1967-04-12

NATIONAL ANTHEM


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: that the second report of the special joint committee on the national and royal anthems, presented to the house on Wednesday, March 15, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic) asked leave to introduce Bill No. C-288, an act to amend the Crown Corporations Act.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to place crown corporations on the same footing as private businesses. More particularly, this bill provides that: (a) public corporations shall be subject to municipal taxes, just like private businesses; (b) in case of bankruptcy, public corporations shall receive payment on the same basis as other businesses, with no special privileges; (c) that public corporations should not enjoy privileges with regard to patents; (d) that a writ of mandamus should be served upon a crown corporation as to any private company; (e) that the penal laws should apply to public corporations as they apply to private companies.
In other words, the object of this bill is to bring public corporations under private law and take away from them the prerogatives of public law. When the state runs a business, it must be subject to the same statutes as tradesmen.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Horner (Acadia): Who pays for the hauling of the centennial train across Canada and how much is paid per mile to what railways?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the centennial commission as follows: (a) The centennial commission. (b) Payment is not made on a per mile basis. The centennial commission has entered into a contract through the Department of Defence Production with Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway in the amount of $846,155, for the hauling, leasing and operation of a 15 unit train of which six exhibition units belong to the centennial commission. The contract includes all services from January 1 to December 5, 1967, allowing 83 stops for 315J exhibit days throughout its journey across Canada.


RESEARCH INTO TELEVISION SERVICE THROUGH SATELLITES
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Is the C.B.C. conducting any research, either alone or jointly, Into the feasibility of providing remote areas with television service by use of satellites?
2.	Has either the McGill University's space research institute (HARP) or the National Research Council been approached to work with the C.B.C. or any other public or private communications media to launch a Canadian satellite which would relay messages for rebroadcasting?
3.	Are there any plans to use these research facilities for such purposes?
4.	Is the government aware of any plans by any Canadian or United States agencies to orbit satellites for telecommunicative purposes or other purposes in such positions over Canada that they may interfere with any present or future Canadian plans for relaying signals?
5.	Does the C.B.C. have any plans to request any United States agency to orbit a satellite to be used for communicative purposes, either alone or jointly with other Canadian or United States telecommunication systems?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	The feasibility of providing network distribution of C.B.C. programming to remote areas for radio and television services using space satellite facilities is being explored by C.B.C. in co-operation with the Department of Transport and others. The C.B.C.'s part of this work is to establish all

April 12, 1967
Questions
its requirements, including those for remote areas, so that the feasibility of meeting them can be studied.
2.	No formal responsible request has been received by the National Research Council or the Department of Transport.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No final decision will be reached by the government until the C.B.C. and other requirements have been established.


C.B.C. TELEVISION STATION IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Albert):
1. Has a decision been taken to locate a new C.B.C. t.v. outlet in New Brunswick and, if not, what criteria will be used?
2.	Has the C.B.C. t.v. outlets in the largest cities in other provinces?
3.	Will the important coverage area in Nova Scotia be considered?
4.	When will the application be made to the
B.	B.G.?
5.	Can representations be made to the C.B.C. before the board hearings?
6.	Have any independent surveys been conducted and, if so, with what result?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes.
C.	B.C. has plans to provide television service through C.B.C.-owned facilities to the Fred-ericton-Saint John area of New Brunswick. Criteria used in such decisions are those developed by the corporation over the years and involving assessment of relevant engineering, statistical, cultural and socio-economic data.
2.	The corporation has its own television outlets in the largest cities of all other provinces except Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island.
3.	Yes. The C.B.C. expects to duplicate the coverage now provided to part of Nova Scotia by the present C.B.C. affiliate in Saint John.
4.	No specific date has been set for the C.B.C. application to the Department of Transport or for subsequent hearing by the Board of Broadcast Governors, although it is planned to apply during the 1967-68 fiscal year.
5.	Yes. Representations can be made to the C.B.C. at any time and to the B.B.G. when the C.B.C. application is before it.
6.	Not to the C.B.C.'s knowledge.


C.B.C.-NATIONAL RELIGIOUS ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mr. Haidasz: 1. Is there in existence a national religious advisory council connected with the C.B.C.?
2.	When was such a council established?
3.	What are its terms of reference?
4.	What is the composition of the council?
5.	When was the last report made to the minister?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	1938.
3.	The council was set up to advise the corporation on all matters of religious broadcasting. It is free to comment on any programming matter.
4.	The council is composed of 13 members nominated by the major denominations and appointed by the C.B.C. board of directors. Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches have direct representation and the chairman of the council is charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of smaller denominations.
5.	The N.R.A.C. does not report to the minister. It reports to the C.B.C. through the corporation's supervisor of religious broadcasts.


PURCHASE OR LEASE OF HOUSES UNDER BILINGUALISM EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the government purchased houses in the cities of Quebec or Toronto or suburbs of either, for use by public servants engaged in the bilingualism exchange program?
2.	If so (a) how many houses in each area (b) at what total cost in each area?
3.	Is it planned to acquire more houses for this purpose?
4.	If so (a) how many (b) at what estimated
cost?
5.	Do the public service occupants of these houses pay rent therefor?
6.	If so (a) upon what basis is rent calculated
(b)	what is the total amount of rent paid in each area?
7.	In each area, does the government lease houses from owners for use in this program?
8. If so (a) how many houses are leased in each area (b) at what total annual cost in each area
(c)	is the full amount of the rent paid by the government recovered from the public service occupant?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the public service commission: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) 4 in Quebec city; (b) $107,500.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) 23; (b) $780,000.
April 12, 1967

5.	No.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	Yes.
8.	(a) 1 in Quebec city; (b) $3,000 per year; (c) no.


PUBLIC SERVICE-UNIVERSITY TRAINING IN LIBRARY SCIENCE
Mr. Pritlie: 1.	Concerning the Public Service Commission information circular No. 66-4110 regarding university training in library science, how many applications were received by January 9, 1967?
2.	How many of the applicants were selected for interview?
3.	How many applicants have been offered appointments as librarians in training?
4.	How many of these applicants have accepted appointments?
Kon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):
1 am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. 199 applications were received from candidates who had mailed them by January 9.
2.	114 candidates were called for interview.
3.	No offers have been made as yet since interviewing is still in progress.
It is anticipated that offers will be made early in April.
4.	See answer to 3.


PERSONS RECOMMENDING PURCHASE OF PAINTING &quot;SUNDAY AFTERNOON&quot;
Mr. Herridge: What are the names of the three directors of the Canadian public art museums who recommended the purchase of the painting entitled "Sunday Afternoon" by Claude Breeze, to the Canada Council?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canada Council that the council is not at liberty to provide the information requested. The arrangements by which the council is able to secure the advice of experts rest on the understanding that these experts will not be personally called upon to defend individual decisions made by the council. The council alone must accept full responsibility for each of its actions.


REQUESTS FOR INCREASE IN MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	Has the government received requests for an increase in the present subsidy on industrial milk for the new fiscal dairy year beginning April 1, 1967?
2.	From how many and which segments of the milk producing industry have these requests been received?
3.	Has the government referred these requests to and consulted with the Canadian Dairy Commission?
23033-937 J
Questions
4.	Has the government referred these requests to and consulted with the stabilization board?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 2,781 is divided into four parts. The answer to the first part is yes. The answer to the second part is, a total of 101 representations were received from producer organizations and local committees.
The answer to part 3 is yes, and the answer to part 4 is yes.


REQUEST FOR MINIMUM PRICE FOR INDUSTRIAL MILK
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	Has the government received a message from 150 dairy farmers of Prince Edward-Lennox, who assembled at Bloomfield, March 13, in which they unanimously requested a minimum price of $5.10 per cwt. for industrial milk for the coming dairy year?
2.	Will the government give this request favourable consideration?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is divided into two parts. The answer to part 1 is, yes; and the answer to part 2 is, all representations were carefully considered.


WEST COAST HERRING FISHERY
Mr. Webb: 1.	Did Dr. Taylor, who is in charge of herring fisheries on the west coast, forecast 1967 as a bumper year in the herring harvest?
2.	How long did the season last?
3.	Was the season closed earlier than usual and, if so, for what reason?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1. No.
2.	The 1967 herring season northern central Queen Charlotte Islands sub-districts closed March 5 instead of March 10; upper and middle east coasts sub-districts closed January 28 instead of February 5; lower east coast closed December 14 instead of February 5; west coast closed February 5 on time.
3.	All early closures were made to conserve spawning stocks; the in-season closure from February 5 to 15 in northern central Queen Charlotte sub-districts was made to protect immature fish.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED RETURN ON FARM-SEPARATED CREAM
Mr. Alkenbrack: Because of the current shortage of butter in Canada, will the government give the producers

April 12, 1967
Questions
of farm separated cream a better return for their product in the new dairy year than in the one now terminating?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, the direct subsidy to producers of farm separated cream in the support year starting April 1, 1967, will be at a rate equivalent to $1.21 for 3.5 pounds of butterfat. The subsidy rate in the year ending March 31 was 85 cents for 3.5 pounds of butterfat.
The Canadian Dairy Commission is supporting the price of butter, as from April 1, 1967, at a carlot purchase price of 63 cents per pound. The support purchase price established under the Agricultural Stabilization Act on April 1, 1966, was 59 cents per pound.


AIR CANADA EXPENDITURES IN CANADA
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Of the total expenditures by Air Canada in the last fiscal year, what proportion of that amount was spent in (a) the three prairie provinces (b) British Columbia?
2.	Of the total Air Canada expenditures for maintenance and overhaul work in the last fiscal year, what proportion of this amount was spent in (a) the three prairie provinces (b) British Columbia?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) 14.6 per cent; (b) 5.7 per cent.
2. (a) 20.6 per cent; (b) 4.2 per cent.


COAST GUARD PATROL OF GRAND BANKS
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What provisions are made for patrolling the Grand Banks offshore from Newfoundland by the Canadian coast guard?
2.	During what period or periods of the year are patrols maintained on a regular basis?
3.	What particular coast guard vessels or other equipment are used in this service?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. At present no
specific provisions are made by the Canadian coast guard for patrolling the Grand Banks area.
2 and 3. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Reid: 1. Are all the functions of the National Museum consolidated in one building and, if not (a) for what reason (to) what are the other addresses (c) what functions or departments of the National Museum are housed there, and (d) what is the cost to the government for this space?

2.	Since April, 1966, has the National Museum acquired additional space and, if so (a) how much additional space (b) where is it located (c) what is the reason for this additional space?
3.	What are the government's plans for the construction of the new National Museum building?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS UNDER FEDERAL ACT
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many public housing units have been built and made available to low-income families and individuals in each province since the implementation of the National Housing Act?
2.	How much has been invested in each province, and how many families in each province are being assisted under this act?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, motion for papers No. 215 is acceptable to the government.
Would Your Honour be so kind as to call motion No. 220?
I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.



MCKINNON INDUSTRIES-LAID OFF WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 215-Mr. Barnett:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of (a) a list of the names and social security numbers sent to the transitional assistance benefits board by McKinnon Industries Limited, St. Catharines, Ontario, as being laid off from employment since September 8, 1966 (b) a list of all those named in part (a) above who have been certified as being eligible to draw transitional assistance benefits (c) a list of all those named in part (a) above who have received or who are now receiving transitional assistance benefits payments.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 220-Mr. Smallwood:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, orders, receipts and other documents, since July 1, 1966, between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the recipients of 107 colour television sets, conferred gratis, upon individuals within and without the corporation.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that there are no such things as colour television sets conferred gratis upon any individuals, therefore there is no correspondence. I suggest to the hon. member that he consider withdrawing the motion, since it would require a "nil" answer.
April 12. 1967


Mr. Smallwood:: In the circumstances I cannot withdraw this motion. I placed it on the order paper so I might have information. I wish to congratulate the hon. lady for informing the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We cannot have a debate now. All the hon. member can do is ask that this motion be transferred for debate. Is that what he wants to do?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: No. I will ask that the question be put to the house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: But I have informed the house that I have no objection to accepting the order, though it will have to be by a "nil" return.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose there is no alternative before the Chair but to put the question to the house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have no objection to accepting the motion, but there will be a "nil" return. That is why I suggested that the hon. member should withdraw it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the Great Lakes research institute and the conference which has set forth the growing seriousness of pollution and the intolerable levels reached at Toronto and other large cities, through the presence of concentrated infectious bacteria.
I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the seriousness of this problem he would undertake to hold, or give consideration to holding, a federal-provincial conference immediately so that plans may be co-ordinated to deal with this growing and increasingly dangerous problem before health in the metropolitan areas becomes seriously affected.
High! Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
This matter, including the possibility of holding a conference along the lines indicated by the right hon. gentleman, has been under consideration, but in view of the urgency which he rightly attaches to it I will give consideration to the question he has asked me today.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer, and ask him whether the
Inquiries of the Ministry government is prepared to commit the necessary resources to a program which would adequately and effectively come to grips with this major problem in industrialized society today.


Mr. Pearson:: The matter is being considered with the provinces and when we are aware of the nature and scope of the problem and of the resources which will be required to deal with it effectively we shall then have to decide how best the expense can be shared among the three levels of government.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Would
the Prime Minister consider putting this matter on the agenda to be discussed by members of the Canadian and United States governments when they meet at Expo this summer, with a view to opening up the boundary waters treaty so this question of pollution might be added to the responsibilities of the two nations, thus providing constitutional encouragement for both countries to move in this field?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter is already being considered by representatives of the two governments on the International Joint Commission. I think this is the most effective agency for dealing with this matter, and I hope the commission will report to the two governments before long.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the public discussion which is taking place regarding the Vimy ceremony last Sunday I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. First, was President de Gaulle ever formally invited by the Canadian government to attend the ceremony at Vimy? Second, in view of the fact that the ceremony was taking place within the territory of the Republic of France, were there any discussions through diplomatic channels with the French government regarding the arrangements for the ceremony prior to the plans being finalized?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter was discussed on the diplomatic level by representatives of the two governments, and it was made quite clear to the government of France that if the

April 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry representation of France on this occasion could be at the highest level that would have been very welcome to the Canadian government. If my hon. friend would put his question on the order paper I might be able to provide a more detailed written reply.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Prime Minister answer the first part of my question? Was a formal invitation ever extended to President de Gaulle to attend the ceremony?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the French government was invited to participate fully in the ceremony, and it was made quite clear that if it had been possible for General de Gaulle, as head of the French government, to be there, that indeed would have been most welcome to the Canadian government.
[Translation 1


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us whether, in the course of those diplomatic talks preceding the Vimy ceremonies, all the suggestions of the Canadian government on this ceremony were accepted by the French government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements that actually took place were worked out in collaboration with the French government and by agreement with that government.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have had a number of supplementary questions. This is a short day for questions, and I wonder if we could go on to another matter.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSIDERATION BY FINANCE MINISTERS OF USE OF BANK OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of tne day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Yesterday was the closing day of the federal-provincial conference on monetary questions in Canada which was attended by the provincial ministers of finance as well as by the federal Minister of Finance and Receiver General. On this occasion, or during the talks, was there any question of using the Bank of

Canada to finance the public sector of the Canadian economy, without interest?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker; none of the provincial ministers or myself supported the position taken by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Mr. Ricard:: You voted for it a few years ago.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General be kind enough to tell us what the bright suggestions were on that occasion?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now asking the hon. minister for a general statement, and I do not believe this is the proper time for it.


Mr.   Cacueffe@: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Would it not be important for the hon. minister to advise us, in view of the importance of the matter, of the result of that federal-provincial conference, or at least tell us whether the provincial ministers of finance disappeared, as if by magic, without knowing what happened?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to make a statement on motions if the house would be interested, but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a statement at this time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us whether the regulations envisaged under the Deposit Insurance Act have yet been formulated, since we hear that the act is to be put into force by the end of the month? If so, when will he be in a position to table those regulations as he undertook to do in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to bring the act into force on the 17th of this month. I shall have to inquire about the particular
April 12. 1967

point of the regulations, and I know the hon. gentleman is reminding me that I had promised to refer these to the committee.



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF CORPORATION LAW REFORM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on an answer he gave to a question I asked him a week ago today in this house. The question I asked at that time, as recorded at page 14548 of Hansard, was:
In view of the success of the committee established by the government of Ontario in outlining the reforms needed in Ontario corporation law to provide better protection for the public In that province, does the government intend to initiate a similar study at the federal level with a view to providing better protection for the public in all parts of the country?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
We have already done that, Mr. Speaker, as the result of a decision to hold a meeting to consider this matter I believe next Monday.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is my question to the Prime Minister. Knowing that that meeting has been held and that the matters considered were only a very minute part of the inquiry which took place in Ontario-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member now is making a speech, and I think he should ask his question.


George Harris Hees: In view of what I have said, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government of Canada intends to initiate a similar study so that all citizens in all parts of the country may receive similar protection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The meeting was held last Monday after studies had been made by the provincial and federal governments. As a result of this meeting the studies are being continued.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is not in connection with corporation law. The meeting which was held last Monday, as I am sure the Prime Minister knows, dealt with a very small section of corporation law dealing with securities, not general corporation law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what I am sure you will
Inquiries of the Ministry accept as an important question. I should like to direct it to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister advise the house whether it is correct that without a policy statement, without a reference to the committee on national defence or a supplementary vote, negotiations are under way or have been concluded in respect of a new military communications system within the southern hemisphere to be known as "battleground communications", to which Canada is to be committed for 4 per cent of the capital cost? If so, may I ask what is its purpose so far as Canada's alliance commitments are concerned.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: This is a rather complicated question. I am not sure whether the department has issued a press release on this, but I will inquire and if so send a copy of it to my hon. friend.


Harold Edward Winch: What did the United States do? That is my question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If they have a press release we will have one as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better explain for my rather cynical friends opposite. This was a tripartite arrangement involving ourselves, the United States and Australia. It was agreed that we would release the news to the press simultaneously. As sometimes happens, a leak occurred in another country in anticipation of the press release. There is, however, nothing very unique in that situation in an open society, as my hon. friends on both sides of the house are aware.
This is a development project which Canada has entered into with the United States and Australia. We have committed ourselves under the development funds which are available to us to participate to the extent of 5 per cent of the project definition stage of this program. At the end of that time the program will be reviewed and we will then decide whether we will continue in the development stage.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence just how this ties in with our alliance commitments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question might require a somewhat complicated answer. Perhaps it should not be asked at this time.

April 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



MONTREAL-APPARENT ELIMINATION OF PRODUCTIONS IN ENGLISH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It appears that the C.B.C. is following a course of action which is leading to the elimination of English productions in the Montreal studios. May I ask whether the government concurs in this policy of the C.B.C. and, if not, would it see that we at least preserve what we have in the province of Quebec of a bilingual and bicultural capability?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be no such policy. If there were the government would not concur in it. I am sure no management of the C.B.C. would ever make such a decision.



INQUIRY AS TO CONTROL OVER HOCKEY BROADCASTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the statement made today by an official of CBOT television that all decisions as to which hockey games are to be shown on which networks are to be made by that rather partisan group, Mac-Laren Advertising, rather than by the C.B.C., will the minister do everything in her power to prevent such further usurping of the rights of parliament and the taxpayers who pay for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of this, but I suppose this is another case where the Mac-Laren firm has purchased the rights and sold them to the highest bidder. However, I will certainly ascertain the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that such an important matter to Canadian culture as hockey broadcasts should be in the hands of the MacLaren Advertising Company, which has such close relations with the government?


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



REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT SO MEMBERS MAY ATTEND EXPO PREVIEW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister consider adjourning the house on April 27 so that all members might have an opportunity to attend the preview of Expo on that date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think this matter should be given consideration, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO DESIGN OF NEW INSIGNIA On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, asking him whether the report is correct that he has now designed another insignia for use by the Post Office Department. If so, when does he intend to introduce it?


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



TORONTO-MAIL ADDRESSED TO DISMISSED CHIEF CORONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. I understand that on instructions from the minister's department mail addressed to the dismissed chief coroner in Toronto, Dr. Shulman, is being forwarded to Dr. H. D. Cotnam, the Ontario supervising coroner. In view of the fact that the dismissal arose out of a controversy between those two gentlemen, will the minister consider some more appropriate way of dealing with Dr. Shulman's mail?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question can be asked at this time.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Will the minister, the parliamentary
April 12, 1967

secretary, or officials of the department be taking part in the Canadian Association for Adult Education conference on educational television to be held in Toronto tomorrow?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker; there will be representatives from the B.B.G. and the C.B.C. together with individuals from other departments of government and from the staff of the under secretary of state.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
In view of the large number of representations received from the far-away county of Bonaventure and a few communities in the county of Gaspe because of the long delays in the local delivery of mail, could the minister investigate to see whether such a deplorable situation could be corrected, if he is anxious to achieve the intended purpose in implementing the mail delivery by truck?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made representations which have been noted by the minister.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did he receive notice of my request for a statement in respect of the I.W.A. versus GATT regarding negotiations on wheat prices?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce)? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did. This matter was communicated to me by the Prime Minister, and I read the reference in Hansard as well. I doubt whether you would permit me to make a statement at this time, but I am prepared to do so if it is your wish.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



REMOVAL OF UNIFORMS OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ATTENDING COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I am informed that a dozen chief petty officers and petty officers from the Royal Canadian Navy, coming from the east and west coasts, are attending a supply course in the district. As one feature of that course they are at present in the gallery of this chamber. Before coming here they were told to remove their uniforms because the unification debate will be taking place and it would not be appropriate for them to be in naval uniform on this occasion. Can the minister explain this situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, not only am I unable to explain it, I had not heard about it until this moment. I will make inquiries.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether he has a couple of green uniforms floating around that these gentlemen could use?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will see whether I can find some.



HALIFAX-REQUEST OF DOCKYARD COUNCIL RESPECTING PAY RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he is in a position today to indicate to the house the content of his reply to the dockyard workers in Halifax?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have the reply on my desk. I will try to make it available tomorrow.



C.F.B. SHEARWATER-ASSISTANCE TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES LAID OFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may I direct this question either to the Minister of Labour or to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that some 60 or more civilian employees at C.F.B. Shearwater are being laid

April 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry off this Friday because their work is being transferred to armed forces personnel, are steps being taken by any government department to assist these employees to secure other work?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the question as notice and take it up with my colleague for reply later.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO INVITATION TO HIS HOLINESS THE POPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has the hon. minister approached again His Holiness Pope Paul VI or asked officials of his department to do so, with a view to persuading him to come to Canada in 1967?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the replies I gave a few months ago, as well as to the reply of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
Through the Apostolic Delegate, the Pope advised that he did not intend to come to Canada this year due to prior engagements.



INQUIRY AS TO SITE RENTAL CHARGES AND SECURITY GUARANTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask whether the right hon. Prime Minister discussed with him the question I asked last Monday, as to whether anything was paid for leases by those setting up pavilions at Expo, and what guarantee of security was given to these nations. Is the minister prepared to answer the question today, or when can we expect an answer?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did bring this question to my attention. I think the question was in two parts; one dealt with security and the other dealt with rental rates on the site of Expo. The answer to the latter part of the question is that the sites are provided free to any nations building pavilions on them, but Expo does undertake to service the sites and the 
servicing is at the rate of $2 for every square foot of exhibit space.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What are we to understand by "servicing"? Does this mean security? Do we provide R.C.M.P. protection, will the Quebec provincial police provide it, or what is the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now asking for a detailed statement.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, we would like to know what "servicing" means; whether it is just giving them water and electricity, or do we give them anything else?


Robert Henry Winters: I am prepared to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. The security arrangements are still under discussion, and this is a matter of co-operation among all levels of government. However, basically each country is charged with security within its own building. Outside the building the security falls on the appropriate level of government. The city, the security force of Expo, the province and the federal government work in co-operation.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Thank you. That is what I was after.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Montreal's answer to Kennedy, the Registrar General. Can the minister tell the house whether his department carefully studies reports presented by the consumer credit committee, and will some of their recommendations be implemented?


Hon. John M. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to our Canadian Charles de Gaulle. I have the highest regard for the hon. member for Lotbiniere even though I do not fully share all of his opinions.
I have asked that the report of this committee be inquired into and thoroughly studied. Undoubtedly, the recommendations will be considered by the government and its decision on this point will be announced in due course.


Auguste Choquette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
April 12, 19S7

Should the minister be considered as the future minister of consumer affairs?


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


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: A supplementary question to the minister. Further to his consideration of the report of the committee on consumer credit and the cost of living, is it his intention to recommend to the cabinet the establishment of a department of consumer affairs?


John Napier Turner: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, that decision will be announced in due course.


Mr. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to address to the Prime Minister. Does the question asked by the hon. member for Lot-biniere indicate that the brass is getting a little away from the grass?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is speculative.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Registrar General. Will he assure hon. members on this side of the house that he will not follow the lead of the potential leadership aspirants of the Conservative party, but will give leadership to the formation of a consumer credit department in the manner-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, without in any way associating the hon. member for Lotbiniere with General de Gaulle, thereby committing such a slander on the general-


Auguste Choquette: Thank you, Barry Gold-water.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any representations were made to the government of France regarding that country's cold shouldering of the Vimy Ridge gathering. Is the minister in a position to tell the house frankly why General de Gaulle had no high-ranking official representative there from the French republic? Was this the fault of the government of Canada in failing to invite him?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already answered that question-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam. The government of Canada has since Sunday had discussions with representatives of the government of France. The statement made last week by the Prime Minister, that the government of France had done everything that it could reasonably be expected to do, is an accurate statement of the situation; and so has the government of Canada. I suggest to my right hon. friend that his desire to promote good relations between our two countries is not enhanced by the questions which he continues to ask.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. gentleman think those relations were enhanced because the Canadian government failed to invite President de Gaulle?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, relations between-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether hon. members on both sides of the house do not think we are now getting into a debate on this question. This is a period for questions, not a period for debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can give the house a definite answer as to whether the president of the French republic was invited through the diplomatic channels, over which the minister presides, to attend the ceremony or to send a leading representative of the French government, or was this botched by his department and are we now trying to throw the blame on the French government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating the question that was asked previously.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I believe I should answer the question put a moment ago by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mr. Starr:: Order.
2.1033-9385
April 12, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not want to interrupt the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but my impression was that the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had been asked previously by the minister.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government would protest to the United States government against the use of the anti-personnel fragmentation bomb in Viet Nam. The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on the exact situation. When that is received I will be in a position to reply.
May I inquire whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has yet received a report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think an official reply has been received, but I have already dealt with this question in the external affairs committee.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would it be too much to ask the minister to give a reply to the house on that point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the Canadian government was opposed to the bombing, it was opposed to the infiltration from the north to the south, and it hoped that both parties and all concerned would endeavour to get to the peace table.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, when he is investigating reports on the use of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs by American forces in Viet Nam, he would also look into reports carried in the Bangkok World and other newspapers in that part of the world as to the use of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs by North Vietnamese forces against the free world forces in the south.


NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 11, consideration in committee of Bill No.
[Stage Direction]

C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was under consideration.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, last night at ten o'clock I was endeavouring to correct what appeared to me at the time, and which upon subsequent research and a little reading proved to be the fact, a misrepresentation of certain basic facts in connection with the recent review by the United Kingdom of their defence policy.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As 1 mentioned last night, the minister suggested in committee that the recent resignations and so on in the United Kingdom were, in his opinion, indications of valid reasons for a totally unified defence structure. I just wanted to complete my remarks on this aspect of the matter today and make one or two other comments on Christopher Mayhew, because I believe they are pertinent and they do indicate to us in Canada what is going on in at least one major area of this world.
In his book "Britain's Role Tomorrow", chapter 13, Christopher Mayhew deals with the question of whether the establishment of a single armed service is the best way to proceed. He has this to say in part:
The major danger in unification is that a clear vertical chain of command on a "functional" basis can seriously weaken the links between different functions inside a particular service. Unifying the three service personnel departments could weaken the links between the air staff and the R.A.F. operational commands, between those who deploy the aircraft and those who fly them. A central logistics department could interpose a bureaucratic wall between the navy and its dockyards. A central training department could separate the army from its jungle warfare school in South Johore. In any defence organization, the most numerous and important ties are those between different functions inside a particular service, and not between the same functions inside different services.
Put another way, the relationship between the "user" and the "producer" in a particular service is more important than the relationship between the "users" in different services and between "producers" in different services. This will remain true for as long as servicemen still have to specialize in order to fight in three different elements-land, sea, and air.
I commend the reading not only of Christopher Mayhew's statement of resignation in the house but of his book "Britain's Role Tomorrow". I think if that is done by some hon. members opposite they might have a
April 12, 1967	COMMONS
slightly different opinion about the merit of going ahead with full unification.
Now, Mr. Chairman, during orders of the day this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the government if they would give consideration, or if indeed they were giving any consideration, to one of the spin-off effects of integration and unification. I apologize to the committee for raising this matter a second time. It has been three weeks now since it was known that about 100 men would be dislocated because of a change in defence purchasing policies. I suspect these policies flowed directly from the Department of National Defence.
In any event, these policies are part of the defence purchasing policy and have led to the lay off of some 60 employees of Fairey Aircraft, an equal number from Cossor, an equal number from Sperry Gyroscope, and other companies might have one or two employees involved. We know that cutbacks have been made in the Neptune program, and there has been a reorientation of the Sikorsky helicopter work back to Montreal. All this has put these firms, particularly Fairey, in a position where they have no alternative but to lay off these men for an extended period. This means a loss of earnings for these men and, since we are talking about 100 men probably earning $5,000 each per year, the total amount might run to half a million dollars.
In addition, we were promised there would be no undue economic impact on any area because of unification. We have not even got unification yet, but we are already feeling the impact. I urge the government and the minister now to look very hard and very quickly for a method of overcoming this peculiar difficulty that is already rearing its ugly head.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question before he goes on to another part of his remarks. He was dealing with the disastrous economic situation that will result in Halifax, and may I ask him if he is aware that some time ago this same minister closed the Point Edward naval base in my area, resulting in the loss of 700 jobs and a payroll of over $3 million? We were assured also by the Prime Minister and by the minister from Nova Scotia that no undue effects would take place.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Muir: Many people are still without jobs.
National Defence Act Amendment


J. Michael Forrestall: My hon. friend raises a question with which I am very familiar indeed. It is for this reason I plead with the government to take some action immediately in order to avoid the economic hardships that we are suffering. I know the Sydney situation well which resulted from the closing of Point Edward. As I said the other night, this constant fear of telling the truth, of exposing their plans and letting people have a look at them so that retraining programs can be undertaken, is not good. The government will not do this; they say nothing is happening. However, you wake up one morning and find that the rug has been pulled out from under you. The maritime provinces cannot stand this economically.


Robert Muir: You will get phony promises from the minister that no one will suffer.


J. Michael Forrestall: It seems to me this is not the way to approach this type of problem. This consolidation program is not a classified program. What is secret about it? What are we trying to hide? The program should be brought out into the open so we can talk about it so our provincial people can get together with the federal people and work out a scheme in co-operation. As I have said, when you close a major military establishment about 100 civilian jobs are lost. Shearwater is just a start, and this type of thing could go on. I believe there are some 5,700 or 5,800 civilian employees directly or indirectly connected with the Department of National Defence in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. We cannot afford to wait until the last minute to learn the ultimate fate of these employees.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I mention again the fact that for two days now I have asked the Prime Minister to indicate his reply to questions concerning a major situation in respect of the 700 or 800 members of local 743 of the Canadian Labour Congress at the Halifax dockyard. The situation is that the government is practising open discrimination against labour. These men are not classified under the ship repair group as labourers, board of transport people, riggers, brush hands and so on, and they find themselves in the position of receiving, among other things, one of four different rates of pay. Repeated pleas to the government by way of the associate minister and the President of the Treasury Board have produced no results whatever. A final plea has been made in the form of a night letter to the Prime Minister asking
April 12, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment him personally to intervene to correct this situation, or at least to recognize that there is a very serious problem here. I suggest to the minister that unless some action is taken these men will go on strike and will picket the yard, and we will then find our national defence structure in maritime command grinding to a very abrupt halt.
I close by leaving those two problems with the minister. I ask him to be kind enough to urge upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues in cabinet the necessity for finding some solution to the problem confronting the employees at Shearwater, and I ask the government to move quickly to overcome the disparity in labour wage rates among members of the general workers union at H.M.C. Dockyard.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to do something entirely foreign to my nature but which I feel must be done. I am going to submit a plea to the minister not to proceed with this measure at this time. It is within his power to delay further debate on this bill. If the minister will not listen to my plea I will direct it to the Prime Minister, yes, to the entire Liberal cabinet. I do so with the knowledge that the members of the official opposition are determined in their stand. We feel it is our duty to object to this measure in the interest of the defence of this country. We feel that this is what the people of Canada expect of us. We feel that if any other party were the official opposition it would do the same thing. My only regret is that by following the course we are determined to follow we will be labelled with words that have often been used before such as obstructive, disloyal, destructive, politically motivated, and without responsibility. But I can assure the minister that regardless of the words used to describe our action we are going to fight this measure because we do not agree with it in principle.
That is why I plead once more with the minister. I feel that he was perhaps initially misinformed about this measure. He has heard me speak on this point in the hearings before the defence committee. I referred him to a statement made by his present vice-chief,
I believe it was, who suggested that there were only two courses open to the minister, although I think subsequent evidence has shown that there are more than two, in order to operate within a fixed budget and still maintain the effectiveness of our armed forces.
[Mr. Forrestall.i

When this point was raised in the committee we pointed out to the minister the action that France had taken in similar circumstances. They were faced with a similar proposition and had to maintain the effectiveness of their forces. What did they do? They immediately reduced their armed services by 50 per cent but obtained modern equipment so that their effective fire power remained the same and they stayed within their budget. This the minister could do.
There are possibly even more courses open to the minister, but I would ask him to pause at this time. Many of his former senior officers have also asked him to pause, to let the integration of the forces develop and see how it works. We have told the minister time and time again that we are not opposed to the implementation of integration.
However, Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some misunderstanding about what integration means. Certainly there is a lot of misunderstanding about the difference between the term "integration" and the term "unification". I was very surprised yesterday to hear the minister say that integration and unification are more or less part of the same cycle. I suggest that the minister is confusing not only the members on this side of the house but also his own members and the Canadian public when he makes such statements. This confusion has existed throughout the course of this debate. We are not unaware of the commitments of the government during this centennial year and it is not our desire to prolong this debate. Neither do I dislike the minister; in some ways I like him very much. But as I said, I think he has been misled, even though he will not admit it.


Mr. Regimbal:: He is a willing victim.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you; that is a good term. Yes, he is a willing victim. However, he should realize it now. If he does not, then the cabinet and the Prime Minister should. In any event, we are determined to pursue our course in regard to the implementation of unification.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I point out to the minister how some of the confusion arose. It was of his own making, as I think he will admit. First of all, when we asked him what unification meant we had just cause for asking. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, the number of senior officers who were discharged or had resigned because they did not know the definition of unification. In fact, it was evident in the committee that an embarrassment had been caused to the minis-
April 12, 1967

ter when he had to apologize to a certain admiral who had taken certain action.
The Canadian public do not know why that admiral took that action, but Admiral Lan-dymore had been confronted by a number of subordinate officers under his command who had asked him what unification meant. The admiral told them truthfully that he did not know but that he would go to Ottawa to find out. His immediate superior, Air Chief Marshal Miller, also admitted freefy to the committee that he did not know either and so he could not give Admiral Landymore an answer. As a result, Admiral Landymore went back to his subordinates and truthfully told them that he did not know what unification meant, that there was confusion. In addition, we also had the evidence of Lieutenant General Moncel on this point, to which I will refer in a few moments. I believe his evidence was referred to by the hon. member for Parkdale who I see is now in the chamber and I hope will remain.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I have four reasons for pleading with the minister as I do, and I should like to put them on record. My first reason that we should delay this debate for six months, one year or even more-it does not matter-is that we want to examine the problems which have arisen from the evidence presented not only in the committee but also in this house. At the moment the definition of unification appears to be contradictory. I will come back to this point and explain why this is my first reason for delaying this measure.
My second reason is to assure ourselves that the identity of the three services within a single service concept will be maintained. There is some doubt in our minds that this will be the case.
My third reason is that we want to obtain further details of the cost and efficiency of present government defence plans, and the impact that these plans will have on the economy of the country. This point was made by the hon. member for Halifax. We want further concrete proof that the effectiveness of our troops will not deteriorate. We are more concerned about the deterioration of our combat troops than about tidy administration.
Time and again we have said that the minister has put the cart before the horse. We have no disagreement with the concept of implementating integration to tidy up the supply and administrative elements of our forces, but we do object to any tydying up, amalgamating, integrating or unifying that
National Defence Act Amendment affects the combat effectiveness of our troops. The fighting part of our services must be kept uppermost in our minds. No matter how good the supply element is, no matter how tidy the administration, the combat element of our forces is the most important.
My fourth reason is that the positions with respect to NATO and NORAD are to be reviewed in 1968 and 1969. That brings up another point. Are we to go it alone, using an expression the minister may have used, in defending our country or should we be part of an interdependent group? It was agreed in committee that Canada can only be assured of a defence through a collective alliance. In this day and age no country can defend its own borders.
I now return to my first point in order to deal with the contradictory evidence we had before us. On page 502 of the committee proceedings Air Marshal Sharp, in talking about the differences between integration and unification, said:
The dividing line-in the case of integration you must maintain three separate services, even though they are headless, because the present act does not permit you to unify into a single service. In the case of unification, which will be permitted by the amendment before you-
He is referring to Bill C-243.
-you can create a single service and one does not need to maintain the three separate services.
I emphasize the last words:
-one does not need to maintain the three separate services.
Previously he had said on page 501:
-then people in it should be able to be employed anywhere and not keep them segregated as navy, army and air force-
These words directly contradict the minister who said on several occasions that there would be no change in the organization of forces units, that the system will not be changed by reason of unification, and that we shall certainly continue to have infantry regiments as well as the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps and the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. The minister said:
Although a unified personnel management system will be introduced, the separate units and elements of naval, field and air force will continue to exist.
That seems quite straightforward, though it contradicts what Air Marshal Sharp said, namely, that one need not maintain the three separate services. On the other hand, the minister says that we will continue to have the navy, army and air force but I point out that he ended his statement with these words:
April 12, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Until the force structure within the unified force is developed.
We do not know what that means. Do those words mean that there is a time limitation to everything the minister has said? Do they mean that we will have the army, navy and air force for a limited time? We do not know how long that time will be. The minister has caused confusion. Members on the other side of the house are confused about what he is doing, though 80 officers resigned because they could not understand the term "unification". I freely admit, having attended 55 meetings of the committee over eight weeks, that I am as confused now as when I began about the term "unification". That is partly because time and again the minister has turned somersaults.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said yesterday that unification only means a change of name and uniform. If we could believe that we as the official opposition would tell the government to go ahead with the bill. But we do not and cannot accept that because we remember the minister's words:
Until the force structure within the unified force is developed.
Obviously there will be some change, and it is a change we are afraid of. Having listened to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra during approximately 55 meetings and knowing he has heard the evidence before the committee, I was surprised to hear him make that statement.
I was not surprised to hear the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River say that the minister had told him that unification and integration are one and the same thing. I know the minister does not believe that, but I do not think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was deliberately telling a falsehood. He was repeating something that had been told him. The official opposition is in a quandary which it would like to straighten out. It cannot be accused of not being sincere or concerned about the matter. We are concerned about the minister's remarks.
The hon. member for Parkdale, apart from saying how much he admired the Minister of National Defence for his forthrightness and courage, said that he was in favour of unification. He put up a fairly good argument and I read with interest passages in his speech where he referred to something I had said. I mention the hon. member's speech because, having read it and knowing him as I do, I believe he has deliberately distorted the facts.

Perhaps he did not distort facts in that part of his speech dealing with the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller but he did distort them when dealing with Lieutenant General Moncel. The hon. member tries to make much of the fact that the former chief of defence staff seemed to contradict his former vice chief, Lieutenant General Moncel. The hon. member read a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East, as found on page 2299 of the committee proceedings:
Did you, as chief of staff, ever see the four plans on unification drafted by General Moncel?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: No.
That appears to be a contradiction. But on reading the evidence it appears that the four plans drafted by General Moncel were not submitted. All hon. members draft speeches time and again without submitting them. General Moncel did not say that he had submitted any of these plans.
I see hon. members on the government side shaking their heads. They know that when something new is proposed in the services, plans are drafted. General Moncel honestly tried to understand what the minister meant by unification. He thought he understood. It was as difficult for the general as for practically everybody else to understand what was meant.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
How can we expect the Canadian public to form an opinion on issues of this kind? How can it be expected even of members of parliament who do not spend their lives in the services studying these matters? I do not know on what basis the minister has reached the conclusion that unification will work. The generals have advised him that it will not. We have tried to find out where he got the idea of unification. We have tried to find out what it really means. He has not been able to explain it even to his own supporters.
I continue to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Parkdale in the course of which I was mentioned. I believe he distorted the views I expressed. One of the members of the committee, the hon. member for Hamilton West, questioned Air Chief Marshal Miller about the increased effectiveness of our combat troops. He asked whether there had been an increase since the last war, or since this government had taken over and, of course, the air marshal said there had been an increase.
The reason I asked my question was to show that Canada's increased effectiveness was not the result of anything achieved by
April 12, 1967	COMMONS
the minister. Every country in the world has proceeded in the same way. Combat effectiveness has increased. This is why I say the hon. member's speech in this house was distorted. I believe this was an intentional effort on his part, not that he is doing any service to his party, because he is confusing the members of this party and making it more difficult to understand this problem. And, as I said before, we sincerely wish to understand what is happening. The second point was:
To assure ourselves that the identity of the services within a single service concept will be maintained.
We do not think it will. And we have gone over the next point time and time again.
To obtain more detail with regard to the costs and efficiency of the present government's defence plans.
When we asked the minister and the chief of the defence staff what the estimated cost of their plan would be and what manpower would be required, we were surprised to learn that they had made no studies whatever along these lines. The same question was put to the former chief of staff who said he had made preliminary studies and that manpower would have to be increased by about one third; I think he said from 104,000 to 150,000. He also estimated that the cost to the people of Canada would roughly be double the amount of the military budget at the time the committee met. I think he said $2.6 billion. This was, of course, based on the assumption that we would continue our present commitments while creating a new, peace restoring force.
Members of the committee pointed out that even at the present time it is difficult to get sufficient personnel to fulfil our present commitments. In these circumstances we differ with the minister as to the advisability of setting up another force particularly when, as was pointed out by some hon. members yesterday, such a force would be of little use to the United Nations at the present time. An offer to provide one has been rejected.
It is all very well to make the offer, but why should we let our own defences down, thinking we have sole responsibility for peacekeeping throughout the world? I have stated before that the peace restoring role is altogether different from the peace keeping role and that it is a very dangerous one. I have pointed out that when the United States embarked on a peace restoring role in Viet Nam it did so with 24,000 men. Today there are over 400,000 Americans in the field there. Canada cannot afford to take on such a role.
National Defence Act Amendment
What arrangements have been made to set up a combined force with those of other countries? There is no use in our going into a venture of this kind with a population of 20 million and limited financial resources if no other country is willing to become an ally in a like role. I urge the minister to shelve this bill for a time, bearing in mind that the NATO agreement is to be reviewed in 1968 and the NORAD agreement in 1969. The allies may decide at that time that NATO is no longer needed.
As a supporter of NATO I would say that NATO has prevented a third world war and that no matter how much it has cost Canada it has been well worth while. I am sure that any hon. member who is acquainted with the organization of NORAD can have little doubt about what it can do to protect the North American continent, and I would say that any contribution we have made in this respect has certainly been worth while.
I am sure I speak for every man in this house who has ever served in the armed forces when I say that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are the last who want to see war of any kind. Our senior officers have many times been called Colonel Blimps and brass hats, without justification. It has been said they would rather see action than anything else. This is not so. Any man who has seen action abhors war. These are reasons for pleading with the minister to shelve this bill at least for the present.
There is another organization which has been very interested in the actions of this committee and of the Minister of National Defence in bringing forward Bill C-243. I refer to the Tri-Service Identities Organization, or TRIO. They are opposed to the measure and they have spent a great deal of time opposing it and trying to understand it. I believe every member of the House of Commons has received a letter or memorandum from the president of that body. It reads as follows:
1.	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.
2.	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
April 12, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment 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.
3.	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. 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.
4.	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.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
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.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Much of that was wasted. The Avro Arrow took up much of that five year period.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What about the underwear you bought for 100 years?


Mr. Churchill:: And the simulator.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Minister, that is one argument that should be settled or at least discussed before we proceed with this bill to unify the services. This is another statement which has caused confusion within the department. Therefore I again plead with the minister not to proceed with this measure at the present time. You provide arguments yourselves against going ahead with this measure, arguments which cause many of us to stand up here, like 1 am now doing, to oppose the principle of this bill because we do not understand it. I continue the quotation:
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.
A great deal could be said about Bill C-90 which was passed by the house. If, as members of the government have said, unification only means a change in name and uniform and unification and integration are one and the same thing, then certainly we do not need Bill C-243. However, I am inclined to agree with Air Marshal Sharp when he said we will not have the three services within a short

time. Regardless of what the minister has said, Bill C-90 was sufficient to do everything put forward by government members so far in this debate.
Liberal members have made no argument why we should proceed with Bill C-243. At times the minister has attempted to do so, but the wisdom of proceeding with it at this time would, as TRIO states, "be questionable if economies are not to be effected and in face of the widespread criticism which the department's program is encountering." TRIO also states:
7.	It has been admitted that morale should be Improved.
The minister should take into consideration that the morale of the services was not improved after serving personnel found out about Bill C-243. It has already done a lot to bring down morale in the services. I continue the quotation:
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 ...
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.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it the wish of the committee that the hon. member continue his speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, briefly.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the committee for this unusual privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have been very nice this afternoon.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I hope you will reciprocate, Mr. Minister, and heed my plea because, as I said at the start, it is foreign to my nature to plead but this issue is much greater than any one member, including you, Mr. Minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It would be disastrous if it is not beneficial to Canada. That is why I make this plea, and I hope some of my colleagues will get up and make the same plea. If you, Mr. Minister, will not heed our pleas I hope
April 12, 1967	COMMONS
the Prime Minister and other members in the chamber will listen to us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The parliamentary secretaries might help out.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I continue the quotation:
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.
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.
1 think there is justification and foundation for this plea, Mr. Minister, and I hope you will take note of it.
If I am not taking too much time of the committee I would like to refer the minister to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of Tuesday, April 4, a newspaper which usually supports the Liberal party. It is headed "Destroying Defence." I regret that some of it is not complimentary to the minister but I think it should be put on record. I will not read it all. It says:
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.
I wish to remind the minister that these are people who have spent all their lives in the services, people who have been taught to serve and not to disobey, who have been taught to give advice to the best of their knowledge and ability and have done so even to the point of being dismissed.
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.
But we are afraid, Mr. Minister, that we cannot 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.
In another portion the editorial says:
This ill-advised step could, by a single act of parliament, sponsored by an inexperienced minister, tear down and destroy proven services which have been built with the sacrifice and efforts of Canadians in the past hundred years and more.
With reference to the services the editorial says:
National Defence Act Amendment
They have been carefully designed and organized to work in the closest possible harmony with our two major allies, Great Britain and the United States.
Today more than ever defence is interdependent. We must have a defence alliance. We must have the alliance of the different countries in NATO. We must depend on our neighbours to the south because, as I have said time and again in this chamber, they are going to defend the North American continent regardless of whether or not Canada wants to be defended. I say that if we can undertake one tenth of that defence, and I say one tenth because we are 20 million people compared with 200 million Americans, if we can do that one tenth of the job well, which I am sure our Canadian forces can do as they have done in the past, then we will retain our sovereignty and national pride which are so valuable to a great many of us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The editorial also says that unification is "entirely foreign to both British and United States defence organizations." It is also entirely foreign to the set-up in NATO. Four brigade groups cannot fit into the NATO commander's plan. It is almost impossible. It will be an albatross around NATO command's neck.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does it say who wrote the editorial?


John (Jack) McIntosh: 
Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek a question at this time?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes.


Stanley Haidasz: Was it the intention of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek to convey the idea to the members of this committee that Lieutenant General Moncel was against unification of the Canadian armed forces?
April 12, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, absolutely. If you will read the entire minutes of proceedings and evidence in respect of this matter when he appeared before the national defence committee as a witness you will find that he said-I do not have the evidence here at the moment but I have it some place-that he did not know and still does not know what unification means. One can read certain portions of that evidence out of context, but if I could have the time to look up this evidence, I could show the hon. member that if one takes the evidence as a whole-and not too much of it-he will see that General Moncel was and still is against unification. In fact that is one of the reasons he left the department prior to his normal retirement date. I believe he had six or seven years more to serve.


Stanley Haidasz: I should like to refer the hon. member to minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 22 of the standing committee on national defence, page 1310, where General Moncel answered a question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona concerning unification. General Moncel said:
I was well aware of the fact that the white paper said that unification was the ultimate end. That was fine. There was nothing wrong with it as an aim. There was nothing wrong with it all; and it may be that had they been given the time it might not have taken five years: it ought to have taken three or four years in which a plot could have been evolved and the commitments altered to make unification fit like a glove without all this nonsense and trouble that we have had.
Does that not mean that General Moncel understood what the aims of the white paper were and that he went along with the aims expressed in the white paper and the ultimate aim which is unification of the Canadian armed services?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Parkdale that the term unification was used once and once only in the white paper and certainly not in the sense of the interpretation we have of it at the present time. "Unification" meant "to unify", in the general sense. It certainly did not mean what the minister has said time and time again. This is one interpretation given by the minister:
Unification is the end objective of a logical and evolutionary progression.
He later changed that and said that he wished he had used the words "the single service concept" instead of "unification". Had he done that in the first instance, I imagine that General Moncel and many other senior officers would still be in the department. It is
iMr. Haidasz.]
because of this misunderstanding of the term "unification" that there has been disagreement between the government and the opposition and between the government and the members of the forces of our country. This is the reason we ask that this bill be held up and that the government proceed with the business they have in mind for the centennial year, because we are determined to keep discussing this bill until we obtain a definition of unification which all of us understand and which the officers and men who have to serve under it understand. It is our responsibility to see that the Canadian people understand what unification means, to see whether Canada can afford unification, and to see whether we can obtain the manpower to supply all these formations-NORAD, NATO, SACLANT, and so on-and still come up with a brigade group which can be used in the role of restoring peace as well as in the peace keeping role. The hon. member has introduced a statement which shows that there is an admission that we really do not know what we are talking about when we talk about unification.


Stanley Haidasz: Does the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek really believe-


Maurice Rinfret: I believe the hon. member for Parkdale has directed two questions to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and wishes to stress these points further. I would suggest that he do so at another time.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, we have had a very fortuitous set of questions and answers as a prelude to the presentation I shall attempt to make at this time. What faces the nation today is the necessity for clarification in respect of the real meaning of the word "unification". The defence of Canada is the most important subject we could discuss on the floor of this House of Commons. Between wars we all earnestly hope that peace will remain indefinitely and old retired soldiers like myself hope that we will be able to sit back in an armchair and leave matters of defence to competent committees and able ministers. I only wish that this was the situation, but I do not have such confidence.
This is not a personal attack. I have the utmost regard for the character, integrity, kindliness and principled intent of the Minister of National Defence, but this is the worst thing I could say about him because wishful thinking and kindly thoughts are not enough to ensure that today and in the future Canada
April 12, 1967

will survive. When Mr. Chamberlain was prime minister of England I shuddered when I read the reports from Munich. We all wish for peace in our time. My young life was shattered by the results of wishful thinking. Had we had a different man in the defence department or in the prime minister's chair in England in the 1930's when Mussolini was on the rise and Hitler was still a bad name associated with a book he had written, we might have had peace in our time. War is something that faces every government whether that government is in Canada or somewhere else. Those of us who have lived between wars in the western world must be alert and be prepared to pay the price of freedom. I for one have not forgotten that the price can be too high for forgetting.
I think I am outnumbered in this house in respect of some of the very firm ideas I have on this matter. I would like to see a modified draft system in Canada so that every young Canadian, whether he wanted to or not, would be given an opportunity to become physically and morally fit and able to defend his country to his last drop of blood and to his last dollar. I realize that between wars this idea is just as unpalatable today as it was in the days when one lone voice in England, that of the late Sir Winston Churchill, spoke in this manner. I am not attempting to draw a parallel between my capabilities and his except in one narrow sense. My dedication is the same. My life and my talents are at the service of my country, whether in the army, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in parliament or anywhere else. Nothing else is any good today if one wants to stand up and call himself a Canadian.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I want to know that the end result of this bill will mean the survival of Canada as a free nation with her own sovereignty. If the minister can give me an assurance in this regard, I will support the bill and use every influence at my command to get other hon. members and the people of Canada to support it. If this bill will worsen our position and sacrifice every tradition we have held as one of the lion's pups I will vote against it. Perhaps we do not want to be referred to as British because we have now grown too big. Perhaps we do not want the word "royal" attached to our regiments. That is not a dispute. We want our regiments to be Canadian, composed of men who will fight to the last to defend this loved land. I know that every man within the sound of my voice will agree with that idea.

National Defence Act Amendment
Should we keep quiet until we know the answers to these questions? Should we stop talking until the minister tells us in clear, unequivocal language that the great traditions of our three services, on the land, on the air, and on the sea, will continue under this one, unified force? Must we wait to be assured that this free and noble Canada will survive and that every man will be willing and happy to do his part to defend this country in peace and in war?
We have all heard the lie, whether unintentional or not, that has been repeated in this country following the cancellation of production of the Arrow. This whole situation has been made a political football. I wish everybody in Canada knew the real truth. Production of the Arrow was cancelled because the government of the day decided it could not pay the bill for this type of weapon while at the same time overcoming transportation difficulties and the high cost of production with our small population.
Let me refer hon. members to volume 15 of the proceedings of the special committee on defence. On October 22, 1963, the ex-chief of staff, General Foulkes, made it abundantly clear that the production of the Arrow was cancelled because of political reasons. The government headed by the present Leader of the Opposition was left with the dirty job of cancelling its production. It was a job that had to be done at that time and this was known by every member of the armed forces of that day.
As an alternative we accepted the proposition that the Bomarc would be useful. Hansard is full of the present defence minister's comments regarding the Bomarc. He suggested that to accept the Bomarc armed with atomic weapons would be to make ourselves slaves subservient to the Pentagon. I will not bore the committee by referring to the remarks of the present Secretary of State who supported that view, because I do not expect the ladies of Canada to carry the burden of defence. The present minister of defence told us on numerous occasions that if we accepted the Bomarc under any circumstances we would become slaves of the Pentagon. Today we have the Bomarc equipped with atomic warheads. The minister knows that he has absolutely no control over the use of the Bomarc.
Fortunately I have had some legal training. Let me explain why no one in this country has any control over the use of the Bomarc. The United States McMahon Act spells out
14842	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment that the President of the United States, and he alone, will determine if and when atomic weapons, whether on United States soil or elsewhere, are to be used. The members of the present administration have solemnly promised to accept that situation. Members of the present administration have said they had to accept this situation because of a previous commitment. I do not know whether the situation can be renegotiated but many of us would like to see the McMahon Act changed so that we would have what has been termed dual control of atomic weapons on Canadian soil or in the hands of Canada's armed forces.
I will accept the minister's assurance that unification will have no significant effect on Canadian armed strength, Canada's sovereignty, or her right to survive in a still hostile world. Will unification in fact denude Canada's armed forces? Many people have suggested that the present minister of defence is responsible for the strange relationship between the United States and Canada in respect of atomic weapons in Canada, but where does the Prime Minister fit into this picture? He was our expert in relations with the United States and he knows better than perhaps anyone else in this country our international legal rights. That right hon. gentleman has spent a lifetime studying this aspect of international relations, and I venture to suggest that perhaps no other man in Canada knows better than he whether the situation which exists as a result of the McMahon Act can be changed. I do not know the answer to this problem but it clearly exists as long as these armed aircraft are in the skies over northern Ontario and Quebec.
I do know something about soldiering and the morale and pride of a regiment. As a boy of eight I learned the semaphore method of signalling while in the Canadian militia, and as a boy at school I was a cadet. I served with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and no force in the world has a higher morale or greater tradition. If we did away with the red tunic we would have something less than the great traditions now enjoyed by that force. The red coat represents justice, fair play, humanity and a square deal.
Let me remind hon. members that the greatest contribution made by the mounted police force has been made by those at the grass roots level. The greatest contribution made by Canadians serving in the armed forces, whether at sea, in the air or on the land-I mention land last because I am a soldier-has been made by those in the ranks

DEBATES	April 12, 1967
who slept without sheets in rough blankets. They won glory not only at Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele but also on the beach at Anzio, at the Sangro to the Sangro river and from Caen to Berlin. This Canadian glory has been enlarged upon by Canadians serving in units in Cyprus and in the Congo. I am immensely proud of them because they are serving in the same way Canadians served in two world wars. It is not necessary to put them into green uniforms in order to maintain the traditions of our services.
I believe in peacekeeping and I would hate to see Canada's military strength spread along a thin green line around the world without having some security at home. I put Canada first in my consideration although I long for equality in the Congo, peace between the Arabs and the Jews and among the Cypriots, be they Greeks or Turks.
[DOT] (4:30 D.m.)
I think first in terms of defending the little creek where I was born and then Canada and if I have any energy left I am quite willing to share it for the benefit of the rest of the world. But I do not think it is necessary to unify all our regiments. I suggest that the minister himself does not really believe it because the highland regiments say, "You are not going to take away our kilts," he dare not take away their kilts, and he knows it. So he has made an exception in their case.


An hon. Member:: He tried to take away their bagpipes.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The minister said, "We will not touch the highland regiments". He will not touch the Royal 22nd regiment, and I do not blame him, because the Royal 22nd regiment is one of the finest regiments of men who ever put on the Canadian uniform. I will not say it is the best because there are a great many others-the Princess Pats, the 48th Highlanders, the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, the Service Corps, the nurses, the WAACS, the WAAFS, the Royal Edmontons. I could go on all afternoon; the list is endless.
I think the minister should ask for advice and when he does he should be man enough to accept it. I stood on the carpet many times before my commanding officers when they asked my opinion about this and that situation, and I gave it. I was never fired for it, I was promoted, because when they did not agree with me I stood behind my guns and said, "I have signed my name to this after giving my opinion to the best of my ability. If you want somebody else's opinion, take it, but let his signature be on it." Let the minister
April 12, 1967

sign a paper saying that he thinks unification is better than the three forces as we have known them. Let him show me that it is better if he can, and I hope he can, because I have no doubt this bill will become law.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am cheered by the Postmaster General. The noses have been counted. I am afraid the deal has been made. But do not criticize us for getting up and saying what we think about it because we are putting our signatures to this bill, for and against, when we stand and vote. If we did not stand and vote the very rocks of Canada would cry out. How many men still serving in the armed forces would like to say what they think about unification? I would like to see a great many more of them stand up and say it and get fired. There is room for them in this house-I would say about 128 seats.


An hon. Member:: On which side?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: These men are not for unification. The men who serve in the Royal 22nd are not for unification. Those in the highland regiments are not for unification. Those in the navy certainly are not. And believe me, all the men who serve in the navy are not Wasps. A great many men who serve in the navy kneel to their God and serve their church in the way they wish because they live in a country that allows them to do this and always will. It is a sad day if they have to fear any minister of the crown.
Is unification an end in itself or is it a political tool? If unification leads to survival and to a better, safer Canada, if unification and men serving in one uniform will mean that more young men will be willing to step forward and wear the uniform of their country, I am all for it. I have not been sold on it. I read the names of those men who have given their opinions on unification. I served under one of them. He was major of our battery and is now the late-late in service but far from dead-Lieutenant General Guy Simonds, one of the finest soldiers who ever put on a uniform in or out of the Canadian forces. He does not like unification. General Foulkes does not like it, and he was honest enough to say in the parliamentary committee that the Avro airplane was not destroyed by the present Leader of the Opposition but because of the inability of the Canadian people to pay the enormous, snowballing costs of this rather oversized and-I believe these were the words of the minister himself-obsolete aircraft.
National Defence Act Amendment
Tradition in the army depends to a great extent on the pride of the unit. I have been assured that the Black Watch regiment will keep its kilt. I hope they will and I think they should because members of my family on my father's mother's side wear the Johnstone tartan, which happens to be the Black Watch tartan. This means something to me. I speak personally in this regard and I make no apology for so doing because it is the only way one can speak when talking about things such as morale which are personal and depend on one's own personal loyalty and tradition. I would be horrified if any minister of the crown said that if I was disloyal to him and his ideas I was disloyal to Canada. In a rougher age we would have had to meet at dawn, but he would have had to be a good shot.
I again pose the question: What is the end result if we carry the unification program through to its logical conclusion? Are we going to maintain the necessary morale? Are we going to get the necessary recruits? Are we going to keep the traditions and loyalty of our regiments and our services? I come from a military family. My father's brother cut the submarine nets at the Dardanelles as a captain in the British navy. Incidentally, he was the youngest captain in the British navy. He would hate to be called colonel. Two of my brothers were in the air force and one in the navy. We are proud of our differences. We are proud of the fact that we joined of our own free will the armed service of our choice. In fun they laugh at me and call me "Silver" and in fun I call them "Jack Tar" or "birdy-bird" or something like that, making a joke about the other services. But I know we have unification in spirit, unification in dedication to our country. This is unification that means something. It is unification which does not worship a word but worships the principle behind the behaviour of all decent Canadians.
I have not been sold on this idea. I think unification means something else. The rear admirals, air marshals and generals who have expressed opinions about unification served most of the time in the ranks and their opinions cannot be swept aside just because we do not happen to agree with them. This is a matter about which the brass and the grass agree, and I think the minister should listen to their advice. If the minister really wants a cross-section of opinion, let every member of the armed forces sign with his own pen a short screed on what he thinks of unification. Then old fogeys like me can stand on one
April 12. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment side, and if the rising generation of young Canadians who wish to serve Canada want to do it in a green uniform and do not want to be called soldiers, sailors and airmen, that is all right with me. I do not know what we are going to call our serving men but it does not matter. I am not here to fight about words.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am trying to find out the real principle behind this bill. I am trying to add my small voice to the voices of the long list of distinguished men, men who have made the grade, men who have been recognized as leaders in the military field and who have given a lifetime of dedicated service. I cannot believe that at the end of 30 years of this kind of service any man would be disloyal for 18 months or even 18 minutes. I cannot go along with the proposition that it is necessary to be disloyal to a country or to your principles to disagree with politicians. I feel with every ounce of feeling I have in my body that there are truly times when one has to stand up and risk being fired or even being shot, if that should be the result of sticking to one's principles and disagreeing with one's senior officers. This is a rare occurrence, and that is one of the reasons I know these men are honest and dedicated. I have spoken to them and I have worked with them. I have served with them. If my opinion means anything, I will say that if I had my service to do over again, particularly in the mounted police, I could not have done as good a job if I had not worn the red coat in the same distinguished way as my good father who belonged to the old Northwest Mounted Police and who recently passed away.
These traditions are handed from father to son and from generation to generation. I do not believe we should brush them aside lightly. I believe we should have very cogent arguments indeed if we are going to interfere with the traditions of the British army, the British navy, the Canadian army or the Canadian navy. In many cases our service has been interchangeable. My deskmate fought the Battle of Britain in the Royal Air Force. This did not make any difference. He was fighting for Canada on every mission he flew. It was his own home in Canada that he was defending when he fought over the deserts of Africa, over the mountains of Asia and suffered for three or four years in a German prison camp. Are we going to take all of that away? I think we would be losing something very valuable if we did. I hope this does not sound like a purely emotional appeal.
[Mr. Bigjf.l

There is a practical value in retaining morale. I would rather have 10 men who wish to retain the traditions and record of the regiment than 20 who do not care. I do not believe we are being ultra-conservative, with a small "c", by resisting unnecessary and unpleasant change. Polonius gave advice to his son and said, "be not the first by which a new thing's tried, nor yet the last to cast the old aside." I would not want to see us unify our forces in this manner merely to be able to say we did it first. If being first were the only thing, then Cain was a wonderful man because he was the first man who slew his brother. "A country without tradition," someone has said, "will not long remain a country." I believe we have to develop something more than a world peace keeping force in order to retain our freedom. I long for that day, and I am sure the minister does, but I would not like to see him blinded by wishful thinking. Let us not be too many thousand years ahead of our day. Let us not risk the whole of Canadian sovereignty by trying to get ourselves a great name at Flushing Meadows. As one of our members said this afternoon, the United Nations has it within its power to provide a peace keeping force when all the nations are ready to give up some of their sovereignty in the name of world peace.
This is the cause for which our own Prime Minister won the Nobel peace prize. As we all know, however, this idea was not unique in our country. Those of us who went through the unnecessary privations and risks of war never want to see war again. We are willing to go to any lengths to secure that objective except that we will not risk the security of our own land. I say again to the minister that if he can convince us that the result of unification is going to be greater security for Canada in the short pull as well as the long, that it will provide us with a more efficient, better trained force which will be more easily integrated with the armed forces of our allies, he will get a great deal more support than even he may have expected.
Many months ago, if my memory serves me right, when we asked for clarification of this bill the minister told us it would come in due time. He intimated clearly, at least to me, that by the time he clarified the meaning of unification the little green men would be running around and parliament would be involved in a useless debate. I believe that in his own words he said it would be a fait accompli. I see the minister shaking his head but that is certainly the impression he gave
April 12, 1967	COMMONS
me. This may not have been his intention but I believe that impression is widely shared.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I might have told my hon. friend by way of conversation that legislation is not required for new uniforms or rank designations. If one wishes to do that, it is provided for under the present law. I might have said that to him, but I am sure he would not want to give the impression I said we would be doing something for which the law does not provide.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I was not referring to any private conversation which may have occurred between the minister and myself. I was referring to the statement he made in this house when he was asked to clarify the real meaning of the word "unification". I am well aware of the fact that orders in council can change the peak on a cap and that sort of thing. What I have been trying to put over this afternoon, and I hope I have made some progress, is that we are not just talking about the colour of a uniform or even the destruction of the names of regiments. This is not what I am worried about. I am really worried about the policy of the government and the projecting of this policy into the dim future. What do we really mean to do with regard to Canadian defence, Canadian sovereignty? I, for one, assure the minister that the change in the colour of a uniform or the changing of the names of the services would not make any difference to the attitude of many people toward defence. If the changing of the uniform is unnecessary and the taking away of regimental badges is unnecessary to achieve an end, that end being, I hope, the greater security of our country, then a lot of these minor difficulties might disappear. I think the minister will have to admit that, perhaps not intentionally-
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. gentleman that the time allotted to him has expired. Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If I may just finish, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I think that if some of these deep questions of policy were answered we would not worry about the shape of the cap or the colour of the uniform. I can assure the minis-
National Defence Act Amendment ter-I think I speak not only for myself but for the vast majority of the members of this house-that we would go a long way toward what the minister calls unification if that unification were based upon a principle.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words on Bill No. C-243. I was not a member of the defence committee but there are a few matters I should like to raise.
I believe that across the country serious doubts exist about the wisdom of this bill. I believe that the average citizen feels that it is the duty of the opposition to oppose when it believes that legislation may be of doubtful value, may do irreparable harm or is wrong in principle. One of the ministers on the government benches was reported to have said in a speech the other night that the opposition was not doing enough probing, that it was not criticizing sufficiently to be as constructive as it should be in its role as the opposition. Well, let us not be accused of this.
I think one matter the house will regret is that this bill has been brought forward in our centennial year, a time when we are celebrating so much of our historical past, when in a sense we are paying homage to the people who made Canada as we know it today, possible, the people who pioneered this land. These people cut the forests, cleared the land, established homes and built the country that is seen today as the centennial train travels across Canada.
Our politicians had the sense to unite Canada and built it into a nation. This was not achieved by some process of integration and unification or requiring everybody to have the same culture, the same language, the same religion.
We must also remember that our soldiers, sailors and airmen have protected Canada in two great wars by fighting in foreign lands. During the first great war I was at high school and the flower of that school's pupils enlisted when they became old enough. Two thirds of them became lieutenants and only about one third of these men returned. Had they all come back, Mr. Chairman, I often think what a tremendous contribution they might have made. At that time, there were only eight million people in this country, but over 600,000 were under the colours fighting for Canada. We suffered well over 100,000 casualties and more than 50,000 men did not return.
Last Saturday I had both the honour and the privilege of speaking at a Vimy Ridge
14846	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment banquet. Several of those present had been at Vimy Ridge. One man there had also been one of those in the retreat from Mons. And who can forget the "old contemptibles", one division which held off many German divisions and fought a rearguard action to Dunkirk? It was interesting to listen to the stories of these men as they recounted their experiences. One man in the "old contemptibles" was with a battalion of 850 men, only 45 of whom were still alive at Dunkirk.
Vimy Ridge was an impregnable fortress. One peculiarity of the terrain was that there was a great amount of a particular type of chalk or limestone through which the Germans were able to tunnel and bring forward their supplies to the ridge. Not only was the ridge dominated between 1914 and 1917 by the German forces but its fortifications were continually strengthened. It was attacked three times before the Canadians attacked. The French tried on two occasions and then the British tried. The French sustained at Vimy Ridge over 150,000 casualties.
The Canadians captured Vimy Ridge, this impregnable fortress, over the very bodies of the French and the British buried in the soil.
I wonder whether this is something we sometimes forget. The experience I had last Saturday night listening to the reminiscences of the men who fought there and about their comrades who were left behind in France is one I shall remember for a long time.
Vimy Ridge was the first staggering blow that the German land forces received. It was the first punch under which they reeled back. This was in part due to the sentimentality and esprit de corps of the particular units under which many of the soldiers fought and unfortunately died. To the heroes of Vimy Ridge belong the honour and the glory of fighting together as a complete line, as a complete force. For the first time in the war the first, second, third and fourth divisions fought on the battlel'ront approximately six miles long. I suggest that this was really the first baptism of fire for Canadians as a group and was the consolidation of our Canadian spirit. It was here that we found our identity in the crucible of a war where men fought and died in the trenches and on the fields. This was the first trench warfare of any importance and it was fought often in mud and mire, stained by the blood of their fallen comrades.
The air force was there too. Can anybody forget Billy Bishop and Alcock? Yes, Mr. Chairman, we also had a navy. Perhaps it may be a little discomforting when we recall these events to realize how much we owe to

DEBATES	April 12. 1967
these people. During the second world war the navy and air force also played an active part and covered themselves with glory.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Yes, we are concerned about the morale, the esprit de corps of the air force, the navy and the army just as we are concerned about that spirit in our schools, universities and colleges. Universities feel it necessary to keep their identities as separate entities. Families have a tradition of going to a certain university. Because on my mother's side my people were Scottish Presbyterians I went to Queens. No other university, to my people, was just like Queens though all universities tried to teach and did teach the same things. The Grants and Gordons of undying fame as principals were there. We also had Guy Curtis who made the football team a legend. Many a football game has been won by the inspiration of singing ballads to commemorate Guy Curtis. The memories of the Batstones, the Leadleys and the McKelvies are traditions at Queens.
One may ask, what has that to do with this bill? Simply this. When you unite the infantry, the air force and the navy you may find yourself with a force without tradition or loyalties. That might well mean the difference between defeat and victory in combat. Above all, what do you do with the young men and women of Canada who express a preference for the navy, the air force or the infantry? Canada is a big country, the second biggest country in the world. Will we in effect reduce our forces to the status of brush fire fighters?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I answered that question yesterday.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister will have to keep on answering it. Do young Canadians want to join that type of league? Do we want a glorified police force or do we want an army, an air force and a navy proud of their traditions, proud of the heroes of Vimy Ridge, and proud of Bishop and Alcock? Do we not want to be proud of the navy that helped keep the sea lanes open in the last war? The nephew of a former prime minister of this country was a doctor in the navy and paid the supreme sacrifice in the Atlantic when his ship was torpedoed.
I do not believe that unification will lead to a force our people will be proud of. As a matter of act, unification will leave us confused. When some persons talk of a British mini-navy, mini-air force or mini-army, it is
April 12, 1967

not clear what is meant. Similarly, it is not clear what is meant by unification.
One ought to keep in mind that Canada is a maritime nation. That may sound strange, but a map will show that we are almost surrounded on tour sides by water, having the Atlantic on the east, the Pacific on the west, the Arctic ocean to the north and the great lakes to the south. In view of that it is necessary to have the three separate forces and particularly to retain the navy. It must be remembered that every seagoing man is a fighter. Even if a man is a cook, at sea he will fight when the occasion arises.
Many of those to whom I have talked about unification have expressed grave doubts or have failed to understand what is meant by it. I do not think the officials of the department understand it. The Prime Minister said he was surprised by Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony. I will not repeat his evidence except to say that the man who was chief of the defence staff for two years, the man closest to the minister and undoubtedly one of his advisers said as found on page 2300 of the committee testimony:
We never had tentative unification plans submitted and agreed to.
The Prime Minister was surprised and the reporters felt that he would not go ahead with this measure and that it would be postponed. That did not happen.
I have known the minister for many years. We have been friends, we belong to the same church. I do not know whether that makes us any better but it should. I say to him in conclusion that there is enough sound criticism to justify him in withdrawing this bill. If he does so he will be a bigger man in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of this parliament and of the armed forces. If the minister retreats from a position that is unsafe and intolerable, so far as his political ambitions are concerned the Canadian people will laud him for it and he will live to fight again another day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the hon.
member would permit a question. Does he not agree that because some insisted in the early years of world wars I and II on proceeding with the established way of doing things, many lives were lost needlessly? Did the hon. member not hear one of his colleagues the other night, in commemorating the events at Vimy, describe how soldiers had fought uphill in kilts with mustard gas flowing up their legs? That veteran came down hard on the side of change, hard on the side of an intelli-
National Defence Act Amendment gent application of the rules of today to the problems of today and tomorrow. We should do that rather than looking back to the way things were done in the years gone by. Would the hon. member, as a friend, really want me to withdraw or retreat from a position which I believe sincerely and with all my being to be right, to a position which I believe to be wrong? I am sure he would not want me to do that.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Philip Bernard Rynard: I thank the minister very sincerely for what he has said regarding his conscience on this subject. I have advised him as my conscience has prompted me.
Regarding the minister's contention that many lives could have been saved, I agree. I think he will agree that hindsight is always better than foresight and I remind him that changes did take place. We began with trench warfare and then as the war progressed it became a scientific war. Winston Churchill, that great prime minister and war hero, was the man who introduced tanks in the first world war. It was simply a question of progress. Because we did not have any better we could not do other than we did.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But he did that against tremendous resistance by the military conservatives of the time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Churchill was a Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I would say we would be very foolish if we did not adopt scientific equipment as it came along. I also feel that the public does not understand the unification bill enough and I do not believe-I say this in all sincerity to the minister, holding him in the respect I do-that he or his staff have the answers for the people.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, my intervention in this debate is made partly to continue some remarks I had not finished the other day. But to begin with I have an apology to make and I hope the committee will bear with me if it is in lighter vein than the serious and important discussion which has just been going on.
When I last spoke I said I believed there were more economic ways in which the minister could be spectacular than by deciding to scrap the navy, obliterate the air force and do away with the army. I made a couple of suggestions as to how he could get headlines. Since then I have been subjected to a good
April 12. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment deal of good-natured criticism by some of my associates, chiefly veterans of the air force, because I limited my suggestions to land and sea and made none as to how the minister could get some headlines in the air environment. This was especially unfortunate, they said, since the minister of defence of Rhodesia had only recently gotten himself worldwide notice by making a parachute jump at the age of 56. It has been reported that he was interviewed by the press afterwards. They asked him what it was like. He is reported to have said, "It was perfectly simple. I just counted 16, pulled the ripcord and floated down." Someone who had been in the air force asked him why he had counted 16, adding "When I was in the air force we were told to count to 10 before pulling the ripcord." The minister replied:	"Well, I
thought I would just be different and count to 16 because that is the latitude of Salisbury."
All this opens up tremendous possibilities for the Minister of National Defence because in this country he has a choice of latitudes to use as numbers to count from about 43 to 90. Taking his pick from any number in that range I am sure he would make headlines one way or the other. In addition, he would have the advantage of being different, of getting away from what is customary and old-fashioned in the air forces of the world.
Now I wish to turn to a more serious matter. A great deal of publicity-"propaganda" would perhaps be a better word-has been given to the myth that if we pass the bill before us we shall have the most modern concept of defence anywhere in the world. If whether or not a thing is modern is judged by how new it is, I can made a suggestion to the minister. He could be even more modern, and could have an even more modern defence policy by withdrawing Bill C-243 and taking the advice which has been almost unanimously given him by the men who are most knowledgeable on the subject of defence.
But the word "modern" has a deeper meaning. It does not mean just what happened last. In its best sense it means a concept which has developed as a result of maximum use of the accumulated knowledge of a field up to the present. In my judgment the actions of the minister do not accord with this definition. He has rejected out of hand advice given by conscientious, loyal Canadians who believe sincerely that the road on which we are embarked will not be the best for this country. That is putting it mildly. Most people think that if we continue on this course it will be disastrous for the military security of Canada.

The minister dismisses this sort of thing. For example, he said the other day that at one time, when integration was in process, Britain was ahead of us but that now we were ahead of Britain.
This is a myth. We are not ahead of anybody if nobody is following in the direction we are taking. This proposal for unification has been rejected by every country in the world which has examined it. In this connection, for some weeks Lord Mountbatten was quoted with approval by the supporters of unification. Mountbatten is recognized almost throughout the world as being the high priest of combined operations. He was in charge of combined operations in the second world war, in command of a special force made up of units of the army, the air force and the navy to carry out special tasks.
I should like to quote from what he has said. I know this has been quoted in part already during this debate but I believe it is worthy of repetition. He is speaking of the system of defence in Great Britain.
In the operational commands, such as the Far East, the three separate service commanders-in-chief of four-star rank have been replaced by fleet, army and air force commanders of three-star rank under a unified commander-in-chief of four-star rank.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
He is in complete operational command but his administrative responsibilities are still very limited. We have had an admiral, then an air chief marshal and now a general filling this post.
Few people still oppose the integration of arrangements for pay, food, clothing, furniture, equipment, etc., since this must be a more economical way of providing them.
I may interject that I commend the minister for what he has done on integration and I agree almost entirely with that program, but I do not agree with unification. Lord Mountbatten goes on:
In fact I believe the British reorganization, although much disliked and opposed by many senior officers at the beginning is now accepted as reasonable and more efficient and economical.
In the British reorganization 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.
There was some talk of taking the uniform and ranks of one service and imposing this on the others, but the idea of a man in say army uniform with an army title arriving at a foreign port in command of a warship was generally felt to be so ludicrous that it was not pursued.
April 12, 1967

The general cut and colour of naval uniforms are internationally so well known that a sailor from any one country can readily he 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. No compensating advantage could be seen in attempting to impose so unpopular a change.
At this point I would like to interject that the question goes deeper than just the cut of a uniform when a young man decides to join one of the services, whether in peace or wartime. In the part of the world from which I come there is a long, deep tradition of the sea, and men from that area who want to serve in the armed forces frequently join the navy, if they have this tradition of the sea in their families. They will not want to join a unified force if they do not know where they are going to end up.
It has been said that we have a jet age Minister of National Defence. That opinion was widespread a few months ago, but now the Canadian people are coming to realize we have a Minister of National Defence who is following a philosophy that went out of style over 100 years ago. The attitude of the minister so far as technically capable advisers are concerned, men who have given their whole lives to the study of military problems, is that their great wealth of knowledge is useless and no longer applicable to the present day. I disagree wholeheartedly with that point of view.
The minister's philosophy of the role of senior military officers is that theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to do and die, that what is to be done will be imposed from the top without any valid consideration given to the experience of our senior officers in the military field, or to the experience of our allies, and of all other countries.
The minister has said, and rightly so, that there should be civilian control of the military. With this I agree wholeheartedly. I have yet to know of anyone who would question that proposition, either in or out of the services. I think that every responsible officer in our armed services has always known that in this country civilian control is not only essential but that it has always been recognized. However, that is not to say that we should embark on a course which will do irreparable damage to our defences and to our national security, just to show who is boss.
Certainly we can have civilian control. We have always had civilian control and I trust we always will; but this does not pi'eclude the necessity of having technical military advice
National Defence Act Amendment as to what policy should be with regard to our defence problems. But the minister has this magnificent obsession that he is going to make sure that the military are controlled by civilians, and appears to take the attitude that one should discard all military advice that does not coincide with one's own thinking.
This sort of thinking reminds me of the fellow who had an obsession about being superstitious. He wanted to impress everybody with the fact that he was not superstitious and ended up jumping out of a 13th storey window to prove he was not superstitious.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Explain the moral of that story?


John Angus MacLean: We are in the situation where we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces. We are going to take our navy out of blue because other countries, chiefly Britain and France from which most of our heritage stems, dress their sailors in blue. I cannot understand this sort of thinking. I think we are becoming a fairly mature nation-at least we should be on this our hundredth anniversary-and I think if we claim to be taking our place in the world as a mature nation, we should act like a mature nation and not discard some of our most worth-while traditions, customs and technical procedures because someone else thought of them first, or because we have inherited them from somewhere else.
Much of what we stand for has a long history. We are the beneficiaries chiefly of European culture, European language, European developments, and European education. We should not be ashamed of that fact. We should not embark on this narrow-minded or ingrown kind of nationalism upon which we seem to be proceeding now.
It is said that we have got to have a unified force so that none of our armed services will look like the armed services of any other country. I think that would be not only unnecessary but a great disadvantage. We are proceeding on a course which is contrary to the general trend in the world today. We are in a world which recognizes more and more that internationalism will be the means for us and our culture to survive, if we are to survive. If our western civilization is to survive there must be co-operation among all the various nations in that civilization in defence and security matters, as well as in many other fields. Yet, it seems to be our intention to put ourselves, as it were, in a ghetto so
14850	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment that we will not be contaminated by contact with the customs or methods that are imported from other countries.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I believe this is an unreasonable and juvenile attitude. I do not think, in order to be good Canadians, it is necessary to deny our past or deny what we have inherited from other cultures. I believe this is a time when our armed forces should be organized in such a manner that they are compatible with the armed services of our closest friends and allies, so that they can work smoothly together in the various alliances in which we are a member. I believe, as many of our senior military advisers have said, that only in that way can we benefit to the greatest extent from the experiences of our friends, and only in that way can we work most closely with them.
This is a poor time for us to take the narrow minded ingrown view that to be a good Canadian we must do everything different from everybody else.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Or vice-versa.


John Angus MacLean: I consider myself to be a loyal Canadian. To my mind that does not preclude my recognition of my heritage; it does not make me feel ashamed that Canadian sailors may look like French sailors or United States sailors because they are dressed in navy blue. If we were to pursue this kind of narrow minded thinking to its logical conclusion, then all of us would have to change our names to something which could not be identifiable with an origin in some other country. That would be the result if one were to bring this kind of thinking to its absurd conclusion.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very important matter. It is a technical one, it is true, and one which perhaps does not fire the imagination of many Canadians because they do not feel they are technically qualified to form a judgment on the matter. As I said before, however, I think the question of national defence and national security, to which we as taxpayers have contributed roughly $1J billion per year for many years, now is too big a question to be settled without the most serious consideration because, as time progresses and as more evidence is gathered, we find that more and more people feel sincerely and strongly that we are embarking on, and are locked into, a disastrous course.
I implore the minister to reconsider this matter. I ask him to rise to the occasion and

DEBATES	April 12, 1967
show that he is a man, if he is. I suggest to him that he should take seriously some of the advice which has been given to him. If he would do this, we would have some confidence in this government and I am sure the Canadian people would regret less their having elected it. I am sure also that the government would have a better prospect of being a government again if its members would realize their responsibility and accept the fact that the minority position they hold which allows them to be the administrators of the trust of government for all Canadians for a very brief period does not give them the right to be dictators and to ignore completely what is the will of the majority.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, last night I was cut off in the full flood of my remarks because time ran out on me. I do not know whether you were in the chair at that time, but I am sure, had you been, that you must have been disappointed, because I was about to deal with the speech made last Wednesday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Of course, in the opinion of that minister there is nothing more important than a speech which he makes. I wish to pay my tribute to the exalted position he occupies. As I said, his speech dealt with the subject of external affairs. Unless we are very clear on that subject our defence policy will not make sense. Our understanding all along has been that foreign policy is declared and that our defence policy then is designed to meet that foreign policy, or is tailored to fit it.
Last Wednesday I was hoping that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would give us a very clear statement with regard to Canada's position concerning our external relations, and where we stand in the field of foreign affairs. The minister thought he had done that; but when one reads his speech he finds that there are some question marks. In the course of the speech the minister dealt with the subject of the proposed reorganization of our defence forces. He gave us no evidence in this regard, but he did give us what he considered to be a weighty opinion. After all, the speech that was given to us was that of none other than the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Normally one bows when his name is mentioned. He may have thought he was speaking to his friends in the ambassadorial circles around town instead of to those persons who know him well in this House of Commons.
I was not as interested as some persons might have been by this apparently weighty
April 12. 1987	COMMONS
opinion expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He did not tell us that he had examined the evidence of the committee. Heretofore he has not exhibited any great interest in defence matters; yet apparently he felt competent to tell us what should be done.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs attempted to clear up the situation with regard to our alliances, yet he left a great escape route-a loophole. I should like to read these words of the minister which appear at page 14565 of Hansard:
I do not exclude the possibility that in the future it may become feasible, and indeed I hope it will, to withdraw our forces from Europe and to make our entire contribution from bases in Canada.
This is diplomatic language. Every word is very carefully selected, because it will be read and interpreted around the word. Here we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs hoping that we will be able to withdraw our forces from Europe and make our entire contribution from bases in Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
At a meeting of the external affairs committee last spring I asked him whether it would be a feasible proposition to use our transport airplanes to rotate our troops in Europe more frequently, rather than leave them there for a year. I asked him whether or not it would be feasible to rotate the troops much more frequently, rather than at considerable expense leaving them over there with their dependants for a year. I suggested they could be rotated at intervals of perhaps three or six months. I do not remember his exact words but he indicated his assent to that proposition. He then received phone calls and communications from countries in Europe, and other countries with whom we are in alliance in this situation, and he became greatly disturbed because he thought I had trapped him into giving an answer. Actually I was just looking for information.
Periodically when I find that not enough attention is being paid to the minister for external affairs in the house I ask him a question on orders of the day. Frequently he does not answer my questions and we are deprived of information. Nevertheless I like to draw attention to him so his name gets in the papers, because I know he loves the publicity.
The minister has now enunciated his doctrine of withdrawing our forces from Europe and making our entire contribution from bases in Canada. He then went on to say this:
National Defence Act Amendment
But such a course of action is neither feasible nor desirable at this moment-
He had to have an escape hatch. What does he have in mind as to when this may take place?-next week, next month, later on this year or next year? The minister for external affairs failed in this regard to give the house the exact circumstances relating to our foreign policy. Why did he not make a statement which would not be subject to misinterpretation? He could have told us that we were going to maintain our forces in Europe under our alliances in NATO throughout 1967, 1968 and 1969 unless the NATO allies together in conference decided there should be a change. He did not do that. He left everything in mid-air. I suggest the statement indicates that there is nothing certain about the maintenance of our forces in Europe. In fact the minister hopes that they may be withdrawn.
Later on in the same paragraph he created another escape hatch which he would use if One queried him about this during orders of the day, when he said:
Until we can be sure that we can make an appropriate and effective military contribution entirely from Canada, or until a Canadian contribution is no longer considered necessary, we should continue contributing forces in Europe as part of a collective defence.
He says we should continue, but he does not say that we are actually going to continue. He leaves the Canadian public in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not we are really going to maintain our NATO alliance and our contributions in Europe, or at what strength. He said nothing about our responsibility in antisubmarine warfare. We have a commitment to NATO to maintain an effective and large antisubmarine force. We heard evidence before the committee on defence that the antisubmarine force no longer is as large as it was, and that ships now available are undermanned, with some of them tied up for want of personnel.
The minister said nothing about NORAD; yet the whole purpose of getting him into this debate was to obtain from him a clear and definitive statement on foreign affairs. I was very disappointed in the minister, as I am almost every week, because in the course of my remarks I complimented him and referred to his lengthy career in the house. I outlined the highlights of that career and the many good things he has accomplished. I did not mention any of his failures. I was very complimentary to him. But when he rose to speak he did not return the compliment, in fact he
April 12, 1967

(5:50 p.m.)
National Defence Act Amendment was inclined to ridicule me. I was rather hurt because I had tried to be friendly and help the minister, under whose direction Canada's prestige abroad has fallen to an all time low. I tried to help him, so his spirits would be revived. Not only did he brush me aside but he misinterpreted what I had said. Perhaps he did so unconsciously or inadvertently, but he did refer to what I had said about peace restoring as peacekeeping.
The expression peace restoring has been used on many occasions by the Minister of National Defence and others. There is a vast difference between peace keeping and peace restoring. Let me read what the minister of defence said on December 7, 1966 as reported at page 10832 of Hansard:
Even the success or failure of peace restoring or peace keeping operations can 'well depend on the speed with which decisions are reached and the force and its equipment delivered to the trouble zone.
The phrase peace restoring was used during the committee study of this bill. I had hoped that the minister for external affairs would tell us something about peace restoring. He did not do that, but rather referred to peacekeeping.
There are two distinct methods of operating, one is peace keeping, which we are doing at the present time in Cyprus and in the Gaza strip as well as other places where we have observers. Peace restoring involves sending a punitive expedition to a place where trouble has broken out. That force must be prepared to engage in warfare and put out the so-called brushfire or trouble that has occurred.
At page 10835 of Hansard for December 7 last year the minister is recorded as having said:
It can be said with assurance that Canada's influence in the years ahead and its capacity to act in favour and settlement of disputes that endanger peace will grow with its own development.
Note that the minister referred to the settlement in disputes. There is a dispute taking place now in Aden. People are firing rifles at each other and throwing bombs. Last week there was a dispute between Israel and Syria when aircraft were attacking each other. Our Canadian forces, in order to perform in that capacity-settling	disputes or restoring
peace-must be prepared to enter into warfare to enforce peace. Let us have a statement from the minister for external affairs in this regard. He did not give us such a statement, but dodged the issue. He is very skilful at dodging issues. So when I hoped that he would talk about peace restoring, he talked about peace keeping.

My proposal for peacekeeping was that it should be separate and apart from our armed forces. The Secretary of State for External Affairs had to admit that what we are carrying on in Cyprus and the Gaza strip is a police operation. We do not require heavy tanks, close support aeroplanes or artillery for that job. Those things are not there with our people; they have light arms for self-protection. That is the way in which we are performing in our missions abroad. It is a police operation. I was suggesting that we continue that type of operation, within the limits of reasonable expense and with the co-operation of others in the United Nations, but that we do it, not by using our navy, army and air force, the forces that are equipped for war, but by using a special, elite force which is a peace keeping force.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs rejected the idea and thought we should continue to do what we are now doing. The weakness of the minister's position is just this: At the external affairs committee yesterday-and I am not reporting the committee hearings; I am reporting what appeared in the newspapers and on television last night- the minister made a lengthy statement with regard to Viet Nam and outlined a fourpronged program to be put into effect immediately, if possible, when that war comes to an end. This was his contribution to the situation in Viet Nam and part of the continuing process of keeping in the limelight with regard to matters concerning peace. The minister periodically has a press conference, an exposure on television, or makes a speech somewhere, and if all those things fail he can call together the committee on external affairs and get his publicity that way. In the course of that exercise he suggested that if and when peace does come in Viet Nam, Canada is prepared to make a contribution with regard to the maintenance of that peace, which means another peace keeping force when the war comes to an end.
How many people would be involved in that peace keeping force? Speculation in the press is that we might require as many as 30,000 men for that purpose. I do not know whether that figure is inflated. But if Canada participates, it cannot be just on a small scale; it would surely have to be on a battalion scale, two battalions, or something like that. You might find that you were providing for activities in Viet Nam 1,000 people from our armed forces over and above the 800 that are in Cyprus, as well as the others that are
April 12, 1967	COMMONS
in the Gaza strip and elsewhere. We have about 2,000 people abroad right now on peace keeping missions.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has offered another group for another peace keeping mission. Where is he going to get the men? Our national defence figures indicate a serious depletion in the strength of our forces. They used to number about 120,000 or 125,000; now they are down to 104,000. All the 13 infantry battalions are, on the average, under strength and have been for some months. There is a deficiency of 4,000 infantrymen in those battalions. There is a deficiency of 4,000 men to man the ships in our antisubmarine role.
Where is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to get these men?- Is he going to reduce our commitments to NATO? I submit that we are not meeting our commitments to NATO at this very moment, because we have reduced the effectiveness of our air division overseas. The two infantry brigades in Canada that are earmarked under NATO for an emergency are not up to strength. The antisubmarine force which is earmarked for NATO purposes is under strength. So where is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to get another 600 or 1,000 men for a peace keeping operation in Viet Nam, if peace is declared in that country? This shows the extent of the confusion in the government ranks with regard to these matters.
If the minister is going to make an offer-he has publicly made the offer now, and if peace is declared this summer Canada would be obligated to do something about it-we would have to provide a force, if par-
Business of the House
liament consented, reduce our commitments to NATO, and reduce our commitments for home defence. So it is quite clear that we have not had given to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a clear exposition of our obligations in foreign affairs and to our allies.
Why did he not tell us last Wednesday, when he was making his speech, what his proposition was with regard to Viet Nam? He did not disclose It in the House of Commons, and exposed his hand at the committee hearings on Tuesday, and to the press and the Canadian public over television. So we now have another commitment just around the corner, and we are already short of men in the forces and are failing to meet our present commitments. That, sir, constitutes part of what I intended to say last night with regard to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have not quite finished, but I think there will be another opportunity to deal with him and I hope he will be present to hear me.
I call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr, Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will carry on with this debate. If we should conclude it during the course of the day we will take the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and following that such other business as appears on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
14855
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 13, 1967