965 production of 150,000 bushels to farmers in western Canada at prices considered reasonable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I forget what question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, so it is difficult to say whether the answer is appropriate. But it does seem to be on the lengthy side. I must assume that the minister has conveyed all the information required to answer the question asked yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect, that is an
assumption which is not well founded. The history and the genealogy of this wheat are well known; we need be told no more about that, because a great deal of it was produced in the constituency of Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The amount this year is 2,500,000 bushels, or more than that. The question is: What is being done to assure farmers of a market; because they are being denied export facilities, and no contracts have been made available by the government for private sales within Canada.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I had just
finished the preamble to my answer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Since most of the knowledge about western wheat is on this side of the house, I thought hon. gentlemen opposite would like to hear that preamble.
The 1966 production totalled approximately 5 million bushels, which is now available to farmers in western Canada as seed for 1967 plantings. After the 1965 harvest the department requested the Canadian Wheat Board to control exports of Manitou wheat in order to ensure that Canadian farmers would be able to obtain supplies-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me there should be some way of conveying the information more briefly. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that we have only 30 minutes available for these questions and I notice there are members on both sides of the house who are waiting for an opportunity to take part, including the hon. member for Lotbiniere who must be very unhappy that so much time is being taken up with answers. I would therefore suggest that either an answer be given immediately or that we should go on to another question.


John George Diefenbaker: The serial relating to this cereal can be dealt with tomorrow.


John James Greene: I merely wish to point out that this seed release program has the support of the seed producers organizations.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport whose competence is a matter of constant admiration.
Would the miniser confirm the date on which will be held the inquiry regarding the Dorion tragedy, which inquiry was announced a long time ago?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry to have to say it will not be possible to institute an inquiry until certain other preliminary proceedings have taken place, including the inquest. The inquest has not yet been held, though I believe it will be held soon.
10816	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry CHURCHILL-FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE THROUGH USE OF PORT
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: In view of the visit of the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia to Canada, will the minister take the opportunity to explain to the representatives of the Czechoslovak government the tremendous financial benefits which would accrue to them if their purchases of Canadian wheat were exported through the port of Churchill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall lose no opportunity to do that. The hon. member will recall that there have been some Russian ships taking wheat out of Churchill this year.


Robert Simpson: Since the Czechoslovak representatives have left the gallery, will the hon. gentleman supply them with copies of today's Hansard?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Can the minister inform the house whether the recent lay-offs of employees of the Ford Motor Company at Oakville are related to the increased prices of automobiles, in particular the continuing differential between the price of cars in Canada and in the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the lay-offs are solely the consequence of a decline in the North American demand.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does he intend to conduct an inquiry following the statement made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) who accuses the C.N.R. of being the worst dispenser of patronage of all Canadian organizations?

DEBATES	December 7, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the statement but I will look into this.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I directed a question to the Minister of Transport in which I suggested that certain box cars could be re-routed to the port of Churchill. Is the minister in a position now to answer my question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in a position to answer that question.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question directed to the Minister of Transport, the answer is that the moment the labour difficulties on the west coast are resolved there will be an extremely heavy program of grain shipments from the west coast, including the backlog due to the recent shipping tie-up. The immediate availability of box cars tributary to Vancouver will be crucial therefore the moment the labour difficulties are settled, if we are to catch up with and meet our heavy export commitments. In the meantime, the railways are moving grain to the inland terminals at Lethbridge, Calgary and Edmonton. The cars employed for this purpose can be re-directed immediately to the west coast.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce amend his statement and, rather than refer to them as labour difficulties, refer to them as management difficulties?



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is divided into two parts. Part I, relating to the structure of the Canadian forces, contains all of the important provisions necessary for unification. Part II contains a number of amendments
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
consequential upon the changes made by Part I, and other amendments designed to simplify administration, and to clarify and improve provisions of the code of service discipline.
I plan to cover today as comprehensively as I am able the principles involved in Part I. But first I will review the developments which led to the reorganization itself, the force structure, and the reasons for unification. Much of what I will be saying is now on the record of this house and its defence committee. However, for those who have been unable to examine that record it may be helpful, in considering this important subject, for me to review the relevant facts. I have also some explanatory charts covering (1) Canadian forces command organization; (2) officers personnel structure; (3) men's career fields; (4) force formations and units; (5) a summary of the forces as currently planned for the early 1970's. If the house agrees, I would suggest that these be printed in Hansard immediately following my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nugent:: Would the minister mind having printed as well the charts and graphs that accompanied Admiral Landymore's testimony, if we are going to have this sort of thing?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to all the men and women in the forces for the enormous effort they have put forward during the past two years. That they have been able to keep the defence forces of this country at a high state of readiness, contribute to our several international commitments and, at the same time, manage this fundamental reorganization of the forces is truly a magnificent achievement. The associate minister and myself wish to express our deep appreciation to the Canadian servicemen and women for all they have done and for the vigour with which these tasks have been undertaken.
The white paper on defence tabled in 1964 dealt at some length with defence policy. It reviewed Canadian defence policy since 1945 and the principal considerations affecting future policy as they were seen at the time the paper was presented. While there have been some rather important developments in the last two years affecting NATO and other areas of the world, the basic conclusions contained in the white paper continue to be valid today.
I do not propose, therefore, to go over this area in detail again at this time.
National Defence Act Amendment
It continues to be our view that Canada's participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a worth-while contribution to world stability; that our NORAD undertakings are of value and are not likely to require major modifications in the immediate future unless a decision is made by the United States to deploy an antimissile defence; that the contributions Canada is able to make to the United Nations peacekeeping operations have provided and will continue to provide Canada with opportunities to contribute to the control of potentially dangerous situations outside the NATO area.
Forces for the direct protection of Canada remain necessary. While direct attack on Canadian territory is very low in the scale of probability, it is essential to provide appropriate surveillance of our territory and its sea approaches as well as to have the capability of dealing with lodgments of enemy forces in the unlikely event they should occur.
In the course of my remarks I will be saying something about the forces we have available for all of these purposes and the progress that has been made toward the objectives set out in the white paper.
The Canadian armed services, at the end of the second world war, were three distinct entities, each of which was largely independent of the others in the management of its military affairs. In the next several years a number of external and internal influences combined to foster increasing interdependence and co-operation. This process, in the circumstances of the post-war period, led logically to the integration of the three services, as announced by the government in the white paper on defence in March, 1964. A brief review of some of the main factors affecting the management of Canada's defence in the two postwar decades will illustrate my point.
One of the first significant events was the appointment of a single Minister of National Defence. During the second world war, in Canada there were separate political heads for each of the main branches of the armed forces. The reorganization of the government defence machinery after the war led to the appointment in 1946 of a single minister responsible for defence, with the provision subsequently in 1950 for the appointment of
10818	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment associate ministers as appropriate. The appointment of a single political head for the Department of National Defence was bound to encourage a more unified approach to defence problems.
The establishment of a single scientific organization to serve the military arms of the department was consistent with the trend. The outstanding contribution of scientific research to the war potential of the world war II allies made it evident that defence research was an essential element of any future military activity. In view of this, the Defence Research Board was established on April 1, 1947, to conduct and sponsor research on a wide variety of military problems and to provide scientific advice to the Canadian forces. It is significant that this agency provided for centralized direction of laboratories formerly components of the individual services and for the management of research activity covering the whole spectrum of defence science including the specialized problems of the maritme land and air environments.
Not long afterwards important legislation affecting defence was passed by parliament. The legal basis for Canadian defence activities of all kinds was overhauled and modernized in the National Defence Act passed in 1950, which is chapter 184 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. This act applied the same rules of Canadian military law and justice to members of all three services and introduced a common approach to all other legal aspects of defence. Also, the Queen's Regulations and Orders, although issued separately for the three services, established standard regulations in many areas affecting all of the services.
Another contributing factor was a change in the method of appointing the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee. The chiefs of staff committee, originally created in 1927 as the joint staff committee, was reconstituted and renamed in January 1939 after the appointment of a chief of the air staff was created. The chairmanship was decided by seniority among the service chiefs of staff until early in 1951 when legislation was passed providing for the appointment of a full-time chairman

DEBATES	December 7, 1966
independent of the services. His terms of reference specifically required him to "co-ordinate the training and operations of the Canadian forces". Although not vested with executive authority over the services, the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee was an important influence in the adoption of common standards in many areas of defence.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Despite its inadequacies, the committee system in the defence department did have a unifying influence which deserves mention. The defence council has been the senior committee of the department. Prior to the reorganization of Canadian forces headquarters, its active members included the minister, the associate minister, the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, the chiefs of staff, the chairman of the Defence Research Board and the deputy minister. It was, therefore, a natural forum for the resolution of inter-service differences although, in practice, much of its attention was devoted to minor administrative matters.
The chiefs of staff committee usually met more frequently than the defence council and was more intimately concerned with immediate and pressing problems, particularly those involving military policy and operations. Subsidiary to these two committees were the personnel members committee formed in 1944 and the principal supply officers committee formed in 1947. Many other inter-service committees dealt with specific or technical aspects of personnel and supply problems and military planning and operations involving more than one service.
Prior to Bill No. C-90-1964-there was really no alternative to the use of committees. They were needed to reconcile the different policies and practices of the services. It is recognized that a committee structure does not usually provide a decisive or effective mechanism for executive action. Progress was made, nevertheless, in co-ordinating and standardizing the policies and procedures of the services.
Since the end of the second world war a number of steps were also taken to consolidate some of the specialized activities of the services. An example of this was the tri-service approach in the Canadian services colleges. It was decided that all officer cadets at
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
services colleges would complete the last two years of their course at the Royal Military College. The service affiliation of the cadets did not change but they were brought together and exposed to the identical academic atmosphere during a critical period in their education. Another example was the integration of the legal services at the end of the second world war. Then during the 1950's the medical and chaplain services were both integrated.
It was clear that the tendency was in the direction of integration, particularly in fields where it was essential to conserve scarce professional and technical resources.
The complexity and rising cost of managing logistics problems were influential in forcing more co-ordination in the area of military supply. It was recognized in both Canada and the United States immediately after the war that changes in materiel identification and control were essential. Cataloguing and identification procedures had developed in a haphazard fashion under wartime pressures and major changes were essential. The pioneering effort of the United States in this field was ultimately adopted by NATO and embodied in two standardization agreements. These were formally accepted by Canada and intensive work has been carried on by the services to achieve standard catalogue references for all materiel in the military supply systems. The concept of common cataloguing was approved by the principal supply officers committee in November, 1961, and was applied to a limited range of equipment. This foreshadowed the general application of the concept in 1964. In addition, other functions have been managed by a single service. As examples, dental, food procurement and military postal services were provided by the army for all three services.
Underlying the major revision of Canada's defence policy announced in 1964 is the concept that any organization, military or civilian, which does not adapt to a changing environment will surely decline. In the early 1960's it became apparent that two aspects of this problem demanded special attention. They were the management and control structure, and the influence of rising costs.
National Defence Act Amendment
One of the issues stressed in a statement before the special committee on defence in 1964 was the number of senior officials with direct access to the minister. I pointed out at that time:
With the present prerogative of the chiefs of staff to come directly to the minister with their problems and submissions, there are many cases where proposals are dealt with by the minister in isolation . . , This will be overcome in our proposed organization by the fact that all military proposals will come through one channel, and, therefore, must in effect be co-ordinated before they come to the attention of the minister.
The desirability of adopting sound management principles and a simplified chain of command was reiterated in a subsequent statement I made before the same committee.
X think it-the Canadian defence organization-will be the best military organization, the most responsive to co-ordinated action, and that because of its simplified lines of communication it will be able to develop new concepts and techniques more quickly and more rapidly than it would have had it not been reorganized.


Mr. McIntosh:: What about the dangers in
it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This point of view reflected the growing complexity of defence choices which often involved political, economic and scientific problems as well as issues of military effectiveness.
As part of the reorganization plan, it was announced in 1964 that the Department of National Defence would be introducing modern new management tools applicable to defence problems. Members may recall the section in the report of the royal commission on government organization which stated:
Not only is the relative size of the "administrative tail" growing steadily in all military forces- for budgeting, accounting, supply, construction and general administration; in addition, among the operational elements themselves there is a rapid increase in the technical content of the work, a large element being common to all three services. Consequently, there is a growing range of activities of common concern to the services, for which the traditional basis of organization is unsuited. It is increasingly recognized that to maintain three separate organizations for such functions is uneconomic. Moreover, the chronic scarcity of many of the skills involved cannot be ignored.
This problem was recognized and a number of new management systems are being introduced.
A system of defence programming has been established. It provides for programming for
10820	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment defence through a logical sequence of steps from the establishment of defence policies and objectives to the final output of defence forces to meet those objectives. The process is designed to produce data and options which assist in taking decisions that are calculated to achieve the objectives in the most economical way. It also establishes, once decisions are taken, the basis for systematic follow-through until the program is completed. The long-term programming is the basis for annual budgeting and ensures that the two are consistent. This system is now functioning but it will not be perfected for some time as it requires the accumulation of basic costing data, the development of analytic methods and the training of staff in the various techniques required.
Other innovations to assist in management are being introduced. These include the installation of responsibility accounting and program budgeting. A model has been constructed and is being tested in air transport command and later the approved system will be applied to other commands. A third program is redesigning the present supply systems into a single one incorporating modern techniques in this field. The work of installing a single automated pay system is also well advanced.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
These advances rely heavily on the application of modern methods of data processing which can be introduced more realistically and productively in an integrated force. Perhaps of more importance they place great demands on men highly trained in modern management techniques who are in short supply. Integration permitted these very valuable manpower resources to be used much more effectively because in many cases identical problems no longer have to be dealt with for each service separately.
The impact of sharply rising costs for personnel, maintenance and operations had been observed for some time and its consequences for Canada's defence activities were strongly emphasized in the policy discussions of 1964. It was recognized that the total funds available for defence were not likely to change greatly so that money available for capital equipment would inevitably decline drastically unless something was done about it.
In the white paper on defence (1964) and previously in the report of the Royal Commission on Government Organization, great

DEBATES	December 7, 1966
stress was placed on the importance of reducing manpower costs associated with headquarters, training and similar establishments, as well as operating and maintenance expenses which could be cut without impairing operational efficiency. The elimination of duplication and triplication of staff and facilities was one of the main justifications for the integration of the services. This was particularly true in the support and administration functions.
I wish to put this in more concrete terms by comparing expenditures in the fiscal year 1962-63 with estimates for the fiscal year 1966-67, both years being close to the same level of approximately $1,575 million. The conclusion is sometimes reached because the figures are approximately the same that there have been no reductions in costs in the defence department. If I apply to the actual strengths of military and civilian personnel employed in the department in 1962-63 the pay, allowance and salary rates applicable in 1966-67, the costs for those personnel would now be $1,141 million. Adding to this the costs of approximately $335 million applicable in both years for other upkeep costs such as the maintenance of aircraft, vehicles, buildings, etc., I have a total figure of $1,476 million. If this had been allowed to happen, provision for all of the capital costs including military equipment, construction and development would have had to be reduced to $97 million in 1966-67; compare this to the $327 million available in the budget. In other words, a reduction in the capital program of about 70 per cent from that provided in the 1966-67 estimates would have been necessary.
The facts are clear and incontrovertible. Either the defence budget had to be substantially increased or substantial cost reductions had to be made. Otherwise, funds would simply not be available for the capital expenditures that are essential to effective military forces. These pressures will continue. The integration through unification process will generate important new cost reductions for some years to come. It should not be expected that these will match the increasing costs in current dollars from year to year, but without them we would face much higher defence budgets to maintain defence forces at approximately the level we have today.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to complete my speech. If I have not answered his question by then, I will deal with it at that time.
December 7, 1966	COMMONS


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will he relate the reduction of personnel to the cost factor?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Let me continue my statement.
After considering the factors of management and control, the influence of rising costs, personnel considerations, the nature of modern warfare and the influence of technology, it was necessary to apply general conclusions reached to the specific military requirements of Canada. If we were to maintain useful forces to meet our national and international commitments we had two choices. We must greatly increase defence spending or reorganize our forces. The decision was to reorganize.
As you can see then, the decision to embark on the integration program leading to unification of the forces was made only after a most careful and thorough study of all relevant factors. Once the policy decision was taken, the next step was the appointment by the chiefs of staff of a planning group of senior officers and departmental officials to determine the structure of Canadian forces headquarters. Their planning was carried out concurrently with the consideration by parliament of the amendments to the National Defence Act required to authorize the reorganization.
The third step was the passage of Bill C-90 which provided for the substitution of a single chief of defence staff for the individual service chiefs of staff. This bill was given royal assent on July 16, 1964 and on August 1, 1964 the chief of the defence staff and the heads of the new functional branches at Canadian forces headquarters were appointed.
On the basis of the experience of the first year, some changes were made. Thus, two years after the constitution of the functional branches at headquarters the four branch heads are: the vice-chief of the defence staff, the chief of personnel, the chief of technical services, and the comptroller general. I propose to comment briefly on the responsibilities of the chief of the defence staff and each of the branch chiefs and to discuss briefly the responsibilities of the deputy minister, the Defence Research Board and the defence council.
The appointment of a single chief of the defence staff on August 1, 1964 was the keystone of the reorganized command structure.
National Defence Act Amendment It provided that one man would be responsible to the minister for the control and administration of the Canadian forces. The new position combined the functions of the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and the chiefs of staff of the three services. It meant that the three services were no longer independent entities for the purpose of control and administration. Thus military command and management came into line with the unified policy direction which was established with the appointment of a single minister responsible for defence in 1946.
The vice-chief of the defence staff is primarily responsible for military operations. He has three deputies. The deputy chief plans is concerned with intelligence and strategic planning. The deputy chief operations has under his direction three directors general who supervise maritime, land and air operations and determine operational requirements. The deputy chief reserves administers the reserve forces and cadet organizations, and is responsible for the planning of the military aspects of survival activities and emergency assistance to the civil authorities. This he does through regional offices across Canada. Reporting also to the vice-chief are the director general operational research and the director general programs. The establishment of the operational research function under the vicechief of the defence staff consolidates the activities of groups previously attached to the three services and to the Defence Research Board. The director general programs is responsible for compiling and maintaining the defence programming system I mentioned earlier.
The chief of personnel and the deputy chief of personnel formulate and administer personnel policy affecting individuals of all ranks from the time they enter the service until their retirement. Directly concerned with this function are the following five directors general: director general senior appointments, director general administration, director general postings and careers, director general training and recruiting, and director general personnel plans and requirements. The offices of the surgeon general, the director general dental services and the chaplains general also constitute a part of the chief of personnel branch. In addition, the director general centennial, who is responsible for military participation
10822	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment in the celebration of the Canadian centennial, reports to the chief of personnel.
The chief of technical services is responsible for a large and complex area of military activity. He is in charge of all engineering and development activity related to capital equipment programs, plans and policies for the procurement, storage, distribution, inspection, maintenance and disposal of materiel; and for the design, provision and maintenance of accommodation and other military facilities. Under his direction there are three deputy chiefs: deputy chief engineering, deputy chief logistics and deputy chief construction engineering. There is also a scientific deputy.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The comptroller general and deputy comptroller general are responsible for the administration of financial and general management services. Specifically, this embraces the development of the organizational structure of the Canadian forces, the allocation of authorized manpower resources, the preparation of the annual estimates and subsequent management of the approved budget, operation of pay services for military personnel, and management engineering services, including automation. The comptroller general's branch is divided into three divisions, each headed by a director general. These are: director general finance, director general organization and manpower control, director general management engineering and automation.
In addition to the military branches of the Canadian forces headquarters, the civilian or administrative component of the department, under the direction of the deputy minister, was reorganized to correspond more closely with the organization of the military. The deputy minister's staff had been organized primarily on a functional basis for many years so the modifications were relatively minor. Prior to integration there had been four assistant deputy ministers responsible respectively for finance, personnel, requirements and construction. The functions of the last two offcials were merged to form a new position of assistant deputy minister (logistics). Inspection services was transferred from the jurisdiction of the deputy minister to materiel command while the deputy minister assumed control of the integrated directorate of infor-
[Mr. Hellyer.)
DEBATES	December 7, 1966
mation services and the audit functions previously performed by the services.
As mentioned earlier, the Defence Research Board was conceived and organized to provide a single agency responsible for defence research and for co-ordinating the military development programs. With the move toward unification, the military development programs were consolidated under the chief of technical services and the Defence Research Board's interest was maintained by integrating a number of defence scientists within the technical branch. Prior to 1965 there had been a directorate of scientific intelligence responsible to the chairman, Defence Research Board, and with the formation of an integrated director general of intelligence this directorate was absorbed. Apart from these changes, the operation of the research establishments has been unaffected, although some modifications in channels of communication between the Defence Research Board and the Canadian forces has, of course, become necessary.
It was pointed out to the 1964 special committee on defence that the defence council would be revitalized and used in a much more comprehensive way as the principal departmental policy group. The Minister of National Defence is the chairman of the defence council and the Associate Minister the vice-chairman. Other members are the chief of the defence staff, the vice-chief of the defence staff, the chairman of the defence research board and the deputy minister. It has become the practice to have the branch heads attend meetings of defence council regularly as well as some assistant deputy ministers. The deliberations, therefore, of members and those in attendance provide a valuable blending of military, scientific and financial advice.
The elements for a more co-ordinated, interdepartmental approach to defence problems exist in the defence council and consequently arrangements have been made for participation by representatives of other government departments on issues of interest to them. A senior officer of the Department of External Affairs attends regularly and this has proved to be a valuable link with that department. It is also a clear indication of our determination to ensure that Canadian defence policy is based upon and is designed to support Canadian foreign policy.
December 7. 1966	COMMONS
The role of the defence council forecast in 1964 has been fulfilled during the whole period of detailed planning on the unification process and this body has in fact become an active and decisive forum for the formulation of policy.
In the 29 months since defence council was reactivated in July, 1964, it has had 90 meetings dealing with matters covering the whole range of defence policy. For the 29 months preceding July, 1964, it met on four occasions.
As forecast in the white paper on defence (1964), the defence staff appointed in August, 1964, was given the responsibility of preparing plans and recommendations on the makeup of the field formations. The purpose was to develop a field command structure which would be suitable for the roles outlined for the Canadian forces in the white paper. After intensive study, the new integrated command structure was announced in June, 1965. The field commanders were appointed and command headquarters were established to organize the functional commands. The Canadian formations in Europe, the 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade Group, with headquarters at Soest, and 1 Air Division with headquarters at Metz, were not initially affected by the reorganization but the number of commands in Canada was reduced from 11 to six: mobile, maritime, air defence, air transport, materiel and training. The roles of these formations and commands will indicate how they fit into the integrated structure.
Our air division in Europe consists of eight CF-104 Star fighter squadrons. Six of the squadrons are located in Germany in a nuclear-strike role but have also been given a conventional bombing capability. The remaining two squadrons are located in France and have a reconnaissance role. As announced earlier this year, the two reconnaissance squadrons will be moved out of France during 1967. The number of squadrons will be reduced to six, four of them strike squadrons and two reconnaissance.
The outstanding performance of our ground and air crews with the air division has been and continues to be a matter of pride to all Canadians. As I told the standing committee on defence in May, it is not an exaggeration to say they are unmatched in the European
National Defence Act Amendment theatre, as evidenced by their consistent winning of air firing and air bombing trophies.
Our other outstanding formation in Europe is the 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade Group in Germany. Its operational capability has been greatly increased during the past two years with the acquisition of new weapons and equipment, including armoured personnel carriers, command post vehicles, tracked cargo vehicles, mortars, anti-tank missiles and communications equipment. Its fire power will be further increased in 1968 when the brigade's artillery regiment will be equipped with 155 millimetre self-propelled howitzers.
For its currently assigned role in the central European front the brigade group has today far greater fire power, mobility and protection than at any time since its formation. Man for man it is unsurpassed by any other unit in NATO.
Mobile command, which now has its headquarters at St. Hubert, P.Q., was established on October 1, 1965, with temporary headquarters in Longueuil, just outside Montreal.
Mobile command's mission is to maintain combat-ready land and tactical air forces capable of rapid deployment in circumstances ranging from service in the European theatre to United Nations and other peacekeeping operations. It is responsible for the provision of a rotational brigade for the land forces assigned to NATO in Europe, and for the training of two additional air-portable brigades designed for rapid deployment. The command is also forming the Canadian airborne regiment whose personnel and equipment can be rapidly sent to danger zones.
A vital component of mobile command is its tactical air element, and current planning calls for the formation of four squadrons of CF-5 tactical ground support aircraft. This includes the training squadron which will be formed in mid-1968, with the remaining squadrons being formed during the following 18 months. In addition to the formation of the CF-5 squadrons, plans are in hand for units of Buffalo transport aircraft and light and heavy helicopters to meet the need for air mobility in any combat zone. Studies are under way to produce even greater tactical air mobility and support for this important command.
As with the brigade group in Europe the field force elements assigned to mobile command are being re-equipped. In the past two
December 7, 1966

National Defence Act Amendment years this includes acquisition of armoured personnel carriers, command post vehicles, tracked cargo vehicles; new mortars, anti-tank missiles and communications equipment. Planning for the next five years envisions a continuing program of re-equipping which includes the acquisition of a new reconnaissance vehicle, the self-propelled 155 millimetre howitzers previously announced, vehicles with an over-snow and muskeg capability and a new light artillery weapon.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
All maritime forces, both sea and air, came under this command which was created formally on January 17, 1966. With the exception of personnel in the functions taken over by training command and materiel command, maritime command includes the former Atlantic and Pacific commands of the Royal Canadian Navy, the former R.C.A.F. maritime air command and the former Atlantic and Pacific integrated maritime headquarters. Maritime headquarters is in Halifax and there is a Pacific sub-command in Esquimalt.
While the prime role of maritime command will continue to be anti-submarine warfare, planning is under way to increase its capability for general-purpose tasks. The capability of our maritime forces in both their primary and supporting roles will steadily improve as our modernization and shipbuilding program continues.
Our anti-submarine fleet is headed by the aircraft carrier Bonaventure which is now undergoing a major half-life refit and modernization. H.M.C.S. Fraser, the last of the St. Laurent class destroyers to undergo conversion to helicopter-destroyer status, rejoined the fleet in October of this year. This completes the refit and conversion program of the seven destroyers of this class. All are now manned and serving on the Atlantic coast and have been fitted with hangar and flight-deck facilities to operate the large Sea King antisubmarine helicopters, although some work is yet to be completed. Each has been equipped with the Canadian-developed variable depth sonar.
With the St. Laurent class there are now in commission nine helicopter-destroyers, including Nipigon and Annapolis, for which helicopter operations and variable depth sonar facilities were provided during construction.
The anti-submarine capability of these warships, which are included in the 20 destroyers built for the R.C.N. since the second world

war, is considered among the best in the world. The addition of the operational support ship Provider has increased this capability. The Provider, the largest ship ever built in Canada for the navy, is designed to support anti-submarine ships with fuel and supplies enabling them to remain on task for longer periods-in the order of two or three times, depending on the size of the force and the distance from harbour.
Two additional operational support ships are now planned to support maritime command's role. The operational support ships have a sea-lift capability and will be able to embark and discharge land vehicles and helicopters, and carry troops accompanying the vehicles, as well as accommodating personnel landing craft.
The fleet's anti-submarine capability is to be further increased through the modernization program for the seven Restigouche class destroyer escorts. This modernization will incorporate improved detection systems and the ASROC anti-submarine weapon system. These improvements, together with the much improved torpedoes being procured for all ships, will about double their present detection range and add a greatly improved "kill" capability.
New construction also includes four helicopter-destroyers which will be primarily anti-submarine vessels but with secondary capabilities of gun fire and reconnaissance support of landing operations and engagement of light surface forces with gun fire. These helicopter-destroyers will include the Canadian Sea Sparrow in their armament. This is an all-weather, close range surface-to-air missile system which will also be fitted in the two new operational support ships for defence against air attack. The first of the new helicopter-destroyers is planned for delivery in late 1970.
The surface fleet is supported by three older destroyers held in reserve. Two of these, Algonquin and Crescent, were modernized in the 1950's.
In addition, six minesweepers, four harbour defence ships and three patrol boats are in reserve; it is planned to use some of these as training ships.
One Oberon class submarine has joined the fleet and two others are under construction in England and will join in the next two years. Although these are used for training of the
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
maritime forces in peacetime, they, nevertheless, are credited with a good anti-submarine capability. The submarine Grilse is on the west coast.
In addition to the operational support ship Provider, the force is supported by the mobile support ship Cape Scott. On the west coast the mobile support ship Cape Breton is in reserve.
A vital component of maritime command are the six air squadrons which carry out far-ranging surveillance tasks off Canada's coasts. These squadrons consist of three equipped with the long-range Argus which ranks as high as any long-range maritime air craft in use in the world today. The fourth is equipped with the Neptune, the fifth has Tracker aircraft and the sixth Sea King helicopters. The latter two operate from the aircraft carrier Bonaventure, and the Sea Kings also operate from helicopter-destroyers. The Argus, Neptune and Tracker training units provide additional operational capability which is available for an emergency.
The air component of maritime command will be further enhanced as the Argus and Trackers are fitted with improved anti-submarine and communications equipment. These improvements and additions to our maritime forces will assure the continued readiness of maritime command to carry out its mission.
The naval share of the current five-year equipment and equipment development program, ending March 31, 1971, is approximately $460 million. This represents a 23 per cent increase in the navy's share in equipment and equipment development over that spent in the previous five years.
In recognition of our commitment to North American Air Defence Command (NORAD), the role of air defence command is to contribute to defence of our continent in concert with forces of the United States. The operations of the command were not affected significantly by the integration process. The command employs the CF101 Voodoo interceptor and the Bomarc surface to air missile and operates a number of radars and a space surveillance device in support of its role. Economies of operation have been achieved through the merger of the command headquarters with northern NORAD region headquarters at North Bay.
The personnel of this command continue to carry out their assigned missions in support of North American air defence in a first-class
National Defence Act Amendment manner. As Air Commodore A. C. Hull, then the acting commander of air defence command, stated before the standing committee on national defence on June 28, 1966:
We met or exceeded all assigned objectives ot operational effectivenes by a progressive schedule of inspections and evaluations, tactical evaluations, alert force capability tests, nuclear capability tests and the emergency defence plan tests-
Training command headquarters was formed in Winnipeg on January 1, 1966, and is respons.ble for individual training, including flying and trades training, for all personnel in the Canadian forces. It is not, however, responsible for unit or operational training.
The training program being developed will take some years to become fully effective. It is being designed, for the non-commissioned ranks, to correspond with the new trades structure recently announced for the forces. Training will be conducted to meet basic requirements in both operational and technical skills. Where skills are common to two or three environments the training will be centralized; other training will be given at schools that are oriented toward a particular environment. This centralization will result in more rational employment of instructors and avoid multiplicity of facilities and equipment. As an important by-product it will provide the base for the development of common doctrine for common skills throughout the service.
Air transport command's primary role is to provide the department with a strategic airlift capability. Although this role was not changed with integration, there has been a shift in emphasis toward the troop-carrier mission, and a marked improvement in the capacity of this command to take into account in its planning and operations the full range of air transport needs of the forces as a whole.
As stated to the standing committee on national defence during a briefing on June 16, 1966, under the auspices of Air Commodore G. G. Diamond, commander of air transport command:
Air transport command's operating standards are unsurpassed by any similar military air transport organization in the world.
I am sure that all hon. members who have flown with this command would strongly endorse this conclusion.
The command operates Yukon and Hercules turbo-prop aircraft as its major long range
December 7, 1966

National Defence Act Amendment carriers, and a variety of smaller aircraft for tactical air transport, communications, search and rescue and reserve training. The fleet of Hercules aircraft has markedly improved the command's support capability. A new medium-range jet transport, the Falcon, has also been ordered.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are studying our possible requirements for the future and are keeping abreast of developments in the air transport field with a view to modernizing our fleet when it becomes timely to do so.
Materiel command was created on August 1, 1965, with headquarters in Rockcliffe, Ontario.
The main aim or mission of the command is to provide the necessary supply and maintenance support to the other functional commands.
Materiel command was presented with one of the most formidable tasks in the integration program. Over the years, the three services had each developed different supply systems. It is materiel command's job to mould them into a single automated supply system. Planning is well advanced for the new system and a number of steps have already been taken. Two examples are the integrating of the cataloguing function and the amalgamation of staffs and services required below command headquarters level to administer and support depots in a particular locality.
Because of the complexity and magnitude of the project, however, it will take from three to five years to implement fully the single automated system. In the meantime, the three existing systems are being operated by materiel command and the logistic support to the forces has not in any way been diminished.
As a participant in every United Nations peacekeeping action since the organization was formed, Canada has made and continues to make a substantial contribution to world order through such operations.
At the present time there are more than 1,900 Canadian officers and men serving the United Nations and the International Control Commission in countries around the world. In Cyprus, 900 servicemen form a key part in that U.N. peacekeeping force. In the Suez, a
[Mr. Hellyer.l

further 850 support the UN operation of the Gaza Strip.
I have first-hand knowledge of the splendid work these Canadians are doing and I think all Canada should be proud of their efforts.
The long record of Canada's participation toward the maintenance of world peace includes such other places as Palestine, Kashmir, Lebanon, the Congo, West New Guinea, Yemen, the India-Pakistan border and Indochina. In the latter area, Canada has been a member of the International Commission for Supervision and Control since 1954 and at present we have 65 officers and men on duty there. The list is long and a proud heritage has grown with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about South Viet Nam?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Our capability to provide such forces for UN type operations is not only being maintained, but with the emphasis we are placing on increased mobility and flexibility, it is steadily being increased.
Although not a command, the Canadian forces communications system has functional responsibilities throughout the Canadian forces. The role of the system is to provide strategic communications for the forces and for emergency government. It is not responsible for tactical communications, such as ship-to-shore, tactical air-ground-air and field communications which are organic to combat commands.
The Canadian forces communications system was implemented by forming a small headquarters in Ottawa, but not part of Canadian forces headquarters, utilizing staffs formerly responsible for the three separate service strategic communications networks. During the 18 months to date of its existence, the system has realized many of the improvements and economies to be expected under a single management.
Almost coincident with the formation of the Canadian forces communications system, a comprehensive two-year study began of all Department of National Defence non-tactical communications. A team of consultants from the CN/CP Telecommunications organization was engaged to develop a long-range phased plan for the augmentation and automation of the communications operated by the system.
Through consolidation and automation of the many manually-operated and largely obsolescent centres now in the Canadian forces
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
communications system, substantial savings in personnel can be expected, along with greatly increased speed and quality of communications. The major re-equipping programs arising from this study will begin about 1970. At this time, the Canadian armed forces will be provided with vastly improved, modern strategic communications befitting a first-class military organization.
In order to provide an effective two-way flow of information -between Canadian forces headquarters and the major commands, the Canadian forces council was formed as an advisory body to the chief of the defence staff and has been meeting at regular intervals since August, 1966. This council makes available to the chief of the defence staff the advice and opinions of the senior commanders. It not only increases the timely flow of information between these two top echelons of command but, in addition, provides a means of utilizing the wealth of ideas and expertise which exists at all levels throughout the forces.
Thus we have a system which not only acquaints all commanders with the major activities of their counterparts but also gives each of the commanders knowledge of important matters under consideration at C.F.H.Q. A regular means of consultation has been established enabling field commanders to contribute to the decision-making process.
The Canadian forces council meets once a month in Ottawa and is attended by the chief and vice-chief of the defence staff, the deputy minister, the chairman of the Defence Research Board, the three branch heads, the deputy chief for reserves, the secretary of the defence staff and the commanders of the six major commands. Other commanders from formations outside Canada may also attend from time to time.
The aim of the reorganization of the Canadian forces was clearly stated in the white paper and is intended to achieve certain specific and well-defined goals. After referring to the companion problems of an effective command system and growing overhead costs, future policy was outlined in unmistakable terms:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
National Defence Act Amendment
This was reiterated in a circular letter issued jointly by myself and the associate minister to all members of the armed forces and civilian employees of the Department of National Defence on April 2, 1964. This letter said, in part:
The third and final step will be the unification of the three services. . . It is reasonable to expect that it will be three or four years before it will be possible to take this action.
We also stated in the next paragraph:
However, the end objective of a single service is firm.
The point was again made in testimony before the special committee on defence on May 28, 1964, when I said:
far as the ultimate objective is concerned this has been clearly stated in the white paper, and I think this is a fair recognition that this is the first step towards a single unified force for Canada.
It was also emphasized repeatedly in various statements that the changes in Canada's defence organization would take place step by step. Unification is the end objective of a logical and evolutionary progression. Although integration and unification are sometimes regarded as alternatives, and inherently different, they are, in fact, merely different stages in the same process. Integration was actually the term applied to the first stages of the unification of the Canadian armed forces.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In the reorganization of the Canadian forces after world war II, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were continued as separate service components of the Canadian forces. Each was provided with a chief of staff who, under the law, was given responsibility for the control and administration of the service which he headed. This continued each service as an entity within the Canadian forces with all of the necessary headquarters, command, training, support and operational machinery for each. In the course of time, the efficiency and the economics of operating on this basis came more and more into question. Elaborate machinery was devised to co-ordinate the planning and operations as well as various aspects of the administration of the three services. A good deal was accomplished through joint planning, by assigning support responsibilities in some instances to one service, by integrating services in a few cases, by inter-service committees and other forms of consultation. Nevertheless, the surface had barely been
10828	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment scratched and the full potential was beyond reach by means that were consistent with maintaining the services as separate entities. When the decision was taken in 1964 to abolish the chiefs of staff of the three individual services and head the Canadian forces by a single chief of staff, it meant that the three services would no longer retain their status as individual entities within the Canadian forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You did not explain that at the time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Control and administration were transferred to a single chief of staff and this resulted, as was intended, in a single planning, management, administrative, training and support process. The concept of three separate service entities was thereby abandoned in favour of one.
Comprehension of the concept of a single service will be assisted by an understanding of the structure of the force. The headquarters and command structure, having been integrated, are now organized for all practicable purposes on a single service basis.
Canadian forces headquarters gives direction and provides headquarters services across the whole spectrum of defence and is responsible for readjustment of command responsibilities and resources should an operational situation require it. This is a direct single line responsibility.
The force structure is comprised of force units which may be used individually or in combination depending on the military tasks to be undertaken. These force units are the infantry companies, the armoured squadrons, the artillery batteries, the engineering squadrons, field ambulances, the air squadrons, warships and the support ships, to mention a few. None of these will be changed in moving to a single service from three separate services. They will continue to be trained and equipped for their particular roles. Moreover, a single service will involve no change in the organization of these force units into formations such as brigades, air wings, or squadrons of ships. On the other hand, the deployment of these units and formations is directed by a single command chain in accordance with the missions assigned, and under a single command responsible for these missions.
The concept of a single service does raise questions of identity-those of the spirit, motivation and esprit de corps-which are difficult to measure objectively but which are nevertheless so very important in a military force. It would be surprising if men who had

DEBATES	December 7, 1966
been associated and identified with the individual services did not encounter some difficulty in the realignment of loyalties involved in the establishment of a single service. Most of us have experienced similar problems in the course of our lifetime as institutions to which we have become deeply committed have had to change, and none of us would underestimate the soul-searching readjustments that are necessary. Within the single service we will continue to have intense loyalties to the fighting units and broader associations within it. This has been demonstrated most clearly in the past within the Canadian Army with its regiments and corps. Here the officers and men have generated the pride, loyalties and qualities that have won both for their regiment and corps and for the Canadian Army as a whole outstanding reputations. The organization of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force has tended toward identification with the service as a whole, but we are all aware of the great pride members of these services took in the achievements of the ships and squadrons and other units to which they belonged.
In the single service these important relationships within the total force will continue and will foster the same kind of esprit de corps as there has been in the past. It is none the less important that a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging to one single service, covering all aspects of defence and designed to tackle the complex defence problems of the future, be developed. The band of brothers must take in the whole family and be one family although there will be many spirited, competitive but mutually supporting groups of brothers within it. One force, with one name, a common uniform, and common rank designations will nurture this total family loyalty.
With this background as to what is meant by unification, that is, the creation of a single service absorbing the present three, I wish to discuss in more detail some of the advantages in taking this step.
The principle of the bill to create a single service is very simple. It is to permit the personnel, officers and men, and the units already subject to unified control and management, to be held in one entity rather than three. There are four fundamental reasons why this is considered to be desirable for the service, the serviceman and Canada:
December 7, 19B6
With the establishment of a common identity, sailors, soldiers and airmen, although loyal to their ships, regiments and squadrons, will have an overriding loyalty to the whole force and its total objectives on behalf of Canada.
For able and highly motivated individuals, both officers and other ranks, wider, more challenging and rewarding career opportunities will be available.
The unified force will provide much greater flexibility to meet changing requirements in defence organization made necessary by advances in military technology and changes in the international situation.
The nature of modern warfare has resulted in a compaction of time and distance to the point where decision-making and reaction time must be much swifter than ever before in history. A unified force best meets this demand.
I would like to elaborate on each of these points. The first is of significant importance.
As I mentioned previously it has always been and will remain important to feel a strong loyalty to one's unit, formation or command. The world, however, has become so complex due to rapid technological changes that modern military operations have become increasingly interdependent. The old recognizable deviding lines between land, sea and air have long since disappeared. Therefore it has become imperative that there be a higher loyalty beyond that which is given to a particular service.
More and more military tasks can now be carried out by any one of the three traditional services. For purposes of illustration only let us consider the example of the nuclear-strike role under NATO which is now performed for Canada by manned aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force. This role could be performed in substance by (1) land-based missiles; (2) missiles launched from surface ships or submarines; (3) another type of manned aircraft,
This means that there are three possible options: land, sea or air-at present army, navy or air force. Under the three-service system it is almost certain that the service currently assigned to the role will recommend a weapon system traditional to that service.
National Defence Act Amendment
Modern operations analysis seeks to compare the potential effectiveness of different techniques in relation to the resources available. In order to get the best results from this kind of analysis, however, it is necessary to employ the most objective judgment, first in setting our criteria for the analysis and secondly in interpreting the results of the analysis.
This is one area where a single service bias can produce, and historically has often produced, a result which is not the most effective in relation to the cost. The more objectivity that can be applied to the studies the better the chances of the right solution. It would be impossible to eliminate all bias because individuals will naturally be influenced by their own specialized training and background. If their higher loyalty, however, is to the force as a whole, rather than to one of the traditional three services, the probability of reaching logical conclusions will be greatly increased.
Another problem in relation to identity, which is solved by unification, is that of job quotas or representation by service. As long as there are three separate services each one demands its share of available positions. This applies to some extent in the commands and to a very large extent in headquarters at all levels. There are, of course, some positions where special skill and particular professional training are required. There are, however, very large numbers of staff positions which can well be filled by officers coming from any one of a number of military specialties, and where the job should go to the best man available, regardless of his earlier specialty. Some rotation may be desirable but it should not be the overriding factor. The most important consideration should be the appointment of the best qualified person available for the job.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Unification will provide better and fairer employment prospects for service personnel. Under a system of separate services, opportunities are naturally limited to the scope, tasks and requirements of the individual service. An integrated command structure provides some additional outlet, but this is limited, normally, to the senior management level as opposed to the broad opportunities and advantages presented by a single service.

10830	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Another facet of career prospects is the improvement of promotion opportunities for the abler personnel. From a broader base of selection it will be possible to identify, develop and appoint the best qualified to the more senior ranks. Artificial barriers created by three separate services and the need for representation on staffs by service will be eliminated. Standardized career planning under unification will afford improved opportunity. The challenges and opportunities for the gifted individual will be much greater than could ever be possible in a system of separate services.
In the post-war period many administrative regulations have been issued to achieve equality in the treatment of service personnel. However, there are many aspects of personnel administration where differences have continued as a result of variations in individual service policies. As integration proceeded and people from different services worked side by side, the differences between the forces came into the open and more and more into question. Without attempting a complete listing, some of the differences that have come to light are worth noting:
1.	Inequities in promotion opportunities among officers and men in the same general trades by reason of different approaches among the services in the use of trade and rank.
2.	Inequities in opportunity for men to reach commissioned rank. Each service has its own set of stipulations for men to be considered for promotion to commissioned status. These differences could well result in the least qualified of three persons, in the three separate services, being commissioned in a particular trade which in essence, was common to all services.
3.	Inequities in the opportunity for in-service education to suitable young men in the ranks to qualify them for entry into the officer candidate programs. The navy was the only service which had a formal in-service academic training program for this purpose.
4.	Inequities in trades training. In the Royal Canadian Air Force solid basic training has been given with subsequent advancement through on-the-job training. On the other hand the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Army require men at most trade levels to undergo a formal trade course to qualify for the next trade level. This has had the effect of differing opportunities for trade advancement.

DEBATES	December 7, 1966
Differences in trade and other standards necessary to qualify for promotion have given rise to some cases of men in the same trade working together in integrated establishments in which less qualified men from one service have been promoted before men from another service. Almost 20 years of post-war effort through inter-service committees and other means failed to bring about equitable conditions of service for servicemen. Integration had the effect of vividly exposing these differences. In the course of time many of them could be dealt with by the integrated staffs. On the other hand, there are limitations imposed by the existence of three separate legal entities. These will be overcome by the creation of one service.
The trade or occupational structure varied from one service to another, and the conditions for extra pay based on skill were not always the same. This was the case even though the whole question of standardizing the occupational classes in the services had been receiving attention through virtually the whole of the post-war period. Since 1964, under the stimulus of integration, much has been accomplished. The first step, which is essential for efficiency, was to identify all those who perform similar functions and to group them together. This required an occupational analysis which in the case of some classes offered little difficulty. In other occupational fields, the technical and specialized nature of the work makes the classification of people more difficult. The result of the classification work directed by the integrated headquarters has been the rationalization of more than 300 occupational classes to approximately 100. One invaluable result has been to recognize for the first time the commonality that exists across the services.
A personnel structure has been developed for officers and men in the unified service. The same general principles have been applied to achieve appropriate groupings for the purpose of personnel management and professional development. These unified structures will open to personnel of all ranks wider opportunities for the development and employment of their skills and professional talent. A unified service will permit them to advance across old services barriers and so provide greater avenues for service and greater opportunities for personal advancement. When people are able to move in a broad stream, which does not confine employment opportunities to narrow specialities or to the individual naval, army or air force entities, both the individual and the force as a whole will clearly benefit.
December 7, 196S	COMMONS
It should not be forgotten that requirements for tradesmen and other personnel with particular skills will obviously vary as new weapons systems are introduced or as updated procedures are adopted. In some cases this will mean that trained people will have to be transferred to other occupational classes. Where this is essential for the efficient management of the services, there can be no alternative but to do it, although the interests of the individual concerned must be safeguarded. Such adjustments will, we believe, be much more easily accomplished when the alternative opportunities are not limited, as they have been in the past, to one service.
The services individually can offer interesting, challenging and rewarding careers to Canadian youth. The opportunities will be multiplied when the services are unified. This is important if we are to attract and retain the high standard of applicants in the numbers needed to meet the challenges of the modern Canadian forces.	.
One general principle should be underlined again. The combat units will retain their identity, and their specialized functions and training. It is important to state that it is not and never has been any part of the planning associated with unification to convert our servicemen to "jacks-of-all-trades".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: An infantry soldier will not be asked to do the job of a sailor in a fighting ship; a sailor will not be asked to fight in an infantry platoon; and a fighter pilot will not be required to drive a tank.
Nothing has had a more profound influence on the character of modern military operations than the post-war scientific and technological advances in both weaponry and delivery systems. The influence of these advances on strategic concepts and the conduct of international relations has been revolutionary. Rather than dwell on the intercontinental or global aspects of technological change, I would like to focus attention on its impact on service roles.
Many of these developments cut across the traditional lines of distinction between the different services. One example of this is the anti-submarine warfare equipment which can be carried in land-based aircraft or carrier-based aircraft, or in ships on or under the sea. Another example is the use in all three services of fixed-wing aircraft and missiles. Still
National Defence Act Amendment another is the use of helicopters in all three armed forces as reconnaissance vehicles, weapons platforms and instruments of mobility. The recent creation by the United States of mobile divisions with their reliance on helicopters may mark a departure from tradition which will have a profound influence on the nature of military activities. There are numerous other such examples. Suffice it to say the problems associated with the assignment of responsibilities for these and many other weapons systems, such as missiles and rockets, are well recognized.
Such changes must affect the organization of the forces. It is clear that the influence works in the direction of a single service for reasons of military effectiveness, cost and career considerations.
A unified force permits a much more objective analysis to be made of the most desirable way in which to employ weapons systems. Unification will enhance our ability to react to changing requirements. Our adaptability to changes in weapons technology and in the international situation will be much greater when the artificial barriers, imposed by having personnel divided into three legal entities rather than one, are removed. Unification will broaden the opportunities available to service motivated and expensively trained personnel when changes in roles or systems alter requirements. In this way, the nation will benefit, the force as a whole will benefit, and. just as important, the serviceman himself will benefit.	[DOT]
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The white paper of 1964 would not have recommended integration as a first step toward a single service if we had not been certain of the improved capacity of a unified force to meet the demands of modern warfare. The pattern of warfare in which armies fought armies, navies fought navies, and air forces fought air forces is not likely to be repeated. Under the traditional three service concept, the individual service recruited, administered, trained, equipped and supported the combat force units within that service. Joint or combined headquarters were created, where necessary, to co-ordinate and direct the operations of the elements of two or more of the services. This is a device necessary in a three-service system, but it has built-in drawbacks arising out of the very fact that units and elements belong to different services. Each component depends on its parent service
December 7, 1866

National Defence Act Amendment for support in a host of ways which require special channels of communication and complex methods of co-ordination throughout.
Commanders and staff down to the lowest level of operations, and in the support echelons from the scene of operations back to the home base, must act together and in unison as the situation demands. Under conditions of modern warfare consultation between services, having different areas of responsibility and different channels of communication is time consuming. More important, it cannot achieve the high degree of co-ordinated response that could be critical and would be immediately available through a single organization. The old system can result in misunderstanding and delay which, at best, a military activity can ill afford and, under some circumstances, it could not afford at all.
The need for fast decision-making and quick reaction is synonymous with modem warfare. The introduction of jets, missiles, rockets, computers, satellite reconnaissance vehicles and many other new military techniques demands an expeditious resolution of problems and rapid response. For intercontinental warfare, the impact of the contraction of time and distance is quite evident. But it is also valid in relation to military activities at the lower end of the spectrum. Even the success or failure of peace-restoring or peacekeeping operations can well depend on the speed with which decisions are reached and the force and its equipment delivered to the trouble zone.
I believe it is a fair conclusion that a single organization which works and thinks together day in and day out, with direct lines of communication and a single line of responsibility, eliminates the self-inflicted problems associated with the three service system of coordinating combined operations.
There are clearly customs and traditions in any institution that are very valuable and which ought to be preserved if at all possible. Unification of the Canadian forces does not imply the abandonment of tradition, of pride in the unit and other ingredients of esprit de corps. The preservation of the intangible factors which support and sustain any fighting unit is an essential goal but along with this it is important to foster innovation. The stimulus of new ideas and methods injects enthusiasm and vigour into any organization.

Morale is related not just to the glories gone by but equally or even more to the importance of the job to be done and the effectiveness of the leadership, training and equipment to do the job well. People including military personnel, like to feel that what they are doing is worth while, is in the public interest and is recognized as such. The development of clearly defined roles, the provision of better equipment to carry out those roles, and the anticipated public recognition of the efficient and useful defence concept being developed should have a beneficial effect on the morale of service personnel in the unified force.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What will it do with the people?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They will have the added satisfaction of knowing that they are setting the pace for the world in modernizing the organization of military forces.
Unification will result in a single service not abandoning but building upon traditions of the past and injecting that enthusiasm and vigour required for a dynamic new organization.
The Canadian forces now consist by law of three services, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. The respect which each of these services enjoys today has been earned in peace and in war. Members of this house know the history. It has been recorded by many eminent Canadian writers. But more enduringly it has been recorded in blood, in sorrow and in gratitude embedded in the hearts of Canadians and in the hearts of our friends in other lands whose freedom and dignity have been restored and preserved by Canada's sailors, soldiers and airmen.
The three services under the provisions of the bill become one service to be called the Canadian Armed Forces. It is understandable that proud and gallant men may read this with heavy hearts. Those who do, I hope, will on reflection see that the single service is born with the great heritages of the three services that give it its life blood. These are not lost but brought together into one service, the strength of three to meet the challenges of the future and to add to the glories of the past.
The name of the single service "The Canadian Armed Forces" was chosen after the
December 7, 19GG	COMMONS
most careful and thoughtful consideration by the defence staff. Since there is no noun which describes the single service, it is necessary to either invent a new word or adopt existing words and change their meaning to include all armed forces, whether for sea, land, air or space. After exhaustive study within the services, the defence staff recommended that the name of the single service should be the Canadian Armed Forces. It is possible that a word will be coined at some future date which will apply to servicemen of all environments and should this be the case, it can be adopted by a simple amendment.
In choosing the name Canadian Armed Forces, consideration was given to the question of the Royal title. In the three services two different systems were used. In the army, the Royal title was applied at the corps and regimental levels while in the navy and air force it was applied in the name of the service itself. After careful study the defence staff recommended that the former system be adopted. As new groupings and associations are developed in the Canadian Armed Forces the members, through the defence staff, may seek the use of the Royal prefix in the new names selected. This would be consistent with the system adopted.
Permission to use the Royal title is of course a prerogative of Her Majesty. When the Royal Canadian Navy was established in 1910 as the Canadian Naval Service and when the Royal Canadian Air Force was first organized in 1920 as the Canadian Air Force, "Royal" was not included in the names. This came later and reflected a wish of the members of those services to be so designated. I feel strongly that this is a matter which should be influenced largely by the wishes of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and that, in the course of time, a consensus will develop. An imposed decision at this time would neither be wise nor, from information at hand, be welcomed by the members of the forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How do you know?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Members of the navy, the army and the air force will become members of the Canadian Armed Forces when the relevant section of the bill comes into force. Before this happens, however, all members of the forces will be provided with full information on conditions of service which will apply to them in the
National Defence Act Amendment unified service. It will take some time to complete the details after the bill has been enacted by parliament. This section of the bill will not, therefore, be brought into force for some time-probably several months. Consultation will continue with functional commanders as details are worked out.
Present members of the forces will be guaranteed under the provisions of the bill that they will not be required to perform duty they could not have been required to perform in the service to which they belonged. Because of this commitment, no special provisions on retirement benefits are required.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As the question of pension penalty has been referred to from time to time in previous discussions, I would like to clarify this. The so-called "pension penalty" is in fact not a penalty but an actuarial adjustment that is made for early retirement at the member's request. The pension in these circumstances is paid over a longer period of time. This is a standard arrangement in almost all pension plans, civilian and military, and there is no justification for changing it. The same reasoning applies to other obligations which may apply to the service of some members, such as the obligation to serve for a specified number of years following completion of a post-graduate course at service expense or, if retirement is accepted, the obligation to refund all or part of the cost. Such obligations will continue to apply.
The emphasis in this reorganization is on equitable and reasonable treatment for those who are already members of the Canadian forces. The roles for those who, in future, enroll in the unified force also should be stated. Men and women who decide to join the Canadian Armed Forces will have a wide selection of interesting employment and if they are qualified, and vacancies are available, they will be offered the employment of their preference. If they join, it normally will be for an initial engagement of five years. If this engagement is mutually satisfactory, they may, under the provisions of the bill, be reengaged for an indefinite period. If they want to be released later, this can be done with six months notice, except in an emergency or during periods of obligatory service.
This proposed new concept of one engagement followed by an indefinite period of service has been described as the "career serviceman concept". It is one of the imaginative recommendations contained in the report of a
10834	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment military manpower study conducted by the services. This concept will allow us to do away with a good deal od administration involved in the periodic re-engagement procedure and, more important, will allow us to place non-commissioned ranks on the same professional footing as commissioned officers in the service. It does one more thing: it provides a definite point in time, after five years of service, when both the service and the individual make up their minds about his career in the service.
. The present law provides that the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force shall be comprised of such units and other elements as are from time to time organized by or under authority of the minister. In the bill the same authority is provided in respect of the Canadian Armed Forces. At the time the new force comes into being, its units and elements shall be those which then exist in the navy, army and air force.
Units and elements of the force are the command entities-for example, in the navy, ships and squadrons; in the army, battalions of infantry, regiments of artillery, armoured regiments, brigades; in the air force, squadrons, wings and groups. All of these will remain unchanged.
The regimental framework of the land element is, in fact, groupings of officers and men with common professional interests. This system will not be changed by reason of unification. Certainly, we will continue to have infantry regiments as well as the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps and the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. Others will change as they are amalgamated with similar groups in other services and new groupings will unquestionably be needed and desired for the new force. These will be made progressively as the need is made evident.
The time required to complete the reorganization of the forces will likely take some years but changes will be implemented progressively after proclamation of the bill as soon as each becomes practicable. Although a unified personnel management system will be introduced, the separate units and elements of naval, field and air forces will continue to exist. That is to say, while the barriers to movement of personnel between the forces will be removed, personnel in the combat forces will continue to be identified as sailors,

DEBATES	December 7, 1966
soldiers and airmen until the force structure within the unified force is developed.
Rank names are important and the selection of a single set does not yield to any easy or scientific solution. The decision to adopt as official the ranks indicated in the bill is based on the strong belief by the defence staff that they will be acceptable to the largest number of service people and will be most familiar to the Canadian public.
The associate minister and I realize that a sudden break with old rank designations would be difficult for some servicemen, particularly so for many members of the navy where there is a high degree of similarity of rank designations among navies with which they usually work. The bill would enable the minister to prescribe alternative titles of rank to those used officially for documentation, pay, etc., and state the circumstances under which they might be used. It is my intention to authorize members of the Canadian Armed Forces to use rank titles traditional to their former service. In the fullness of time, the defence staff and I expect the new rank titles to come into general use by preference of the members of the unified service.
Almost from the beginning of the discussion of the reorganization, there has been keen public interest in the uniforms which would be adopted under unification. This is understandable because of the symbolic and traditional importance of uniforms in any military force. I would like to state at this point what the present plans are.
Occupational clothing will continue to be worn in relation to specific employment as is now the case. For example, appropriate combat clothing will be worn by forces in the field, at sea and in the air.
A new service dress, to be worn by all ranks, will be introduced over a period of years. The same cloth will be used for officers and men. I strongly endorse the feeling of the defence staff that, in the modern forces Canada enjoys today with the high percentage of technically trained non-officers and the over-all high calibre of our men, it is no longer acceptable to have them wear anything but top-grade material and design of uniform. They are first-class; they should look first-class. Economies will be achieved over the long haul through bulk buying, reduced inventories and lower distribution costs. There will, of course,
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
be an initial capital outlay. To ensure that the uniform is the best procurable, the trials and developments of firm specifications will take time, and it is forecast that it may be anywhere from three to five years before the new uniform will be in general use. It is planned to introduce a small number of uniforms for trial purposes in the spring of next year but general issue will take place later. Appropriate insignia will be used to designate the environmental specialties of the servicemen but final recommendations concerning these insignia and the insignia of rank have not yet been made.
As it will take a considerable time to provide new uniforms for the Canadian Armed Forces, current uniforms will be used during the intervening period. Subsequently, members may continue to wear the present uniforms as dress uniforms on appropriate occasions. In this respect, these uniforms will be considered the equivalent of the army blue patrol.
The regiments of the army will be authorized to continue to wear regimental dress uniforms on appropriate occasions. The Royal Canadian Navy and the R.C.A.F. have no comparable order of dress but members of the three services may continue to wear their present mess dress.
The provisions of the bill also apply to the reserves which will be in a separate component of a single service in the same way that they have been separate components of the three services in the past.
The reserves were reorganized in 1964 with the object of improving their posture to meet their important and primary role supporting the regular forces. That role will continue into the indefinite future. As the composition of the regular force component of the single service is evolved, some complementary changes in the reserve component will no doubt be necessary. We do not propose, however, to make any changes at the outset but to continue the present organization within the framework of the single service.
The deputy chief reserves has been given the responsibility of ensuring that the interrelationships between the regular and reserve components are under continuous study in consultation with the officers of the reserves. Any changes that may eventually be made will be designed to strengthen the capacity of the reserves to support the regular component as changes are made in it. Our intention is to
National Defence Act Amendment ensure that the reserves have a meaningful task. In doing this, there will be full consultation with the conference of defence associations.
The cadet organizations are directed to the development of leadership, good citizenship, patriotism and an interest in the military affairs of our country among the youth. The Navy League of Canada, the Air Cadet League, the provincial departments of education and other organizations co-sponsor the cadet activities with the Department of National Defence. Much of the success of the movement is due to the untiring efforts of the interested civilians who support these organizations. No changes will be made except those considered advisable as a consequence of changes in the regular force after discussion with our partners in this enterprise. The deputy chief reserves has the responsibility to ensure that we in the Department of National Defence are fully responsive to the need of the cadet organizations as changes or modifications in present arrangements are necessary.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As members study this bill, I am confident they will find that the changes proposed are of a reasonable nature. The object of this bill is not to destroy and erase at one stroke the traditions of the past but to build, on the solid foundation we have forged, a strong and viable force to meet Canada's needs of tomorrow. Those needs are not readily predictable in a rapidly changing world but it can be said with assurance that Canada's influence in the years ahead and its capacity to act in favour of peace and settlement of disputes that endanger peace will grow with its own development. Canada's military organization should not be circumscribed in any way, including inherited traditional means of organization, from developing into a force to best meet the demands that may be placed on it in the years ahead.
I believe that the present division into three separate service components imposes restrictions and that these barriers should be removed both in the interests of the most effective military forces for the future and in the interest of the men and women who belong to the force. That is the essence of this bill. It has nothing to do with the question of naval forces, land forces, air forces or even space forces. Rather, it has to do with the management, the strategic and operational
December 7, 1966

National Defence Act Amendment planning, the training and support, the capacity of the force to adjust to changing requirements, and the ability of the force to provide meaningful, challenging and rewarding careers for service personnel. All of these needs are enhanced by unification rather than the traditional separation of the men and women who comprise the force into three components.
Since August, 1964, when individuals have been drawn from the three services to man the integrated headquarters, commands and bases, it has become clear that service distinctions were no longer appropriate in the broad basis of integrated employment. This was particularly evident at the headquarters and in those commands whose missions extended beyond those associated with one service and where the need to maintain service distinctions complicated the operation rather than
helped it. This confirmed, if any confirmation was necessary, the validity of the original concept that integration was the first step in the unification cycle. It would become increasingly difficult to maintain in a satisfactory way the separation of the Canadian forces in three service components as required by law and, as much detailed work must be done to bring about a unified force, I consider it necessary to seek parliamentary approval now of the changes in the law that will provide the basis for this work to proceed.
I am confident that the establishment of a single unified defence force for Canada is right for the nation, right for the force as a whole and right for the men and women who serve and will serve in it.
[Editor's note: The charts referred to in the minister's speech follow:]
CANADMN FOPm COMMAND
*
A Component of Mobile Command for Administration.

o
o
a>
tr

<T>
o
w



o

National Defence Act Amendment
o
>
to z


o
BOATSWAIN FIRE/CONTROL RADIO (SEA) DIVER SEA WEAPONS SONAR (SEA) RADAR (SEA) SIGNALS (SEA)	GENERAL DUTIES (SEA)
INFANTRY INTELLIGENCE	INFANTRY
ARMOUR INTELLIGENCE	ARMOUR
ARTILLERY INTELLIGENCE	ARTILLERY
	PILOTS
MARITIME/AIR	RADIO NAVIGATORS
AIR DEFENCE CONTROL	AIR DEFENCE CONTROL
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL	AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
WEATHER	METEOROLOGY
FIELD ENGINEER MECHANICAL TOPOGRAPHY STRUCTURE FIRE PREVENMON CARTOGRAPHY	CONSTRUCTION ENG.
COMMUNICATIONS OPERATION AVIONICS SIGNAL (SEA) SIGNALS RADAR MAINTENANCE RADAR (SEA) COMMUNICATION MAINTENANCE RADIO (SEA) RESEARCH	ELECTRONICS ENG.
MARINE ENGINEERING HULL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING	MARINE ENG.
VEHICLES LAND WEAPONS ELECTRO MECHANICAL WORKSHOPS	ORDNANCE (LAND)ENG.
AVIATION INSTRUMENT/ELECTRICAL AIR WEAPONS AVIONICS PHOTOGRAPHY AIR (FLIGHT ENGINEER) SAFETY SYSTEMS WORKSHOPS	AEROSPACE ENG.
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLY ACCOUNTING	SUPPLY
TRANSPORT POSTAL	TRANSPORT
	MEDICAL
	DENTAL
	NURSING
MEDICAL	MEDICAL ASSOCIATE
DENTAL	DENTAL ASSOCIATE
SECURITY	PROVOST
	SECURITY
	CHAPLAINS
	LEGAL
	EDUCATION
	SOCIAL WELFARE
	PERSONNEL SELECTION
CLERICAL PHOTOGRAPHY	INFORMATION
FOOD SERVICES	FOOD SERVICES
PHYSICAL AND RECREATION	PHYSICAL EDUCATION
DATA PROCESSING CLERICAL GRAPHICS	ADMINISTRATION
MUSIC	MUSIC
(ENG. - ENGINEERING)
(#e/aTed to Officer Occupation)



FORCE FORMATIONS AND UNITS

[Stage Direction]
N	AVA	L	Fit	:ld	AIR	CO	CO F- UJ	CO	CO	OO	CO	h-	2: 0 QC Q <	CO Q.	0 CO	co LU 0 < 0	0 	1 < 1-	Z O cc 0 <	LU C Q_	O CO	CO Q_ =3	CO CD	z 0 DU CD <c	00 L.LU	ZD	-	>	0	1-	ZD	>	O	ZD	!±S	O'	JO	QC	LU	<	O	O	DC	-	O	zu_	00	CO	0	QQ	O'	CD	CO	O	0	O	CO	0Engineers	Surface	Armour	Air	Signals	Submarine	Air


[Stage Direction]
o
w
d
[Stage Direction]


>
w
[Stage Direction]
o
o
o
[Stage Direction]
(O

to
o>
National Defence Act Amendment
PPOJECTED 0PEPA7/0NPL FOPCE DEPLOYMENT
SAPcy fS70's
MOBILE COMMAND	2 Air Transportable 1 Tactical Air Group equipped Brigades with CF-5 ground support 1 Mechanized Infantry aircraft, Buffalo tactical Brigade transports and Doth light 1 Airborne Regiment and heavy helicopters. NOTES- 1 A BATTALION GROUP FROM ONE OF THE AIR TRANSPORTABLE BRIGADES IS COMMITTED TO ALLIED COMMAND EUROPE 'ACE! MOBILE FORCE 2. A SECOND MECHANIZED INFANTRY BRIGADE IS SHOWN UNDER NATO FORCES (EUROPE) BELOW	
MARITIME COMMAND	1 Aircraft Carrier 24 destroyer-escorts 4 submarines 3 operational support ships 1 fleet repair ship	1 squadron CS2F Tracker aircraft 1 squadron CHSS2 Sea King helicopters 3 squadrons Argus aircraft 1 squadron Neptune aircraft
AIR DEFENCE COMMAND {NORADi	3 fighter interceptor 27 radar and aircraft control and squadrons (CF 101B) warning squadrons SAGE command 2 BOMARC squadrons and control centre NOTE THE ABOVE IS THE PRESENT DEPLOYMENT AND MAY BE REVISED BY THE EARLY 1970'* THE NORAC AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO RE NEGOTIOTION IN 1968	
NATO FORCES (EUROPE)	1 mechanized infantry brigade group 1 surface-to-surface Honest John battery	. This is the 4 strike squadrons CF 104 | deployment for ^ \ April 30, 1967 i and may be 2 recce squadrons CF 104)
AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND	Long Range 2 C-130 Hercules squadrons 1 Yukon squadron Medium Range 1 squadron (Cosmopolitans, Falcons and others)	
Present United Notions and other Peacekeeping Assignments drown principally from Mobile Command	UNEF - Gaza Strip A UNFICYP - Cyprus UNTSO - Middle East UNMOGIP - India-Pakistan ICC - IndoChina J	Approx 1900 officers and men.
to
to
to
n
o
o
sa
in
[Stage Direction]


National Defence Act Amendment
December 7, 1966
[Stage Direction]
National Defence Act Amendment
John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister said he would be prepared to answer a couple of questions after he had finished reading his brief. With the dropping of the word "Royal" from the titles of the services and now calling them "Canadian Armed Forces", on attestation into these armed forces is the old oath of allegiance still going to be used or has the minister got a new one?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to take that question as notice. My hon. friend probably knows that many of the officers serving at the present time took oaths of allegiance to the Canadian Naval Service and to the Canadian Air Force before they were "Royal". So there is a very wide variety already in respect of attestation papers.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Do not all personnel take the same oath?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The attestation has been quite different over a period of years. I will have to consider that particular point because I am not sure that a final decision has been taken in this respect.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's past statements, could he inform the house when he was converted to the belief that nuclear weapons were necessary for the defence of Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made that question clear some years ago at the time the decision was faced by this house. I made a quite lengthy statement on the subject then and have made statements on it since.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The
hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I would like to remind hon. members that while some leeway has been given we are not in committee at the present time. I would think that for the orderly proceeding of this debate it would be much better to hear first those hon. members who intend to speak at length on second reading. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Two hon. members have been allowed to ask questions. I stand as a member of parliament in this house and claim no more but no less right than those hon.

members who have been allowed to ask questions. Your Honour may refuse to see me, but I raise this question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I would remind the hon. member that some leeway was allowed in this respect. I am of course in the hands of the house. If the house wants to proceed with questions instead of the debate on second reading, it may do so. The hon. member for Edmonton West has tried to rise on two occasions already. If he wishes to yield his place to the hon. member for Halifax, I am quite willing to agree.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the question of privilege? It has been the custom in the house that when a member has the floor and from time to time is asked to entertain a question, the Speaker has always allowed it. Never has the Speaker put a limit on the number of questions that may be entertained. On this occasion the Minister of National Defence said he would accept questions when he finished his speech. With all due deference to Your Honour, I suggest that since the minister had unlimited time, which the house gave him, it is up to him to indicate whether he is willing to accept questions. In the middle of his speech the minister indicated that he would accept questions when he had finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I would remind the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that I invited the hon. member for Halifax to ask his question if the hon. member for Edmonton West was willing to yield the floor.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Has anything been done by the minister, the associate minister, the Department of National Defence or the government in anticipation that "the bill now before us will be in fact the law of the land?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult to know, however, because the staff are very enthusiastic and very anxious to get on with this program. They have developed a pert chart which indicates the various steps that have to be taken right through to completion of this program. They are anxiously awaiting the passage of this legislation. I could not guarantee that some things have not been done, but I can guarantee that the things for which this bill provides cannot possibly have been done.
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
Therefore I think I can give my hon. friend a complete assurance in this respect. The things that will be done by this bill are matters of the legality of the force and the units to which people belong. It does not change, for example, the names that we can apply to bases or other units. They can be named under the present act, with some degree of flexibility, by the minister and staff.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister has spent an hour and 45 minutes reviewing the subject and showing as clearly as possible that he has completely shifted his ground as contained in the white paper, which he has been wont to quote ad nauseam over the years. The white paper stated that this would be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada. The white paper mentions a single unified defence force and the minister in the confusion of his own mind has equated a single, unified force with a single service. These terms have become interchangeable in the minister's mind and this has led to confusion not only within Canada's armed forces and within parliament but in the minds of commentators interested in the subject of defence. Notwithstanding the adulation of the minister's claque it is an incontrovertible fact that he spoke in the white paper of a single, unified defence force and now he speaks of a single service. This has caused a great deal of difficulty.
It would have been far better at this time if the minister had not presented us with pages and pages of review which must have been written for him by some lyrical writer. He could have just as well gone back to the time of Napoleon in trying to justify the creation of a single service, which has originated with the appointment of a single minister of defence back in 1946.
He can go back in history to the experiments with the appointment of a supremo, the single line of authority about which he speaks, but he has disregarded the lesson in history that countries which have tried the supremo principle have later discarded it. The minister, however, has returned to it. I would have been more interested in a thorough examination of the principles of Canada's defence at the present time because I would suggest that in arriving at the creation of a single service the minister and the government have jettisoned Canada's defence policy or are proposing to do so because what the minister proposes as his ultimate goal is incompatible with
National Defence Act Amendment the objectives of Canada's defence policy indicated in the white paper which is the minister's bible and testament.
These changes will bring about certain fundamental results. If the minister proposes to change the objectives of our defence policy, let him tell us that. Let him tell us what his plans are in Europe, what will happen to the brigade group, what will happen to the air division and what is the role of Canada's air forces in Europe. Let him tell us what will happen to Canada's participation in the antisubmarine role. This is very important because frankly the navy has been torpedoed and will continue to be torpedoed under the proposed organization.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hear groans from some of the neophytes at the back. I suggest to the minister that he indoctrinate some of the members of his party in military matters so that they may bring a little more knowledge to the subject under discussion.
I suggest that it is up to the minister who is proposing these changes to prove to us that they will improve Canada's defence forces. It is not up to the opposition to show that their objections to the proposed changes are valid. The burden is on the minister who wishes to make the changes to prove they are necessary not merely because it is the ukase of the government or because some hon. members have been transferred from one side of the house to the other or because some backbenchers on the government side have been endowed with the holy spirit so that all of a sudden they have become the prophets of this century. The burden is strictly on the minister and the government to prove that the changes proposed are necessary. I must say after reading 65 pages of text, that much of the minister's oratory and fine language is not based upon facts but upon his own conception and thinking which are contradicted by the advice of the majority of his senior advisers during the past two years. This is a fact which has not been recognized by the minister.
I have said that what the minister is proposing for Canada's forces is not compatible with the objectives laid down in the white paper. We are aiming primarily at the provision of peacekeeping forces. I submit that it is the objective of the minister to abandon the defence of Canada entirely and to lay that responsibility on the United States. The minister must be aware that it is being said in
10844	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment many quarters about Canada that, having designed our forces for highly specialized United Nations peacekeeping functions, we will ultimately not be capable of defending our country and will require the assistance of the United States in order to do so.
For instance, with regard to the navy I do not think the minister is in a position to contradict Admiral Landymore and other naval officers who have said that, if there is a continued reduction in the manpower of the navy by next July only 14 or 15 of the 23 destroyer escorts will be manned. These destroyer escorts might be able to go out on short cruises but we are talking about manning them and about fighting. These are the objectives of our navy. The minister can shake his head but he knows very well that he is in serious trouble with the navy. He has admitted that at the present time he is not able to predict the manning of the Bona-venture when she comes out of her half-life refit. Of course it will be realized that the improvements which have been made in the ships were in program when the minister took over. He has not brought any innovations to the navy. He cancelled the program for frigates and he substituted for them four destroyer escorts which were already on the drawing board. There is very little change. The price has gone sky-high and the minister has not told us what these four ships will cost. The first ship, if I remember correctly, will come into service possibly in 1970.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I repeat that I am sure that by 1970-71 we shall have fallen down on our NATO commitments with regard to the navy if the present trend continues. The minister is not replacing the ships; he is away behind. What was done with the Provider was done before the minister had anything to do with it. The minister will follow along with a couple of supply ships. It looks as if in five years from now we shall have the supply ships, if the minister is here that long.
I ask the minister, as one of my colleagues asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the event that the navy is not able to look after our sea defences, who will look after our extended boundary waters? Who will look after that extended jurisdiction? Who will make sure that our boundary waters do not provide a haven for foreign submarines from the forces of the United States? This is the point I wish to raise, and the questions I ask are valid and must be answered. The points I have raised are what the minister

DEBATES	December 7, 19GG
ought to have concentrated on rather than devoting his first 25 pages to pseudo-history which has nothing to do with the real principle at issue in Bill C-243.
In the event we become so highly specialized that our entire role is that of peacekeeping-peacekeeping at the moment around the United Nations is not in good order after the abrupt adjournment of the nineteenth general assembly because of the impasse between the United States and the Soviet Union over the refusal of the Soviet Union, France and others to pay their peacekeeping levies -what are we heading for? One does not talk seriously about peacekeeping by the United Nations at the present time. What are we heading for? Are we providing a force that has no future for peacekeeping under the United Nations while we inflict our concept of defence upon that organization? Has Canada gone to the extent of making its entire defence force a mobile one whose effective role will be to go from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast or from the forty-ninth parallel up to the Arctic? Is this the purpose of a mobile force? Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
A mobile force means a force that is capable of extra-territorial operation either to assist our allies within NATO or as a peacekeeping force for the United Nations. If, as I have suggested, it should be unfortunately true that we have to rely more and more on the United States to defend us against future attacks, it would mean that we would have to look to the presence of United States troops and United States installations on Canadian soil. That sort of thing of course reduces our effectiveness at the United Nations because we would become a mere military satrap of the United States. How much acceptance would we get from the majority of the members at the United Nations if, as a military dependency or satrap of the United States, wc were to provide peacekeeping forces? I am not making up this view as I go along. Very definitely this is a solid opinion that is held and discussed at the United Nations at the present time.
I would have thought that we could have had a clear statement of defence policy with regard to NATO. The minister has gone to any number of ministerial conferences since 1963. There have been committees of NATO set up to look at the forces' requirements. Parliamentary committees have gone to NATO; one has been there recently. But all that has happened is a great silence with
December 7, 1966	COMMONS
regard to our NATO future. What are Canada's requirements of forces for NATO? We should have a clear statement from the minister or from his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have little faith in getting a straight statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not think it is possible.
Within NATO now, I suggest, there is a role for the navy that is distinct and separate from that of a mobile force. In my concept of a mobile force there is a great inter-relationship between the air component and the land force, but the role of the navy is highly distinctive. In moulding all our armed forces to the concept of a mobile force the navy has been subjugated and subordinated to a very minor role.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You did not listen to my speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have read and reread the speech. I have read the minister's statement. The minister's high-flown Rand Corporation language does not fool anyone. The navy does not fit into the minister's concept of unification or a single service and frankly that is why, in more ways than one, it is being scuttled.
I would have thought, and I am not the originator of this idea, that the degree to which unification is feasible is measured in terms of the interchangeability of officers and men between their functional commands. This, I suggest, is not possible across the whole spectrum. Certainly this house has discussed integration; that was the word in 1964. It was integration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Use it, if you prefer, instead of a single integrated force.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A single unified force; that is what the minister said in his white paper. Now he calls it a single service. That is entirely different. When he speaks of unification of command, yes, that has a lot to be said for it, and that process has been going on for some time. Let us consider that the chief of defence forces retired on time but, as rumour hath it, somewhat disillusioned, that the former vicechief retired prematurely, highly disillusioned, that last June the minister fired the vice-chief of staff, the chief of personnel and the comptroller general. All these men the minister had appointed to these positions. There were more-
National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why don't you talk about the bill so that we will know what your views are?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister asks for my views on the bill. Well, we have heard the minister ad nauseam-65 blessed pages of it. I want to talk now about the views of those professional men who advise the minister, the men whose advice he rejected and requested their resignations. I know that in 1964 the minister challenged the senior officers and told them that if they did not agree with his views they could put their letters of resignation on his desk. We shall see who is telling the truth in this regard. We shall also find out why officers had to retire or be fired. They would not resign because that would have affected their pensions. But the minister certainly worked hard to force them to resign. This has to come out because it is the background of all the advice given with regard to integration and this fetish of the minister for a single uniform and a single rank structure, this, shall we say, common denominator.
I must confess that along with many members of this house I was not impressed by the minister's high-flying language about loyalty to units. Does he for one moment believe there will be greater loyalty attached to being a member of Canada's armed forces in some single force than was felt by hundreds of thousands of men and women in the last war who gave their loyalty first to Canada, as members of the armed services, and then to their individual services and to their units? Does the minister think he can improve upon that? Does he believe that those who fought for this country and served it in the past felt less loyalty to this country or to the armed services because they were not members of a single force? The premises of the minister's argument completely escape us. They do not make sense.
Let us talk about the steps he has taken to date. The minister has taken us through all the steps, so I will comment on what he has told us. Integration started in 1964. One of its greatest defects was that there was no plan. It was "integrate and disintegrate". One has simply to get in touch with acquaintances in the service to find out that nothing was planned, just as these more recent moves were not planned when they were announced. This is one of the defects which have caused the present difficulty in the services.
I am even sorrier than is the minister about the decline of morale in our armed forces. I
December 7, 1966

National Defence Act Amendment am sorrier than is the minister about the decline in the numbers of those serving in the armed forces. Regardless of what the minister may say in the hocus-pocus of his mathematics, the only way by which he has been able to purchase additional equipment-so he says-is because there has been such a great reduction in the numbers of highly trained personnel serving with the forces. I am not speaking about recruits. The hon. gentleman can say there are 104,000 serving in the forces today but there may be fewer than 100,000 in the spring. But with every man of ten or 12 years' service who goes out to be a replaced by a recruit, the armed forces are less strong than they were. That is the only possible conclusion every time the forces lose a naval technician or an air force technician or an army N.C.O. The same is true if we go higher in the command ranks. Does the minister pretend he can balance off such considerations by talking about numbers alone as he tried to do in the house today by speaking about recruitment rates? An 18 year old or 19 year old young man may have as much potential as the man he is replacing, but as far as ineffectiveness today or tomorrow is concerned there is a great deal of difference.
This is how the minister is finding his money. When he has no need to pay 15,000 or
20,000	trained men, of course he can find the money. Incidentally, we have not seen the supplementary estimates covering the last pay increase. We shall see them some time next March but at the present time they are a convenient secret.
Among those things which caused the greatest difficulty were the rumours of unification, those inspired magazine articles and some of the things the minister himself wrote and sent off to magazines for complimentary publication. There was a denial by the Minister of National Defence. This program was not supposed to be rammed down anybody's throat. Everybody, it was said, would have the right to express himself. Let us look at the testimony of the senior officers. Why rush now into unification?
I intend for the benefit of the minister and this house to read somewhat extensively from a paper prepared by two eminently qualified former officers, men whose knowledge of matters military far transcends that of the minister. I think it will indicate the nature of the advice given to the minister by many of the senior officers he dismissed or forced to retire.
I am referring to a paper prepared by


Generals Simonds and Vokes, who have nothing to be ashamed of so far as their military knowledge and record of performance are concerned. The fact that they have reached the rank of general does not suddenly make them senile, as some people seem to consider it does. They say:
The aim of governmental military policy in peacetime must be to prepare for the worst eventuality-the outbreak of a major war in which Canada may become physically involved-no matter how remote this eventuality may seem. The employment of our standing military forces on peace enforcement tasks is a contingency which is secondary to the above aim. To prepare for war is not militarism.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the hon. member agree with that statement?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I certainly do, in so far as the peace enforcement task also means taking a strong defensive position. I must say that as the situation stands today the peacekeeping role is a very tenuous one. Whether the United Nations will be able to work out the problem unfortunately is beyond Canada's capability. She is not the only one who has to decide. I will agree with a certain aim, but let us be practical about it. Can the minister guarantee that there will be anything meaningful in peacekeeping forces within the next ten years, in view of the attitude of the leading powers in the world? Unfortunately the minister does not control the leaders of those nations.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I continue with the quotation:
It merely faces up to the cold hard facts which will govern our future existence as a sovereign power.
Consequently, our military structure In peacetime must be so organized that it can pass rapidly and efficiently to a war footing. Therefore, it must be measured by this: Is it capable of assuming the burden which will be placed on it in the event of the requirement to mobilize our military force to maximum national capacity? If it does not measure up to this gauge, it is of doubtful value.
I must apologize to the house for this rather lengthy quotation but I think it is essential to put it on the record in its entirety.
This preparation for war does not demand the maintenance of a large standing military force in peacetime. It does, however, require the maintenance of professional military "no-how" by maintaining the trained nucleus to provide the framework for a planned and tidy mobilization. Fortunately since world war II because of our military commitments through membership in N.A.T.O. and the U.N., Canada maintains standing military forces today, many times greater than in
December 7, 1966

any other peacetime period in our history. Because of this, the military expertise which began to flower in the Canadian armed forces in world war II, has remained in bloom. Thus the regular Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen are professional military men.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I continue quoting:
Those who have risen to senior rank, by education and experience, are military experts of a high order, and their advice on matters pertaining to the military service should never be disregarded.
If senior Canadian professional sailors, soldiers and airmen have grave misgivings about accomplished or proposed changes in the structure of the Canadian armed forces, the government and the people of Canada should think very long and carefully before overriding their misgivings. It is very easy for a government to impose its will on its senior serving officers by retiring them out of hand if they disagree with a policy which, because of their training and experience, they know to be dangerous to the future military welfare of their country.
I am sure that General Simonds is speaking here about the examples we have had in that connection this year.
By and large, in the military sphere there is a vast difference between the theoretical and the practical. What a military man learns by experience is what really counts. The U.S. Admiral Simms once remarked, "You cannot learn to play golf by reading a book on golf."
We have heard of integration. We know what went on. The second step was to produce six integrated functional commands. The minister has described them. General Simonds says:
It is claimed that this system will prove a more economic and efficient method for the command and administration of the Canadian armed forces.
I agree with General Simonds when he says:
This organization has been in existence an insufficient time for any person to say whether it is good or bad.
This is precisely the point upon which generals and admirals were fired, because they said to the minister, "Let us go slowly. Let us test before we go to the next major step." But somehow or other, to use a rather modern term, the spirit of go-go has gotten into the minister and he has disregarded this advice.
General Simonds continues:
The main causes of misgiving are:
(a)	There is no titular head for each of the three armed services.
(b)	There is no assurance that it will measure up to the strain of a general mobilization.
There will always be a need for Canadian naval, land and air forces.
Business of the House
The minister himself admits that.
From the standpoint of the morale of the persons composing these three divisions of our military forces, long experience has shown there should be a senior officer of each of these forces as their titular head, whose whole interest lies in the well-being and efficiency of the force which he commands.
That the system of integrated functional commands is suitable for a general mobilization, can only be proved if it is exposed to a series of comprehensive exercises dealing with full scale mobilization.
It is that point which I want to emphasize, that this is where the minister should have stopped and really tested out the organization that exists today. We know that several of the commanders have said they are afraid that in certain sectors the machinery that has been set up and the way the personnel have been working together could break down under strain. But the minister, merely to seek change for the sake of change, is going ahead pell-mell with unification.
The minister spent a good deal of time talking about the necessity of having people who are trained in the three services at the command level and he said there had to be this general experience. But surely the minister will agree that at the command level there must be experts in sea warfare, in land warfare and air warfare. He cannot have one man who is completely and utterly expert in all three fields. How on earth does he think that this requirement for expertise can be hidden under a single uniform? How is this requirement going to be done away with? By putting it in a single uniform? No. Therefore, what detraction is there from the expertise in land, air and sea warfare and, in the ultimate, space warfare, if they are wearing different uniforms?
How would this degree of expertise be increased by reason of the fact that these people were wearing the same uniform? That question has not been satisfactorily answered by the minister. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in accordance
with the indication given earlier today as to the possibility and necessity for considering

December 7, 1966
Business of the House
emergency legislation arising out of the situation on the west coast I would like to propose to the house:
That, notwithstanding any standing order to the contrary, on Thursday next, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m. for the purpose of considering legislation providing for the appointment of an administrator of companies engaged in longshor-ing activities on the west coast of Canada and the sitting shall not be adjourned before the said legislation has been disposed of;
The said proposed legislation shall be the first item of government business on that day and any or all stages thereof may be proceeded with; and
The said proposed legislation shall take precedence over private members business and the proceedings on the adjournment motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered by the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on that subject, because the government may move that we sit tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, which may be in order. But, on the other hand, a 48-hour notice must be given prior to introducing a bill, unless the house gives unanimous consent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the motion of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) implies unanimous approval of the house to forgo the 48-hour notice, I do not agree. I am not prepared to grant unanimous consent to forgoing the 48-hour notice required by standing orders before introducing that bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I explain my attitude: the house is willing to proceed rapidly to open up the western harbours; we request similar action for those of Quebec, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres. If the government is willing to include in the same bill some process to arrive at a decision enabling winter navigation on the St. Lawrence up to Montreal, then we will agree to the request made by the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) with regard to the strike in the western harbours. If the matter is urgent for the west, so is it for the province of Quebec.
For dozens of years now, the use of icebreakers has been denied the St. Lawrence to facilitate winter navigation. I admit shipping has increased, but I was reading an article by Denis Masse in La Presse yesterday according to which shipping companies would greatly

increase river transportation, if the government could guarantee that their ships would be helped out in the event of storms or severe cold on the St. Lawrence. But the government has never agreed to do so, in order to satisfy the requirements of Halifax and other harbours of the maritimes. That is discrimination against the Quebec harbours, and that is what I am protesting against.
If you want to open up western harbours, then protect all harbours, both against strikes and against ice. But let the government make a decision once and for all, for we have been asking this for years and it was never granted. The time has come to act. Let us have some action. That is why I object. The unanimous consent of members is necessary to consider the legislation dealing with British Columbia harbours and, as long as the government does not at the same time bring in some piece of legislation to open up Quebec harbours, I shall not give my consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me the hon. member is now making a speech, and I suggest be cannot do so; he may only give his consent or refuse it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have said what I had to say. I am ready to give my consent if all harbours are opened up and if the bill covers all that. Otherwise, no unanimous consent.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion about what is being sought. On Friday last this house adjourned under the provisions of standing order 26 to consider a matter of urgent national importance, namely, this problem on the west coast. There was a debate on the subject and then the Minister of Labour, I think with the approval of the house, immediately left on that day for the west coast to try to resolve this matter. Not having resolved the matter he has returned and has recommended a certain course of action. At the opening of today's sittings he made a report to the house. Yesterday in his absence questions were asked in the first part of the question period concerning the situation and the reports which had been received in respect of the emergency. The initimation earlier today was that we would be asking the house later in the day to provide some means to deal with the emergency legislation.
December 7, 196S

The situation in the St. Lawrence river is a little different. Those ports are open. In the normal course of events, assuming the weather is similar to what it has been over the years, these ports will be open for some considerable time. Some of the ports may be closed because of weather conditions later on, although I believe last year shipping came into the harbours of that river in each month of the year. I could not agree that the situation in the St. Lawrence is one which requires emergency legislation. I could not ask the house to take that position. I would be less than truthful if I said there was legislation in respect of that subject available for consideration at this time by the house because there is not.
However, the implications of the tie-up of shipping on the west coast, having in mind the exports and imports involved and the tie-up in the four western provinces, are very great indeed. I do not propose to indicate the significance of this situation because I presume all hon. members appreciate its significance in relation to our export of food and other material, but I ask the hon. member for Lapointe, in light of the situation, to reconsider his position and acquiesce to the request that the house deal with this matter which is regarded by all Canadians as an emergency.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in respect of the refusal by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to consent to the suggestion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). Let me acknowledge that he is quite right in his suggestion that 48 hours notice should have been given. He has been here for a number of years and has observed the fumbling and bumbling of this government. The situation which now exists on the west coast has lasted long enough and, in spite of the attitude of the government in respect of similar situations in the past, I appeal to the hon. member to grant this concession so that we can deal with this problem as soon as possible. I am sure that other very serious situations will develop as a result of this government's fumbling and bumbling and that in like circumstances they will be brought to the attention of the house.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to appeal to the hon. member for Lapointe to reconsider his position on the basis of reason and patriotism. There are facts which are probably not familiar to the hon. member. Over 2,000 individuals have been put out of 23033-6862
Business of the House
work because plywood and other products cannot be stored except under special circumstances. Further lay-offs will result unless immediate action is taken, and a tremendous amount of damage will occur to wheat and other cargoes now in ships in the harbour. One importer has $2 million worth of perishable fruit that must be unloaded within the next 32 hours. 1 appeal again to the hon. member to reconsider his position.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a special appeal to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). The circumstances on the Pacific coast are extremely critical and, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) has pointed out, several thousand men have been thrown out of work. Perishable commodities should be loaded and unloaded and export contracts for the sale of wheat are being held up. Grain cars are backing up into the prairies. As a result of this situation millions of dollars are being lost each day this dispute and tie-up continue.
It is not my wish to detract at all from the case the hon. member has presented in respect of problems confronting St. Lawrence river ports, and I for one am prepared to support him in any effort to discuss and debate that situation. The government, I suggest, would be wise to agree to the suggestion that at some time early next week this whole question should be discussed. Nothing will be added so far as a solution to the problems facing Montreal, Quebec, and Trois-Rivieres are concerned by tying up ports in British Columbia. All that will result is an increase in human suffering and a tremendously enlarged economic loss to that part of Canada.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Surely, if we are to have any type of national unity and national identity it will have to come from recognizing not only the problems in our own provinces and regions but understanding and appreciating the problems of people in other parts of Canada. I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe would feel very strongly if a strike, which was tying up the St. Lawrence ports and could be resolved by government action, was allowed to continue by reason of the lack of co-operation of some of us who come from the Pacific coast. I think he would resent that; I think his people would resent it. The hon. member must understand, equally that people in other parts of Canada will not feel kindly disposed to any hon. member preventing the government bringing in

December 7, 1966
Business of the House
legislation to solve this serious problem. I have not seen the legislation, but if it offers any hope at all that we can get the ports operating again I think the hon. member ought to give the government the opportunity to present the legislation and let the house discuss it and dispose of it one way or the other.
I do appeal to the hon. member, because I know he has a generous disposition, in the name of humanity and the welfare of the people on the Pacific coast not to take a step which can only increase bitterness and cause unnecessary hardship.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, numerous appeals have been made to my understanding, to my feelings of patriotism, to national unity, but no one among all those who made those appeals has suggested any action to solve other problems.
It has been pointed out that millions of dollars are lost, but nobody thinks of the millions of dollars being lost in the port of Montreal because of the tie-up of shipping.
Mention is made of British Columbia workers who experience hardships on account of that strike, but nothing is said about Montreal dockers who are out of work during the winter because that port is closed, as well as those in Trois-Rivieres and Quebec city.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to hear appeals, as long as mine are also heard. I do not turn them down, I am ready to accept them; but a deaf ear has been turned to my appeal. Nobody has agreed to discuss and solve the problem. This does not even require any legislation, only a decision by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
Not later than yesterday morning, the Minister of Transport warned that ships on the St. Lawrence could no longer rely on ice-breakers in winter-time.
Mr. Speaker, if you want me to hear the appeal, I am ready, but the others should also hear mine. I guess the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) is right; the wait and see policy of the government is probably responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. I think he may be right about that. It is precisely because the government has stood still for many years with regard to winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, thus depriving-and I want to

make to everyone the same sentimental appeal which was made to me-the poor workers of Quebec city, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal of their means of livelihood in the dead of winter. But who is listening; what I am saying goes in one ear and out the other.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say it and I repeat it: the appeal which was made to me, I am ready to listen to it, but on one condition, and I am laying down that condition, because I know that otherwise our appeals will never be heeded. We have been making that same appeal in Quebec for 20 years. But it has never been heard. If you want yours to be heard, you will also listen to our calls to reason.
Today, I am calling upon your good sense. And I say: I am ready to agree to that matter being discussed tomorrow morning, but I ask-and that is the condition-that we discuss also winter navigation on the St. Lawrence for the coming years, otherwise the harbours will stay closed. You want to open them? Well, open them all.
I am better than you are: you are appealing to me, to my sympathy to open the harbours in British Columbia. Very well. But open also the harbours in Montreal, Quebec city and Trois-Rivieres. Thus, they will all be open and everyone will be happy.
That is the national unity you should be talking about, not only in one place, but throughout the country. National unity is not a one-way street; it is not for a region only, but for all of them. If you want to open the harbours, open them up throughout Canada. That is what I want. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I will not agree.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I find the problem raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) a very serious one. But, I feel that one cannot heal one wound by opening another, that a deficiency is not corrected by extending a disaster.
This is why, a while ago, an appeal was made to the generosity and understanding of the hon. member for Lapointe. He surely possesses both these qualities to a great degree, and not only him, but all Quebeckers and many Canadians also.
I wonder-since this formula is so popular in Ottawa-why the government leader does not put this compromise formula into practice, so that many millions of saving may be made and the problem solved as soon as possible, with respect to Vancouver harbour? Why
December 7, 1966

would not the hon. leader agree right now to give the hon. member for Lapointe the assurance that this very important and cardinal question of winter navigation on the seaway, for the harbours of Montreal, Quebec, and Trois-Rivieres, will be discussed next week? Let the government leader give the hon. member for Lapointe this assurance and I am sure he will react in a kindly and affable manner. But if the government leader remains indifferent, refuses to budge, and puts the problem off once again, then I fear very much that he also will have to face the consequences, along with other members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a special influence with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) because we are such good friends, and I appeal to him to give his consent on this occasion. I also approve of his suggestion that an opportunity should be given very soon for a debate on the very important matter which he has brought to the attention of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that we have heard the comments of hon. members, and particularly those of the hon. member for Lapointe, should the Chair conclude that the house can proceed with the motion or the suggestion made by the Minister of Public Works?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, no guarantee has been given that the ports of Quebec will be opened at the same time as those of British Columbia. The matter does not come under any legislation and should not be discussed here. All that is required is a decision by the Minister of Transport commissioning icebreakers working on the St. Lawrence to keep the channel open the year round. That is all there is to it.
And if the only promise I get is that the matter will be discussed further, well I do not go for that because we have had such promises for years with nothing ever materializing. I want to see action for once. Let us open those ports. Note that of all the suggestions made by hon. members to settle the whole matter, mine is the most logical because I go further in that I want to see as many ports as possible open to shipping and thus save as many million dollars as possible and provide jobs for as many people as possible. Ports must be kept open, otherwise no consent.


Mr. Goyer:: Blackmail.
Business of the House


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this time the hon. member has correctly put his finger on the point. The action which he requests with regard to the St. Lawrence river is an administrative action which comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. Regrettably the Minister of Transport is not in the chamber at the moment. I do know that he has been dealing with this subject, in which, I might add, many members of the house have a great deal of interest because there is a significance and a relationship between some other eastern Canadian ports and those of the St. Lawrence river. Some of the St. Lawrence river ports are open all winter long. Indeed, last winter I believe every one of them received shipping in each month of the year, and I do not feel it would be responsible on my part to set aside urgent legislation which is on the order paper for a designated date to discuss this matter in the House of Commons.


Michael Starr: May I ask the house leader a question at this point?


George James McIlraith: I will be glad to give the hon. member that opportunity when I complete my remarks. The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) has just come over to remind me that some of my colleagues, including the Minister of Transport, have been discussing this very problem about the St. Lawrence river shipping. I should also remind the house that only last Saturday there was a launching ceremony at Montreal of the largest icebreaker with conventional power. It will not be available for a year and a half, I think, or for some long period in any event.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
What the hon. member for Lapointe has brought up involves administrative action. I can tell the hon. member that his remarks tonight will be brought to the attention of my colleague immediately for consideration and I can undertake to him that they will receive consideration. The whole problem will receive consideration, but there are many aspects to it. I want to say to the house that the matter is not as simple as the hon. member has suggested. There are other facets to the problem relating to other ports and provinces on the east coast of Canada.
I hope with that assurance that we can now proceed and have an order of the house.

December 7, 1966
Business of the House


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I was looking toward the hon. member for Lapointe to see his reaction to the words and travelogue that the government house leader gave us. Personally I think the hon. member is not satisfied. He knows that he has the government in the palm of his hand at this moment because he is withholding his agreement.


An hon. Member:: The House of Commons.


Michael Starr: The Minister of Transport is only a couple of floors away. I suggest that the only way to satisfy the hon. member is to bring the Minister of Transport down here. It is no good for the house leader to say that he will discuss the matter with his colleague. The hon. member wants the assurance of the Minister of Transport that these ports will be kept open. In order that we may settle this matter and then adjourn, I suggest that calling the minister down is the only solution at the moment. There is no sense in rehashing a great many words.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, some years ago I had the responsibility for the operation being dealt with here. I feel confident that with the additions recently made to the government icebreaker force the extra icebreaking service requested by the hon. member for the ports concerned can be accomplished. I suggest that the Minister of Transport be communicated with immediately and that he be asked if this is not so. I am confident that I am correct. If that could be done, perhaps at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning we could carry on with this other important piece of business.


George James McIlraith: I do not think it would be agreeable to preclude members from two other eastern provinces in this way from a general consideration of this important problem. This matter requires proper and detailed study. It is a matter of administrative action. I have given my undertaking that the minister will deal with it immediately and I would not want-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us debate it on Friday.


George James McIlraith: This is not a matter for debate by parliament or for legislative action. I do think that it affects pretty deeply the employment of a great many longshoremen in two other eastern ports. I hope, with the explanation and commitment I have given, that the hon. member will agree to having the order of the house made.
[Mr. Mcllraith.l


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this suggestion will appeal to the government but I hope the hon. member for Lapointe will give his consent. While there is no doubt that the urgent business which must be discussed is the subject matter of what the Minister of Labour has presented to us, it might be that with some latitude on the part of the government during the discussion of this bill tomorrow the hon. member for Lapointe might be able to make a case if he saw fit. That might mean that we would not be able to place too strict an interpretation on the rules of debate, but the hon. member for Lapointe might be able to make his case tomorrow during the course of the debate and possibly the Minister of Transport might see fit to intervene and give his views. Quite obviously under such an arrangement nothing legislative could be done, but it would permit a flow of debate, the presentation of the view of the hon. member for Lapointe and the government's reply.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I should give an opinion on the rules but it seems to me no latitude is required in the rules. If the hon. member exercises cleverness in the debate it will be possible for him to make the point he wishes to make.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the further comments by hon. members and in the light of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River, with which the Chair has some sympathy-it will be kept in mind in the course of the debate tomorrow-

I venture to suggest that it is time for the hon. members to agree to the motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for discussion. This matter has been discussed for the last 25 years. If they want to open ports, let them open all of them. I do not ask that we be allowed to discuss the matter in the house, for that does not count; the minister is the one who will decide.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is obvious that the hon. member for Lapointe does not intend to agree-

I believe that in the circumstances there is nothing the Chair can do. There is no way in which the motion could be put and we can do nothing more than adjourn until tomorrow afternoon.
December 7, 1966	COMMONS


George James McIlraith: I tremendously regret what has happened here this afternoon. I do not believe any Canadian parliamentarian can afford to have parliament as a whole blackmailed by any one hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we shall make another attempt to have the right to proceed to lay before parliament legislation dealing with what we believe to be the most important emergency situation facing us at the moment. We shall make that attempt at the opening of the sitting and I hope we shall succeed. After that, we propose calling for the consideration of the house-and this applies to Thursday and Friday-third reading of the medicare bill followed by second reading and committee stage of the bill on old age security.
I hope to continue with this Thursday and Friday. There is the possibility that on Monday we may be required to call the transport bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It is now after six o'clock and unless hon. members feel-


Gilles Grégoire: A question of privilege-
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: There is no authority for an hon. member to take up a question of privilege after the adjournment. He may try to do so tomorrow. However, he certainly cannot do it now.


George James McIlraith: He may be wishing to consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a suggestion by the leader of the house that the house may, by consent, allow the hon. member to raise his question of privilege now. I am, of course, in the hands of the house if that is the wish of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no consent.


[Stage Direction]
It being 29 minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, December 8, 1966