1967-04-06

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean (Mr. La-montagne) written declaration of his intention to resign his seat in the House of Commons.
Pursuant to section 6 of the House of Commons Act, chapter 143 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, I have directed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for an issue of a writ for election of a new member for the said electoral district.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of press reports to the effect that the Republic of France has refused to participate in the guard of honour and other observances at the fiftieth anniversary service at Vimy Ridge on April 9. Will the Prime Minister indicate what explanation there may be for this incomprehensible act on the part of France in view of Canada's tremendous sacrifice, and whether any representations were made to France? It seems impossible to understand why that country would not be represented on an occasion commemorating a battle that helped mark Canada's emergence as a nation and in which Canada poured out its blood and treasure.
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, preparations for this special Canadian ceremony to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, which is a landmark not only of the war, but, as the right hon. gentleman has said, in our history, are primarily the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I can say that the preparations have been carried out with the full co-operation of
the French authorities. The French government has appointed official representatives both for the ceremony and for the reception of His Royal Highness Prince Philip on his arrival. I believe there are no grounds for suggesting that the French government has not given adequate recognition to this observance.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the Prime Minister say why the usual French guard of honour for such events is being denied by that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Some of the details in some of the reports about this matter are not quite accurate. I hope shortly to be able to give the house a detailed account of the exact ceremonies that will take place at that time, and the extent of French participation in them.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Last November the minister indicated that he had received a report from the Department of Justice in connection with the importation of some 10,000 Volkswagen cars by the Studebaker company. Has his department now decided whether these cars properly came within the Canada-United States auto agreement, or whether they are subject to taxation under the general tariff provisions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult question to answer. We have received advice from the Department of Justice and are acting on that advice. I can assure my hon. friend that we will act within the law as it exists, but I may not indicate to him what we are doing with respect to a particular taxpayer's affairs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking the minister to indicate what he is doing with respect to a particular taxpayer, but in view of the fact

April 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry that other auto companies must know what they are entitled to do under the Canada-United States auto agreement, have the minister and the Department of Justice decided whether it is proper for an auto company under the provisions of that agreement to bring into Canada cars manufactured by another company?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have made our decision in this matter, and I am sure all the auto companies know what our thinking in this type of matter is and how we will treat them as individual companies. But as my hon. friend knows I may not discuss the affairs of an individual company in the House of Commons.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the extensive lay-offs that have taken place in the automobile industry, the fact that the auto manufacturers have approached the government asking that they be relieved of their full responsibility under this trade pact, and that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has asked for a complete study and review of this agreement, would the Prime Minister now think it wise to refer this auto agreement to a standing committee of the House of Commons so all the facts may be brought out and an accurate assessment made of this agreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think it wise to look carefully into my hon. friend's question, and I shall do that.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Revenue has said he must not give details of individual cases. I presume he has read the report of the Auditor General, who says that under this scheme Studebaker owes Canada $2 million in income tax. Is the government in agreement with the Auditor General?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact the situation with regard to a particular corporation, which the Auditor General did not indicate in his report as the Studebaker corporation, has been examined carefully by my department. We will deal with the particular people involved, as we must deal with them, according to the law as approved by the parliament of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister suggest that there is any other automobile company which owes $2 million for the importation of these automobiles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the further supplementary question is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have to get the information. The minister has stated that he cannot give us the information because of some income tax rule, but the Auditor General referred to this fact. Surely parliament is entitled to know whether this government will do what the Auditor General says it should.


Michael Starr: This is another reason for having a committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CONSUMERS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether it is the government's intention to set up a department of corporate and consumer affairs, and if so just when we can expect an announcement regarding the implementation of that decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, certain functions which concern corporate and consumer affairs have already been transferred to the department of the Registrar General from other departments. We are now giving consideration to the possibility of recognizing that fact by recommending to parliament that the name of the department be changed, but this is a matter for parliament to decide.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the many lay-offs resulting from a gradual decrease in the output of textile factories, as well as the closing down of some textile factories, does the government intend to take action in order to find jobs for the workers affected?
April 6, 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the plans and policies of the government in respect of aid to areas where there is unusual unemployment have been made known in this house more than once. However, I will be glad to look into this situation so far as the textile workers are concerned.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In his absence may I direct it to the acting minister and ask him whether he is in a position today to reply to the question I posed on Monday with regard to charges that hospital beds were not available for pensionable overseas veterans while at the same time beds were being occupied by merchant seamen from Canada and other countries.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I am afraid this question will have to be taken as notice once again. I am sorry for this.



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government of Ontario announced that as an anti-pollution measure it will order the installation of clean air packages in all cars to be sold in Ontario. In view of this I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he would not seriously consider reversing his present position and ordering the clean air package as a national standard.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some misunderstanding as to what the minister said. I understood Dr. Dymond to have stated that the clean air package would be put in use once its effectiveness had been demonstrated.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announcement made in Toronto yesterday, and in view of
Inquiries of the Ministry the indivisibility of our atmosphere, may I ask whether the federal government is taking any steps to make sure that the various governments of this country will act in concert on this important issue of controlling air pollution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at present the Department of National Health and Welfare is giving consideration to the most effective role which can be undertaken by the federal government with respect to air pollution in Canada, and there is undoubtedly some necessity for co-ordination in this particular field.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. In view of the fact that the United States government has already ordered this package in cars to be sold in the United States, I should like to ask the minister whether there is any serious doubt about the effectiveness of this particular feature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is certainly not in order.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare will include cigars and cigarettes in this prospective anti-pollution measure.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the serious reduction in housing starts in Saskatchewan, reported to be 45 per cent for the months of January and February as compared with a year ago, will the Prime Minister ask his ministry to expedite new housing plans?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to take it up with the minister.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: May I ask a
supplementary question. In view of the steady worsening of the housing crisis in Canada, and in view of the need this creates for a full time minister, has the Prime Minister given any further thought to the establishment of a separate ministry for housing and urban affairs? If so, what decision has he made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think this matter is worthy of consideration, and that consideration is being given.

April 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: It was my intention to ask my question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but it will fit in very nicely with the preceding question so in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Will the government consider amending the Veterans' Land Act to reduce the amount of land required for building under that scheme, in order that at least in this category housing may be provided on a city or town lot?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to take that question as notice and discuss it with the minister concerned.
to the hon. member for Vancouver East. With respect I would draw his attention to the proceedings before the joint committee on penitentiaries dated January 24, 1967. In his evidence the superintendent of penitentiaries stated:
The St, Anne des Plaines tender was accepted at $7,100,000 in round figures. There will be at St. Anne des Plaines an additional sum of $2J million in development of the site, but that development will provide services which will also be available for other institutions to be built there in due course. The basic cost is $7,100,000.
I hope that is a satisfactory answer to the hon. member's question.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works or perhaps the Solicitor General in order to clear the air-I think it is most important-as to whether there has been a deliberate or unintentional insult to the joint committee on penitentiary matters.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. For what reason was a contract recently awarded to the Secant Construction Company of Montreal in the amount of $2,823,000 for site engineering at the maximum security prison 20 miles north of Montreal when the entire question of prisons and prison design has been referred to a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate, which committee is meeting again this afternoon? I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are the grounds upon which contracts are let for maximum security prisons while the matter is receiving consideration by a joint committee appointed by this government.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that more and more is being heard about the establishment of a federal district for the national capital area, that is Hull and Ottawa, is the Prime Minister in a position to advise whether talks have taken place between the government or between himself and the provincial authorities concerned? If not, is it the Prime Minister's intention shortly to have talks with the Quebec or Ontario authorities.


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, but I should like to check it, there have been no such talks. In so far as the plans of the government in this regard are concerned, I have nothing to add to what has been said already in the house.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I am not aware personally of a contract being let but I will look into the matter and reply at the earliest opportunity.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question, and Your Honour will tell me if it is in order. Is it not rather unusual for a minister not to know that such a contract has been awarded, according to the press?


Mr. Speaker:: I can tell the hon. member that it is not in order.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Perhaps I might be allowed to expand on an answer I gave earlier in reply



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he is in a position to give the house any indication when the Supreme Court of Canada may be expected to hand down its judgment or recommendations in the Truscott case. I ask this because for some reason in the last few days inquiries have come from all parts of the country.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the law officers of the crown have
April 6, 1967

no advance information as to when the judgment will be rendered in this case.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the clerk of the Supreme Court of Canada been communicated with, and if not will the minister communicate with him to ascertain whether the court has any particular date in mind?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, with great respect I hesitate to suggest that the law officers of the crown should approach the court. I hope of course that judgment will be rendered in the near future.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canfelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's announcement that Welland canal fees should meet the cost of the canal, and his statement of recent date to the effect that the new transport bill was based on the principle that all phases of transportation should pay their way, I should like to ask the minister whether it is now his intention, in accordance with ihis principle, to raise the ferry rates in Newfoundland sufficiently to recover the $13 million subsidy which is required to operate that ferry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be put on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister provide any information about the purpose of the negotiations presently under way in London to consider the possibility of extending the 1962 international wheat agreement for one more year on the basis of the existing price structure? Will the signing of such an agreement await the outcome of the Geneva talks, or would the GATT agreement supersede any existing agreement?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we are pinning our hopes on a successful conclusion to the talks in Geneva which are presently under way. The [DOT]discussions now going on in connection with
Inquiries of the Ministry the international wheat agreement in London are purely pro forma and not a matter of substantive negotiation.



OATS AND BARLEY-REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SHIP INTO MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to answer a question asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the feed grain situation in Manitoba. The situation is that currently in elevators in Manitoba there are 8 million bushels of oats and 4.3 million bushels of barley available for sale. There are, therefore, ample stocks of oats and barley available in elevators in Manitoba.
With regard to the transport of grains from one province to another to which my right hon. friend alluded, it is the policy of the wheat board to move board stocks freely to any areas in Canada where they are required. The right hon. gentleman obviously had reference to non-board stocks which would be sold in competition with board stocks, and the wheat board is not prepared to authorize the interprovincial movement of such non-board oats, barley or feed wheat.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with oats, barley and feed wheat the minister has said there are sufficient stocks in Manitoba. Has he not had any representations from livestock feeders to the effect that such is not the case? They are the representations I have had.


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir, I have not.



FRASER RIVER-REQUEST FOR PREVENTIVE ACTION BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received an appeal from Hon. H. H. Stevens of Vancouver urging him to take action to avert floods in the lower Fraser river by sending an engineering team to that area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter from Mr. Stevens yesterday afternoon. I immediately got in touch with the departmental officers concerned to see what the nature of the

April 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry problem is likely to be, what could be done about it, and to ascertain whether the situation is likely to be as desperate as Mr. Stevens suggested.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my first question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General whom I should like to congratulate on his recent appointment and from whom I hope to receive a favorable reply.
In view of the fact that his department has been studying the question of lotteries for the last two years and further to the recent statement of Dr. Szabo before the provincial commission on the administration of justice to the effect that a lottery would be a healthy public measure, is the minister considering an early amendment to section 179 of the Criminal Code to enable the provinces who wish to do so to establish provincial lotteries for purposes of education and social welfare?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, basically, the statement made by Dr. Szabo before the provincial commission is of interest to the provincial commission. I would have to see his statement, that is read the recommendations made to the commission. As to what is happening within my department, I must say that I have not yet received any report on the subject and, personally, I do not intend to initiate such legislation.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the Minister of Justice and Attorney General-whom I congratulate on his appointment-whether his department has communicated with the Quebec Justice Department with a view to having that section of the Criminal Code amended so that provinces may introduce lotteries, and whether he intends to follow-up these requests?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member's question is essentially the same as the one put by the hon. member who spoke before him.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When may we expect a decision by the government about establishing a national park in Kings county, Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is a conference in progress in Washington on a ministerial level with regard to an anti-ballistic missile system? If so, who is representing Canada at that conference and what is Canada's policy with regard to the proposal?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is in Washington today, as he indicated the day before yesterday he would be. He has had some discussions with his opposite number, Mr. McNamara. The view of the Canadian government was stated by the Minister of National Defence the other day when he pointed out that Canada hoped the discussions between the Soviet union and the United States with regard to this program would result in an agreement by both sides not to proceed with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of National Defence be there tomorrow as well as today?


Mr. Marfin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence hopes to be back tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At what time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall have to get that information at ten o'clock.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a related question. Could he inform the house whether the question of Canada joining with

April G, 1967

the United States in the development of a common user battlefield communication system involving the use of satellites is also being discussed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1 should like to take notice of that question.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: I want to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the deplorable condition of almost every road and highway leading into Ottawa, and in view of published reports that during centennial year the city will be filled with sewer excavations, road widenings, potholes, etc., could the minister not do anything to consult the local municipal officials and see that during centennial year visitors to Ottawa will not feel they are visiting some sort of devastated country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister concerned has noted the representation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who is certainly one of the most brilliant acquisitions, for the province of Quebec, on the federal scene.


William Heward Grafftey: Let us hear about the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).


Auguste Choquette: I am pleased to salute the future Conservative chief.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice, a little smarter than the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, whether his department intends to send an observer to the inquiry which is going on at the present time concerning the administration of Justice, since that inquiry will certainly end up by recommending amendments to the Criminal Code?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the administration of Justice, according to the constitution, comes under provincial jurisdiction. If we had been invited, I think that we would have considered attending, but as far as I know, we have not received any invitation. Anyway, I shall inquire.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the honourable "most brilliant acquisition" from the province of Quebec.


Auguste Choquette: On the federal scene.


Gilles Grégoire: On the federal scene. Would the hon. minister tell us whether his department also intends to send an observer to the sittings of the States General of French Canada, who intend to put forward amendments to the constitution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe that this question is urgent enough to be acceptable at this time.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the most brilliant separatist acquisition on the federal scene?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



QUEBEC-POSSIBLE SALE OR LEASE OF ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Has he received a telegram from the president of the executive council of the Cooperative Federee de Quebec, Mr. Gingras, advising him of the possible rental or sale of the Quebec grain elevators to an American company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I think the question is urgent-


An hon. Member:: You are not the Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I can assure the hon. gentleman that the government has no intention of approving the sale of the elevator at Quebec, and I underline the word "sale".

April 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that the government could rent those elevators to an American company?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it could happen, but there is nothing sure about it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Selling out to the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I might ask a supplementary question on this. If a lease is granted for ten years may I inquire whether the result will not be that the entire movement of domestic and export grain from the St. Lawrence will be under the control of international companies rather than Canadian companies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, unlike the right hon. gentleman, when I became a politician I did not attempt to become a prophet, and I could not answer that qaestion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope he does not become one, because up to the present time any prophecies he has made have been entirely without basis in truth or fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister whether, under the provisions of the Canada Grain Act, it was not intended that the control of wheat exports should be under Canadian companies and not under United States companies, as might well happen if there were a lease or sale of elevators owned by the National Harbours Board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never been so flattered in my life to think that one of the most eminent counsel in Canada should ask a layman, as I am, for a legal opinion, but I do not think the rules allow me to give it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister had better look into it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the jurisidction involved in this matter with respect to the export of grain and the need to store it in elevators controlled by the National

Harbours Board, would not the Prime Minister consider that a decision to rent or sell the National Harbours Board's elevators should be taken only after consultation with the Department of Agriculture and other departments, including the Department of Trade and Commerce, so such action will not take place haphazardly but will be given consideration and done in an orderly manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suspected from the first question, which I should have liked to rule out of order, that we would be engaging in debate. I think we might go to another question now.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: I have a
question for the Prime Minister arising out of a statement he made recently to the effect that any province had the right to opt out of medicare. Does this represent a change in attitude on the part of the government? If so, what type of financial arrangements would be made by the federal government with provinces which opt out?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I have a question for the leader of the house. In view of the absence today of the Minister of National Defence will the hon. gentleman consider asking the house to proceed with some other legislation so we can make some headway with the items on the order paper before proceeding with the defence amendments when the minister returns?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): No, Mr. Speaker. The very competent Associate Minister of National Defence-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mcllraith:: -will pilot the bill through the committee stage, and we are very hopeful that we can get forward with our consideration of this important measure so it can go to the other place for discussion and receive royal assent, and we can get on to the new session of parliament.
April 6, 1987


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who will be present to pilot the bill tomorrow, when the Associate Minister of National Defence is on his way to Vimy?


George James McIlraith: Though I have tried to keep the house well informed, I find it is best in this responsible position as house leader to go just from day to day.


Michael Starr: Hour to hour.


George James McIlraith: The Minister of National Defence will be here tomorrow to pilot this bill through the house if it is still before us. It might go through tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: If it is not finished tonight I am sure we can arrange to have the minister available whenever the house is ready to proceed with the bill tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In order to expedite the passage of the bill will the house leader speak to his colleagues, such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask them not to make provocative speeches while the matter is being considered?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will be very glad to deal with that.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are about to make one yourself now.


George James McIlraith: The speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday was a very fine one, and I would hope hon. members opposite would raise the level of their discussion to the same high calibre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. gentleman spoke of operating on a day to day basis. Would he consider the day and night operation of the house and tell us who will be piloting this bill tonight in view of the fact that the associate minister is required to be at Uplands airport by 8.30 this evening?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with reference to the recently announced policy of
Inquiries of the Ministry transporting Indian families from isolated communities to locations of greater opportunity. Can the minister inform the house whether the people affected have been consulted and, if so, what has been the nature of the consultation?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In all
instances where plans have been approved consultation has taken place and agreement has been forthcoming.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Minister of
Industry): Yesterday the hon. member for Oxford asked to what extent the Canada-United States automotive agreement might be responsible for an 11.4 per cent decrease in the Canadian automotive output during the first quarter of 1967.
The automotive program is not responsible for the reduction in Canadian production of motor vehicles. On the contrary, it may be that because of the safeguards contained in the program for Canadian producers their output has been maintained to a greater extent than has been possible in the United States. In the United States output has declined by 24 per cent during the first quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. The figure mentioned by the hon. member respecting the decline in Canada is less than half this amount and if anything indicates the success of the program in the face of a world-wide decline in demand.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the hon. lady received complaints about the removal of the baseball game of the week from the C.B.C.'s plans for the coming baseball season. If so, would the minister ask that this decision be considered?


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

April 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: The Prime Minister and I, at least, are interested in this matter, so I think I will bring it up at ten o'clock.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Why was the support price of manufacturing milk shipped by whole milk shippers removed, thus reducing their price to a level below that of last year, at a time when we are importing butter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


Lee Elgy Grills: If you heard the voices of the farmers as I do, Mr. Speaker, you would realize that this is an important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not suggesting it is not important. What I am suggesting to the hon. member is that the question cannot be asked at this time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: My question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I have sent him notice of it. Has the minister considered making a review of the allowances paid to those veterans who find themselves poorer than they were before the guaranteed annual income plan was put into effect?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I cannot, of course, accept the hon. member's premise that they are poorer. The reason some of these allowances will not be available to them is that their income is considerably above the permitted level. I think I have stated earlier that the level of income permitted to recipients of war veterans allowances is $145 a month, which is considerably more than the $105 contemplated under the guaranteed income plan. Therefore it is not the case that they are poorer.
They have all been advised to consult with their regional officers in deciding where their advantage lies, and the department will counsel them in order to make sure that the greatest advantage under either scheme is available to them.

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hel-lyer-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was being considered.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the associate minister a brief question. In view of the reference made by the house leader to the associate minister's capabilities, with which I agree, and also the implied suggestion by the house leader that there is a possibility this legislation might be passed tonight, are we correct in assuming it is the intention of the associate minister to introduce this afternoon some important amendments to the legislation which would make it acceptable to the country or, alternatively, that he is prepared to withdraw it entirely for the time being?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I must advise the hon. member that I have no useful suggestion to give to him in that regard. I believe the bill which is before the house now is the policy of the government. This is the way we see it and this is what we want to put through with the cooperation of hon. members.

Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the minister but there seems to be a little more noise than usual in the committee. Perhaps those who have conversations to carry on might do so outside the curtains so that we may hear the comments of the minister.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, before launching into the remarks I intend to make on this bill, I should like to answer three questions put to me the other night by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).
Here is the first. I see the hon. member is absent, but I think Hansard can convey my
April 6, 1967	COMMONS
reply which he will, I am sure, find useful, and can have circulated. It concerned R.O.T.C. pilots who, according to him, would have signed three-year contracts with the government. He accused the Department of National Defence of breaking those contracts unilaterally.
Further to a written request from the hon. member for Lapointe, we gave a reply to the effect that the matter is now under consideration as a result of a new ruling for pilots with a permanent commission. This ruling stipulates compulsory service for five years. As there is no contract but rather what is called a gentleman's agreement between the Department of National Defence and R.O.T.C. pilots, we have withheld a decision to give us time to study the matter. We hope to be in a position to announce our decision in the near future.
The second question concerned the briefs prepared by Mr. Marcel Chaput when he worked for the Defence Research Council. I must say to the hon. member for Lapointe that those reports were brought to the attention of the commission of inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism but that the latter did not deem it useful to ask us for copies of them.
In the third place, the hon. member for Lapointe asked me a question concerning the use of the French language on Canadian military bases. I must remind him that, on all Canadian bases, administrative and supplementary orders are issued in both languages. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude to any discrimination and the incident he referred to the other night is, if anything, an unfortunate exception.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to summarize, as succinctly as possible, the position I believe hon. members should take with regard to the issue now before us.
Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that we have been considering this matter quite sporadically for almost five months, I have a feeling that we have not made much progress and that perhaps we are carrying on what I would call a debate by proxy.
It is useful and possibly even essential to have the views expressed before the committee on national defence, in the newspapers and through other media. However, it seems to me that we must be careful not to pose as the spokesmen of the officers now retired or in the armed forces and continue on their behalf, so to speak, a debate which will not
National Defence Act Amendment settle the matter because those officers have taken a position which will surely not change.
Our problem is not to speak for them but to form our own opinion and to reach our own decision.
Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that such evidence is useless; on the contrary, I feel that we must get the gist of it, weigh it, make up our own minds and reach our own decision.
Besides, it is obvious, as shown last night by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), that some of the evidence, even on the same side, was contradictory and that the same witness managed at times to contradict himself.
Therefore, I would not want us to revert to our starting point and, in addition, to introduce further controversial subjects in the discussion concerning the unification of armed forces. I know that all hon. members who express their views in the house are quite sincere, but I believe there comes a time in a democracy when a consensus must be reached through a vote.
In my opinion, new factors have been introduced in the discussion when reference was made, for instance, to roles or missions. Some people say they are unable to make a decision on such a matter until the roles or missions of the proposed force have been determined.
It would be wonderful indeed, Mr. Chairman, if we could have an instantaneous foreign policy which could be changed from day to day and adapted to our desire to see our country play the role which we believe it is destined to play. But it seems to me that we should believe in our armed forces, in their ability to adapt themselves to these operations or roles which may change eventually.
Having been privileged to work closely with the armed forces in the past two years, I am surprised and even astonished to discover what a store-house of extraordinary talents they are. Let me give as an example the military tattoo.
This is a theatrical performance which is being taken round the country and which I consider to be extraordinary; it was staged entirely by the services. We managed to find in the armed forces people with theatrical experience who were able to produce from scratch a really extraordinary show. All this in my opinion shows the versatility of the officers and soldiers of the Canadian army.
14590	COMMONS DEBATES	April 6, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment
I am also thinking of the contribution to Expo '67 in Montreal, which I find exceptional, made by an officer in the Canadian army, I am referring to Colonel Churchill. His contribution to Expo proved once again that the armed forces are a potential supply of competence. Therefore, when one thinks that the armed forces would be unable to face their role, if changed, one makes an error of judgment.
I wish, Mr. Chairman, to speak very briefly at this stage. I sincerely think that now is the time to determine where we stand and I apologize if, by saying this, I am repetitious. I classified into four groups the circumstances in which we find ourselves:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

First, as far as I can see there is nothing that can be added in the way of evidence, facts or figures which has not already been stated. It seems to me that all of the evidence has been given by the minister in the white paper, in his remarks on second reading and by the minister and the military staff before the standing committee. Second, on the other side of the coin those who oppose the concept of unification have been offered every opportunity to make known their views before the committee and through the news media. Third, we have arrived at a crucial point in our deliberations. We can either waste time and go back over the same evidence and testimony again and again with no further progress in sight or, based on all the evidence we have received, we can begin to concentrate on the clauses of the bill now before us.


Mr. Nugeni:: Would the minister permit a question? When he says those who are opposed have had a full opportunity to express their views through the news media, does he have in mind any means by which those who are on retirement leave and not yet released from the forces could express their views through the news media, since it would be against the law for them to do so?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I said they had every opportunity to make known their views before the committee and through the news media.
Fourth, I believe it was the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek who alluded to the fact that most of us have come to some conclusion regarding the merits of this bill. I for one have listened with great interest to all the evidence presented to the standing committee and it seems to me that the reasons

this debate is beginning to become repetitious fall within basic areas. What are those basic areas? What is unification? The minister in tabling the white paper said:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
On May 28, 1964 the minister said:
So 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.
That was on second reading of the bill. On December 7, 1966, he again devoted many words in explanation of the single service concept. Again on February 7, 1967, at page 440 of the committee proceedings he said:
-a single integrated service encompassing the naval, land, air and support units necessary to carry out its assigned roles and missions and operating under unified management and control.
Here then are four explanations voiced in different words but all meaning the same thing-a single Canadian armad forces rather than three individual services, the army, navy and air force. If there needs to be any further explanation it is set out in clause 2 of the present bill which says:
The Canadian forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
Therefore I am satisfied that the goal of one service has been clearly stated and I am sure that all hon. members opposite are fully aware, as I am, that this remains and has been the basic goal ever since it was first announced in the white paper.
What is the purpose of one service rather than three? Like the definition, the purpose has been explained many times before, in the white paper, at various committee hearings, in the minister's comprehensive speech on second reading and on many other occasions. As a matter of fact, there have been so many reasons given for one service I am afraid we are concentrating on each rather than on the raison d'etre itself.
Essentially, as I see it, this can be stated in the following way. All of the members of our Canadian forces, whether combat or support, whether they are in the army, navy, or air force, have one common purpose in respect of which these people can be identified. That is the defence of Canada. Traditionally it has
April 6, 1967

been assumed that to carry out this purpose they must be grouped into three services, one representing the land forces, one representing the sea forces and one representing the air forces.
I can recognize that the overlapping of areas of responsibilities and weapons technology has created grey areas which can no longer be served by the traditional three service concept. We have tried to do something about that. Bill C-90 was the first legislative step required to begin the implementation of a program that would enable us to operate our forces in light of this overlapping of responsibilities by establishing (a) a single chief of defence staff and (b) a single defence staff. The single defence staff was created on a functional basis, that is, personnel, operations, technical services and comptroller general. At the next level commands were reorganized to carry out the following functions: air transport, training, materiel, air defence, maritime and mobile. At the next level the bases were also reorganized along functional lines: transport, operations, administration and supply.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
From July, 1964, to the present we have been integrating our forces to carry out these functions. But because the function-not each individual service-forms the basic criteria for our reorganization, the continuation of a rigid three-service system hinders the full development-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Ah.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -and the full benefits that could be gained by a single force.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, would the minister answer one question? Can he give me one instance of any evidence given to the committee as to how it hinders at all? Can he give me one word of such evidence given before the committee?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I would ask my hon. friend to extend to me the courtesy which I extended to him. The hon. member has spoken many times in this debate and I never asked a question with a view to interrupting him.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am only seeking information, sir.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Much has been made of the fact that the navy does not have any officer to speak for the navy at defence council. In the functional system which the

National Defence Act Amendment reorganization of the Canadian Armed Forces is bringing about, neither the navy, the army, nor the air force has specific representation at defence council. Instead, the chief of defence staff and the vice chief, together with the chief of technical services, the chief of personnel and the comptroller general as associate members, represent the Canadian Armed Forces. Whether they are army, navy or air force does not matter. They are members of the defence council who represent their functional responsibility and I insist on the word "functional".
Similarly, at the armed forces council there is no specific service representation. The commander of maritime command speaks not for the navy but for maritime command; the commander of training command speaks for his command and not the individual three services which combine to make up his command. Who, then, speaks for the navy, the army, or the air force? The answer is no one, because the traditional three-service concept is redundant in a functional defence system. That is why at this stage in our progress it is necessary to remove the three-service concept and create a single unified force which can operate not as army, navy and air force but as officers and men in training command, in mobile command, in air transport command and in all the other commands or headquarters' functions.
Without going into all the reasons, which are already on the record, I have come to the conclusion that what Canada requires is a single defence force. As I said on February 1 in this house:
This is the crux of the problem. From a single force containing land, sea and air elements, we must be in a position where we can detach the required portions necessary to fulfil a particular commitment. If the particular commitment requires a combination of land and sea elements, or land and tactical air elements, or just a land element we can provide this portion by detaching from the single force the strength and type of force required.
What may be difficult for my hon. friends opposite to understand is that even though there will be no army there will still be soldiers, even though there will be no navy there will still be sailors, and even though there will be no air force there will still be airmen.


Mr. Lamberl:: How will they know it?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Because they will perform the functions. In other words, there will continue to be those who fly aircraft, mariners and warriors. These men, together
14592	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment with those who support them, will not be grouped together in individual services but in one service, the Canadian Armed Forces.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the attention of the committee toward a very important fact. For almost five months, in one way or another, there has been a debate on this bill. Either we will have a single unified force or we will not. What has become most upsetting during the past five months is that the service people do not know the outcome. They are most perturbed-


Mr. Lambert:: Who brought it on?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: -that it has taken so long to decide their future course. I agree with them that to extend this period of uncertainty can do nothing but decrease their morale. Whatever period it takes to implement the plans toward the final goal of unification does not concern them. What they want is a decision yes or no. Do we proceed toward unification or not? I think that all the necessary evidence and testimony are now before us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: God has spoken.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: But as General Eisenhower once said, "This is the place where the buck stops."


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was Truman who said that.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am sure I speak for all servicemen when I say, let us get on with the decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe that the forces are convinced that the goal of unification is correct. They have been engaged in planning toward this goal in carefully measured steps. Parliament has been asked for the necessary permissive legislation to proceed along the reorganizations! cycle. This is one of those steps. I for one cannot charge our forces with the responsibility of providing the best possible defence with the least expenditure and at the same time deny them the authority they require to carry out their task.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Some people say -and the hon. member is one of them-"All right, we accept integration, but let us stop there; let us pause." To me this is not possible. You cannot have integration without unification.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, that is nonsense.

DEBATES	April 6, 1967


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: And I will say
that you also have to have it now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Prove your point.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Allow me to sum up again, Mr. Chairman. Integration established one chief of staff and from that point a single chain of management and command. Because the forces include sailors, soldiers and airmen, and as far as one can see into the future will continue to do so, many have difficulty understanding why we should not continue to have a Royal Canadian Navy, a Canadian Army and a Royal Canadian Air Force. These have been replaced as organizational structures by a single, integrated structure. As a consequence it has now become increasingly difficult to manage personnel on the three-service system, virtually impossible and certainly meaningless to manage finances on that system and, more important, to determine roles and policies on the basis of a three-service division.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
All unification is doing is tailoring the cloth to the developing new organization. The inconsistency between the three-services organization and the present organization causes the shoe to pinch more and more and the point will be reached when the lines of distinction which should be maintained in a three-service organization can no longer be maintained because there will be no sensible way of drawing these lines in the single organizational structure that has now been developed. The only way to overcome this difficulty is to remove the requirement established by law to maintain three services. After this authority has been granted, there will be a great deal of work to be done in terms of amending existing regulations and instructions and it will therefore be some time before the single service can be put into effect.
It is important that this legislation be passed as soon as possible and any lengthy delay would set the stage for a very difficult situation-I believe an unmanageable situation-in the not too distant future. This is not only the course of common sense to enable the orderly progress of the reorganization that was commenced with the legislation that was passed to establish a single chief of staff in 1964 to continue, but it is the only course that will do for our servicemen what they have the right to expect, that is, to establish the fundamental legislative direction and authority to govern the inevitable transition into a single service.
April 6, 1967

At the risk of confusing what I hope has been a simple explanation of the problem, may I add that there will be no difficulty in identifying soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fighting units. It is normal and healthy to expect men in a particular fighting environment to identify with it in some distinguishable way. There is nothing inconsistent in this with a single service. The difference between this and the present system is that it is now necessary to maintain throughout a division between navy, army and air services which is no longer sensible and will become increasingly unworkable.
In conclusion I should like to give a few figures in order to demonstrate that the defence expenditure situation has already been improved by integration. In the way of general background it is perhaps worth noting that the defence expenditures have not varied widely over the last ten years. As a result the proportion of Canada's resources devoted to defence has steadily declined. Expressed as a percentage of G.N.P. the expenditures of the defence department have dropped from about 6 per cent ten years ago to about the current level of 2.7 per cent. This expenditure policy has made it necessary to re-examine continuously defence activities, procurement policies and methods of organization and-operation to find the-economies necessary to offset rising costs. It should also be apparent under these circumstances that every program must be viewed in the light of the resources available and, in particular, its contribution to Canada's defence needs as against that which would result from directing all or part of the resources to other defence programs. For example, if one thinks of buying, on a one-for-one basis, modern warships to replace the 16 frigates that have been taken out of service, -the $800 million or so capital cost plus the continuing operating costs must be considered in the light of what it displaces in the way of other forces.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired. Does the house give unanimous consent for the minister to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I thank hon. members for their courtesy. I will not be too long. I have two more pages. This is the real nature of the decisions that have to be made so long as there are strict limits on defence expenditures, as there have been over the last decade.

National Defence Act Amendment
When integration was commenced in 1964 we undertook to manage the defence budget within an escalation not exceeding 2 per cent a year although the actual escalation in salaries and other prices was considerably in excess of this. At the same time we undertook to divert a larger share of the defence budget to capital needs. In the three years, 1964, 1965 and 1966, since this program commenced, defence expenditures have been held within the original targets. Compared with the preceding three years, defence expenditures over this three-year period were reduced by $184 million if the actuarial adjustments to the pension accounts are omitted, and by $158 million if they are included. For comparative purposes it is preferable to omit the actuarial adjustments as the policy of current adjustments to the pension account did not apply throughout the period. By any standard of measurement this is a considerable reduction, particularly when it has been accomplished in the face of rising costs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Fifteen thousand fewer men.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am not trying to hide facts. By way of illustration of rising costs, per capita costs of military personnel were $5,082 per annum in 1961, the first year of the six-year period, and $6,514 in 1966. On the civil side the per capita costs rose during this period from $4,004 to $5,143 and in both cases the major portion of this rise took place in the last three years.
The average military strength in 1963 was 122,700 compared with 105,000 in 1966. The difference, at 1966 per capita rates, amounts to about $115 million per annum. I mention this only to emphasize the problem of coping with rising costs and the compelling need to improve continously our ways of doing the defence business to avoid large increases in the defence budget. We have not managed during this three-year period to meet our original targets for expenditures on equipment. Expenditures on naval equipment in the last three years have been higher than in the previous three years, $208.5 million against $194.4 million, and this has also been the case for army equipment, $120 million against $100.8 million. On the other hand, expenditure on air force equipment have been substantially less. $289.4 million against $507.1 million. The main reason for this is that expenditures in the earlier three year period included $308.2 million for the CF-104 aircraft and there has been no aircraft program in the
14594	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment last three years requiring such a large expenditure. The figures I have used will no doubt vary somewhat when the final 1966 figures are in, but not significantly.
It seems to me, then, that the conclusion is clear. Defence expenditures have been reduced, and quite substantially. While equipment expenditures have not been increased as much as we had hoped, they have been increased in the areas where equipment shortages were most acute. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, this is my case.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Nesbili:: Having heard the remarks just made by the associate minister, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I agree, at least in part, with some of the comments he has made. He stated that the basic questions with which we are faced in this committee are, what is unification and what is its purpose. The associate minister then went on to give his interpretation and his views of unification as well as its purpose. I must say that his observations would seem to be of a rather individual character.
There is one other matter upon which I should like to comment before I get around to the point of examining what unification is and what its purpose is, and that is who developed this plan. This question has been asked on a number of occasions, and I think it is important for the members of the house to know who the author of this plan was. We do not see it being carried out in other countries which are great military powers. We do not see it being carried out in Great Britain. We do not see it being carried out in the United States, France, West Germany or the Soviet Union. Consequently one cannot help but wonder whence comes the idea.
Clearly the idea did not come from the senior officers of the three armed services in view of the large number of retirements, resignations and outright firings that have taken place in that group, somewhat over 40 in all. It clearly did not come from there. In the defence committee General Moncel gave evidence he had prepared four papers on the subject of unification for the minister, but General Moncel was not satisfied with any of them. The minister accepted one of those papers on unification which General Moncel considered was the poorest of the four. I believe this whole question of where this plan comes from is one of the most important questions. Military matters are highly technical and require a great deal of expertise and experience. For these reasons I believe

DEBATES	April 6, 1967
we are entitled to know who thought up this plan. Why is it being pursued now when no other country is pursuing it?
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affaires intimated in his customary vague way that he hoped other countries would follow along. The evidence we heard in the committee did not seem to give the slightest indication that any other country was going to do the same thing. It has been stated by the minister and some of his colleagues that the civilian authority must always control the military authority. I believe every one of us would accept that point of view. The only point is that when we are dealing with a highly technical matter such as defence, upon which the whole safety of the country depends, plans which radically change our defence structure should be developed by people who know what they are doing.
We have had no evidence as to where this plan comes from. Indications are that it would seem to come from the minister himself. Perhaps the plan was originated in the cabinet, but we do not know. We would like to know where it comes from. If the plan did originate in the cabinet, the only person who would seem to have any qualifications with regard to military matters would be the Minister of Defence Production who had some senior military experience. There is no one else.
Was this plan thought up by the minister's adviser, Mr. Lee, to whom reference has been made so often? Apparently it has been said that many of the officers and others who are left in the armed services now agree with the plan. Of course, this is probably true because the minister has made it clear that anyone who does not agree with him does not stay in the forces. I would hardly expect any other point of view from the officers who are left. This is one question I would hope the Associate Minister of National Defence might answer before he leaves for Europe this afternoon or perhaps the minister will answer when he returns from his conference in Washington.
I think we are entitled to know who thought up this plan and why it is being pursued, particularly in view of the fact other countries are not pursuing it. There is no evidence that they are going to do so. Most of the senior officers have not recommended it and indeed have spoken against it, with the exception of those who are left in the armed
April 6, 1967	COMMONS
forces. Of course, they are in a rather captive position.
I should like to make one brief quotation from a letter which was reportedly written by Lord Mountbatten to the chairman of the defence committee. The letter appeared in the Ottawa Journal last evening and I should like to quote from the article in that newspaper:
He described himself as "an ardent advocate of unified command and integrated administration of the services."
But he wrote: 'Unified command at the appropriate level is exercised by an officer from any one service, wearing his own uniform and using his own service rank assisted by an integrated staff who commands all units of the three services placed under his command.
I firmly believe that the steps taken in the recent reorganization of the British services are on the right line.
In the British organization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale and those traditions which help to maintain this in the services and fighting units.
It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary."
The letter continues:
"The general cut and colour of naval uniforms are internationally so well known that a sailor from any one country can readily be recognized as a sailor in any other country."
These are the views of Lord Mountbatten and they have been promoted by those in favour of unification as an indication that Lord Mountbatten is in favour of unification as envisaged by the government, which he clearly is not.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The next question, to which I hope an answer will be forthcoming sooner or later, is: What is unification? A few moments ago the associate minister attempted to give an explanation. I am glad it is very clear to him because it certainly does not appear to be clear to anybody else, including the former chief of staff who retired only last summer.
I should like to refer to page 2312 of the minutes of evidence of the defence committee, where Air Chief Marshal Miller made the following statement:
I did not know, and I do not know now, the whole answer, all the proposals for unification.
If the chief of staff did not know, then I cannot understand how the associate minister, let alone any of us, knows what it is either.
In this regard I should like to refer to a newspaper which is generally considered one
National Defence Act Amendment of Canada's leading and most thoughtful-the Globe and Mail. The March 22 issue carried an editorial entitled "An Unseemly Rush To What?" The following is an extract from the editorial:
It remains too big a pig-in-a-poke for any parliament to ask Canada to buy, and the commons defence committee, for all its questioning, has not been able to trace out its shape. What is needed is a complete re-examination of the whole defence apparatus, and of the job it is intended to do.
I hope that on another occasion during this debate the associate minister, or the minister himself when he returns, will attempt to give the committee a more lucid explanation of what unification is. As I say, if the former chief of staff was not aware what it was and most of the other senior officers, according to the evidence they gave, did not know or only knew partly what it involved, how can laymen such as the members of this house know?
I now come to the purpose of unification, Mr. Chairman, and certainly this is the $64,000 question. There seems to have been a great deal of difference in the viewpoint not only of members of the house but also of members of the cabinet. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made an interesting but extraordinary speech yesterday which seems to be quite at variance with the evidence given by the present chief of staff, General Allard, as well as with the speech of the associate minister this afternoon. However, as usual the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whose speech I will deal with in detail in a moment, was very careful to make observations which may be taken both ways so that he is fairly well covered in that regard.
As to the purpose of this new unified force, as it is called, we were told by the minister, as well as by his colleagues both inside and outside the house, that one of the advantages of unification would be that it would be cheaper and more economic. That is certainly an important consideration, as everyone would agree.
This afternoon the associate minister gave us the most extraordinary set of statistics. It is often said that statistics can prove almost anything, which reminds me of the statistician who was six feet tall and drowned in a river with an average depth of two feet. The fact remains that we were told that unification would bring about economies and reduce defence costs.
A few moments ago the associate minister indicated that we would now be spending a
14596	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment smaller proportion of our gross national product on defence than was the case previously, that there would be economies. This is an interesting way of looking at the subject, but the fact remains that according to the defence estimates for the coming year, which the house will recall from previous discussion were compiled as if the bill had already been passed, defence expenditures this year are some $115 million more than they were last year. One of my hon. friends on the government side of the house has indicated that we are certainly going to save money with unification.


Mr. Matheson:: That is right.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Leeds says that that is right. It may be true, but I would suggest it is a strange way to try to convince the public we are going to save a lot of money and reduce expenses by unifying the forces when we have no way of proving this. The only thing we do know for certain is that it will cost over $100 million a year more to start with, though some of the evidence given in the defence committee indicated that it will cost even more. Although I realize that expenditure is important, it is not of prime importance when we are dealing with matters which affect the future safety of this country. In such case cost itself is not an overriding consideration.
The next question is: What is this unified force going to do? There seems to be a great difference of opinion on this score. Since defence is interrelated very closely with foreign affairs and foreign policy, as everyone agrees, we have to look to foreign policy to see how we should design our defence forces.
Yesterday afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a very long and interesting speech on foreign affairs and he reiterated Canada's foreign policy. I listened very carefully to the minister's speech and I reread it this morning. There is nothing in his speech vis-a-vis foreign policy with which I disagree. I thoroughly agree with his enunciation of our foreign policy. However, toward the end of his speech the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated-words to this effect are to be found at other places in his speech-as reported at page 14567 of yesterday's Hansard:
Indeed, it-
That is the unified force.
-will be capable of performing the same variety of roles required now by our foreign policy commitments and, in my view, performing them much more effectively.

DEBATES	April 6, 1967
I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is so well assured in that regard, because he did not give one shred of evidence to support his view to this effect. Indeed, just the opposite: he admitted the increasing danger of nuclear submarines sent out to sea by the Soviet Union.
Our naval capabilities are now less than they were but the minister failed to explain why we are unable to man some of our ships. The new ones supposed to be laid down have not been laid down. How can we carry out our defence commitments vis-a-vis the navy in view of the increasing submarine danger? The minister had some sort of answer to this, and as reported at the bottom of page 14563 he said:
In addition to the bomber and the I.C.B.M. threat there is a growing threat to this continent, which obviously we cannot ignore, from submarines. This was pointed out by the hon. gentleman who spoke a few moments ago. In answer to what he said I would point out that we are co-operating with the United States to meet this threat, not only as a matter of continental defence but also within the NATO framework.
e (4:20 p.m.)
As he frequently does, the Secretary of State for External Affairs got around this particular argument in a nebulous way by saying that we are working in co-operation with our allies. I think it is clear, since our naval forces do not now have the capability they had several years ago, that our allies, particularly the United States, are taking over this function to an increasing degree.
I now wish to ask a question bearing on our improved military capability. The Secretary of State for External Affairs told us yesterday that in his opinion he was sure it would improve. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question, and I am sure it will be referred to him by others. Has he ever discussed this matter with Air Chief Marshal Miller or with General Allard? Certainly the Prime Minister did not discuss it with Air Chief Marshal Miller and if the Secretary of State for External Affairs did so I should like to know.
In any event, referring again to the testimony of the former chief of staff who retired last summer I point out that he said he saw no significant financial or military advantage in unification over integration. Are we to ignore the expertise of the chief of staff appointed by the present Minister of National Defence, are we to ignore Air Chief Marshal Miller's great knowledge and accept statements of laymen in this matter such as the
April 6. 1967	COMMONS
Secretary of State for External Affairs, admittedly a layman, or the Minister of National Defence? If the air chief marshal said there was no financial or military advantage in unification, why are we doing it? I should like to know. The associate minister seems quite sure in his own mind; he is satisfied with this measure. I am not, and I think many other hon. members are not satisfied.
For the past few months it has been strongly hinted that the purpose of this new force is really to perform only some sort of peacekeeping operation on behalf of the United Nations. In some remarks I made on January 31 last I quoted from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen last year-I do not want to take the time of the committee to quote it again-pointing this out. As hon. members know, the Ottawa Citizen is generally considered by most people to be the leading spokesman for the government, for various reasons. If the Ottawa Citizen said this I do not see how we can very well ignore it. Other newspapers have said this, including the Globe and Mail, which until recently had a pipe line to government intentions. That pipe line seems to have been ruptured within the last few days. In an editorial of March 22 last, to which I have already referred, the Globe and Mail said:
A Defence Department that is creating a unified force which could not deal with these present commitments anyway and which seems wholly designed to undertake international peace-keeping interventions which the world has not asked Canada to undertake and which Canada's External Affairs Department has not said that Canada will undertake.
This makes the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday very interesting because he made it very clear, which is saying something, that Canada's basic commitments were for the defence of Canada through collective agreements, including the defence of our coastal waterways, that we are still keeping our commitments to NATO, NORAD and the rest, and that we would like to be able to meet requests from the United Nations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made it clear that our international commitments as outlined by him had not changed. Then why are there these other suggestions?
In this regard I think the most important observation comes from the present chief of staff, General Allard, who made the following statement when testifying before the defence committee:
-Canada now wants-while remaining faithful to its existing commitments-to decide itself on the
National Defence Act Amendment
part it wishes to play in the new international society-this is not only its right-it is also its duty. It is its duty to participate, to the best of its ability-in keeping the peace by supporting the organization which has made itself the champion of the smaller nations-the United Nations Organization.
In short, that is the transformation proposed by the white paper. That is what we are trying to do. My duty is to organize the military forces in accordance with government policy.
That statement, perfectly simple, perfectly straightforward, is completely at variance with the statement of intention made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With conflicting evidence as to the purpose of the force, what are we in this house to do? Where are we going? What is this for?
General Allard, the chief of staff, says one thing. The Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail agree with him. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says another thing. In fact, he refuted strongly the idea that Canada should take up only a peace-keeping role, implying that that was a cloud nine idea and thereby taking a slight crack at his friends in the New Democratic Party who do not think it is a cloud nine idea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with cloud nine?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asks what is wrong with cloud nine. Cloud nine is usually described as something nebulous that has a habit of dissolving when strong light is shed on it. It is something that is not very substantial.
It seems that there is much difference of opinion about the purpose of this force. Is it to be solely for United Nations peace-keeping or will it be used for our regular commitments? If it is for our regular commitments I point out that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has suggested how we can integrate this force with the forces of our NATO allies in Germany, in NORAD and the like. Evidence given before the defence committee showed that integrating this new force with the existing forces of our allies is like trying to mix oil and water. It will not work. So I ask, what is all this for? I think we are entitled to a much better explanation than we have had to date about this matter. It is very disturbing indeed.
If the force is to be used only for peacekeeping purposes and we let the United States look after the defence of North America completely, where does that leave
14598	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment us? Will we end up with this country being partially occupied by United States forces? Is that in accordance with present day Canadian nationalism? I think not. If we become nothing but a military province of the United States, this lovely peace-keeping force we are arranging would never be used. The United Nations would never dare to use it because it would be thought that it was some sort of quasi-United States or United States influenced organization. We would be in the position, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said, of being all dressed up and having no place to go.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We need a great deal more clarification of some of these matters before this bill is decided. The associate minister has told us this issue must be decided quickly before any more questions are asked. Well, some fundamental and basic questions have not yet been answered and I think it is up to the government to give us the information required. Otherwise the only conclusion reasonable people can draw is either that the government is attempting to deceive this house and the public as to the real reasons for unification or, as is so often the case, the government does not know where it is going. In an apparent attempt to contribute to cabinet solidarity the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us yesterday that he thoroughly believes this unifying force will enable us to meet our present commitments more efficiently. He expressed this view even though the evidence of all those who possess expertise on the subject is to the contrary. We should like some clarification of these matters and I hope it will be forthcoming before the present debate is terminated.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oxford has indicated that before clause 2 passes a lot more clarification is needed. The note I would stress in the course of my few remarks this afternoon is: "Let us get on with it." I refer to an editorial under that title written by service people in the publication Voxair which is put out by the Canadian forces base at Winnipeg. It begins:
The integration process began two years ago and that, to the rank and file, seems a long time.
I would point out that this editorial was written on August 19, 1966. It says that servicemen find it hard to understand the reason for the slow rate of progress, and goes on:
More difficult to comprehend is the opinion, often expressed in the recent controversy, that the integration process is too fast...

DEBATES	April G, 1967
Most proponents of the "too fast" idea appear to be those who were against integration in the first place and who believed that integration and unification would not become a reality. When it now appears that it will, the natural reaction for anyone resisting change must be to attempt to delay the change.
Later in this editorial, which is in strong terms, the editor writes:
Integration appears slow to those in the field. This should make a good argument for speeding up the process as much as possible. Any change of the magnitude of the one undertaken is difficult and sometimes painful, but the quicker we complete the change, the less painful it is going to be. If, on the other hand, the phase of change is allowed to go on ad infinitum we can be certain that morale will be adversely affected.
The concluding words of the editorial which, as I say, was written on August 19, 1966, are:
It was known before the start that this was a difficult undertaking, but the over-all gains clearly justified the decision to go ahead. Now, in the middle of the changeover, let's not procrastinate for reasons of doubtful validity, but let's get on with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who is the author?


John Ross Matheson: The author is a wing commander.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has he been promoted?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ross Matheson: I am not going to answer what I think is a contemptuous remark with respect to a senior serving officer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not contemptuous.


John Ross Matheson: These officers have the right to express their judgment through their own proper channels.
As to the provision of information, I believe that commencing with this administration there has been more clarification of issues involving the ministry of defence than has ever been the case in Canada's history. I do not believe there has ever been a statement on the subject of defence as exhaustive, as fair and as detailed as was given to the Canadian public by the present Minister of National Defence in the course of his lengthy statement of December 7 last.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member accept another question?


John Ross Matheson: I will be happy to receive questions at the end of my remarks.
April G, 1967	COMMONS


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, I don't know that I can sit here that long listening to the hon. member.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps not, but I have sat patiently through speeches made by the hon. gentleman, and this might be a good point at which to tell him that his comments last evening reminded me of the venerable character who was resolved to treasure and preserve all the institutions and habits of the past and not inclined to take even a brief look at the present. I think the time has come when we in Canada should be prepared to examine searchingly and conscientiously criticize all the institutions and conventions of the present in anticipation of the challenges and opportunities of the future.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did the hon. member say 1 was venerable? Is he making fun of me because I am older than he is? Does he not respect age?


John Ross Matheson: I think that no one travelling in a bomber across the ocean could hope for a more delightful travelling companion than the hon. member. I wish we could go together again soon.
My hon. friend referred yesterday to the events which took place at Vimy. When we reflect on what happened there half a century ago we think of the colossal wastage of human life that occurred there which, as at Verdun, destroyed a generation. We think of the Somme, of Passchendaele, of the tremendous loss of life which occurred in those battles and their lasting effect on Britain, France and the dominions.
I visited Vimy with some emotion because the name of one of the members of my own family is on the memorial there. Referring to the events of April 9, 1917, Gregory Clark had this to say, writing in Weekend Magazine of April 1:
At 5.30 a.m., April 9, in a sleet and snow blizzard, the volcano of our artillery erupted.
Behind the wall of fire we floundered up the ruined and filthy slope.
We took the Ridge. In the next three days we went 4,500 yards, took 4,000 prisoners, 54 cannon, 104 trench mortars, 124 machine guns.
We lost 3,598 killed and more than 7,000 wounded.
The author concludes: "Symbols are costly".
I have visited many of the battlefields of Europe and several in Asia. I really do believe that progress in military expertise, in tactics and in strategy has been phenomenal.
23033-923J
National Defence Act Amendment I was with Colonel Fane, if I may call him that, going over some of the ground of the first world war, and I like to believe that there has been definite progress in the arts of war designed to reduce human slaughter and yet to accomplish those things which are intended to preserve peace and liberty.
In this regard I would call attention to some things which were said by General Worthington. "Worthy" was assistant adjutant and quartermaster general at national defence headquarters. A dynamic personality in every appointment, he became the revered and gallant commander of the 4th Armoured Division in 1942 and commander in chief of the Pacific command in 1945. Just think of some of the personalities with whom he was associated-men like Admiral Halsey and others of that calibre who were among the most outstanding military leaders of that decade. General Worthington showed his imagination and his managerial talents as coordinator of civil defence for Canada in the years from 1948 to 1957. Some of the things this great Canadian did in those years in a field which was of little interest to most people showed how truly knowledgeable he was.
I feel it would be useful at this point to refer to an article written by General Worthington under the heading "Reorganization Of The Armed Forces Long Overdue". This appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, April 4, 1967. The general said:
In February and March the parliamentary defence committee sat for six weeks hearing 23 high-level military "experts" on the integration and unification of Canada's armed forces.
The testimony of most of these experts had a disturbingly familiar theme:	What was good
enough for the last war will be good enough for the next.
As one of Canada's oldest generals it is my opinion that at the end of any large war the existing generals should be thanked, decorated and pensioned off.
Put up statues, if you like, but don't let the old brigade meddle with the future organization of the services. Hand that responsibility over to the young, fighting colonels who had to fight the war with the existing weapons.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Almost invariably the senior commanders plan with their heads looking over their shoulders back to the time when they were young and trained on equipment and tactics of that day.
General Worthington warns us of the peril at this time of thinking backward which could result in annihilation. He says:
I believe the present reorganization of our armed forces is long overdue. It indicates up-to-date planning and foresight as opposed to prejudice,, obsolescence and nostalgia.
April 6, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
He points out that Canada's military personnel could be wiped out in a single battle. I consider that significant because when we look at the statistics of Canada's defence effort we notice that currently we are spending approximately $1.6 billion. I feel that the Associate Minister of National Defence only started to put on the record the broad line of economies which have been effected. There could have been several speeches on this aspect alone had it been felt desirable to make them.
Had we never intended to change or modernize anything but merely replace the proper modern materiel for our existing establishments, this alone would cost many hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe I am correct in saying that the utilization for defence purposes of only 2.7 per cent of the gross national product of a country such as Canada places us in the category of being the third lowest contributor to the NATO alliance. Countries such as the United States, which comparatively have an immensely larger gross national product, are making much higher contributions. The point is that we in Canada are not making large contributions on the basis of our wealth and general economic strength. In terms of people we actually have a little over 100,000 men, sailors, soldiers and airmen, and this very fact alone at this time happens to be most helpful to us in the engineering of new processes, of new experimentation and in the pragmatic effort of bringing into being a concept which has been anticipated in every serious military school in the world, in the Soviet, in the United States, and all through Europe.
General Worthington said:
Any suggestion that we provide defence for Canada alone is a ludicrous myth.
We are not in the stand on guard era any more with regard to Canada against an American enemy. If that is our thinking, then we should do it with splendour and simply multiply the kind of exercise performed at Fort Frontenac where we have ceremonials which I watch each year. They are decorative but neither practical nor very real.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs made an important contribution to the debate when he reminded us that our defence responsibilities are in the new collective sense and not in the isolationist or independent sense. I think he brought into proper balance our responsibility to NORAD, a contract that was entered into by the previous administration, and to NATO, which responsibility we


assumed under the leadership of the late Louis St. Laurent, and to the United Nations.
General Worthington continues by saying:
But Canada can produce a new, compact, efficient and integrated force to meet the challenges of the future. This force would be a highly skilled fighting machine, mobile and flexible, with an understanding of land, sea and air combat.
When we discuss mobility I am reminded of General Macklin who some people characterize as the author of mobility. I think it a fact that when we sent a mobile force to Suez some years go we had to dismantle our one capital ship in order to put our so called mobile force ashore. This is incredible. I believe that if Canadians generally could have sat in on some of the hearings of the national defence committee, especially when we were privileged to visit mobile command-at that time as I recall it was under the command of General Allard-they would have been impressed with the step-up that has been achieved in communications.
It would almost seem that many of the military concepts which were familiar to people as recently as the 1950's now tend to be somewhat obsolete. We are moving at a rapid pace. Frankly, I was impressed with certain parts of the evidence given by Air Chief Marshal Miller. I thought he was right when he spoke in terms of the pragmatic effort in what we are doing and the fact that this never can be achieved overnight. The Minister of National Defence has made this point more than once. This is something which never will be finalized. Certainly it will take a period of years to bring about a high degree of perfection. I believe at one point he suggested it might be something like seven years before unification can be finalized. Air Chief Marshal Miller stressed the fact, which was emphasized by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday, that the interrelationship between defence policy and foreign policy is like the chicken and the egg in that defence policy really carries out or supports foreign policy.
If I wished to be frivolous I could pull out a quotation of Mao Tse-tung to almost the same effect, except that he considers war to be an extension of politics. I like to think that we are doing it in the reverse and that basically what Canadians are concerned about is to develop a military policy to protect and enlarge peace.
In his remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I thought very appropriately, mentioned Somalia. Perhaps this is the best example of a potential danger area. Here
April 6. 1967	COMMONS
we have Somalia occupying a strategic part of Africa. Berbera looks across the Gulf of Aden to the British base of Aden which once dominated these waters. Britain plans to pull out of Aden next year. Many of us have had discussions with people who know something about this situation. At the moment Russia is moving into Somalia and is providing 150 Mig fighter bombers and enough T-34 tanks for an armoured brigade. This is just a little country. Egypt and Algeria present special and disturbing problems, as well as Syria and Iraq.
This is a current topic in world news. It is a frightening commentary that little Syria can bring war to her neighbours, Lebanon and Jordan, and from this area to the world. Many military prophets have suggested it is from the Middle East that there could develop a conflagration. Looking at these disturbing patterns we see, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have previously indicated, that Canada has an important role in these areas of operation. I do not like to call them policing operations but in some places that is what they are. However, in other areas these operations require as much valour and far more imagination than was demonstrated in the battles of Passchendaele. So I think we must venture into the future with courage and great imagination.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
A few days ago I was in Jakarta and spent some time talking to friends who explained to me why Russian tanks were patrolling the streets. They told me that under President Sukarno that little country-perhaps I should not say little because it has a population of 110 million but it is little in the sense of wealth as we know it today-actually beggared itself to the extent of $2 billion for Russian armament. This presented a tremendous problem which happily has been resolved as a result of political developments.
If this House of Commons has the courage, and this proposal calls for a special form of courage and a certain quality of faith, we propose to venture into new concepts in the military field just as we have done in a variety of economic areas.
Just think, Mr. Chairman, of the imagination that was demonstrated in this country when the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National decided to institute the piggyback system. This disturbed many existing concepts. Think of the results in Canada from the
National Defence Act Amendment coast to coast large scale suburban development and urban redevelopment when many of the old lines of demarcation and boundaries were struck out in the interests of people and real social objectives. In the words of Air Chief Marshal Miller, the only approach that could be taken was the pragmatic approach. But let us move decisively toward that objective. We are not sure just how it will be accomplished or how soon, but we must not box ourselves in by fixing rigid lines in every area.
Let us reflect on the difficulties of the Canada-United States auto treaty in respect of which we all share a burden of responsibility and pride in this parliament. We do not know where it is going to lead us exactly but we think it will lead to progress for Canadian workers and the Canadian people.
Let us consider the great contribution of Colonel Ed Churchill mentioned by the associate minister a few minutes ago with respect of Expo. The whole idea of Expo came from the previous administration. This was an adventure in faith. Many of us have gone down to Montreal by helicopter, by ship, or by car to look at St. Helens Island and we all remember what a mess it was just a few months ago and how hopeless the whole thing looked. Yet through co-operation on the part of various agencies of government, the private and public sectors of our economy, industry and labour with its various skills, together with the co-operation of many nations, this great international complex has come into being.
Let us think of what has happened in the whole area of communications. We have moved rapidly from the telephone and wireless to radio, to Telex, to television, and to Telstar. All the old boundaries and ideas had to be stripped away and replaced.
I have been told abroad that many countries are looking at our act of faith in respect of unification with increasing interest because they know our military purpose and that purpose is peace. In addition, for the very reason indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre the past performance of Canadians in stormy places like Vimy, Passchendaele and the Somme has proven that we do not intend to welsh out of our responsibilities. We are not trying to pull out of NATO or to get out of our responsibilities to the United Nations or to our good neighbour on this continent. Whatever we do in the
14602	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment military field our purpose is to preserve liberty and peace for all men. That is our approach and we are trying to carry out this obligation wisely and with imagination.
Let me repeat the plea of my distinguished colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, and the requests of servicemen over some considerable period of time: let us get on with the job together.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the hon. member a question. He mentioned that he was aware of many countries that are watching Canada's experiment with great interest. To which countries was he referring?


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps my friend, as I am sure he is, will permit me to give him this information privately. I think it would be evidence of very bad taste on my part to refer to private conversations that I have had with people here in Ottawa and abroad.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: With responsible people?


John Ross Matheson: With people who represent their countries.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Such as Taiwan?


John Ross Matheson: I was not referring to Taiwan and I will not mention people or countries if you do not mind.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I could ask the associate minister a question. He gave the impression when he spoke so eloquently that he was very much interested in the passage of this bill with a certain amount of expedition. Will the minister be here in the house next week to assist us in our discussions on this bill? Will he be here to help us out?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Is that a fair question?


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for quite a while to make a few remarks on this issue. Before commencing I should like to say I am happy to be able to commend the hon. member for Leeds who is one member on the government side who has made his own speech rather than read one prepared by a member of the staff of the minister or the associate minister.
I am pleased to know that the associate minister is going overseas as a representative of Canada at the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the battle of Vimy Ridge. I wish he had left this morning before he read his speech because it was not entirely worthy of such a fine gentleman who has always been held in very high regard in this house.

DEBATES	April 6, 1967


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: May I interrupt the hon. member and point out that I only read part of the speech?


Frank John William Fane: Presumably the part you read was the part I did not like. I very much regret that because of previous commitments I am not able to accept the invitation of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to attend those celebrations. I happen to be one of the individuals described by the deputy minister in a letter written for the minister. The thought expressed in that letter is very nice in that it suggests that medical care should be provided for the 73 veterans who are being taken to Vimy Ridge to represent their battalions.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He felt that this extra precaution was necessary in view of the quite advanced age and rather frail health of many of those who will be making the trip. Of course this does not apply to me. Being one of the possibles, I would have liked to be there. I would have liked very much to have the opportunity to accompany the associate minister because I might have been able to discuss with him some things about defence and perhaps show him why it is that people like me, whose service in Canada's army was very long, although perhaps not as illustrious as some-


John Ross Matheson: You were decorated.


Frank John William Fane: -are opposed to the total unification of Canada's armed forces. I am opposed to it not because I am a member of the opposition and not because I belong to the Conservative party; if I were a Liberal and on the government side of the house I would still oppose it because of my personal convictions.
I believe this attitude holds good for the members of this party. We do not go all out for the total unification of Canada's three armed services. We think it is a wrong step. We think it should not be made at this time. We believe that the process of integration of the senior echelons of the services is adequate at this time. That is a view I have held for almost 50 years. I do not think anybody can say that my views are political. Fifty years ago I was not very politically inclined even though I started voting when I was 18 years of age because I happened to be in the army at that time. I very strongly resent the statements made by some hon. members on the government side that the opposition to this bill is entirely for political reasons. I do not believe that is so. It amazes me more than I
April 6, 1967	COMMONS
can tell you that 100 per cent of the Liberal members can vote for this bill. It is entirely beyond my understanding how they can support it.
I sometimes wonder from whom the minister is taking his orders. He is so extremely adamant in his support of his bill. We cannot change his mind at all. He will not listen to reason. He simply will not deviate one iota from the ideas that he set forth in the original draft of the bill. True, there have been a few small changes made, but they do not amount to very much. Many people are blaming the minister and only the minister. That is not the way I see it. The minister is merely the member of the government who is spearheading this legislation and trying to get the bill through parliament. He cannot do it without the support of every member of his party in the house and without the full support of the rest of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister. So, any blame that is placed on the minister must be placed equally on all the other ministers, the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal party in the house.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Everyone?


Frank John William Fane: Everyone. Nobody in that party voted against the bill at any time. I think it was the hon. member for Lambton West, who has just come into the chamber, who remarked that the committee did not assume political implications until the hon. member for Cape Breton South was made a member of the committee in my place. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that from my observations the committee became political a long time before the hon. member for Cape Breton South was made a member of it. I had to give up my place on the committee not because I was too quiet or for any reason like that but because of commitments in other places which I had to carry out.
The biggest trouble this bill has encountered has resulted from its presentation by the minister. The minister has made statements which have had to be somewhat modified at times, but the first statement that got him into trouble was his explanation of unification. I should like to read the definition that the minister gave on December 7, 1966. He had said this before. I quote from page 37 of a copy of the speech the minister made in the house on December 7 last:
Unification is the end objective of a logical and evolutionary progression.
What in the name of heaven does that mean? On page 59 of the same speech, the
National Defence Act Amendment second paragraph, he made a statement which has probably got him into more trouble than his explanation of unification. He said:
Although a unified personnel management system will be introduced, the separate units and elements of naval, field and air forces will continue to exist.
Now comes the important part:
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, soldiers and airmen until the force structure within the unified force is developed.
Isn't that a dandy?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
They will continue to be identified as sailors, soldiers and airmen until-
Note the "until"
-the force structure within the unified force is developed.
A statement like that would get anybody into trouble. I wonder whether he read it before he made it in the House of Commons.
Those are the things that have caused trouble for this bill. In the defence committee on February 7 he changed his statements a little.
I quote from page 440 of proceedings of the committee No. 14 where he said:
When I refer to a unified force I refer to a single integrated service encompassing the naval, land, air and support units necessary to carry out its assigned roles and missions and operating under unified management and control.
What does that tell us? Not very much more. It makes one wonder just exactly what is going on in the mind of the government, in the mind of the Prime Minister and in the mind of the Minister of National Defence. Until today I have liked to think that the Associate Minister of National Defence was not quite in accord with everything that was going on. I had hopes for him. I would still have hopes for him if I were only able to go with him to Paris tomorrow as I had the opportunity of doing.
We have been briefed by a number of very able and noted former servicemen. We were briefed by a few who were still serving, such as Air Marshal Sharp, Air Marshal Reyno and Major General M. R. Dare, who is the deputy chief of reserves and a long time friend and associate of mine in whom I have great faith. We were also briefed by Brigadier Lawson, judge advocate general. A number of ex-officers who belong to the Tri-Service Identities Organization also appeared before us. We also had before us the chairman of the
April 6. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment committee on the maritime component of the Canadian defence forces, the president of the Naval Officers Associations of Canada, Mr. Wilson, and the president and vice president of the Ontario division of the Navy League of Canada. We were briefed also by the president of the Toronto branch of the Naval Officers' Associations of Canada.
I will list the very senior and experienced officers who have seen very responsible service in the past and briefed members of the committee. They were headed by Rear Admiral Brock, Rear Admiral Dillon, Rear Admiral Landymore, General Foulkes, Mr. Patrick, Lieutenant General Moncel, Air Marshal Annis, Air Vice Marshal Hendrick, Lieutenant General Fleury, General Allard, who is still serving as the chief of the defence staff, Vice Admiral Rayner, Air Marshal Curtis, Lieutenant General Guy Simonds, and Air Chief Marshal Miller. The majority of these people who are not serving now were against the total unification of Canada's armed services. They have the same attitude that I have, and it is not because we are old fogeys or are living in the past. These men are mostly young men who have just been retired before completing their normal term of service.
There are a number of things that I simply cannot understand. For example, how in the name of heaven are the Canadian armed forces going to operate with one rank structure? It is difficult to imagine a lieutenant colonel commanding a ship or an admiral being a lieutenant general. It is not so difficult for the air force to conform to the new rank structure because before their present rank structure they had army ranks and army uniforms.
The provision of a single uniform for Canada's defence forces seems to me to be a little out of line. No less a person than Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten said the same thing as reported first in the Victoria Colonist of April 4, I believe, and in the Ottawa Journal of April 5. Incidentally, his letter was written to and published by the brother of the former chairman of the defence committee. The article reads as follows:
Lord Louis, in the letter to Commodore Groos, said he hoped to clarify previous statements. He described himself as "an ardent advocate of unified command and integrated administration of the services".
I agree with that. It continues:
But he wrote: "Unified command at the appropriate level is exercised by an officer from any one service, wearing his own uniform and using
[Mr. Fane.)
his own service rank assisted by an integrated staff who commands all units of the three services placed under his command.
I firmly believe that the steps taken in the recent reorganization of the British services are on the right line.
In the British organization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale and those traditions which help to maintain this in the services and fighting units.
It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary."
The letter continues:
"The general cut and colour of naval uniforms are internationally so well known that a sailor from any one country can readily be recognized as a sailor in any other country.
Sailors the world over take great pride in this and so in their own services do soldiers and airmen."
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I subscribe to that view very strongly, as I have said at other times in this house. My time is going quickly, unfortunately, but I wonder what the minister is trying to do to Canada's armed services. I wish he were here today to listen to what I have to say about him, because it is what I believe and what I have been told many times back on the prairies where people are credited with not showing too much interest in this debate.
In Alberta, the people say, "This man Hellyer, what about him?" He was a corporal and we know the record concerning two other corporals who had ambitions. Corporal Bonaparte took the name of Napoleon and as a result of his ambition he ruined the flower of France's manhood at the time he was running the affairs of that country. He jumped from a corporal to a field marshal. We also have the recent example of Corporal Schickl-gruber who took the name of Hitler. He ruined Germany. He jumped from a corporal to commander in chief of the forces and ruler of the nation.
Today we have ex-Corporal Hellyer who is trying to do the same thing but he is trying to do it legally by having this bill approved by parliament. At this time may I read a little item from B. H. Liddell Hart's book, "The Other Side Of The Hill." The author sets forth the views of some of the German people about their leader, Hitler.
He (Hitler) would not believe what he did not want to believe.
Is there not a parallel there with our minister? The author states that General Jodi had
April 6, 1967

come to the conclusion that a dictator, as a matter of psychological necessity, must never be reminded of his own errors in order to maintain his self-confidence, the ultimate source of his dictatorial force.
I should also like to quote a remark made by Grand Admiral Erich Raeder of the German navy in his book, "My Life." He said:
To have a service. . . dominated by an overburdened politician with no military accomplishments whatsoever, rankled.
I believe this statement describes our feeling toward the present Minister of National Defence. He is prone to making statements which he has to retract later. For example, he made the statement that Admiral Landymore, a gallant officer with a very notable war service, had been disloyal for 18 months before he was fired. If the minister found that this gallant officer was disloyal to Canada before he was fired he was very derelict in his duty in not having him courtmartialled and legally put out of his position rather than just thrown out because he did not agree with the minister's idea of unification of the armed forces. This goes for the 40 other noted, senior officers in the Canadian army, who were fired or forced to resign. The minister should show a great deal more respect for the advice of people who have served and unquestionably have the interests of Canada at heart.


Mr. Legaull:: Mr. Chairman, one of the remarkable things during this debate and during the proceedings of the committee was a constant uttering and re-uttering of hypothetical suggestions for and against the unification of the armed forces.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) has indicated that reports in the press were superficial and not serious.
The in-depth study of the report by Mr. Westell in the Globe and Mail reveals contradictory statements in their testimony by witnesses opposed to this legislation. I was most surprised to hear, in the defence committee, an Air Marshal condemn the CF-105 and later admit that he knew nothing about that airplane except what he had heard from others.
I think it is useless to continue arguing back and forth since the interpretation of the government supporters and the opposition is repetitive and time consuming. I think we are in a position to determine here the precise difference in policy between Liberals and Conservatives. Here, in this legislation, is a
National Defence Act Amendment practical reform measure which is fully adapted to change and which would bring about an efficient state of affairs according to our means and our capacities.
On the other hand, we have a negative opposition favouring the status quo and deeply concerned if not buried in the past.
Major General Worthington, in his article published in the Ottawa Journal on April 4, stressed that point most eloquently, as well as the fact that we have to face our responsibilities today and tomorrow.
The reorganization of the Canadian armed forces into a single, flexible and effective service, which is what this bill means, was throughly explained by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) last Monday.
In this connection, it must be borne in mind that members of our armed forces are recruited on a voluntary basis and not, like in many countries, on a compulsory basis.
Air Chief Marshal Miller said in his testimony, that the Canadian armed forces, judging by the country's potential, are the best, as compared to that of any other country. According to international statistics, in Canada, the period of military service is longer than anywhere else.
It is easy to understand, therefore, why the men in our armed forces are better trained than those of other nations.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) has often mentioned that the morale of the men is not what it should be. However, General Allard has given us the assurance that, at the present time, morale is good, as compared to what it was at certain times in the past.
The hon. member seems to forget the confusion which prevailed in 1963 when he was Minister of National Defence because no decision could be made to equip our weapons with nuclear warheads. This must have irritated servicemen who probably lost any confidence they had in the authorities, at that time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? If recruiting is as good as he says it is would he explain why our navy is unable to man its ships and why our infantry battalions are seriously under strength?


Carl Legault: I stated that recruiting has improved since 1966. I stated also that the depletion had been caused by what is called the wartime hump, with practically 24,000 members of the forces leaving because of reaching normal retirement age. I think this is self-explanatory.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would that include General Moncel?


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter this debate briefly because of my lifelong interest in the military forces of our country and because of my deep interest in the army especially. Before beginning I wish to digress for a moment. I trust, sir, that you will not
14608	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment rule me out of order. I would like to congratulate those members of the government who have been promoted within the last day or two. I congratulate especially the very able former minister without portfolio, now Registrar General, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I realize only too well that in our system of government the executive has become more powerful over the years and the legislative arm, in which we serve as members, has become of less import. It is vital for governments to have the best men and women that can be found. While I do not wish the ministers a long tenure of office,
I wish them well.
As the Associate Minister of National Defence is in his seat I wish to thank him for the many courtesies he has extended to me. I do not think any member of this house writes more than I do to the associate minister, especially about matters dealing with the immense Canadian forces base at Gagetown. I appreciate the never failing courtesy and help in these matters that have been extended. Though I have not always received the hoped for solution, I know that the minister has always attempted to be helpful, and I thank him for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Chester MacRae: I said that I would not be too lengthy but I wish to raise several important points. I have tried to approach the unification of our forces with an open mind. It distresses me that the whole development of this measure has proceeded as it has done. I am reasonably certain that many on the government side have grave misgivings about unification. No doubt a few members of my party to some extent agree with unification. Yet it seems to me we have been backed into a position where this has become an almost purely political matter on which the government has taken a fixed position and on which we have adopted a similar posture. I regret this. I have tried to approach this whole question with an open mind, as I said.
Though I believe that integration as originally conceived and implemented was an excellent objective for the minister and the government to have aimed for, from what I have read and heard in the sessions of the defence committee I have attended I am not convinced that we should proceed with unification at this time, certainly not with the haste with which the minister seems to be proceeding.
Among the many representations we have received have been some excellent ones from

DEBATES	April 6, 1967
the Tri-Service Identities Organization, known as TRIO, for short. This body of men gave honourable service in wartime and having returned to civilian life are leaders in their communities across the nation. The position they have taken is not because of political preference. They are deeply concerned about this measure and they have made some excellent suggestions to us, as members of parliament. During my brief address I should like to put on record communication received yesterday from the Tri-Service Identities Organization. I shall comment on each point they make in their letter sent to every member of this house.
Their first point is:
It is noteworthy that not one recently retired senior officer no longer having any attachment to the Department of Defence has supported the program which will be carried forward if Bill C-243 is enacted and everyone of any stature outside the services or government whose military opinion would command respect who has testified before the defence committee has expressed criticism or reservation on the proposed reorganization of the defence establishment.
I attended most of the sessions of the defence committee, either as a member of it when asked to do so by my leader or as an interested observer. The evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller impressed me more than the evidence of any other officer who appeared there. By this I do not mean to detract from the evidence given by such able men as General Moncel, whom I have known since the war years, Admirals Rayner and Lan-dymore, Air Marshal Annis and General Fleury and others. Their evidence was helpful and it was devastating to the principle of that which this house is asked to enact.
Air Chief Marshal Miller was until a few months ago the senior serving service officer in this country, a distinguished and brilliant officer. I now wish to quote from a Globe and Mail editorial of Wednesday, March 22. I bring this editorial to the attention of the committee because I feel it is so well written, and I should like to place a portion of it on the record. It stresses precisely the point I am raising.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
When Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller retired last July he did so quietly, without any comment about the differences over unification then roiling the armed forces. Until that point, as the first chief of the integrated defence staff, he had been Defence Minister Paul Hellyer's right hand man- how significantly so is indicated by the fact that he had been persuaded to stay three years past the normal retirement age of 55.
The testimony which Air Chief Marshal Miller gave to the Commons defence committee this week
April 6, 1967

is, therefore, of peculiar importance, for it is the testimony of a man who had the regard of the minister, who personified integration, and who studiously observed the duty of an officer not to comment publicly on matters of public policy.
Air Chief Marshal Miller told the committee that unification, while it might well be the end result of integration, would not at present be timely; that more time was needed for the orderly development of the integration process.
One of my hon. friends has put on the record of the house the exact exchange as it took place in the committee, and the testimony given bears out what this editorial has to say.
"I felt that a lot of careful planning was necessary and probably time to educate people was required before the next step of unification." Implementation of the bill could seriously demoralize the forces if it were rushed; the loss of personnel so far had been bad for the forces-"some key men have left."
He said he saw no significant financial or military advantage in unification over integration.
Such testimony from such a man cannot fail to raise serious doubts in any thoughtful member of the committee-or of the public-about the wisdom of Mr. Hellyer's unswerving and headlong rush toward unification. It also raises again the question of what sort of communication has existed in the Defence Department. Air Chief Marshal Miller said he did not think any defence chiefs had advised that unification go ahead, but that the subject had been much discussed. Perhaps discussion and advice are sometimes two names for the same thing-which would suggest that the burden of discussion had been against unification.
I think the point is very clear. None of these knowledgeable senior serving officers, many of whom retired before the final deci-ison to proceed with this measure was taken, support the legislation which is before us.
The second point raised in the letter from the Tri-Service Identities Organization to us is as follows:
Claims that other countries are following the Canadian example have not been substantiated. In fact government intentions as expressed in white papers on defence in the United Kingdom, France and New Zealand show no indication of emulating the Canadian plan which will be carried forward if the bill is enacted. Informed persons in both the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom, as evidenced by recent articles and statements, have indicated concern or disenchantment with the Canadian experiment.
I do not see any particular merit in being the first nation in the world to rush into unification. I think it would be much wiser for us to make haste slowly at this time, to secure one base before moving to another. No other nation in the world today is groping as Canada seems to be doing.

National Defence Act Amendment
The third point raised in this letter is:
The effective strength of the forces is below 104,000 men or 20,000 under the strength at 31st March 1963. The original objective was to reduce the forces by approximately 10,000 men.
I did not disagree with this objective but I feel that the strength of our armed forces has now fallen to a dangerous level. The letter goes on:
Included in this excessive loss are not only many senior officers well in advance of retirement but also many officers in the rank of lieutenant colonel and colonel or equivalent in all three services. In the normal course they would have been available to fill appointments of greater responsibility, yet their retirement must restrict the selection for future leaders. This can have serious repercussions for the future if something is not done to check this exodus.
The fourth point raised in this letter is as follows:
There is evidence of concern over our capability to meet out military commitments as a result of the situation which has developed in the defence department in the last four years.
This, it seems to me, is a vital point for us to consider. It is true we are not one of the great powers of the world though some, including myself, like to think of Canada as being one of the middle powers. Though our population is only 20 million this nation has played a part far more important than might have been expected in the two great wars of the last half century and in the lesser wars which have been fought in Korea and elsewhere. It is significant that in 1914 when our population was only nine or ten million we sent almost 750,000 men and women to fight for democracy. Many of them are still with us including the honourable and gallant member for Winnipeg South Centre, the former defence minister, and others who defended this nation in the great battles such as Pas-schendaele and elsewhere. In the second great war this country put almost a million men and women into the armed forces. Our contribution in northwestern Europe, in Italy and in the Far East, including the tragic episode of Hong Kong, the service of our seamen on Canada's little ships on all the seas of the world, our valiant air force, all made a record far more impressive than might have been expected from a country of our population.
This being the case, our ability to fulfil our military commitments assumes a particular importance. It seems to me that the free nations of the world, and possibly some of those which are not free, have come to expect that when Canada undertakes to do certain things

April 6, 1967
Motions for Papers
it will do them. If the commitments we have undertaken cannot be fulfilled by a unified force we will have been placed in an almost untenable position. Yet this is the opinion, almost without exception, of the expert witnesses who appeared before the committee. I think immediately of General Moncel and of Air Chief Marshal Miller, to mention only two. They have told us that with a unified force it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fulfil the commitments we have made to NATO, to NORAD and to the United Nations.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Transport-possible elimination by the Quebec Central Railway of certain trains between Quebec and Sherbrooke; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Finance-drugs-inquiry as to removal of sales tax; the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis), Historic Sites and Monuments-Louisbourg Fortress -return to work of men laid off.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, private bills and public bills.


Mr. McNuliy:: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent may we stand notices of motions Nos. 145, 137 and 128 and proceed with notice of motion No. 201 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been requested that notices of motions numbered 145, 137 and 128 stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of notice of motion No. 201.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 23, consideration of motion of Mr. Barnett:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all notes and other communications exchanged between Canada and the United States of America since the enactment by Parliament on July 16, 1964, of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act having to do with the issuance by the Governor in Council of one or more lists of geographical co-ordinates of points from which base lines may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) with regard to notes and other communications exchanged between Canada and the United States of America since the enactment by parliament on July 16, 1964, of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act I think it is useful, if I may, to refer to some of the authorities on this subject.
I should like to refer first to Todd on Parliamentary Government, volume 1, at page 358:
In 1860 a motion in the English House of Commons for the production of a copy of a despatch received from abroad (upon a subject on which negotiations were pending) and before it had been answered, was successfully opposed by the Foreign Secretary (Lord John Russell) on the ground that "such a course would not only be contrary to precedent but contrary to every principle recognized by the constitution:" it "would be like inviting the House to dictate the answer."
Jumping to our own Canadian experience, on February 25, 1929, a member moved for a copy of all letters, cables, correspondence and other documents or agreements entered into by the Canadian government in connection with the Imperial Cable merger of 1928. The postmaster general, Mr. Veniot, asked for the motion to stand as the correspondence was of a private nature between the contracting parties, the different governments of Canada, England, Australia and New Zealand. He pointed out that until permission was received to place that correspondence on the table it could not be tabled.
On January 17, 1939, in the course of debate, not on a motion, the leader of the opposition, Mr. Manion, asked if it would be possible to have published the correspondence relating to the Munich crisis of September, 1938. The prime minister of the day, Mr. April 6. 1967

Mackenzie King, replied that correspondence between governments, particularly where it relates to the possibility of war, is necessarily highly confidential and to make it public would require the consent of the governments concerned. So in that case the motion was denied.
Looking at more recent examples in this chamber I should like to refer to a motion for papers which was brought by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the subject of the imposition of United States embargoes. On January 24, 1955, Mr. Diefenbaker asked the government of the day for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents since May 1, 1954, which had passed between any department of the federal government and the government of the United States regarding the application or imposition by the government of the United States of embargoes, in whole or in part, against importation into the United States of Canadian farm products. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on behalf of the government, indicated that the motion concerned diplomatic correspondence with a former government and dealt with negotiations still in progress. Therefore he maintained that the information was privileged according to the well established practice of the house and that it would not be possible to bring it down at that particular time. The Leader of the Opposition asked that the matter be allowed to stand. The Speaker intervened and added that perhaps in the circumstances it would be better to have the motion dropped. The motion in fact was dropped.
Incidentally, on that same day the Leader of the Opposition also asked Mr. St. Laurent for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged since the first day of May, 1954, between any department of government and the governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba relative to the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project. On that same day Mr. St. Laurent in replying pointed out that since other provinces were concerned this would involve the consent of all these parties.
Moving to the year 1956, we have a motion for the production of papers relating to the Passamaquoddy project and involving an economic feasibility survey. It was motion No. 70 by Mr. Brooks. He asked for everything that had passed between any department or officials of the federal government and the International Joint Commission, the government of the United States of America, and
Motions for Papers
any other government or organization of individuals, relating to a survey or surveys of the economic feasibility of the development of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project. Again the reply was made by the present Prime Minister who referred to the usual rules of privilege regarding international communications. At page 3615 of Hansard for May 7, 1956, he is reported as follows:
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
-in so far as the correspondence with the United States government is concerned, naturally the consent of that government will have to be obtained. In so far as International Joint Commission correspondence is concerned, it has been customary to regard correspondence of this international agency as privileged in this house.
The motion was not debatable and a vote was not taken. Mr. Speaker then said:
This will have to be explored on other occasions. When the hon. member wishes to have his motion debatable he will put it on the order paper without an asterisk. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the remarks made by the minister?
By agreement the question was transferred for debate.
Let us then move to 1957 when a new administration was in power headed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). On December 9 motion No. 45 moved by Mr. Hahn for a copy of the preliminary report entitled proposals for the hydroelectric development of the Columbia river system in Canada was answered on behalf of the government by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) who was at that time the acting minister of northern affairs and natural resources. He said, as reported at page 2083 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this motion ... It is a departmental document of a type which is not normally tabled.
He referred to the fact that negotiations with the United States regarding the hydroelectric development of the Columbia river system were taking place and would likely continue for some time, and that it was not in the public interest that these documents be made public during the progress of those negotiations. Mr. Hahn continued to press the matter, at the conclusion of which Mr. Speaker said as reported at page 2084:
That is my recollection, that the document was not quoted except to identify it. This is not a debatable motion. The minister has explained his objection to complying with the order, and all that remains now is to dispose of the motion. Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.

April 6/ 1967
Motions for Papers


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
The precedents to which I am referring relate in every case to correspondence between Canada and some outside agent or country.
Let me refer to Hansard for April 17, 1961, page 3704. On that day Motion No. 100 by Mr. Argue was answered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), then the minister of veterans affairs. Mr. Argue's motion was:
For a copy of any contract, letter of intent, correspondence, or other documents exchanged between Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority since January 1, 1956, in relation to the purchasing of Canadian uranium concentrates by The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
The then minister said in his concluding sentence that the motion could not be accepted. The Speaker then said:
In view of the explanation made by the minister, what is the wish of the mover?
Mr. Argue withdrew the motion. It was dropped, the order was discharged and the motion was withdrawn.
On December 11, 1963 the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) brought a motion for papers in these words:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a general assessment of the Battelle institute report to the Alaska international rail and highway commission-
It was motion No. 160. He also requested the recommendations to the United States Congress prepared by the economic division of the department of northern affairs dated May 26, 1961. The present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) replied in these terms:
I can assure him that If the report which he asked for, dated 1961, were made public It would be accompanied by a series of calculations and recommendations to the government which would demarcate the government's bargaining position in any conclusions or agreements made with the United States government if we arrive at the position where such a mutual undertaking was in prospect.
The hon. member for Yukon responded in the way in which I invite the mover of the motion now before us to respond. The order was discharged and the motion was withdrawn.
There are many other precedents to which I could refer in respect of motions regarding
[Mr. Matheson.i
relations between Canada and other countries. We have built up certain traditions in this house regarding the publication of documents between Canada and provincial governments.
On March 26, 1961 Mr. Jones moved for a copy of letters and other documents between the federal and B.C. governments relating to Indian bands. The response was made by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) who pointed out that while he was prepared to produce the existing correspondence with the government of British Columbia, in respect of correspondence with Indian bands the superintendent of Indian affairs acted as trustee for the Indians in these matters and the correspondence should not be produced unless the Indians agreed. In this case he brought another principle into play. We have heard about the principle in respect of a government or an agency such as atomic energy. We now have the principle in respect of interested parties, in this case the Indians.
On September 3, 1958 Mr. Benidickson moved for a copy of all correspondence since September 1, 1957 between the federal government and the province of Ontario in respect of sharing of costs of the roads to resources program. The motion was responded to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), then minister of northern affairs. He concluded by saying, as reported at page 4517 of Hansard for that day:
It is impossible to table this correspondence while negotiations are going on because it would embarrass the governments concerned.
On February 2, 1959 the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) moved for a copy of all documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick or the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission concerning the construction of the East Saint John thermal plant. The motion was allowed to stand since negotiations between the governments were still in progress and it would have been improper to produce the papers at that time.
There is a great deal of relevance to some of the precedents I have just cited, particularly when we consider that the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is for a copy of notes and other communications exchanged between Canada and the United States since July 16, 1964 in respect of lists of geographical co-ordinates or points from which base lines may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the act.
April 6, 1967

On January 18, 1961, the hon. member tor Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), a member of the party to which the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni belongs, moved for a copy of all correspondence and documents exchanged between the department of northern affairs and national resources and the B.C. government regarding the development of hydro resources on the Columbia River. The minister speaking for the government at that time was the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who opposed production until negotiations with the United States were over and the agreement ratified. The motion was withdrawn.
On April 17, 1961, Mr. Argue moved for a copy of any contract or other documents-I will not go into the details-exchanged between Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd. and the United Kingdom atomic energy authority since January 1, 1956. As I mentioned before, the then minister of veterans affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), felt that they could not be produced and in fact they were not produced.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
While wishing to be co-operative, it is clear that there has been established in this house an important principle in this regard. To depart from this principle would occasion embarrassment to a government faithfully carrying out confidential negotiations with another country, a province or agency. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the government does not find it possible to accede to the hon. member's request.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, just before I rose to speak I was listening to the words of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and I noticed something very peculiar in the chamber. Finally it became apparent to me, after looking around, that the trouble was that we were not graced with the presence of a single Tory.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am in the house.


Grant Deachman: I concluded, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps they were absolutely exhausted by their efforts to defend the country against unification. However, I am very happy to see that one at least has strayed into the chamber, namely, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh). I see that the sap is rising again.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Grant Deachman: I would be delighted.


Frank Howard: Does it matter whether or not the Tories are here?


Grant Deachman: No. We miss them for the
aesthetics of their presence more than anything else.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Grant Deachman: Certainly.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I think the last question was asked because there is so much unanimity between the Liberals and the N.D.P. that it does not matter whether we oppose what the government are doing; the N.D.P. will support them anyway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think this might be a good time for me to remind hon. members that perhaps we ought to get back to the discussion of the motion before the house.


Grant Deachman: I certainly agree with you, sir. The N.D.P. and those of us on this side of the house are interested in the House of Commons and we should return to the matter under discussion. I wish to review briefly what brought about the discussion on the production of papers in connection with the 12-mile fishing limit. Some changes are taking place in the fisheries of the world which need to be emphasized from time to time because they affect the livelihood of many Canadians. This question is important to our trade abroad. It is important to the future growth and development of Canadian trade and to the employment of people on both our coasts. Therefore I think it important to review some of these points for a moment or two.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) spoke on February 9 last on this motion the argument he put forward was that the matter before the house was in reality a motion for the production of papers. He based his argument on that point. However, I want to go behind the motion to what gives rise to it. A matter of very grave interest gave rise to the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). It was my privilege last year, at the outset of this session when the estimates were brought down, to have the opportunity to chair the fisheries committee in its examination of the estimates. It was an exercise which I enjoyed

April 6, 1967
Motions for Papers
very much and from which I hope I have profited.
I entered the committee room with other hon. members knowing virtually nothing about Canada's fisheries and found myself the chairman of a group who were very expert in this field. There were hon. members from both sides of the house, representing coastal constituencies and constituencies with inland fisheries, who had long been accustomed to looking after the needs of fishermen and thinking in terms of the Canadian fisheries economy. It was a pleasure to me to have the opportunity of associating with them and to explore with the Department of Fisheries, the Fisheries Research Board and the minister the grave problems affecting not only the Canadian fisheries industry but the world food and world population situation. This makes our Canadian fisheries so important and it makes our discussion of the 12-mile limit very pertinent.
After its examination of the estimates the committee made four recommendations to the minister. We recommended that the efforts and research of the department be strengthened in these areas: first of all, coastal pollution and pollution of our inland waters; second, increased research and the development in particular of methods which would bring to commercial feasibility the artificial production and spawning of lobster on the east coast and salmon on the west coast. Our third recommendation concerned the policing of some of our subsidized fisheries programs and, fourth, we dealt with the incursion of foreign fishing fleets into Canadian waters, which is the subject at hand and about which we were considerably worried at that time.
The world situation in respect of food needs no elucidation in this house other than to say that the world population is exploding at an unprecedented rate and our capability of finding food for the population of the world is not meeting that expansion. Hence, people in countries are going to sea as they have never gone to sea before in an effort to find the food and the proteins necessary to feed their vastly expanding populations. This has given rise to a number of changes in the fishing industry. First of all, the United States itself, although a wealthy nation and capable of taking care of the food needs of its own people, has become an importer of fish and fish products to an increasing extent. This has provided for Canada an increasing U.S. market.

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
It is of particular interest that the expansion of the market in the U.S. has been characterized by a great expansion on the west coast, particularly in the state of California where much of the increase in the west coast fishery market is now being found. It is a fact that European fishing fleets, long accustomed to fishing off the Grand Banks and in the waters of the Canadian east coast, now find they are bringing an increasing amount of their catch back to the European market and less to the U.S. market which they have long served. So the European market is making increasing demands upon that particular fishery. These demands have extended to the extent that the fisheries of the east coast are beginning to reach a balance of production, and it will not be too long before the world's greatest ground fisheries will be in danger of over-fishing and measures of conservation will have to be applied.
On the west coast we are experiencing for the first time the sight of foreign vessels in considerable numbers fishing off that coast with massive fishing equipment the like of which the Canadians and Americans accustomed to fishing that coast have never seen. I speak particularly of the huge Russian fishing fleets which have moved in around the entrances to the Canadian coast to the south and north of the Queen Charlotte islands, and also of the Russian fisheries fishing off the Aleutians and down the coast of Alaska, in addition to the increase in the Japanese fisheries fishing off that coast. This has come about simply because of the need to find protein for the increasing population of those countries. It has come about also as a part of the increasing technology of those countries and their capability of engaging in a major fishery based on huge equipment and done upon a very scientific basis.
It is this innovation on the west coast, at a time when our own ground fishery is increasing, that frightens the people of that area in respect of their fisheries, and of the future of their fisheries, if methods cannot be found and agreements cannot be reached to protect these great inland fisheries from being fished out by foreign fleets hungry for proteins for their starving and undernourished peoples.
We have other reasons for being interested in the growth of the ground fisheries, the protection of which is associated with the establishment of a 12-mile limit. We are accustomed on the west coast to the salmon
April 6, 1967

fishery which is fished only when the runs are on, and this comes over a very short period of time. Then the canneries operate for a very short period of time, and when that is finished the man who is engaged, either in fishing salmon at sea or in the cannery, finds his work done. If it were not for other kinds of fish and other methods of fishing on the west coast the fishing industry there would be a very ephemeral and seasonal occupation indeed. But it has been because of the development of the ground fishery that the fishing season and the use of vessels and canneries have been spread out to occupy a much longer period during the year and to make of the fisheries on the west coast a much more stable industry.
This has meant that the fishing industry has had to get into business with much heavier equipment, with boats 60, 70 and 80 feet in length, vessels costing upward of $100,000, $200,000 and $300,000, and equipment and gear which is very expensive to operate and which must be amortized over a considerable period of time, and as the result of a very stable fishery. It has also meant that the old fashioned fishery, which was an old wooden shed with very little equipment in it, has been modernized into the most modern plants that you will see in Canada involved in the packaging and processing of food. It has meant that these plants are engaged in much more work in the course of a year, to process the fish brought in by trawlers which are now working on the ground fisheries off the coast of northern British Columbia and in the Pacific coastal waters.
There is a further development which is of interest to us as Canadians. One plant on the west coast has now a subsidiary operating in California. This subsidiary is receiving frozen fish blocks which are used for cutting up into fish sticks and portions, which it is packaging and selling in the U.S. market. So we are not only expanding a Canadian industry but we are engaging in the development of a foreign trade and establishing plants in the United States. I think the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) would be delighted if he could hear this explanation of the very reverse of what he considers to be American imperialism in Canadian industry. This is more a case of Canadian imperialism in the United States, and it is very desirable from the standpoint of the west coast industry.
All this means that the fishery on the west coast, which once provided only a portion of the livelihood of people, has now become a
Motions for Papers
very stable industry, not only at sea but on land and in the export trade, one that is capable of employing an increasing number of people and engaging a larger segment of the economy. Therefore it is essential, and becomes increasingly so, that this kind of fishery be well protected. There are several ways in which this can be achieved. One way of course is in the development of treaties and arrangements with regard to conservation between the United States and ourselves, and any others who may fish in these waters both on the west and the east coast, to see that we do not fish out these fisheries; because if we cannot conserve them, not only will they be of no good to us but they will be of no good to the rest of the world which relies on these fisheries for the food they so badly need.
The second point I want to drive home is that these fisheries are an off-shore resource of the Canadian people, and to whatever extent possible we as a nation should do what is in our power to protect this resource for our own people as a source of employment for them, and as a source of the future development of our own markets abroad.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We do not object, as Canadians, to the historic fisheries that have been developed in the waters off our shores over periods of hundreds of years, since the discovery of this continent. However, I believe there must be a recognition of the fact that we have some rights in these waters, and in the fisheries which we have taken the trouble to conserve and for which we have developed markets. It is important that we be aggressive as Canadian people in establishing the 12-mile limit and in protecting the bays of our offshore waters which are necessary to the conservation of these fisheries.
I cannot therefore be too forceful in urging upon the government and upon the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), who I understand at this moment is in Russia discussing this question, amongst others, with his counterpart in the Russian government, the need to reach an agreement with the operators of the world's major fisheries on behalf of the Canadian people. In the last little while the United States has been successful in negotiating a 12-mile limit for Alaskan waters. They have had to make some concessions in order to achieve this. They have had to give the Russians a concession which enables them to come into Alaskan ports for food, for ship repairs and the like.

April 6, 1967
Motions for Papers
Of course, this kind of concession enables the Russian fleet to maintain itself offshore and engage in extensive fishing beyond the 12-mile limit for a longer period of time. This represents a considerable concession the United States had to make in order to establish this limit. We, to date, have not been too badly put upon by the massive fleets which the Russians are able to bring to bear on these fisheries. We have had a taste of this on the west coast, so that we know the initial, exploratory work in our ground fishery has been done by these foreign fleets. A serious problem is shaping up for us in the future, if we do not rest on top of it.
In closing, therefore, I want to say that I am glad to see this motion on the order paper because of the opportunity it provides to discuss this serious matter and emphasize to the government of the day, which I am proud to support, that this is a serious matter for those of us who live on the coast. We hope that the efforts of the minister, when he is in Russia, will be fruitful and that he will continue to impress upon the Russians, as well as our United States neighbours, who are tough customers to deal with on the subject of fishing in Canadian waters, that these Canadian resources should be used for the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Barnett:: I hoped the hon. member would allow me time to pose one question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Arising out of the report the hon. member gave us of the activities of the Minister of Fisheries during his visit to Russia, I want to ask if he can tell us whether the minister has been discussing the establishment of base line co-ordinates with the Soviet authorities?


Grant Deachman: Like Will Rogers, I only know what I read in the newspapers. All I saw to that effect was that he was discussing this question when he was in Russia.


Mr. Andrew Chatwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion because of the vital importance of the subject to fishermen and because of my particular interest both in the geographical co-ordinates and the 12-mile limit. The question, I believe, is whether it is desirable

to make public the notes and communications requested, and also if it is possible or proper, in light of the rules governing diplomatic correspondence, to produce these documents and letters exchanged between one government and another while negotiations are still continuing.
I should like in a moment to come back to a discussion of whether or not it is proper, and I do not believe it is. First of all, I should like to deal with the question of whether it is desirable to produce these papers. It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that by producing them at this time there would be an adverse effect on the negotiations taking place with other nations with regard to the establishment of the 12-mile limit. The 12-mile limit and the establishment of the co-ordinates are of vital importance. One hears now of cases of foreign draggers coming into our inshore waters and ruining the gear of our shore fishermen. This results of course in damage to the gear and a loss of catch. The continued activities of these draggers is resulting in a reduction in the amount of fish being taken by the shore fishermen, so there is an adverse effect on their living. The continued expansion of these foreign fleets and the methods they use for taking the fish have resulted in a reduction in the catch of our Canadian draggers who are operating farther out. We must look also at the fact that the world relies on the sea for food. We must therefore maintain the fish we have in the ocean, to maintain the world food supply. The control we would have through the establishment of these limits as a result of negotiations with other countries would be of utmost importance, both in establishing where these operations should take place, and in establishing the type of fish that should be taken.
We hear of cases where certain of these draggers using new systems are taking fish of all types, keeping the type they want and throwing the others overboard. This means that there are dead fish floating around which could have been used. Negotiations between the various countries would assist in both controlling the fishery and in ensuring that it will continue.
This excessive dragging in certain inshore areas has resulted in a reduction in the catch of the shore fishermen. This reduction has occurred for two reasons. In the first place, these large draggers from other countries are taking an excessive amount of fish, with the consequent reduction in catch for our fishermen. There has been a reduction in catch also as a result of the fact they have disturbed the
April 6, 1987

area in which spawning takes place. The fact these operations have moved inshore has reduced the amount of fish in these areas and has forced our shore fishermen to move farther out. They have been forced to use larger boats and heavier gear. At the same time, the trawlers move through these areas and cause damage to the gear, as I mentioned before, and this has a serious effect.
The desire to establish a limit is not new, but it is of vital importance that we should have it. It is also important that we should discuss with other countries the appropriate limit we should have, so that it can be recognized by those countries which are fishing near our shores.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Some of the limits that have been set were set early in the 1900's. Norway declared her limit of four miles in 1906. In 1907 Argentina declared a limit of 12 miles; in 1909 Spain declared a limit of 6 miles; in 1912 Italy declared a limit of 7 miles; and in 1914 Greece declared a limit of 6 miles. Colombia declared a limit of 12 miles, Ecuador 15 miles, Korea 50 to 60 miles, the Dominican Republic 12 miles, El Salvador 200 miles, Cambodia 12 miles, India 100 miles and Ceylon 100 miles. These limits have already been declared by these countries.
However, I think we all realize that declaring a limit without the agreement of other countries who might want to fish off shore is not satisfactory. It would take a tremendous number of patrol boats to patrol a limit of, as is the case with some countries, 100 or 200 miles, and in view of this ineffective patrolling the limit could not be enforced.
Talking of our present limits and regulations, by agreement and by regulation the Department of Fisheries is doing an excellent job of patrolling both with the use of patrol boats and planes. I feel that this effort on their part would be improved if the limit were increased, and we had the agreement of other nations to such extension.
The effect of a limit on our fishery shows the importance of any bill to make this provision. It must be established here whether this production of papers would serve the purpose of protecting our fishermen and our fishery. It appears to me that the production of these documents would have an adverse effect upon the implementation of the base lines and of a 12-mile limit. It is necessary to make this provision under international law, and we must make sure that other countries obey such a limit.
Motions for Papers
In 1947 the United Nations set up the international law commission. Ten years later that commission, after a very exhaustive study of every aspect, presented a report covering this whole topic. In 1957 the United Nations called for a conference to be held in Geneva in 1958, and the conference was held in February through to April of that year, 86 nations attending. Progress was made. They did not make as much progress on this limit as we would have wished, but effective discussions were held. These discussions between the nations are what will make effective the provision of a 12-mile limit and the setting of base line co-ordinates.
If we do something at this point which will disrupt the negotiations we are having with the United States and other nations, the effect would be to set back the discussions we have already had and the possibility of bringing in the 12-mile limit within a short period of time. This would result in a further spate of discussions, which would set off to a later date still the setting of a limit.
These limits are of vital importance to the continuation of the fishery both on the west coast and on the east coast, where larger ships of other nations are moving in. Russian fleets have lately started to move in. The Soviet Union has developed even larger and more modern vessels, and their techniques are such that they are able to net a larger amount of fish than some of our traditional fishing neighbours who come from long distances across the sea. The Portuguese have been fishing off our east coast for some 500 years; and some of our American neighbours to the south have been coming into what are Canadian waters and taking what are the resources of Canada for many years.
When the limit is brought in we will have to recognize, at least for a limited time, some of the traditional rights of these countries. However, it is desirable-indeed, it is a requirement-that we gradually withdraw some of these rights, particularly in the case of vessels which are coming closer in to the shore.
The fishery on the east coast has been carried on almost since the time the continent was discovered. When the first settlers located along the coast of Newfoundland in the early 1500's they started to fish. Other crews came out from Europe to fish, and then returned at the end of the fishing season.
From that date, Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry has grown each year, although we have had the occasional bad year. It is now

April 6, 1967
Business of the House
undergoing, especially on the east coast, a tremendous change in that new methods are being adopted in an effort to modernize the industry and assist the fishermen to obtain larger catches of fish as well as to market better products. At the same time the value of these efforts is being lessened by the fact that foreign draggers are operating offshore and closer inshore than they should, which both reduces the amount of fish available to be fished and hurts the grounds where the fish breed and spawn.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must move as quickly as possible to bring in the 12-mile limit and control the method of fishing this area. If we were to produce these papers and disrupt the present negotiations, all progress would be hindered and virtually stopped. So I suggest that the papers requested should not be produced, because of the adverse effect this would have on the industry.
The fishing industry is divided into many parts-the shore fishery, the fishery from longliners and the fishery by trawler. The amount of fish taken from the shore has been increasing as the fishermen have improved their methods. Other methods of fishing have also improved. The amount of fish that the trawlers and larger ships, particularly the ships of other nations, are able to take has increased to a far greater extent and, as I have already mentioned, an adverse effect on our fishery.
In order to protect our fishermen, then, I suggest that we should not produce these papers at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the time allotted for the consideration of private members business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether the sitting of the house could be suspended for an hour for dinner.
Moreover, if members are agreeable, I am prepared to move an order similar to the one we had for the last number of weeks, providing for the suspension of our sittings from seven to eight o'clock on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and from one to two o'clock on Fridays. If the house wishes I will put the motion in that form.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That on April 6, 1967, and until the end of the present session the sitting of the house shall be suspended from 7:00 o'clock p.m. to 8:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and from 1:00 o'clock p.m. to 2:00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the special committee on procedure has made its report as set out in Votes and Proceedings of March 20. It recommends that standing order 6 be provisionally amended for the next session of parliament, that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, except when private members business is to be considered in any such sittings, the sittings of the house shall be suspended from 6 o'clock p.m. until 8 o'clock p.m., and where private members business is to be considered the interruption would be from 7 o'clock p.m. until 8 o'clock p.m.; and that on any day on which a morning sitting is held

the next day being tomorrow, Friday-the sitting of the house shall be suspended from 1 o'clock p.m. until 2.30 o'clock p.m.
I felt, considering the unanimous agreement of the special committee, that for the balance of this session we might adopt these recommendations and put them into practice. I feel that a little good will by the government in this respect would do a great deal toward expediting the business of the house. If the government feels it must put pressure on this house, then of course we shall have to abide by what it does, and conduct ourselves accordingly.


George James McIlraith: We thought we were removing pressure. I of course would be happy if the report of the committee could be adopted immediately. I am sure if it were adopted now, I certainly would be prepared to move that the new rules come into effect for the balance of this session.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: They could be made applicable for the remainder of the session.


Michael Starr: My congenial friend, the government house leader, is trying to put another stumbling block in the way of the matter under discussion. I feel there is no need to adopt the report at this time; that should be done at the proper time. The government has asked that the second report stand, on a number of occasions when it has been called by Your Honour. That has been their initiative. The motion now before us could have been drafted on the basis of the special committee's recommendation.
April 6, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Michael Starr: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to order made when Mr. Speaker was in the chair the committee stands suspended until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose at six o'clock, clause 2 was under consideration.


John Chester MacRae: Before continuing my brief remarks on this clause may I say, sir, that we are all very happy to see you back in the chair, after your brief absence. I trust you are restored to complete health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Chester MacRae: As a basis for my remarks on this subject I was using a letter received from the Tri-Service Identities Organization by all members of parliament a few days ago. The point in the letter to which I was addressing my remarks was the fourth, which reads as follows:
There is evidence of concern over our capability to meet our military commitments as a result of the situation which has developed in the Defence Department in the last four years.
When the able and distinguished former senior officers were before us, I took occasion, as did many other members of the committee, to ask General Foulkes, General Moncel and others whether they believed that if the forces of this country were unified we could discharge the commitments we have made to NATO, to NORAD and to the United Nations. Every one of these military leaders stressed the point that they did not believe we could
National Defence Act Amendment fulfil our present obligations under unification. I will admit that the Minister of National Defence did not agree with this, and he said so on several occasions, once in answer to a question I put to him. However, the evidence is there, for the record, in the committee reports. The able officers who gave evidence before the committee did not agree with the minister on that point.
Next I should like to place on record the fifth and sixth paragraphs of this letter, which are related.
(5)	Expenditures on equipment for the five years ending the 31st March, 1968 will not match the spending for the five years ending the 31st March, 1963 despite claims that the reorganization is to make more money available for equipment.
(6)	It is admitted that the steps in the reorganization which will be possible under Bill C-243 will not lead to savings of any account. Thus, if any savings are possible, it will be as a result of those steps taken since 1964 under the authority of Bill C-90. Bill C-243 having been categorized as permissive, the wisdom of proceeding at this time would seem to be questionable if economies are not to be effected and in face of the widespread criticism which the department's program is encountering.
One of the arguments in favour of unification which appealed to a great many people in this country is that a considerable proportion of our military budget could be saved each year if unification were carried out. This would be a valid argument, if it were true. But it would appear from the evidence placed before the committee which examined this bill that such is not the case. As this letter points out, there will not be as much money available for equipment in the next five years as there was in the past, and the economies which have been effected up to this stage have resulted from integration, not from unification. Again I would suggest that there is very little opposition either in this house, in the country as a whole or in the armed forces themselves to the principle of integration: It is unification which is disturbing all of us.
The seventh paragraph is one in which I am deeply interested and reads as follows:
It has been admitted that morale should be improved. Many service personnel are deeply disturbed by the uncertainty which now exists for a service career and are unwilling to accept the reorganization as they now see it. Nothing should be done to aggravate this situation.
In my discussions with servicemen as I travel back and forth across the eastern part of this country I have found that a great many are deeply disturbed about what is happening, although there are, of course, some who are not giving the matter much thought.
April 6, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Recently I was talking to a young helicopter pilot who was travelling from Halifax to Toronto. His feeling was that a great many key personnel were simply waiting to see What would happen, and that if this bill were to become law there could very well be a considerable exodus of key personnel from the armed forces. This would be tragic, especially when we have lost so many capable men already.
Paragraphs eight and nine of the letter read as follows:
(8)	It seems remarkable that the critics of the reorganization have been variously categorized as emotional, unprogressive, unreasonable, disloyal, obstructionist, destructive, politically motivated or without responsibility. Do none of the extensive body of Canadians who hold opinions contrary to those of the minister of defence do so by reason of knowledge, capability, experience, conviction, concern or sincerity? Surely the calibre of some of the witnesses who have appeared before the defence committee dictates a high degree of credibility for their views and in no way justifies any discounting of their evidence and opinions.
(9)	Overwhelming support for the reorganization program does not exist amongst Canadians generally. Thus the latest Gallup poll showed less than 50 per cent of Canadians support it. Observing that this poll was taken before the defence committee started its hearings, and before so much cogent evidence was presented by so many knowledgeable persons against the plans and policies as presently disclosed, would certainly permit the conclusion that even fewer Canadians support the program now than six weeks ago.
That is indeed an interesting observation. Finally:
(10)	The military merit of the proposed reorganization has not been established in the light of our declared military commitments at least to the satisfaction of experienced ex-senior officers who appeared before the committee.
In summary I submit that no legislation has been presented to you during the long session now drawing to a close which has less justification or foundation for enactment than Bill C-243 as it is now written. While it is possible that amendments may be made to make the bill acceptable, these would have to go to the root of the legislation, namely section 2, and provide for the continuance of the navy, army and air force, the identities of which will be abolished under the present proposals. As this would in effect nullify much of what is now proposed, on balance the prudent and proper course would be to shelve the proposed bill and thereby the program which will be made possible thereunder pending further examination of all aspects of our defence.
I dealt with this aspect earlier in my address.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say again that I think a great many officers and men in the services believe integration is
IMr. MacBae.j
a good thing. It has had beneficial results, but two or three years are required for it to shake down before it will have its full effect. Undoubtedly it will be beneficial. It has proven to be beneficial up to this point, but I believe, as I feel a great many Canadians do, that we should now proceed with caution. This particular bill at this time should stand, let us say, six months or a year, at which time it might be raised again when the feelings of opposition perhaps have lessened, when worries have been quietened, and when there is more evidence to show that unification is a step which we should take in respect of the whole organization of the armed forces of this country.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that this debate, if debate it is, was supposed to be a discussion of the bringing up to date of Canada's armed forces in the world which we face in the late 1960's and early 1970's. We are supposed to be debating a program to bring Canada's armed forces into line so that they will be able to deal with the new technology with which our forces are equipped, and with which they are to be equipped. This means, Mr. Chairman, that when we are debating this subject we should be debating the form we want the army, the air and naval forces to take, and what we want them to do. It means that our judgment must be on the basis of efficiency and effectiveness, because armed forces are expensive.
Unification, as I understand it, implies the merging of administrative and support functions, command functions, command responsibility, personnel management, supply services, pay services, recruitment and training. To me it means taking a three dimensional look at our armed forces, and the world in which we must use them. The last time I participated in this debate on this subject I said that to me defence is only a function of foreign policy, and therefore we should take a look at our foreign policy to see what policies we intend to follow in order to determine what kind of force we require to fulfil those policies.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave us a most interesting tour of the world, as it appears to him. He underlined the assumptions and attitudes the Canadian government is taking in determining the function that the armed forces would perform as a result of this particular bill. In going over his speech, I find that he seemed to make three points. First, he said we were in NORAD to defend North America, because
April 6, 1967

this is the collective way to do it, and that the United States is a pillar upon which all western security has been based since the second world war. Furthermore he intimated that one of the reasons France was withdrawing from the NATO alliance was that France was not willing to assume that the United States would stand up to protect her any longer.
The second point he made is that NATO now is basically a political alliance, whereas in its beginning it had been basically a military alliance designed to protect both Europe and North America from sudden attack from Russia. Things are changing. The NATO alliance itself now is in danger of breaking up, since the withdrawal of France and the subsequent moving of NATO headquarters to Brussels. The minister pointed out that it is necessary for all countries concerned with NATO to re-examine their position to see whether it is necessary to maintain the alliance under the present circumstances.
The third function which Canada has performed in a military way is that of participation in United Nations peace keeping operations in Cyprus and on the Israel-U.A.R. border. In addition it has provided observers on the frontiers of Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kashmir. Canada also participates in the International Supervisory Commission in Indo China, although this function of course does not come under the United Nations jurisdiction.
This is the basis for our foreign policy as the minister outlined it. It indicates a shifting role for Canada in its foreign affairs and in the role our military forces should play in order to take their full part. In other words, we seem to be moving away from what could be described as a static position or a holding operation to a position where our forces would be mobile and capable of moving quickly to trouble spots wherever they may be, and wherever our forces may be required.
I should like to remind hon. gentlemen that since the second world war we have had some 40 odd bushfires, small wars, which have broken out. It is this type of operation which I believe will require the participation of the smaller nations, such as Canada, which do not have any great interest in founding an empire, if you like, or in furthering their own national goals. We are able to go in as detached observers, and we have had fairly good results in this field.
National Defence Act Amendment
There have been a number of arguments raised against unification. I think that basically they resolve into two arguments of substance. The first and most difficult to attack is the argument that we are going too far too fast. It is difficult for those of us in the House of Commons who are not experts in these fields to determine whether or not we indeed are going too far too fast. However, whether we should use this argument as a means to impede progress is another matter. My own feeling is that the argument, that we are going too far too fast, is the argument used by Conservatives when they wish to stop movements which are progressive in nature. In other words, this is the natural Conservative reaction to a progressive proposal. I would suggest to those newspaper reporters and editors who have said that there is no Conservative party in Canada that the defence debate we are having here is a perfect example of this, in the way they are putting forward the argument "too far too fast".


Maurice Rinfret: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member how old he is.


John Mercer Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member for Yorkton that my age is 30 and I hold the position at the present time of being the youngest member in the House of Commons.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I feel sorry for you.


John Mercer Reid: The other argument which has been put forward is that of emotion. I think there is some sentimental attachment, if you like, to the idea that our forces should remain in the way we find them at any given time. I am not one of those who are particularly attached to the past although I must confess that before coming to this house I made my living as an exploiter of the past while serving as a professor of history. I do think there are times when change must come. Change involves a certain amount of risk.
No one here to my knowledge ever has admitted that he is perfect. Mere men will make mistakes. Whether the mistakes we will make in bringing forth a unified armed forces are greater than the mistakes we would make by maintaining our forces in the static form in which they now are, I leave for you to judge. My own personal opinion is that we must move; we must unify our armed forces; we must bring them up to date and we must make them truly effective. I believe that to
April 6, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment unify is to provide our armed forces with the means to be effective and to take advantage of the new weapons systems which are increasingly becoming available, and that to unify is to take a realistic look at the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member mind answering a question at this stage?


John Mercer Reid: Not at all, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very much interested in this first class debate which is taking place. I should like to ask the hon. member in what way unification will increase the effectiveness of our armed forces.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


John Mercer Reid: I was going to refer to this particular point and perhaps this would be as good a time as any to do so. I have in my hand the last issue of the Atlantic Monthly in which appeared an article entitled "How the Pentagon Works" by Adam Yarmokinsky. He deals with the changes that have taken place in pentagon bureaucracy as a result of the activity of Mr. McNamara and the order he has imposed upon the chaos that existed there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was not unification.


John Mercer Reid: I agree that was not unification, but I want to point out that one of the things going on here is substantially the same, namely the reorganization of the upper command structure. The author states that by the mere apportionment of funds one can bring down the conflict that exists between various forces when there have been substantial changes. He says:
That this apportionment of funds sometimes had more to do with the relative needs and ambitions of the military services than with the requirements of United States foreign policy was an unhappy but unavoidable consequence of this way of doing business.
They made the changes but they called them something other than unification. In point of fact I believe that streamlining of command function such as is taking place and has taken place will lead to considerable savings.


Mr. Herridge:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has he heard anyone in the opposition suggest that the organization of our armed forces should remain static? Are we not all in favour of integration?


John Mercer Reid: That is a very interesting argument in semantics. Nobody yet has been able to define the difference between unification and integration.


An hon. Member:: Not even the minister.


John Mercer Reid: The minister in his most recent speeches has said that, so far as he is concerned, they are one and the same thing; that integration and unification are the same, and you can call it what you will. Whatever you call it, this is part of a cycle during which there will be a transformation of the armed forces over a period of eight years. Perhaps that fact alone will lessen the confusion more than anything else.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member answer another question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it rather improves the hon. member's speech when we ask questions from time to time. As a good young representative of Canada at the age of 30, is the hon. member in favour of striking out on Canadian policy, rather than bringing in McNamara policy from the United States? Has the hon. member consulted Walter Gordon in this regard?


John Mercer Reid: I am one of those who does not care where a good idea originates. I will not turn one down because of its parentage.
Let me return to what I was saying. I should like to make two or three additional points in respect of what I think is really taking place during this debate. There are a variety of issues at stake which have not come to the surface as yet. There is a struggle going on between the armed forces bureaucracy, if you will, and civilian control. Who is going to run things and who is going to say what equipment should be bought or how deployment should be effected? That is one aspect of the matter.
The whole contest between these opponents has occurred in respect of the concept of unification. This is the point about which the hard battle is being fought. The members of the command structure, the retired senior officers, have been called upon to form the ranks of this new army within an army. They have fought a very impressive battle. Had they not done this I am sure the debate would have been over and done with long ago.
There is also a struggle going on within the armed forces between the senior and junior
April 6. 1967

serving officers. General Worthington is reported in the Ottawa Journal of yesterday as having said that those senior officers who remained with the forces after the last war should have been released as soon as the war ended, in order that command could have been turned over to the young fighting colonels. There is a contest taking place between these two groups of men, one which is looking backwards to make their plans, while the other, I hope solidly in command, is familiar with the use of new weapons, technology and computers, if I may use that word in this house. They are familiar with the new way of doing things.


Gordon Minto Churchill: These are very helpful on the battlefield.


John Mercer Reid: This certainly has caused the serving officers some difficulty because they do not find compatible this attitude in national defence headquarters. In my own personal opinon this is perhaps one of those struggles which takes place between generations from time to time and I cannot really sympathize with the older fellows who are losing out.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask another question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly, sir.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am interested in the reliance the hon. member places on the words of General Worthington. I am a great admirer of that gentleman, who was the father of the armoured corps. I served with him at Camp Borden and I always felt he should have commanded a division in the second world war, because of his skill in directing troops and because of his fighting attributes. Why does my young friend place such reliance on General Worthington's words? He is no longer a young man. How old is he now?


Harold Edward Winch: Eighty eight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why does the hon. member not rely on others like General Moncel, who is about 47, and other retired officers who are about 50 or 51 years of age? Because of my own age I will not refer to myself. I know the hon. gentleman has already relegated me to the ash pile.


John Mercer Reid: First of all, I think it is only fair to say I do not like to make a difference between generations simply because of age. One has to accept good ideas wherever he finds them. General Worthington admits that he is one of those who should have been turned out
National Defence Act Amendment after the second world war, so that command could have been turned over to the fighting colonels who actually fought the battles.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
My last comments are in relation to the opposition claim that because no other country has adopted unification Canada should not adopt it. I am rather proud that Canada is taking a lead in this area. I think it is commendable, and we should do more of this type of thing. I think we have not done so because of an almost built-in inferiority complex. We are making an experiment in this regard. We are trying to look at the world through new eyes. We are trying to reorganize ourselves so that we may cope effectively in this area.
The other arguments put forward by members of the opposition are rather negative. The fact is that very few other countries have the same problems as Canada, and very few other countries want to play the same type of role that we want to play, as was outlined yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think it is a fine thing that we should be willing to take on a fairly risky role as a peacemaker. I think it is a fine thing that we should go ahead and produce the forces required to make our participation in that kind of role an effective one. To my knowledge that is the only argument that can be made to the type of negative proposals put forward by the opposition.
The last thing I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that when the hon. member for Edmonton West spoke on Monday last he said that government members were committed by their vote on second reading. He went on to say, as reported at page 14441 of Hansard:
And. may I say, so are the members of the opposition.
As I understand the rules of the house, this debate is a perversion of the rules, because it seems to me that after the vote on second reading has been taken, the principle itself is no longer under debate in the house. What should be the concern of members of the house is to go through this complicated bill in detail and check the various provisions in it, to ensure that the principle is being rightly and truly carried out to the fullest extent. I think that with this debate on clause 2 of the bill the opposition are guilty of short-circuiting or perverting the rules of the house. I suggest that if the opposition were really concerned about the armed forces, they would pass clause 2 as quickly as possible, or force a vote to show their opposition to the principle of the bill, and get on with the business of the
April 6, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment house. The provisions of the bill are certainly-complicated and far-reaching, and I think the country, the house and the armed forces would be better served if this were done.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A dear boy in a rush.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. I listened to him with a great deal of interest. Actually, I have two questions. First, with regard to the principle of the bill no longer being under discussion because of the decision on second reading, I would point out that I received a letter from a professor-I think this will arouse some interest in the hon. member's mind because it is a case of one professor speaking to another-on that very question. He asked: Is parliament right in determining, on second reading when the decision is made, that the principle of the bill has been decided? Would it not be sounder, and was it not really the original intention that the passing of the bill on second reading is only a declaration that the bill is acceptable in form and should then be considered in detail by the committee of the whole house or a special committee?
That is an interesting thought, rather than that on second reading we are settling the principle of the bill.


John Mercer Reid: It is an interesting thought, Mr. Chairman, but it is not the way I read the rules of the house, nor do I think it is the way other hon. members read the rules of the house. My interpretation of the rules is that when you have given a bill second reading, the principle has been decided, and having decided the principle one then got down to discussing the details of the bill, to ensure that the principles were carried out to the fullest extent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a further question. I wonder whether the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River raised that particular thesis with the minister, and whether he examined the minister's opening speech in connection with the very idealistic theory that he has just propounded. If he had examined the minister's speech I think he would have seen that there is contained in it a whole history of integration and justification for the principle of the bill. The minister spoke for 50 minutes on integration, and less than 10 minutes on unification. Therefore, perhaps the hon. member would care to suggest to the minister, "Physician, heal thyself."


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have just one other question for the hon. member. I think we are making this an interesting evening for him. The hon. member was talking about the number of brush fires that have occurred since the end of the second world war and said that our forces should be prepared to move quickly to trouble spots. Is the hon. member advocating the use of the proposed unified force for peace restoring, and what would be his definition of peace restoring? The phrase was used by the minister in his speech of December 7, which I hope the hon. member has read, and it has been used by other people since. What does the hon. member understand to be the meaning of peace restoring, and how would he use our forces?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a case where we would not go barging in unilaterally. It is a case where we would go in if we were invited by both sides, such as was the case with Cyprus, for example. We would really be providing a buffer. I do not think it is for us to go around playing the policeman, the way the United States is apparently trying to do in various parts of the world.
The point I am trying to make is that peace keeping, to my mind, means that when two countries happen to get into difficulty and require a buffer, we should be ready to provide that buffer at a moment's notice. Like politicians, countries often get into troubles that they regret later, and they look for a face-saving way of getting out of them. I think Canada can contribute in this way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is qualified for the post of secretary of state for external affairs, because he has done exactly what the minister did yesterday. I asked the minister about peace restoring, and he transformed it into peace keeping and gave me a completely different answer from what I expected from him. The hon. member has done exactly the same thing.


John Mercer Reid: It would seem to me that peace restoring would be a situation where you barged in unilaterally. Peace keeping would be a situation where you attempted to keep the parties apart and allowed time for the healing graces to work. I cannot see Canada, under any circumstances in the world, barging in unasked by both parties and trying unilaterally to settle an international incident.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I would be permitted to ask the hon. member a question. I have followed very
April 6, 1967

closely what he has said, and what he did say intrigues me. Has the hon. member forgotten that when Bill C-243 was introduced in the house, the members of this party and the official opposition, because of voting on the principle on second reading, pleaded with the government to send the bill, before second reading, to the defence committee for clarification and explanation and so we could hear evidence in respect of this question. We were denied the right, by those of the government benches, to have the bill go to the defence committee before the vote on second reading. Because of the denial of the right to have the bill go to the committee before second reading, when it came to second reading we in this party said we would vote for second reading but only on the basis of the bill then going to the committee for clarification, explanation and to find out what the goal is in this respect.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We voted that way to get the bill to the committee. Now how can the hon. member say that we have accepted it in principle in view of what the official opposition and our party have tried to do before second reading, which was denied us by the government? How can he make such allegations when the government refused us that right?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, there is an easy explanation for this. First of it all it seems to me that the hon. member for Vancouver East is propounding a novel constitutional doctrine in this house. It is the government's responsibility to put forward its point on policy, to force it to a vote in the House of Commons and to accept the responsibility in accordance with the decision of the house. In this case the government did accept its responsibility. What the hon. member would like us to do is to send bills to committees before they are accepted in principle in the house, and therefore to debate the principle in committee. This may be right or wrong, but the fact of the matter is that the tradition, the custom and the way in which this house operates is to have the house decide on the principle and then send the bill to committee for discussion of its various aspects to ensure that the principle is carried out adequately.


Harold Edward Winch: If my hon. friend is saying that we have never sent a bill to the committee before second reading, then he should check and see what in fact has happened.

National Defence Act Amendment


John Mercer Reid: I am not saying that, because I remember that in 1964 a bill on transportation was sent to the committee for investigation of a particular aspect upon which the government had not reached a decision. In the case now before us the government had made up its mind, had decided to risk a vote in the House of Commons, and had accepted its responsibility. If integration or unification, call it what you will, does not work out in the way in which the minister says it will, then the government may fall. However, the point is that we do have a system of responsible government. If something goes wrong, the people of Canada will know where to point. It seems to me that the hon. member cannot ask for anything better than that.


Harold Edward Winch: Heads will fall at the next election.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, although I have not had the privilege of being a member of the committee dealing with this important subject I must confess at the outset that this is the third time I have participated in the debate. First I participated at the resolution stage. I did so again at second reading, and I am doing so now as we proceed toward third reading. I do so because I am becoming increasingly amazed at the government's tactics as they proceed from stage to stage in dealing with this particular piece of legislation. There is an old saying that what matters is not what you do but the way in which you do it.
As I have followed the deliberations in the committee and the discussions during the current third reading stage I have been amazed at the government's, and in particular the minister's, persistence in trying to bulldoze the legislation before us through the house, regardless of the evidence that was produced in the recent deliberations of the committee and regardless of the very sound arguments that have been propounded in the course of the debate at the present time, arguments which are largely gleaned from the voluminous committee reports which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a crediti-bility gap in what the minister has been presenting with reference to the present discussion.
Not so long ago the minister was being hailed across the nation as a miracle worker in reorganizing Canada's armed forces. The press in general, with minor exceptions, was loud in its praise of the manner in which the
April 6, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment new minister was proceeding to accelerate the process of integration which has been going on in Canada for the past ten years. I know the suggestion has been put forward in this debate that this is an idea which has emerged from the new Liberal government and from the minister himself, but anyone who has been in touch with military affairs not only in this country but in other nations as well knows that every modern nation has been endeavouring to reorganize its armed forces on the basis of the integration principle, that is integration at the command level.
Having proceeded successfully thus far I am amazed to find the minister, seemingly supported at this stage by his very capable public relations service which up until recent times has been able to steer the press in the right direction, destroying his reputation, and permitting his reputation to be tarnished by a bullheaded approach to a policy which can only result in the destruction of our defence potential in carrying out our obligations and our various international commitments. This is an argument put forward not only by a stubborn opposition; it is an argument which has been put forward by men who were in key positions less than a year ago and who had the responsibility of carrying out the integration program.
The present government's stance is also being criticized to an increasing extent by the members of the fourth estate. One of the newspapers which has been most critical is one which has been known as the voice of Liberalism on the prairies, namely the Winnipeg Free Press. Since this debate started they have once again been thundering editorially against the nihilistic, destructive program of the government with reference to its decision to go the ultimate degree in destroying Canada's defence potential. Indeed the latest editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, which appeared on April 4, is headed "Destroying Defence". I should like to read one pertinent paragraph which sums up in the proverbial nutshell the case we have been trying to make. Of course I take this on my own responsibility. It reads as follows:
This revolutionary gamble and experiment is being foisted on Canada in face of the strongest possible protest by nearly every experienced admiral, general and air marshal in the country. If this step could simply be classed as a further blunder by an accident-prone government, and could be corrected when its faults became clearly apparent, the country could perhaps afford to go along for the ride. When it is realized, however, that Mr. Hellyer is playing with an annual investment of some $1.6 billion which vitally concerns

the defence structure of the nation and involves our international obligations, the magnitude of this error becomes obvious.
That is the voice of Liberalism in midwestern Canada, the Winnipeg Free Press.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
There is a sense of shock, too, that the government, in our centennial year, should be proceeding with a policy that is so destructive of our traditions. We had hoped that this session would have been concluded before Easter, and that we could have proceeded with a new session known as the centennial session, when we could have taken under consideration more positive and beneficial programs for this nation. Instead, the decision has been made, notwithstanding everything that has been said by the opposition, by the press and by military authorities, to press on regardless of this tradition destroying process.
It is little wonder that one of the distinguished members of the press gallery who has just completed a centennial survey of the nation endeavouring to get the pulse by visiting every capital, by talking to each of our provincial premiers-I refer to Mr. Peter Newman-summed up his series by saying he found that Canada was suffering from neuroses. How could it be otherwise, when you have a government which deliberately creates a situation of division that seems to be based on the old Pavlovian psychological technique of blowing hot and cold to such an extent that not only is the government confused but they have confused the whole nation. The centennial commissioner, John Fisher-I have heard him on this theme many times-constantly urges Canadians to get off the psychiatrist's couch, to move forward on positive lines, to think in terms of things that hold us together, to emphasize those things which unite us rather than those things which divide us.
The approach of the government toward the bill now before us almost reflects the spirit of anarchy that is abroad in the world today. Now, admittedly, as I listened to the minister make his lengthy statement in opening this phase of the debate on Monday, there was a change in his attitude and his tone. His arrogance was subdued. The tendency to describe members of the opposition as ignoramuses, because they did not agree with his viewpoint, was also subdued somewhat. I think perhaps this was more the result of the recent press criticism that has arisen rather than any criticism that has come from this highest court of public opinion. The press has been criticial of the minister's unbending,
April 6, 1967	COMMONS
stubborn, arrogant attitude on this matter. Not even the skill of his public relations apparatus has been able to smother this growing press protest. Of course, there are still some of the gentlemen in the press gallery who are dependent upon handouts from the efficient public relations machine for their information.
The myths have been destroyed. The myths that gave the initial program such unusual momentum and which resulted in the accolades from across the nation, and also outside the nation, have now been destroyed. There was the myth, for example, that the opposition was merely an admiral's revolt; it was a case of the government resisting a revolt of the military against the civilian, and so forth. As we had speculated at an earlier stage of the debate, there must be something radically wrong with the morale in the defence department when up to 40 of the top level military personnel are either forced to resign or are fired because of disagreement with and disillusionment from the approach of the minister. The myth that had made such a strong appeal to the public of Canada, to the ordinary citizen, that the policy contemplated in Bill No. C-243 was going to mean greater efficiency and greater economy has also, to use an air force phrase, now been shot down in flames. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Calgary North have pointed out in presenting detailed statistics, rather than resulting in greater economy it is going to result in greater expenditures.
The associate minister presented statistics today which pointed out minor savings in certain areas of the armed forces. However, he did not mention that it has cost the defence department $22.7 million for re-enlistment bonuses in order to preserve the level of recruitment even at the declining level at which it has been operating over the past two or three years. Of course, the over-all increased cost of defence expenditures has been mentioned several times.
Now, I mentioned the growing credibility gap. This is a $60 phrase for a procedure that has become all too common in public information services today of using techniques of propaganda in order to confuse the public. It is sometimes referred to as hidden persuasion.
I am not going to go into this aspect of the debate this evening, but certainly it is misleading if it is not downright dishonest. There certainly has been confusion in the country and obviously there has been confusion even
National Defence Act Amendment in the government ranks. The hon. member who just resumed his seat said nobody was able to distinguish between the terms integration and unification, and I am sure that includes the minister if one can judge from the comments he has made. In his speech the other afternoon, the minister used an interesting phrase which I think is revealing. He referred to the integration-unification cycle. I was reminded of the motto we used to have in our air force mess, "Those who go round in circles shall be known as big wheels."
There has been a cyclical approach in the attitude toward integration and unification and no one, let alone the minister, has endeavoured to give a clear definition of the two terms. The one aspect of unification that is being opposed by the official opposition is the ministerial decision that he is going to bring about a single service situation in Canada's defence forces; he is going to abolish the separate entities of the navy, army and air force. This is the one fundamental point that we are opposing at this particular time. In the course of my remarks, I shall give reasons for my own particular opposition.
The tragedy is that the minister himself, in the somewhat subdued approach he made in his speech on Monday, has confessed that the bill is unnecessary to do the things that are required under a so-called integration program. He merely wants the carte blanche permission of this house and approval of this parliament to proceed to that ultimate step which the voice of Liberalism on the prairies has referred to as destructive of our Canadian armed forces, as we know them at the present time.
I should just like to read the ministers's own statement as reported at page 14438 of Hansard for last Monday. He said:
It is true that many more benefits could still be obtained from the integration process minus legislation to create a single service.
So he admits, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is unnecessary. This is the measure that is holding up progress of business at the present time. This is the major issue which is making it impossible for this house to proceed to more constructive and positive business. This is the one item that is making it impossible for this parliament to conclude an interminably long session so that we might get into the centennial session. If I may continue with the minister's confession, he went on:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It is true that much of the continuation of the integration process could be completed without this bill.
April 6. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
We could not agree with him more, Mr. Chairman; that is the argument we are making. He goes on:
It is equally true, and I want to make this point as forcefully as I can, that there are some problems which cannot be solved, there are some questions which cannot be answered, until we know the intention of parliament in respect of this bill and whether or not the ultimate goal is a single service.
What about the people of Canada? What about the opposition which has grown across Canada by leaps and bounds in recent weeks? What about the comments of the men who, as a result of long service in the armed forces of this nation, have acquired experience and have staked their reputations and sacrificed their careers in opposition to this unnecessary, authoritarian approach to carrying the program of unification toward a single service, thereby placing our whole defence structure in jeopardy?
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this is beyond comprehension on the part of anybody who understands the parliamentary process. Why does the minister not quit while he is still ahead? Why does he persist in ramming this bill through the house. It seems to me that his colleagues, realizing the situation that is being created and the negative reaction that has set in, might take some action themselves. Perhaps while the minister is away the associate minister, as suggested by the house leader of the official opposition earlier today, might seize the opportunity to do those things that were recommended by the committee and to establish a reasonable basis of compromise put forward in the form of amendments in committee thus making it possible for this house to proceed to other business.
The government have been guilty of poor management. The members of the official opposition used to be criticized when they were the government for not being able to organize the business of the house. Goodness knows, Mr. Chairman, when this session is going to conclude; and 1 see that the government house leader has come into the chamber just at the critical point.
I understand that when the new ministers who were appointed yesterday were having their pictures taken, the Prime Minister made the observation that although they looked very healthy and vigorous at that time, perhaps they should have their picture taken six months hence, when they will be in a condition of utter exhaustion. If the government is in utter exhaustion they have only themselves

to blame, by assisting in a disorderly approach to the business of this house.
So much for the Minister of National Defence. The other aspect I should like to deal with is the essential reason why we oppose the single service idea. I am even more surprised at the attitude taken by the minister of external affairs, as displayed in his contribution to the debate yesterday. The criticism that has been levelled by the military authorities, who resigned or were fired as a result of their protests, has simply been, as I understand it, that this reorganization carried to the ultimate-the "redundant ultimate", to paraphrase the phrase of the Minister of National Defence-is placing Canada in the position where it can no longer defend itself adequately. Second, it places Canada in a position where it will not be able to meet its international obligations.
There were even difficulties, Mr. Chairman, with the speed with which the original integration program was carried out. I have talked to some of the military personnel, and they told me this was one of the major reasons for growing unease on the part of the men who at the time were carrying out the integration program from within the armed forces structure. There was no difficulty in reorganizing the command structure at headquarters, and this was long overdue.
The second phase was a little more difficult, and this was reorganization in the field. The reason it was more difficult than it might otherwise have been was because no guide lines were laid down. The order was merely given to reorganize, to integrate; and hopeless confusion resulted in the field at military bases across the country because the officers commanding in the field had not been properly briefed.
It is ridiculous for the present defenders of the ultimate policy to say that the men serving in the armed forces are happy, or that the commanders in the field responsible for carrying out the confused policy that was referred to by the previous speaker from Kenora-Rainy River have had these terms defined for them, at least up to the present moment. Anybody who visits military bases will understand the degree of confusion that exists and its resultant disenchantment with this policy.
I should like to mention one base I know, the joint air training centre at Rivers, Manitoba. This is the only integrated base up to the present time. The state of confusion, anxiety and unrest there is such that the
April 6, 1967	COMMONS
minister himself had to make a personal visit to talk to the men in the mess, and not only the serving men, but also the townspeople. Incidentally, they were led by the Liberal member of the Manitoba legislature, Mr. Earl Dawson, in their protest at the lack of definition and clarity as to the ultimate function of the Rivers joint air training centre. This same gentleman, speaking recently from the opposition benches in the Manitoba legislature, carried this theme one step further and was highly critical of the current policies of his Liberal friends in the House of Commons at Ottawa.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I wish to deal with two main points, the first being the rapid acceleration referred to again by the minister in his speech. To be factual perhaps I had better give the chapter and verse reference. At one point in his speech, on page 14433 of Hansard, when referring to carrying out this process of reorganization, the minister said this:
In the process of designing the headquarters organization the staff soon found they could not complete the design until they knew what the field formations would look like and what the command structure would be. The second stage was therefore accelerated. I should like to underline this.
It was at this point that the disenchantment of the chief of the defence staff and all the subordinates around him grew to such an extent that they began to protest. As they protested they were fired, or they resigned prematurely. This was the basic reason for the grand exodus, which amounted to a purge, usually seen only in totalitarian countries. I do not think anything like that has been seen in any other democratic country of the western world.
Not only were those people uneasy, because it placed field operations in such a state of confusion that nobody knew what he was doing, but they felt that this integration-unification cycle, to use the minister's words, amounted to everybody going around in tight circles with nobody knowing where he was heading.
My second point, which I wish to raise before my time expires, is this. This evidence notwithstanding, the Secretary of State for External Affairs fully defended the unwise policy of his colleague, the Minister of National Defence. In spite of criticisms which showed that the present rate of acceleration and the ultimate goal of unification would make it obviously and practically impossible 23033-925
National Defence Act Amendment for us to carry out our commitments to NATO, NORAD or even to the United Nations for that matter, he blandly asserted that government policy was unchanged, that we should be able to meet our commitments. He said this in the face of all sorts of evidence by specialists to the contrary. How does that fit in with the reorganization-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is that
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you. I shall not trespass on the generosity of the committee, other than to complete the points I have been making about our international commitments.
I was about to ask, how does the Secretary of State for External Affairs know what our NATO commitments, for example, will be? NATO is in a process of a radical change and transition. It is reaching for a new strategy, and it is utterly impossible at this stage to determine what the ultimate Canadian commitments might be. The necessity for proceeding with this legislation which, as the defence minister said, is unnecessary, becomes all the more difficult to understand.
Finally, the position of our friends in the N.D.P. with respect to our international commitments underlines the credibility gap which now exists. The hon. member for Greenwood has said that the unified force would only operate successfully if Canada withdraws from her international obligations in organizations such as NATO and NORAD. This was confirmed in the committee by General Moncel. Here is a group in the house that is taking its position in opposition, in this debate, on the basis of a situation which absolutely refutes the stand that has been taken by the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I say that the important criterion in our armed forces, if they are to maintain the standard of excellence achieved up to the present point, is to maintain unity of purpose and strong, positive motivation. This can be done only by keeping alive that esprit de corps which made it possible for Canadians to stand at Vimy Ridge. It
April 6, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment has been said several times that what happened there laid the foundations for our nationhood, as we understand it, and we commemorate that occasion in this our centennial year.
Canada's reputation as a nation and influence in the council of nations, has largely been established by the sacrifices of the men and women to be commemorated by the ceremonies which will take place at Vimy during the next few days. You can have technological change until you are blue in the face; you can talk about programming-I think the minister must have taken a course in management or business administration because he thinks he can run the armed forces as one can run a house construction firm-but you must have esprit de corps and traditions. It is past understanding why the government persists on its confused course, disrupting the business of this house and disrupting the spirit of unity during our centennial year. Hence our continued strong opposition to this present bill.


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some brief remarks, and touch on one or two points which have come out in the debate so far.
The hon. member for Oxford pointed out this afternoon quite rightly that economics is not the sole criteria. Indeed, economics probably is not even the determining factor in a decision on the bill before us. Economics nevertheless is an important factor; it is relevant. It is a factor which, in my view, has been subject to some confusion.
It has been suggested or intimated that the process of integration and unification does not lead to appreciable savings. I should like to deal with some of the factors involved, in making an assessment of this point.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
No doubt if one examines the expenditures of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year 1961-62, comparing them with the fiscal year 1967-68, he could certainly conclude that defence today is costing Canada more than it cost in 1961-62. Such a statement can only be made if certain relevant factors are ignored, for example the fact that dollars do not remain constant over a six-year period. Such a statement can only be made if we forget or ignore the fact that the cost of sophisticated military equipment has increased tremendously over the past five years; it can only be made if we turn a blind eye to the percentage of the total budget

which is devoted to defence, or if we ignore the fact that a new system of reflecting increased pension costs has been included in the defence budget. Such a statement can only be made if one neglects to consider the increases in civilian and military salaries over the past six years. Those who ignore these factors are evading the truth and creating a false impression with regard to savings and expenditures.
I should like to emphasize that in the period 1964-65 through to 1966-67 considerable savings were in fact achieved even though the factors which I have just mentioned are ignored. Hon. members should consider for a few moments the effects of inflation upon a relatively constant budget over a six year period.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is an admission.


James Hugh Faulkner: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has reported that the price index in connection with expenditures in the government sector of the economy rose from 110.3 in 1961 to an estimated 135.4 in 1966-the 1966 figure is based on a nine months period and contains an element of projection. The base year for these figures is 1957, with the index at 100. Now the defence budget for 1967-68, namely $1,688 million, would amount to only $1,375 million in terms of 1961-62 dollars, which is some $251 million less than the actual expenditure in 1961-62. On the other hand, in terms of 1966 dollars the defence expenditure for 1961-62, namely $1,626,104,000, would amount to more than $2 billion.
Perhaps some hon. gentlemen opposite- and this is obviously the case-do not appreciate the relevance of the comparison. But this is not a hypothetical or academic argument. Any statement to the effect that more money or less is being spent today than was spent in some previous year can only be made on a fair basis of comparison, and purchasing power as reflected in the price index is the only reasonable basis for such comparison.
Again it is hardly reasonable to suggest that the government is spending more on defence today than it did previously, when the percentage of the total government budget devoted to the Department of National Defence has declined considerably in the past four years. In 1963-64 the percentage allotted to defence amounted to 24.5; today, the departmental budget amounts to about 14 per cent. Ten years ago, 6 per cent of Canada's gross national product was allocated for defence. Today the percentage is 2.7.
April 6, 1967	COMMONS
Another factor of importance is that commencing in 1963-64 it has been necessary for the defence department to assume the cost of actuarial adjustments to the military pension fund arising out of pay increases. Prior to 1963-64, these expenditures were recorded by the Department of Finance in the government balance sheet. In the period 1963-64 to 196667, these actuarial adjustments have increased total expenditures by the defence department to the extent of approximately $179 million. When this additional expenditure is taken into account it can be seen that defence expenditures from 1963-64 to 1966-67 are all considerably lower than they were in 1961-62.
Hon. members shoud bear in mind, I think, that when the minister forecast savings as a result of integration at the time of the initiation of the program he stated it was his intention to hold defence expenditure at a relatively constant level over a ten year period, and not to reduce it. The savings resulting from the elimination of duplication, and even triplication, within the sphere of overhead and maintenance cost and the application of modern management principles and techniques to certain areas of the services, particularly the support elements, would be devoted to the purchase of new equipment. This has been done. If hon. members are in need of proof of the over-all savings which have been achieved so far, I suggest they consider the percentage of the defence budget which is now being applied to the purchase of new equipment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Twelve per cent.


James Hugh Faulkner: The amount of the budget available in 1964 for new equipment was 42.90 per cent. This percentage declined steadily until it reached 13.6 per cent in 1964. Until the present government took over, there were no plans to change this situation; in fact, if no adjustment or reorganization had been carried out there would not be a single dollar available for the purchase of new equipment in this year's estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


James Hugh Faulkner: The downtrend was reversed, however, and in the 1967-68 estimates, 17.5 per cent is allotted for this purpose.
I should like to turn briefly to the question of an increase in the 1967-68 estimates. The blue book indicates an increase of $116 million over last year's figures. Some hon. members opposite, in particular the hon. member for Northumberland, have charged that this is an indication of the failure of the 23033-9251
National Defence Act Amendment entire reorganization program. I have been informed by officials of the department, and this is borne out by work of my own, that this increase is made up as follows: $49 million for increased military pay and allowances; $8 million for increased civilian salaries and wages and $59 million for consequent increases in government contributions to the Canadian forces superannuation fund. These three increases total exactly $116 million-the precise amount of the increase compared with last year. When we consider this in the light of the fact that there is an increase of 2.4 per cent in the funds available for the purchase of new equipment, it becomes obvious that not only has the line been held but that again this year considerable savings have been achieved in operating and maintenance costs.
Despite all the factors which I have mentioned and which might have increased the defence budget, costs have been reduced and the line has been held. I think there should be no doubt whatsoever that considerable savings indeed have been achieved. There is no question but that the minister already has achieved what he promised in 1964-efficiency and greater savings in the Canadian Armed Forces. This is a point which has been disputed. I do not think, however, if one views the developments in the light of all the facts rather than by taking a selection of the facts that the statement I just have made can be contested.
The other point with which I should like to deal relates to the contribution made by the hon. member for Greenwood yesterday or the day before, and by his alter ego in the defence strategy field, Mr. Gellner. The hon. member for Greenwood was very critical of the role that the Canadian Armed Forces are required to play in NATO. Arguing largely with the views expressed by Mr. Gellner, the hon. member for Greenwood questioned the acceptability or the contemporary quality of the modern NATO strategy both in terms of the type of war we might expect in Europe, or lack of war, and the strategy of deterrence. He questioned the role of the CF-104 in Europe and also I believe the role of the brigade group.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Much of the argument presented by the hon. member for Greenwood makes some sense. I for one would be extremely worried as a member on the back benches of this government if I did not feel confident that our role in NATO is indeed under constant review. The suggestion by the hon. member
April 6. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment for Greenwood, however, was that regardless of the position of the alliance and regardless of the position of our allies, what we should do is take arbitrary and unilateral action on our own part to decide ourselves what our role in Europe should be and then, I suppose, present it to our allies as a fait accompli.
It would seem to me that one of the fundamental conditions of a partnership in any form of alliance is that questions involving the long term strategy and the role of individual members of that alliance should not be questions which are decided by individual members unilaterally or arbitrarily. If alliances are to have any meaning, such subjects as these must be negotiated collectively. It may make for good rhetoric, it may be a popular position to take, and it may have all the attributes of a courageous, independent stand to say that we should develop an individual position here-a unique position, a Canadian position-and that our allies should adapt themselves to our concept of what our role will be, but this is the position which the leader of the French republic has taken and we know what the result has been. This seems to be the approach the hon. member for Greenwood is advocating.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question.


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Is he saying that the hon. member for Greenwood has advocated a unilateral action on our part with regard to our commitment vis-a-vis NATO, because as I understand it my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, on several occasions has stated that the policy of the Canadian government should be to put to our NATO allies what we consider to be a desirable role. I believe the hon. member for Greenwood has refuted the idea of unilateral action.


James Hugh Faulkner: There may be a question of semantics involved here, because in his concluding remarks at page 14449 of Hansard the hon. member for Greenwood made this point:
In conclusion I would say to the minister that even at this late date it is time to use some imagination; it is time to use something in the nature of a stirring appeal to the people of Canada. Only a truly Canadian defence policy can obtain the support for which the minister asks in relation to his plans for unification.
Although that statement is not directly relevant, it is relevant in part. My interpretation of the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood is that the Canadian position


should be-as it actually is-determined by ourselves, but that his approach seems to have the overtures of a rather self-centred or unilateral position. I do not know whether the hon. member for Greenwood would support a position of withdrawal, assuming he could not persuade our allies. If I have mistated the position of the hon. member for Greenwood, I submit that at least for my benefit he should clarify his position, although it may be presumptuous of me to say this.
This brings me to the final point I should like to make in respect of the position taken by the hon. member for Greenwood and I can only assume also by the group of which he is a member. It relates to this line which appears at page 14449 of Hansard:
Only a truly Canadian defence policy can obtain the support for which the minister asks in relation to his plans for unification.
My interpretation of that is that the position of the hon. member for Greenwood is that unless the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are prepared to accede to the position-which I think is an untenable position and one which is inconsistent with the position of a member of the alliance-which we are presently discussing, his party probably will not lend their support to Bill C-243. In other words, they are not refuting the principle of unification. They seem to be in accord with it; but there appears to be an element of argument they are introducing in which there seems to be a suggestion that they might withdraw their support for the bill if the terms suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood in respect of the position Canada should take are not accepted.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit another question. Is he in fact accusing us of subterfuge because we introduced the question of the relationship of the role our forces are to play in NATO to the issue of unification? Does he not also think that perhaps some of the senior officials in the Canadian armed forces are guilty of the same thing, because more than one has said that unification of our armed forces and the maintenance of our present role in NATO would make it rather more difficult. This is the position that my colleague has been taking as well.


James Hugh Faulkner: No. The position of most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee on national defence related directly to the bill itself. I say that the hon. member for
April 6, 1967

Greenwood has taken the position that in effect we do not have a defence policy, and that we are not presenting a distinctly Canadian position. What the hon. member is saying is that unless we adopt the position he is prepared to support-and this position has been disputed by myself and others, namely that we take a different approach to an alliance by adopting a heavy-handed attitude and negotiate an alliance which embraces our strategic concepts-he is not in agreement. Let me state that we are at this time carrying out negotiations. I do not think the hon. member for Greenwood can reasonably suggest that this government is not negotiating new roles for NATO and possible new roles for Canada on a continuing basis. To introduce this element of argument, when in fact something in this regard is being done, as a condition for support for this bill is unreasonable. I do not wish to overstate the case, but this attitude is something less than a direct confrontation with the issues presented by this bill.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps I could ask the hon. gentleman a question. I listened to his remarks very carefully. Does the hon. member not think that Canada should establish its own defence and foreign policies and institute them on a unilateral basis or in an alliance? I thought I put the position of this party very clearly before the house yesterday. We believe that we should renegotiate Canada's defence and foreign policies with an understanding as to our future role. Does the hon. member deny Canada's right to establish its own defence and foreign policies.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Of course not.


Harold Edward Winch: Why does the hon. member continue to express these stupidities to which he has referred in the last five minutes?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with some interest to some of the remarks made today. Some of the arguments such as those put forward by the speaker who preceded me in respect of savings resulting from unification are absolutely amazing. Some of the figures he used to bolster his arguments are indeed surprising. I am reminded of the very old but true saying that figures do not lie but some liars figure. Obviously some of the hon. members opposite have had access to the services of some very expert liars.
National Defence Act Amendment


James Hugh Faulkner: In view of the statement of the hon. member I think I am entitled to a specific reference to those figures referred to by the hon. member.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I refer not only to the figures but to the manner in which they were presented. I am not in a position to say which of his advisors came up with these erroneous figures, or which of his advisors might be the worst liar or the least reliable so far as the percentages and dollar figures are concerned. Many of the figures given by the hon. member are incorrect, and the manner in which they were presented tends to make them misleading.


James Hugh Faulkner: Which ones?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I refer specifically to the last percentage, in relation to money spent on equipment.
The figures themselves do not matter much. They have been quoted so many times and in so many ways I am sure they will be misleading to anyone who reads Hansard. They are bound to be confusing, though I venture to say much stress will be placed on them. Obviously it is part of the Liberal game to confuse the issue. The evidence presented before the committee is clear. If there is to be any saving, it will result from integration. The evidence is also clear that no saving will be achieved through unification.
The minister has continually said that integration and unification mean the same thing. Obviously the evidence shows that they are separate and distinct in time and in character. They are not interdependent. If we want to get that distinction clear in our minds the question as to whether integration will or will not save money becomes unimportant. The only question before us whether unification is good or bad. Obviously from the evidence unification standing by itself is of little value.
Let me remind hon. members of the evidence given before the committee regarding the limitation on savings which could be effected through integration. Late in the evening of February 21 Air Vice Marshal Hendrick, who was in charge of Canada's air defence until his retirement in 1964, appeared as a witness before the committee. I had a lengthy question to ask the air vice marshal, but because of the limitation of time I summed it up as follows, at page 1477 of the proceedings:
I have IX minutes to 10:30 and I would like to thank the air vice marshal for pointing out one thing today that people seem to have lost sight of,
14634	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment and that is in the search for economy-trying to cut down on administration costs when they seem to be rising-integration is not the only solution; that there are in fact co-operative ways which were described which did have an effect this way. I gathered much comfort from your reminding us that the percentage of the common support service is really very low, and that if integration is to work it is only in such fields as common support or common training ground that it can be helpful.
Mr. Hendrick then said "Right". In other words, he adopted what I tried to sum up as his evidence, that the amount of savings which could be effected through integration was very limited, particularly to the command support services. Some of the savings which could be achieved are similar to those achieved by co-operative endeavours. Some savings are being achieved by both methods.
A great many figures were quoted this afternoon for the purpose of clouding the issues. This has been part of Liberal strategy from the beginning. They have tried to keep the facts from becoming known, and this has been the policy since unification first became an issue in this house. It was mentioned in such a way in the white paper so as deliberately to lead to confusion. Those who drafted the white paper I am sure have found that their conception of unification was not the same as now proposed by the minister. Certainly if the minister was successful in deluding them at that time there is no reason now to wonder why the public is also deluded. I am amazed at the deliberate attempt to keep the public from knowing what is taking place.
I was also amazed by a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as reported at page 14562 of Hansard of April 5, 1967. He stated:
I want to say now unreservedly that all of us in this house have every reason, even though all of us might not agree with his views, to have confidence in the capacity of the Minister of National Defence, in his credibility and his integrity.
I felt it was an effrontery on the part of that hon. gentleman to suggest that all of us have confidence in the capacity, credibility and integrity of the Minister of National Defence. First as to his capacity, we will be able to quote some more statements he has made. The minister himself has shown his incapacity so often that it hardly needs a comment. As to his credibility, I have always believed that the test of this is can he be believed, based on the source of his knowledge, his general sagacity, how reliable his advisers are, and so on, but general believabil-ity. Certainly no one in this house is going to

DEBATES	April 6, 1967
believe a thing that the Minister of National Defence says unless they can see it proven three or four different ways, because we have seen so often that he just cannot be believed in anything.
Then as to his integrity. While I find nothing whatsoever to say for his credibility and feel that I must try very hard to say that we have some belief in his integrity, I am afraid that the consistent policy shown by the minister, and the consistent attitude of his supporters both in the defence committee and this house-that consistent policy being to make sure that the facts were not brought to the attention of the public and to try to hide the facts from this house and make sure they are not available-together with the fact that everything the minister tells us we find is not so, leaves a very serious doubt that he has any integrity at all.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
When we see the actual situation to be that the minister has limited or no capacity, that the minister has no credibility, and that we have to search very diligently to find any reason to suspect that he has any integrity, we can understand why I felt that the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was pure effrontery when he said that all of us in this house have confidence in the Minister of National Defence in this regard. If there is anyone in the house who really thinks I am being a little hard on the minister, all he has to do is look at the opening words of the Minister of National Defence himself on page 14429 of Hansard, the right-hand column. This was about the second sentence he spoke in the debate, and it reads this way:
Every opportunity has been afforded those who are opposed to this concept to make their views known.
We know how much opportunity was afforded those in the services who were opposed. The minute it became known that they were opposed, they were fired. I suppose this was an opportunity afforded them, because once they are fired and their retirement leave is over, they may have the chance to open their mouths. I suppose in that way we can say this minister has afforded them the opportunity. If we are to interpret his words in that manner, I suppose we may have some faith in his credibility. If that is what he means by credibility, and that is his standard of integrity, perhaps we can go along with that a little.
April 6, 1967

I find it hard to be as charitable about his action with regard to Admiral Landymore's testimony, when he went to the extent of tampering with the evidence of a witness to make sure that we did not get the facts. That action is hardly consistent with saying:
Every opportunity has been afforded those who are opposed to this concept to make their views known.
I find that hard to believe, in view of the abrupt firing of Admiral Landymore, who made the great mistake of speaking frankly to the defence committee in Halifax, and within five days of answering those questions very frankly he was peremptorily fired, when he thought he had been summoned to Ottawa for a different reason.
I find it difficult to credit the minister with much integrity when he makes that statement, knowing what happened in the defence committee and how we were thwarted, frustrated and defeated in our attempts to get those witnesses we thought the defence com-mitee should call. Anyone who watched the day-to-day proceedings of that committee and who could see the evidence piling up of just how hollow a sham are the minister's arguments in favour of unification, watched the Liberal members start to panic as the evidence piled up more and more against the minister, and then saw the minister thrown in-and he put his own feet in his own big mouth-will understand why his supporters then really put on the pressure so that we could not call any more witnesses. You do not mean to tell us that the minister was not guiding and directing the members of his party to make sure that no more witnesses would be called.
Anybody who watched the proceedings of that committee and how hard the Liberals fought to make sure no further witnesses could be called, and anyone who looked at the list of the responsible witnesses we wanted to have called and had to settle without, and then reads the minister's statement, "Every opportunity has been afforded those who are opposed to this concept to make their views known", will have to be more than charitable to suggest that there is any justification in the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggesting to this house that we have any reason whatsoever to have any faith in the capacity of the Minister of National Defence, in his integrity or in his credibility.
However, it is not just the credibility of the Minister of National Defence that I attack; it is in fact the attitude of the whole Liberal
Business of the House
party, the manner in which the defence committee was run, and the attitude of several members in this house. My seatmate, the hon. member for York-Sunbury, spoke this afternoon and I thought he was very charitable to hon. members opposite. He thought that most of them were taking their duties very seriously and were trying hard to do the right thing.
I am afraid I can only come to the conclusion that they are incapable of understanding what is happening, or they have such blind faith in those in whom they should not have such blind faith that they have abandoned their duty to look critically at this question, have accepted without thinking the bland assurances of the minister, and have sat without listening and merely provided bodies, which would give to the public an appearance that some Liberals were interested in hearing what were the facts behind the defence argument.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government house leader what business the house will be considering tomorrow; and if it is the same bill, could he tell us whether the minister will be here tomorrow and at what period of the discussion of the bill the minister will be able to be here?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the business we propose submitting to the house for consideration tomorrow is item No. 107 on the order paper, that is, house again in committee of the whole on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act, which we have been discussing all week. Then we will deal with item No. 134, second reading of Bill C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults, and then the motion for concurrence in the report of the committee that examined into the rules and procedures of the house.
In answer to the second question of the hon. member, as I indicated earlier today, the Minister of National Defence will be here-


Gordon Minto Churchill: At what time?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: I do not think it is the business of the hon. member at what time the minister will arrive back. As I started to say, the Minister of National Defence will be here throughout the whole of the sitting of the house tomorrow. Beyond that, it is not any of

April 6, 1967
Business of the House
the business of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when the minister will arrive in Ottawa, nor do I propose to tell him. I think the arrogance of the opposition in some of these matters is getting completely out of hand. I indicated during the question hour today, when hon. members opposite sought to prevent the discussion of the bill today, that the minister would be here tomorrow throughout the sitting. I repeated that tonight. That is as far as I am prepared to go on that subject. However, I hope that hon. members opposite and the committee in general will consider the situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Never mind that. We do not want to be lectured.


George James McIlraith: I will go on if I wish.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What arrogance.


George James McIlraith: We now have had a general discussion for four days. We are not complaining in any way about that. However, I would ask hon. members to consider whether we have not come now to the stage at which we could deal with a clause by clause consideration of the bill. I believe that this would be in the interests of parliament generally.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have the interests of Canada at heart.


George James McIlraith: I am quite prepared to agree with that; I hope the hon. member has. However, I am raising another matter. I believe that it would be worthy of consideration by hon. members to see if we could not proceed to consideration of the individual clauses of the bill so as to make progress. We have been met twice already this week with the demand that we defer the consideration of the bill but so far the discussion has been general. Today the minister has been away on an important duty; yet I think anybody who listened to the proceedings today would agree that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) has been able and active in the debate. I think hon. members opposite should be very happy with the circumstances.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lengthy speech which the government house leader made in reply to a very simple question of mine 1 must rise on a question of privilege, based on what he said. I am rather surprised at the arrogance and petulance which the government house leader has demonstrated. We asked him at what time the minister will be here tomorrow. He knew very well that we wanted to know at what stage of

the discussion of the bill he will arrive. We are not worrying at what time he will arrive in this building or at what time he will go to bed or have his breakfast, but we want to know at what time he will be here for the discussion of this bill.
However, I am afraid the government house leader went a little far. He has a terrible habit of aggravating people and then admonishing and lecturing them. I must say to him that this government should control its arrogance. Of course the government house leader was in the house during the days when this government could afford to be arrogant, and this has not left him. Once in a while it comes to the surface, and he must display it to the whole house. I must point out to him that he cannot complain about the co-operation I have given him. I asked him a simple, straightforward question, and I hope that in the future he will not exhibit the arrogance which he displays from time to time, but will answer in a nice and simple way for our information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just like the chairman of the defence committee. Let the house leader model himself on him.


Harold Edward Winch: Over a month ago we had a lengthy discussion at the resolution stage of the bill, and then at the introduction and second reading of the bill. We have had 55 meetings of the defence committee, and now we have spent four days on clause 2. Perhaps without undue repetition those who have something to say could do so, and then we could get down to a clause by clause study of the bill and finally either accept, amend or reject it in a responsible, parliamentary manner.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, so inconsequential is this bill that the Minister of National Defence was away all day. Unless he shows more interest in the bill, one could hardly expect the house to proceed with greater expedition.


Grant Deachman: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At one stage of the committee procedure we could not find a Tory in the whole house, so I do not think there is anything wrong with a member of the cabinet discharging his duty outside the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a lot of nonsense.


Michael Starr: There were only three Liberals.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
April 6. 1967


Mr.   Pallerson@: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to engage in a general debate on this issue, perhaps we could get into it as well, instead of having this cross-fire which is going on now.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that there is one particular matter which must be cleared up in connection with the report which was given to the house by the chairman of the defence committee. It was unfounded, untruthful and not supported by his own minister. This is one of the matters which must be cleared up before the house leader can expect to get along with this defence bill. What the chairman of the defence committee reported to this house was certainly far removed from the facts, and until this matter is cleared up either the chairman of the defence committee or the Minister of National Defence is going to have to back water. I suggest it should be the chairman of the defence committee, who lied to this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 last, I had the opportunity to put the following question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
Has the minister received protests against the elimination of passenger trains Nos. 1, 2 and 4 between Quebec and Sherbrooke and is it his intention, in the public interest, to recommend that the Quebec Central Railway reconsider its decision.
I am pleased tonight to make the following comments on my question. On Monday, March 6,	1967, the Board of Transport
Commissioners for Canada issued order No. 123,654 relating to the application by the Quebec Central Railway Company for authorization to discontinue operation of trains Nos. 1, 2 and 4 between Quebec and Sherbrooke in the province of Quebec.
14637
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, the reasons given by the Quebec Central Railway Company and accepted by the Board of Transport Commissioners go against the public interest in a wide area and do not reflect adequately the tactics used by that company to get rid of that branch line and fail seriously in discharging its obligations toward the public.
Here are the facts:
1.	Practically all the localities served by those trains are against their being discontinued.
2.	The line on which those trains travel covers a distance of 147.6 miles between Sherbrooke and Quebec city. The industrial centres served by those trains include Sherbrooke, East Angus, Bishopton, Weedon, Saint-Gerard, Black Lake, Dark Lake, Disraeli, Coleraine, Thetford Mines, Robertson, East Broughton, Vallee Jonction, Sainte-Marie, Scott Jonction, Ville-Lambert, Breaky-ville, Charny and Quebec city.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
3.	The Quebec Central Railway Company has claimed that the average number of passengers carried on trains 1, 2 and 4 on each trip has fallen off gradually from 68 in 1962 to 26 in 1966. The communities served by this passenger train service represent a population of approximately 65,000, excluding Quebec and Sherbrooke.
The main points submitted by the Quebec Central Railway Company before the Board of Transport Commissioners to cancel the train service are as follows; first, the company reports an annual loss of $54,000; they show a reduction of passenger traffic as I have noted; and finally, they have cited the principle according to which financial loss is taken into consideration as regards the inconvenience caused to the public by abandonment of the operation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say tonight in this house that the Quebec Central Railway Company, a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific, hid the truth from the Board of Transport Commissioners and the Canadian public, since the company has increased its passenger rates which are now double those of the C.N.R. and the best way to reduce passenger traffic is for this company to increase, to double their rates, compared to the Canadian National operating in the same areas.
In addition, that company encouraged a quite unsatisfactory passenger service, often delaying train arrivals and giving traffic priority to freight trains.
We found that on the Quebec city-Sherbrooke route, for at least three years, the

14638	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion company made every effort to discourage the public from travelling on its trains, by giving preference to junction lines and freight trains, rather than passenger trains.
Finally, the said company has utterly neglected both in the area between Quebec city and Sherbrooke and throughout the province of Quebec, to promote its publicity, in order to discourage passengers from using its railway service.
The minister should intervene and advise the company to maintain its passenger service, to reduce its rates and to increase its publicity in that area.
Trains 1, 2 and 4, operating between Sherbrooke and Quebec city, must be maintained:
(a)	Passenger service, Mr. Speaker, affords better security to the public than motor vehicles.
(b)	Before deciding upon a location, industries inquire whether there is a railway service to the area.
And surely the whole region between Sherbrooke and Quebec city, through East Angus, Thetford Mines and the other municipalities I mentioned earlier in my speech, need an industrial economic development.
(c)	Even if the railway company has a deficit, it can easily be off-set by profits made elsewhere.
In closing, I would also ask the minister or his representative, or his parliamentary secretary, to bear in mind that, at the time of the centennial and Expo, over 200,000 citizens of the province of Quebec will be denied adequate railway service from Quebec city, Thetford Mines and the other municipalities, via Sherbrooke, to go and enjoy the pleasures which the centennial celebrations and the marvelous displays of Expo will offer.
I must say here, with the required emphasis, that the Canadian Pacific, through its subsidiary Quebec Central Railway, does not fulfil the obligations to which it was committed when it obtained its charter, that is to serve the public and give adequate rail service for the transportation of passengers and goods. For several years now, the Canadian Pacific has been accumulating profits to the detriment of Canadian passengers. It invests its benefits not fundamentally and primarily with a view to fulfilling its obligations as purveyor of adequate railroad services,, but rather for various reasons contrary to the

DEBATES	April 6, 1967
objectives originally agreed upon, and more specifically that of serving the public.
We see that the Canadian Pacific is building motels and launching all kinds of undertakings. Now, if the Department of Transport and the hon. minister do not intervene in this particular instance, we will soon see the company which is nourished and maintained by public taxes and government assistance, swerve completely from the course it should follow with regard to serving the public.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member for Sherbrooke will not feel that his forceful effort has been entirely in vain. The Minister of Transport planned to be here tonight to deal with this question, but for reasons which I will not take time now to explain, it was impossible for him to be here.
He asked me to say that he is keenly aware of the representations the hon. member made earlier, and that he will be seized of the representations made on this occasion. The minister hopes to communicate with the hon. member as soon as possible.



FINANCE-DRUGS-INQUIRY AS TO REMOVAL OF SALES TAX

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the budget speech of two years ago, made on April 26, 1965, by the then minister of finance, the present President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon), this statement found at page 439 of Hansard for that date was made about the sales tax on drugs:
There has been much concern expressed about the high prices of drugs in Canada and proposals made that they should be exempt from the sales tax, which has always applied to them. The government has considered these representations but does not wish to act on them until the matter has been considered by the special Committee of the House on Food and Drugs.
There was an interruption at that point to which the minister replied. He then went on to say:
If the Committee comes to the conclusion that, as part of a comprehensive and effective program to reduce the prices of drugs, they should be exempt from the sales tax, I would expect to see this done in a special statute covering all the measures required to give effect to the program, and I am quite sure the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley), who is Chairman of this Committee, will see it proceeds with this very important matter just as expeditiously as it can.
April 6, 1967	COMMONS
That statement, as I say, was made two years ago in the budget speech of that year.
One year ago, as recorded in Hansard for March 29, 1966, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) renewed the undertaking given by the former minister in these words, which I quote from page 3387 of Hansard for that date:
I renew the undertaking given last year by my predecessor, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), that if the considerations of the special committee of the house on food and drugs lead it to recommend that drugs should be exempt from sales tax as part of a comprehensive and effective program to reduce the prices of drugs, then the government would be prepared to recommend such action by means of a special statute covering all the measures required to give effect to such a program.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It was on the basis of those two commitments that I put a question to the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, April 4, as reported at page 14485 of Hansard. I asked the minister whether in the light of these commitments and in the light of the recommendation by the special committee which has dealt with drugs and drug prices we might expect the promised legislation soon. The minister's reply was to the effect that he had been reviewing the statements made on those previous occasions and that it would be the intention of the government to proceed to remove the sales tax on drugs as part of an over-all effort to reduce the price of drugs. When I asked whether we might expect to have this legislation introduced during the present session his answer was an expression of hope.
It would be unfair of me to say that the minister's answer was unsatisfactory, but I am a little concerned about the open doors which seem to be left in these assurances which have been given to us on several occasions. There are not only the two commitments made in the budget speeches of a year and two years ago, but on several occasions in answer to questions both ministers assured the house that if the special committee made a recommendation calling for the removal of the sales tax from drugs, action to that effect would be taken.
But there is always a qualification. For one, it is to be part of an over-all package. Another qualification, of course, is that the government wishes to take action in a way which will have the desired effect, namely the lowering of the prices of drugs to consumers.
I do not quarrel with these conditions but I am concerned lest the desire to cross all the 23033-9261
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion t's and dot all the i's may result in this matter being put off as so many things are put off by the government across the way.
Surely this question has been under study by the finance department during the two years in which it has been before the committee. There has been time to think about it, and if the minister is as convinced as I felt he was by what he said on Tuesday that action must be taken with regard to this subject, I hope this action will be taken soon. I recognize that the parliamentary program always presents a problem to the government of the day, but it does seem to me that this is a very important recommendation which the special committee has made and that in the light of the firm commitments given by two ministers of finance this is a matter which ought to be dealt with expeditiously; I do not think it is good enough to leave it until next session.
The minister still has one other piece of budgetary legislation to put through this session, the one having to do with the 5 per cent refundable tax. Here is something which is, I suggest, more important. The view of the committee has been made clear: The prices of drugs are too high for the Canadian people. I hope that action on this matter can be taken soon. This is my reason for placing this subject on the list for a late show-so that I might prod the minister into doing as soon as possible something which I dare to believe he really wants to do.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has made another fervent appeal for the removal of the sales tax on drugs. It is impossible of course for a minister of finance to forecast tax changes. I can only repeat the assurance I have given, perhaps in a somewhat different form, which may bring some comfort to the hon. member, to the house and to the country at large. The government is interested in seeing that the prices of drugs in this country are reduced.
The government will not hesitate to remove the tax as part of a program to that effect. Needless to say-and I am sure the hon. gentleman who has asked this question will agree-the removal of that tax should be used to give as much leverage as possible to other desirable action by the drug companies to bring about a reduction in the price of drugs to the consumers themselves. It is not sufficient, it seems to me, simply to remove the tax and hope for the best. I believe it ought
14640	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to be part of an over-all approach to this matter.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS- LOUISBOURG FORTRESS-RETURN TO WORK OF MEN LAID OFF

Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I directed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) in respect of the lay-offs at the Louisbourg project. I then referred the matter for debate on the adjournment motion, and on Monday evening the minister took it upon himself to go into the details of the problem I had placed before him. He reviewed the history for my benefit. I did not need to have the history in respect of the initiation of this project brought to my attention. I was aware that it had been carried out on the recommendation of Mr. Justice Rand and had been initiated under the Conservative government.
With the knowledge of what had taken place at that time and how this had developed I drew to the attention of the minister the fact that this has been the only effort made by any government to meet the emergency situation in respect of employment in Cape Breton. Government members like to refer to the fact that a coastguard college was established as an emergency measure, but I should like to point out that this was very meaningless because it followed the closing of a naval base by the same government. Assistance by this government in respect of the economy or the employment situation in Cape Breton has been lacking in many ways.
The minister never got around to answering my question. He said that the salaries had been increased by 50 per cent. That means that the men who are employed there still are almost 50 per cent below the prevailing rates. The increase of 50 per cent still leaves the workers at Louisbourg far below the average wage earners in the Cape Breton area. The minister said that he did think the men could work for a rate of $1.09 an hour. I should like to ask him whether he has made similar adjustments in the salaries of other northern affairs workers throughout the rest of the country, because these men in Louisbourg are still receiving more than some men in other areas. I am not suggesting that this is a justification for the low rate paid at Louisbourg.
The minister also said that this past year, in response to representations made by his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), 44 men were taken on again. Forty four men were taken on after

DEBATES	April 6, 1967
a lay-off of approximately 150 men. As I understand it these men were not taken on as new employees at the project, but were men who were returned to their work as a result of having been laid off a few days earlier. Therefore, in response to a request by his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the minister did not hire 44 men. All the minister did was take back on the job the men who had been laid off. This is an old Liberal trick-slash here and slash there, and then take them back and make heroes of themselves.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Nothing has been done to assist the economy of Cape Breton by any government since the Louisbourg project was initiated by the Conservative government. Let me call the minister's attention to what he said, as reported at page 14471 of Hansard for April 3, 1967:
We have exhausted the money. We exhausted it on March 31, and we have laid off 44 men.
Thirteen lines later he said:
We are keeping relatively within our costs, hut I want to have something produced.
We all want to have something produced, but why should there be a cutback on the Louisbourg project in that part of the country where unemployment is so high?
Last November the government said there was no more money for the winter works program. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration have repeatedly said that the only alteration to the winter works program was the discontinuance of the $500 bonus paid in respect of winter housing starts. These have nothing to do with the Louisbourg project. Let me remind the minister that some of his colleagues have indicated that winter works projects can be done as well in the winter as in the summer. We now have a denial of this, for the convenience of a minister.
There have been 44 men laid off on this particular project because, as is suggested, this work cannot be done during the wintertime. That is in direct contradiction to what has been said by other ministers on other occasions. Has there been any cutback during the winter here in Ottawa in respect of the arts centre? Originally it was to cost some $12 million. The government is still pouring money into this project and I understand the cost has now increased to about $15 million. Expo started out to be a $20 million project and I understand it is now to cost in the
April 6, 1967
neighbourhood of $100 million. Let us remember the $10 million to be spent on the film industry.
This minister has said the money so far as the Louisbourg project is concerned has been exhausted. If money is to be spent by this government so easily in respect of the arts centre and Expo I suggest that additional money can be found for Cape Breton.


Arthur Laing: It is
pretty difficult to reply to the hon. member's suggestion regarding the last of the big spenders, particularly when somebody else's money is involved. Obviously the hon. member would appeal for any amount of money to assist the people of his area. I suppose he interprets that as his duty as a member of this parliament.
The hon. member has made certain statements tonight that cannot be left unanswered. He has suggested that this is the only program to assist Cape Breton. Let me suggest that the Liberal government would never have started out with a per hour rate of $1.09. I was wrong when I suggested the other night that we had increased the wages by more than 50 per cent: They have been increased by 72 per cent.


Malcolm MacInnis: You said something like 85 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Arthur Laing: The hon. member refers to this as the only program to assist Cape Breton Islanders. The hon. member is one of the first to agree to the annual allotment of $30 million in coal subsidies.


Malcolm MacInnis: That does not all go to Cape Breton.


Arthur Laing: That is the total amount in Canada. A great portion of it goes to Cape Breton. Let me remind the hon. member that this is an investment of approximately $7,000 per miner. I want to take him back again to where this started. It started as a make-work
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion program and was so advertised at the time. We have employed an average of 260 men throughout. In addition to that we gave them trades; we had stonemasons-


Malcolm MacInnis: How
many miners?


Arthur Laing: I hope the hon. member will be fair and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me a couple of minutes extra to reply to him. Most of the men were miners, and with that meticulous care that they have down there, a certain number of them had to come from one little village, a specific number from another, and so many from Sydney, and we had to carry them down by bus.
We introduced schools there and taught some trades. Some men were taught masonry. We found that when there was any improvement in the mining situation, those men we had educated most highly went right back to the mines because they could earn more money in the mines than working for us.
As to the prevailing rates, for every increase in pay that we gave to these men we had representations from the industry in the area that we pay our men too much and are affecting their industry. Therefore I am not able to accept the hon. gentleman's argument. He is making a case for his own riding, and that is all right with me.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is not the case.


Arthur Laing: We have a contract-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order cannot be raised at this particular time.


Malcolm MacInnis: I look forward to Monday night, because the minister has just made a false statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the minister has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.39 p.m.



Friday, April 7, 1967