1967-04-13

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting almost a million people in this country, specifically in the province of Saskatchewan. I have before me a document entitled "Special Centennial Events" issued by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau, Ottawa, under the authority of the Department of Trade and Commerce. On the second page the following appears:
Abbreviations of Provinces and Territories
Alberta-Alta.
British Columbia-B.C.
The Northwest Territories is the last listed. Saskatchewan is entirely omitted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Saskatchewan is entirely omitted in the portion dealing with abbreviations. We know that in that province we may be in the bad books of the present government; we might indeed be described as canines, but I ask the Department of Trade and Commerce to rectify this very serious omission.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I ought to deal with such an important question, and reassure the right hon. gentleman that I shall take the matter up at once with the premier of Saskatchewan to see if he cannot explain this omission.


John George Diefenbaker: This involves the Department of Trade and Commerce, not the premier.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE

[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of special joint committee respecting Mr. Justice Lan-dreville-Mr. Laflamme.
23033-939J

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that by order in council PC 1967-737 of April 13, 1967, writs have been issued today for by-elections to be held on Monday, May 29, 1967, in the five federal electoral districts of Sudbury, in Ontario, and Hull, Outremont, Papineau and Richelieu-Vercheres in Quebec.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I propose that the question of allocation of time on the committee of the whole stage and all remaining stages of procedure on Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as amended, being government order No. 107 on today's order paper, be referred to the business committee under the terms of standing order 15-A.


John George Diefenbaker: The old guillotine.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to provisional
standing order 15A the question stands referred to the business committee.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister the other day whether the government had given consideration to the suggestion put forward by the Secretary of State, as reported in the press, that native born Canadians should in future be required to apply for and qualify for citizenship papers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received the text of what the Secretary of State did say on that occasion, and the text indicates that the report was entirely
inaccurate.

April 13, 1967
Inquires of the Ministry Mr. Diefenbaker: I asked whether the government was giving any consideration to this outrageous proposal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no such proposal, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The minister is doubtless aware that the Ontario and Quebec dairy producers are organizing a march on Ottawa. Does the minister intend to apply a preventive policy by increasing immediately to $5.10 per hundredweight the price of manufacturing milk, with a view to sparing the farmers the expense of coming to Ottawa?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: The government's policy has been announced in the proper fashion in this house. Should there be any change in that policy, something which is not contemplated at the present time, it will be announced in the proper way in this house.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the heavy demand by organizations and institutions for centennial display material, especially flags, what is the policy regarding provision of such material on a complimentary basis?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have used up all I had for distribution to members of the house on a complimentary basis. Unless and until there is a further supply for the House of Commons and the Senate it is unlikely that there will be a further supply made available to hon. members.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of 
Mines, Energy and Resources, of which I have given him notice. Has the minister or any of his officials informed the government of the province of Ontario or the upper Thames river conservation authority that the federal government will no longer contribute its agreed share of 37J per cent of the cost of conservation and recreational facilities being or to be constructed for the upper Thames river conservation authority, and in particular with respect to such facilities at the Gordon Pittock dam and reservoir at Woodstock, Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this type of question should be placed on the order paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With great respect may I draw to Your Honour's attention that in the spring of the year, because of flooding and other things, this is a very urgent matter. If Your Honour insists I will have to put the question on the order paper, but I would hope Your Honour would accept the question as appropriate.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, things are not as stated by the hon. member. I might point out that the law says contributions by Canada are:
-for the conservation and control of water resources in that province.
They are not for recreational purposes. However, it is often very difficult to assess what is for recreation and what is for conservation, and we have had difficulties with respect to projects in Ontario. A provincial-federal task force has just been created which will inquire into the difficulties, and decisions will be made on the basis of its recommendations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Palierson@Fraser Valley: I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announced readiness of Canada to contribute to the United Nations peace force in Viet Nam if and when an appropriate occasion arises, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the house whether any progress has been made in establishing an adequate and acceptable formula for financing such an operation?
April 13, 1967


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: As far as the United Nations is concerned this matter is under consideration. One would have to await the outcome of the discussions in the committee before one could give a satisfactory answer.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind the British government's decision to take up with the U.S.S.R. a proposal for a friendship and peace agreement, would the minister be willing to give consideration to the wisdom of Canada following a similar approach?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of this question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister based on newspaper reports from Newfoundland and on correspondence I have received concerning the pitiful and appalling conditions on Bell Island arising from the closing of the mine there. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether any negotiations are in progress between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland for a joint federal-provincial program to alleviate conditions on the island and do something about the unemployed miners and their families in that area.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been discussions going on. I would be glad to take the question as notice and give a more complete answer tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the Prime Minister tell us what departments of the federal government are involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: More than one department, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO MEET UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Labour. I would ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the press release issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics under the authority of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, showing that as of March 18 unemployment in Canada had risen to 400,000 or some 59,000 higher than it was in March of last year. In view of this situation is the minister in a position to advise us what measures, other than the usual flamboyant and optimistic statements, the government intends to take to meet a problem which each month is recurring, as it has in the last several months?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Regardless of what may be said about flamboyant statements I would draw attention to the fact that more people were actually working in March of this year than last year. It may be that there was a slight increase in March, a regrettable increase, in unemployment, but it is a fact that there are certain adjustments that usually take place in the months of December to March, and that unemployment is at the peak in the month of March. I would think the improvement will set in, as is expected, in the present month of April.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister to explain why it is that in March this year unemployment is 59,000 higher than at the same time last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These sup-plementaries are argumentative.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In order to check unemployment, is it the minister's intention to recommend to his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) the implementation of the Chevrier-Martin program that was in operation between 1959-1962?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



QUEBEC-INTEGRATION OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MANPOWER CENTRES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Malapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

April 13, 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry
According to a report in a Montreal newspaper this morning, the federal manpower centres in Quebec are about to be integrated with the provincial employment offices.
Could the minister tell us whether he has any knowledge of this plan and whether he had anything to do with it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that plan. On the contrary, we have increased and are still increasing our staff in manpower centres. So, I have not taken part in the development of this plan, to such extent as it may exist.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On Tuesday of this week I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture asking if he would look into the excessive amount of bookkeeping and red tape which farmers have to go through when hiring transient or part time help. The minister said the matter was being referred to the commission, I presume the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I would now ask the Minister of Labour has it been referred to the commission, has the commission reported to him, and could the minister report to the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture did discuss the matter with me pursuant to the assurance he gave. Yesterday I met with the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and was assured that the program had been in force for some 12 or 13 days only and that they had had no prior representations. However, in the light of what was said by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture they are studying the matter and have promised a report early next week.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the minister's speech in Sherbrooke in which she said the C.B.C. is

not the most appropriate agency to carry out the role envisaged for the federal educational television agency, will she take an early opportunity on motions to tell this parliament what the government has in mind concerning educational television?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to make that statement, but not on motions because it would be too long. I would hope to make the statement when the supplementary item is called.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether she has given due consideration to the propriety of asking this house to vote supply in the amount set out under supplementary estimate item F in respect of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is not in order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the question of order, may I say that I am simply asking the minister for information concerning her views about proceeding with an application of this kind 14 days after the year has expired in respect of which the estimate is to be spent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a very interesting question, but I suggest it should not be asked at this time.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question also is directed to the minister. In view of the fact that in its last report the broadcasting committee suggested an early reference on this question so it could give wide consideration to it, and in view of the meeting currently being held in Toronto, will the minister assure the house that very shortly this matter will come before the broadcasting committee for full consideration?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, the supplementary item is on the agenda. Presumably it will be one of the early items called at the conclusion of the business which is now before the house. I did say earlier, and on a number of occasions have said publicly, that notwithstanding the fact that it is unusual to use this means of introducing legislation it is neither illegal nor unheard of. In an attempt to meet the request of the provinces to get on with educational
April 13, 1967

television, because of the fact that otherwise it could not be dealt with in the house until late in the centennial session and perhaps not even within the centennial year, the government has taken the position that the item will be called and a statement of purpose given. Only if there appears to be agreement in the chamber will the item be proceeded with. If there should be an apparent and consistent refusal by the house to go on with it, the item would be withdrawn and we would simply have to advise the provinces that the house would not accede to that idea of priority.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether representations in respect of this matter were received by the government from the C.B.C., and whether those representations have been considered.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a proper question, but there have been no representations with regard to that item received by me from the C.B.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were they received with respect to the policy of turning this matter over to another corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: My
question is supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and is on the same subject. I wonder whether the minister has asked the officials of her department whether, pending the hearings of the broadcasting committee on educational television, this problem could be solved simply by having the C.B.C. construct the facilities in the province of Alberta for this year pending a final decision concerning who is to have this authority.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, someone must obtain approval from parliament for the money. The C.B.C. does not have approval from anyone to spend funds on that particular service.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice or to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the fact that so many people in the area are taking an interest in the wrecking of the Roxborough apartment building and the old printing bureau, does the government intend to set up a commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of that matter and find out if there was anything improper in the way contracts were awarded to the people who wrecked those buildings?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question is urgent and should be answered immediately, and the hon. member might want to put it on the order paper. If he disagrees with my ruling, he could raise the matter on the adjournment motion.


David Réal Caouette: At ten o'clock tonight, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister inform the house whether there is still a considerable amount of buffalo meat available at the present price of 42 cents per pound, which can be obtained for special events for centennial year? If that is so, does this mean the meat is in storage or that the animals will be slaughtered at a later date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While there seems to be some urgency to the matter raised by the hon. member, I doubt that this type of question should be asked at this time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister responsible for housing. Have his officials made an estimate as to how close we will come this year to meeting the target of
170.000	homes which the economic council has suggested will be required for this year?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it has been estimated that housing starts will reach the production level of
170.000	per annum during the current year.

April 13. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the relatively few starts during the first three months of this year, it may be that we may not reach that level during 1967, but that annual level or rate of starts should be reached within a matter of months.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the minister have any figure as to the number of completions estimated for 1967?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should perhaps take that question as notice, but if I recall correctly the estimated level is between 150,000 and 155,000.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I shall address it to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the sales manager of Air Canada in Timmins, Ontario, that several DC-8's and DC-9's cannot be put into service because it is impossible to obtain the necessary engines which are normally acquired from the United States, would it be possible to renegotiate this contract in order to obtain engines from the British Rolls Royce Company and in this way put these aircraft into service during centennial year?


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



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister received a letter from the Sydney unemployed workers' association expressing dissatisfaction with the manpower office methods of selecting applicants for trades training? If so, what reply has he made?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember receiving such a letter, but I will make inquiries and give an answer tomorrow.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister

whether in his reply he will indicate whether adequate publicity will be given to the trades training program in order that the public may be well-informed. At the same time, since there is some confusion as a result of the transfer of this program from the federal government to the provincial government, will he elaborate on this program?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I must be a little bit prudent in this regard because as yet this proposed measure has only been given first reading. As soon as it is passed I will be in a position to give it sufficient publicity.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister indicate why the files have been transferred to the Canadian manpower offices, since the legislation is not as yet in existence?


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



RETRAINING OF WORKERS LAID OFF BECAUSE OF AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: While I am on my
feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked last Tuesday by the hon. member for Ontario. He asked me whether my department had been in touch with the government of Ontario for the purpose of providing additional facilities for the training of laid off workers in Oshawa. I should like to inform the hon. member that the officials of my department are reviewing the training situation in Oshawa just about every day with the provincial and local training authorities. As a result the training facilities in Oshawa enroll some 850 workers as of today, which is more than four times as many as a year ago.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that only about 800 are now receiving training while many hundreds are not being trained because of the lack of facilities, will the minister consider providing additional facilities?


Jean Marchand: The facts I have on hand are as follows. As of yesterday there were in the Oshawa manpower centre 180 candidates registered for training. It is expected that most of these candidates will be in our training courses within two weeks. Only 17 of them are laid off auto workers. I would like
April 13, 1967

to add that only a relatively small proportion of the laid off auto workers show any interest in training.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact they have been told there are no facilities in which to receive training, many of them have been discouraged from applying for training.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You want to encourage them by your speeches.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO C.B.C. BROADCAST OF OPENING CEREMONIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Following the protests of the big American and European television networks against their inability to rebroadcast the special program of the World Fair formal opening next April 27, due to its overly restricted character, would the minister consider getting in touch with C.B.C. authorities and the General Commissioner, Mr. Dupuy, so as to give that formal opening all the pomp and prestige of a spectacular show and to advertise more widely our World Fair throughout Canada?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister any information to give the house concerning the negotiations, if that is the right word, being carried on at the present time with the government of New Brunswick with regard to surplus potatoes? I ask this question in light of the discussion which took place yesterday in the New Brunswick legislature.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with our program announced some time ago, provincial programs in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have now been agreed upon which I think are satisfactory to the governments and officials of those provinces.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



HALIFAX-REQUEST OF DOCKYARD COUNCIL RESPECTING PAY RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he has had an opportunity to review the telegram from the 700 or 800 members of local 273 of the Canadian Labour Congress. Perhaps I may redirect my question to the President of the Treasury Board.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the telegram has been answered very briefly. A longer answer in letter form is being prepared at the present time and will probably be mailed this afternoon or tomorrow morning.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether at least the most important request in that telegram will be met, that is whether some interim consideration will be given these employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now submitting a representation.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, although in his absence the Minister of Labour took it as notice. I wonder whether the minister has the answer to that question, and if in considering this matter he will also discuss it with his colleague the Minister of Industry to see whether any change could be made in the policy so these lay-offs at Halifax will not be necessary?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I take it that this question concerns the workers at Shearwater.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Jean Marchand: I would like first to make it clear that these workers were not on the payroll of the Department of National Defence but were employees of Fairey (Canada) Limited, a private firm engaged in repair and overhaul of aircraft. The officials of the Canada manpower centre in Halifax are at
14862

April 13, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry this very moment at the naval base interviewing them in order to assess their needs and the kind of assistance which would be most effective. We have already received a request for some 20 workers from a firm in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May 1 ask the minister, as I suggested earlier, if he will discuss with the Minister of Defence Production the possibility of reconsidering the policy pertaining to this work in the hope that the workers in Halifax will be kept at work there.


Jean Marchand: I am ready to discuss this matter with the Minister of National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the Minister of Defence Production.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has read the observations made by the ambassador of the Republic of France regarding the absence of General de Gaulle from the Vimy service, and whether any communication has been received from France explaining the reason for the absence of the president and a guard of honour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, preparations for this year's special fiftieth anniversary ceremony at Vimy Ridge were undertaken by the Department of Veterans Affairs, as has been the case for the annual ceremony in previous years.
The French authorities were informed through diplomatic channels of the Canadian government's wish to hold this special ceremony, of the proposed program and of the intended representation on the Canadian side. The concurrence and assistance of the French authorities for this special Canadian ceremony were sought and obtained. There were continuing consultations on the arrangements, and the French authorities extended all the material assistance and facilities required. The fullest French participation was also sought, and the possibility of inviting

General de Gaulle was discussed through diplomatic channels. Had it been possible for him to attend we would have been honoured and delighted.
The French government appointed official representatives both for the ceremony and for the reception of His Royal Highness Prince Philip on his arrival. The level of this representation and the fact that no French troops participated were reflections of the view taken by the French government that this was an essentially Canadian occasion, and should not be interpreted as indicating any lack of French recognition or co-operation. In fact the French authorities have themselves assured us of this.


John George Diefenbaker: Now I ask the minister the question that was asked yesterday. Was an invitation extended to President de Gaulle; because my reading of what the ambassador said was that no such invitation was extended at any time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I saw the French ambassador in Ottawa yesterday. I know of no basis for this observation by the right hon. gentleman, which I suspect is the result of his own intuitive and original thinking. The French ambassador in London yesterday reportedly explained that the status of the head of state in France was not comparable to that of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the prince consort. I have made it clear, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that an invitation was discussed through diplomatic channels, which is the only way in which it could have been discussed.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it extended?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: In my opinion nothing would have been a greater effrontery, if the head of state did not propose to attend, than nevertheless to force an invitation. Nothing would have been greater evidence of lack of courtesy to a friendly country.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly my powers of intuition have been proven correct. Is it a fact, then, that it was made clear by President de Gaulle or his representatives that he would not attend because the representation of Prince Philip was not on a co-equal basis with him?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that there is no basis in fact for that supposition.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you just said.
April 13, 1967


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. When the minister says "through diplomatic channels", was that through our ambassador to France, and is the atmosphere between General de Gaulle and our ambassador to France rather chilly at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Naturally "through diplomatic channels" in the case of France means it would be undertaken by the Canadian ambassador, Mr. Jules Leger, one of Canada's outstanding ambassadors who enjoys the highest reputation in France.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF MINE DISASTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, over a week ago the Prime Minister said the government was giving consideration to making a contribution to a fund for the families of the miners at Natal, B.C. who had been killed in the unfortunate mine disaster. I wonder whether any conclusion has been reached with respect to that matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Will a program be substituted for the "Son et Lumiere" program which has been recently cancelled on parliament hill, and if so will it involve the young people who were originally scheduled to participate?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the "Son et Lumiere" program has not been cancelled. It is to be run from Nepean Point and will go ahead exactly as scheduled. The program which was cancelled was called "Spectacle on Parliament Hill" which was to have taken place for some two weeks during August only.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the minister inform the house whether the young people involved will be employed in the "Son et Lumiere" program?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, what will be involved is only one official language, that of sound and light.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon with respect to the control of the Stanley Cup hockey telecasts by the C.B.C. As I suggested yesterday, and as has been subsequently confirmed, television rights to the Stanley Cup hockey games are not owned by the C.B.C. but are owned by the MacLaren advertising agency in Toronto. The C.B.C. only sells time to the agency for the broadcast and telecasts. MacLaren Advertising is the owner and has the responsibility for determining which games are to be shown on which networks. We are not in a position to do more than lease the time and the facilities to the agency, and nothing could be done if the MacLaren firm decided to buy the necessary time on CTV only and not use the C.B.C. at all.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime
Minister?
I would like to know from the Prime Minister, now that by-elections have been announced in Canada, and more particularly in the province of Quebec, whether he will allow the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) to run as Liberal candidate in Outremont?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 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.
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my purpose to take part in this discussion, but in spite of the fact that I do not pretend to be a defence expert, and as a matter of fact have little experience with regard to matters connected with the defence department, I am impelled to take part in the discussion because I believe the emphasis in this debate as outlined by the Minister of National Defence, by his cabinet colleagues and by his supporters has not been constructive but rather destructive. All these gentlemen appear determined to pursue a course which I am convinced is in most respects detrimental to the defence of Canada in present day conditions, either when carried out in co-operation with our allies or by ourselves, and in the fulfilment of our world wide commitments.
First of all I should like to remind the house of the importance of what we are doing here. The fact that we have before us a bill which drastically amends the National Defence Act seems to me to justify very careful examination of this point. Before we even contemplate such a drastic change should we not satisfy ourselves that it is needed?
Before we consider whether the bill before us constitutes an improvement I think we should look over the record of the last half century. We will find, of course, that from a defence point of view we have participated in two world wars. It is my opinion, it has always been my opinion and I believe it will continue to be my opinion, that the world wide prestige of Canada and the glorious reputation which our country has earned for itself is mostly due to our participation in two world wars and to the fact that our servicemen have risen to every occasion and have covered themselves and Canada with glory. Surely I do not need to remind the house that within the last few days our Associate Minister of National Defence made a pilgrimage to the scene of the battle at Vimy, where history was made and a glorious tradition established for us, for our country and for our children to view with pride, a tradition which has gone down in the annuals of our nation.
This is part of the record I am asking members of the house to examine. I ask also that the price paid be remembered. Many Canadian lives were lost, many Canadian bodies were broken and many Canadians were crippled for life. So let us not tamper lightly
[The Chairman.]
with the National Defence Act under which these men fought our country's battles.
I will proceed to an examination of the record. Now I come to world war II. I remind the house of the six year period during which the Canadian forces were engaged in many areas of conflict. I remind them of the battle of Britain, of the campaigns in Italy and North Africa, the Dieppe raid and the invasion of France. I pay full tribute to the many people within sound of my voice this afternoon who fought in these battles. Men from all sides and all quarters of this house participated.
It seems to me that before any drastic change-and I emphasize "drastic change" once more-is made in the act this house should carefully examine the record and preserve all that has stood the test of time for more than half a century, during which two world wars were fought and the freedom of the world was at stake. I ask the house, is it not sensible and logical to preserve everything in the present act which has stood the test not only of time but of wartime? Then, Mr. Chairman, having done this, we can strengthen the act in the light of the changed conditions of today.
I agree that we must keep our National Defence Act up to date in the light of the changed conditions of 1967 compared with those of 20 years ago. Having examined the record and decided that we need to reassess and improve the act, let us see what the minister and the government are recommending to the representatives of the people, who after all have the final decision to make. At this point let us keep in mind one fact, and I ask the minister to particularly take note of it. Changes should be made only in the best interest of the defence of Canada and the people of Canada.


Mr. Hellyer:: That will be done.


Hugh John Flemming: I for one am not satisfied that every clause in this bill presently under discussion does fall within that qualification. Let us examine the title of this act, Mr. Chairman. Bill No. C-243 is an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof. The short title is the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act. Sections 15 to 18 of the National Defence Act are repealed, and I should like at this point to
April 13, 19G7	COMMONS
refer to what section 15 of the old act says. It reads as follows:
The Canadian forces are the naval, array and air forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of three services, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
The new act substitutes the following:
The Canadian forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
What does this new provision do, Mr. Chairman? Chiefly it drops the word "royal."
I would ask why that word is dropped? Does dropping the word improve the forces or the ability of the forces to defend Canada? This is one point on which 1 should like the minister to make a statement and explain that omission.
I should like the members of the committee to examine the meaning of the word "royal." Webster's dictionary states that it means magnificent, majestic, excellent. It also says it pertains to a king. In simple language, Mr. Chairman, it implies that this is the superlative of excellence. Why do we drop the word if it denotes the superlative of excellence? If I had my way I would leave it in. If the government's supporters would vote for it I would propose an amendment that the new force be called the "royal Canadian armed forces."
In addition to changing the name, Mr. Chairman, what does the bill presently under consideration contemplate? As I recall the minister's speech, he advanced the idea that when he assumed his responsibilities as minister of defence some four years ago he decided that three things had to be undertaken. The first was to bring the past up to the present, by which he meant we should acquire nuclear warheads for the weapons systems. The second task was to review the equipment programs outstanding; the third was to determine a long range defence policy for Canada.
This was all in progress long before he became minister; there is no question of that. In the result, Mr. Chairman, we acquired nuclear weapons. The minister stated that it was the unanimous opinion of the chiefs of staff and the staff members-and I hope and pray, as I am sure we all do, that this assumption is correct-that a nuclear war was the least likely. The minister has informed us that we are protected, to the extent that we can be protected, against a surprise nuclear attack. Therefore this disposes of that particular requirement.
National Defence Act Amendment
The minister mentioned the need for flexibility and mobility. As a layman I find no fault with this. I suggest this would mean we should acquire more planes and ships. We are all faced with the need for more flexibility in our respective businesses.
The minister also mentioned the absence of an over-all strategic plan applied to the three services. He deplored lack of co-ordination of equipment programs for the determination of priorities from a national point of view. I do not believe there is very much difference of opinion on this question. The question of national priorities is pretty well understood and agreed with, I suggest. The minister then stressed the need for co-operation to fulfil objectives. There seems nothing wrong with this. He emphasized the need for equipment purchase priorities with national defence in mind.
The conclusion to all these proposals, Mr. Chairman, was of course integration and integrated action; and the minister has outlined the steps which were taken. I emphasize here that there has been little if any objection to the broad principle of integration, though I am sure all of us in this house will agree that it is quite a gigantic task to undertake.
The minister has mentioned the formation of one intelligence agency to replace five. He has mentioned a 30 per cent reduction in personnel in this branch, which he suggests means a financial saving. He has referred to construction engineering and to the advantage of applying common knowledge and experience, again suggesting there will be a saving. There is no objection to this; it is one facet of integration. The minister has also given some information relative to recruitment, and there is no objection to this. He also mentioned information services which have reduced expenditures.
The minister made specific reference to NORAD and air defence command. He forecast a saving of 30 per cent. He mentioned communications, and stated that a long line system for the Canadian armed forces will result in a saving of 18 per cent. The minister stated that the new system is working very satisfactorily. Most of all, he said, it is enabling the defence department to have studies made.
The minister referred to the new combined cataloguing system and the saving in personnel which would result in a 26 per cent financial saving. The minister suggested that all
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment these savings will mean great financial advantage so far as defence spending is concerned.
Adding all these percentages together, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the minister expects large savings in defence expenditures. Now, Mr. Chairman, what are the facts? The facts simply are these, that in the estimates tabled in this house a few weeks ago the sums allocated to defence have increased over last year by $115 million, and this after the minister has told us of percentage savings on this item, that item and the other item.
The minister's remarks relative to equipment are to be remembered, Mr. Chairman. I do not propose to repeat them, but he did bring together integration and unification in this regard, and this is what I take objection to. I cannot agree with the unification principle, the doing away with branches of the armed forces and with famous regiments. Integration has been under way for some years and generally speaking it is not unacceptable, but I suggest to the minister unification is an altogether different question.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It is for the minister to show that the bill we are presently studying will improve the ability of the people of Canada to provide for their own defence. I suggest that the minister has not done so. This is not only my opinion but the opinion of many senior officials in his own department, or at least they were members of his department. The minister glibly implies that they are fuddy-duddies who do not care to lose their privileges. I prefer to take the opinion of the career people who have served the country in war and in peace with great distinction rather than the opinion of the minister who seems to wish to disregard his closest and most able advisers if their advice conflicts with the preconceived notions he has acquired through his limited experience in the performance of his duties.
The question on which we are to vote is: Are the suggested changes good for Canada? Will they effect an improvement in the light of modern advancement? I submit the answer is no and I propose to prove that.
Before the minister concluded his remarks on Monday, April 3, he said he would deal with some of the myths which had been raised. This is where he and I part company so far as agreement is concerned. He delves into the world of the theoretical in his reference to so-called myths. He goes up into the


clouds. He says the uniforms of the servicemen make little difference, and that the question has been effectively answered. I say, I do not know when, or by whom. He says that uniforms are not unimportant. I say they are very important.
I now digress for a moment. I wish to make my position perfectly clear. The minister simply has not proven his case for unification. That is what he should do. It is not our responsibility to prove he is wrong; it is his responsibility to prove he is right.
No minister of any government should tamper with the defence of the country and make forays into the unknown, all in one big jump. Governments should be satisfied to make necessary changes step by step, one at a time, creeping before they walk, experimenting slowly and bewaring of blundering. We cannot afford to blunder when the defence of our country is at stake. This government has an unenviable record for blundering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: That is the question for the Prime Minister to answer. Will the suggested changes improve the ability of our defence department to defend the people of Canada properly? The judgment of many senior officers, generals, admirals, air vice-marshals, distinguished in war and peace is no, they will not. The Minister of National Defence, with practically no experience, says yes, they will. The Prime Minister must decide. I appeal to him to make the good, the well-being of the people of Canada the paramount consideration and to let nothing else matter because the good of Canada should override every other consideration.
I return to my comments regarding Bill No. C-243. The members of this committee have a solemn responsibility when they vote. They must be satisfied that what they vote for is in the best interest of Canada and the defence of Canada. Defence has been referred to by Webster as meaning "resistance to and protection from attack". I repeat those words, "resistance to and protection from attack".
The question we all ask ourselves is whether the changes contemplated will strengthen the ability of our defence forces to resist and protect the country from attack. Many opinions have been expressed. Let us submit them to critical examination and then record our opinion by voting. The government have submitted Bill C-243 which does not stand up under critical examination on the basis that it will effect an improvement over the existing
April 13, 1967

act. It appears to me that they are again guilty of a tampering which will prove to be blundering. I do not believe that the armed forces can be organized for unification in a hurry. I believe it is possible to effect the improvements of integration and still retain the distinguishing and distinguished units, of which there are many, in which many hon. members within sound of my voice have served.
While we acknowledge that equipment and machines play an ever-increasing part in defence, I do not think we can ignore the individual and the part he plays in defence operations. Those advocating changes in the National Defence Act should have in mind the general desirability of appealing to the young men of our country to make a career of the defence of our country. To appeal to young people and to keep recruiting and enlistment on a proper basis it is necessary that young men be able to select the service of their choice and wear a uniform indicating the particular service in which they choose to serve. It is an elementary part of freedom that people select their vocations in life. In the free world we emphasize the right of young men and women to select their lifetime occupations. The record of productivity in the United States and Canada illustrates the wisdom of this feature of our social and economic life.
Where the uniforms of sailors, airmen and soldiers are of the same colour, material and design it is difficult to distinguish one branch of the forces from another, and this will discourage recruiting. Some young men will lose interest in joining. Most young people have natural aptitudes and work best at what they like to do. This bill makes little appeal to our young people to use their talents in the service of their choice and may prevent them from making the maximum contribution toward their own happiness. The bill should make a career in the armed services attractive and it does not do so. It should provide for the saving of money on certain things and it has not done so. It has been said that a certain percentage of money will be saved but according to documents tabled expenditures on defence show an increase of over $100 million over last year's figure.
This bill ought to be so drafted that it will improve the efficiency of the defence forces. The minister says it will do that but many senior officials say it will not. Many senior officers appeared before the standing committee during its 50-odd meetings. Many, with
National Defence Act Amendment long experience and knowledge respecting military matters, said that this measure will not increase efficiency and will not effect an improvement. That was the opinion of distinguished soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought in the war, who have served their country in peace and war. They deserve better than to have reflections cast on them by anyone. I have more confidence in the judgment of these experienced senior officers than I have in that of the minister at the present time.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
To summarize, I have made the point I wished to make. I have said I do not feel that the National Defence Act should be tampered with unless an improvement will result. This bill will not have that effect. Remember, we in this committee are tampering with the defence of Canada, something which does not deserve to be treated lightly. I submit that many portions of the bill are premature, ill-conceived and ill-considered. The measure should not be supported in its entirety. It will not improve the ability of the defence department to perform its proper function, the defence of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Chairman, new ideas are not easily come by nor do they develop overnight. New ideas are not put into practice easily because invariably they conflict with traditions and with customs. In the circumstances surrounding the issue before us there is ample opportunity to discuss the theory of change, social and political conflict, and the moulding of new practice.
For some time now we have been in the thick of this debate on the unification of the armed forces of Canada. It is gratifying to me to travel around my riding and hear people express their opinions on the unification issue. There is a great desire to see us get on with the passage of the bill because, as many people have stated to me, there has been enough discussion, enough repetition. It is now time for a final decision to be made and for consequent action to follow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I do not profess to be a military expert, nor do I pretend to be a pessimist about change. As I am not a military expert it is not my intention to discuss all the technicalities that are more familiar to military minds. I feel, however, that there are many
14868	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment things beyond and surrounding this issue which should be brought out at this time.
First, I want to say something concerning the young people of Canada. In his speech in the house last Monday the hon. member for Kamloops indicated that we should get on with the job of building the kind of forces which, when it is necessary to call upon them, will repeat, with the same morale, the same splendid tradition, feats such as those at Vimy Ridge to which we have just paid tribute. Regardless of the way in which the hon. member for Kamloops intended these remarks, I would like to say that we of my generation and those of the younger generation following us, regard the veterans of Vimy Ridge and all veterans of both world wars with pride and with the greatest respect. Many of the young people of Canada today are the sons, daughters or grandchildren of those world war veterans who served with distinction in Canada's armed forces.
There is a point here which must be made and must be clearly understood if we are to be fair to those young people of our country who were under age and were not able to serve in the second world war. I know I can say without reservation that if the young people of Canada were today called upon in an emergency to defend their country, to defend their freedom and the freedom of others, they would rise to the challenge in the same manner as did their predecessors in the second world war and in the first world war. They would do so without hesitation because they have pride in their country and because they would be anxious to uphold the outstanding record of the servicemen who are serving Canada today and the veterans who have served Canada at some time in the past.
A very broad look should be taken at the bill as a whole in the light of many other military decisions which have been taken at the political level. A case in point close to home was the great debate which occurred as a result of the Laurier government's introduction and subsequent passage of the naval bill in 1909 and 1910. As we are all aware, it was Laurier's intention to construct a Canadian navy for the protection of Canadian coastal waters. This would have released ships of the British navy for full time service in that navy, and in the event of a large scale war the Canadian navy could have been placed under the command of the British navy.
Premier Roblin of Manitoba called the proposed Canadian navy a "tin-pot navy". The Conservative opposition took up this cry

DEBATES	April 13, 1967
in many areas of Canada. The naval issue, combined with the reciprocity issue and the controversy surrounding them, resulted in Laurier going down to defeat in 1911. The Borden government decided not to proceed with the building of a Canada navy but instead, to make an outright $35 million donation to Britain for the purpose of building dreadnoughts. The bill for that purpose was passed by this house but was defeated in the Senate by the Liberal senators who still favoured the building of a Canadian navy. Possibly the one really gratifying aspect of this debate is that hon. members opposite are standing up in this house and recognizing the Canadian navy which was really the brainchild of Sir Wilfrid Laurier shortly after the turn of this century.
The passing of certain traditions is a difficult thing for some people to face. It is not my intention to rub salt in any wounds. I am, however, going to point out that many great decisions have been made in the past and that society is still in operation in spite of all the controversy and the gloomy predictions which have surrounded issues, such as the one before us at this time. Time changes many things. The hon. member for Chicoutimi cited some very good examples in his speech the other day. The predecessors of members opposite spoke against a Canadian navy 50 years ago. Today we hear statements from members opposite defending the status quo in respect of the navy. At the same time, several members opposite are determined to defeat this bill dealing with unification of Canada's armed forces just as their predecessors were determined to defeat the naval bill. I submit that at some time in the future this house may well hear some of their successors speak favourably in regard to the legislation now before us providing for the unification of the armed forces of Canada just as hon. members opposite are now supporting the status quo in the Canadian navy to which their predecessors in the Conservative party refused to give birth some 50 years ago.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I would like to submit some other examples to show how difficult it has been to overcome opposition to military change in the past. All of us are quite aware of the mud, mire and wire conditions of the battlefields in France in world war I. In 1916 top military personnel were demanding more men to throw into the slaughter. Many others recognized that only some new technique of combat could break the stalemate of trench warfare. A small
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
group in Britain was promoting the idea of a new weapon called the tank. In order to make the construction of tanks possible Churchill allocated naval funds to the project. In this connection I would like to quote the following from page 748 of the Encyclopedia Britan-nica:
In July 1917 despite Tory protests Lloyd George appointed Churchill minister of munitions. In that post he was able to stimulate production of the tank, the decisive weapon of world war I, the development of which he had largely inspired at the Admiralty.
Churchill's success in getting the tank into operation on the battlefields of France saved the lives of thousands of soldiers and was instrumental in bringing the war to a close at a much earlier date. Yet he had to overcome vehement personal criticism and strong opposition.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, new ideas are not easy to come by nor do they develop overnight. If we take a look at France between the two world wars we find that in 1926 de Gaulle was given the task of re-examining the whole military position along France's northeastern frontiers over which had flowed in past centuries so many tides of invasion.
I quote from a book written by Duncan Grinnell-Milne, "The Triumph Of Integrity": Throughout 1926, applying his now profound knowledge of military history and science-
The author is speaking of de Gaulle.
-he studied to devise a fortified line that should not only protect France, but would also provide, should ever the eastern enemy attack again, suitable bases for a spearhead thrust into Germany. By French military authorities the first part of the plan was readily accepted. A "line of fortifications" -did it not embody the lessons of recent war?
His seniors were convinced that the fortified line must be built but they were also convinced that suitable bases for a spearhead thrust should not be built because they failed to recognize the importance of it. In vain de Gaulle protested subsequently that this was only half the plan, that to the shield must be added a sword. The defence minister, one named Maginot, saw to it that de Gaulle was overruled.
Throughout the years 1932 and 1933, even though trouble was brewing in Germany, France's prestige and prosperity were ridrng high and the military chiefs were complacent because of their pride in their army which consisted of a possible five million men. To exemplify the attitude of leading French military men of the time, I quote an appropriate
National Defence Act Amendment paragraph from the same book, "The Triumph Of Integrity":
It was not that they slept, those military chiefs, at least not then. Dazzled by too much sunshine, they might blink myopically at progress, but they were wide awake to the supposed requirements of their beloved army. Against it Germany could do nothing. Everything was ready. Fifteen years after the war they had absorbed all its lessons, so that now they were well prepared to achieve victory in the pattern of 1914, as in 1914 they had been ready to achieve it in the pattern of 1870. No one could teach them anything new; adulation had made them dangerously over-confident. Looking proudly to their defences, they forgot to look to the future.
There are a couple of other paragraphs I would like to refer to showing that among the first with de Gaulle who had this concept were General Fuller and Captain Liddell Hart in England. As the book says, they were among the first:
-to grasp the idea of using a large force of tanks (and other arms) independently of the infantry which hitherto they had been employed only to support; a force of armour to be regarded not so much as cavalry, but rather as it might be a squadron of warships with auxiliaries, compact, self-supporting, under its own commander. He-
Meaning de Gaulle.
-was certainly the first in France to develop the idea in detail, to lay down the composition of the unit, the "armoured division", to describe its organization, and then to examine its purpose and vast strategic possibilities in modern war. In this examination, and in the logical conclusions he drew from it, he led the world.
At that time de Gaulle wrote a book recommending the formation of six mobile divisions to go along with the Maginot line as the sword. He was turned down by his superiors. He wrote an excellent book outlining his whole program, but so great was the confidence in the senior military personnel of France in that day in the establishment, in military circles, that the book sold only 750 copies. But three of those copies found their way into Germany and into the hands of a very intelligent German colonel. Receiving this information first hand and studying de Gaulle's plans this German colonel, after receiving consent from his superiors, went ahead and organized the very Panzer division that was the first one to set foot on French soil in 1940. Yet de Gaulle was not listened to because his ideas were new and strange.
This is why I rise today to speak of these things that have happened in military history in the past because sometimes we get tied up in the middle of these debates. We become highstrung. We make insinuations and remarks that are anything but kind, but when
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment we are in the middle of dealing with a piece the proceedings of any committee of this of legislation like this we must look at it with house as they choose. Surely this is what our a sense of perspective. Who is to say today Canadian veterans fought for, so that the what is going to happen 20, 30 or 40 years young people of Canada could have that from now?	privilege.


Mr. Churchill:: Paul Hellyer.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We cannot, but on the basis of what we know in the present and the things that point to trends in the future surely this is where our judgment must lie. I want to make the point very clear that in bringing in a new piece of legislation like this it is very easy for certain individuals to insinuate that those who are in favour of the legislation do not look with favour on those who fought for their country in the past. I should like to say that such insinuations are absolute nonsense and should not enter into this debate. I do not think there is a member in this House of Commons who does not have the greatest respect and regard for anyone who has ever fought for this country or for world freedom in general.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: It did not sound like that in the committee.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Certain remarks are being made across the way which are typical. They do not bother me.


Mr. Danforth:: They are factual.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I should like to refer to the speech I delivered in the house a few weeks ago in which I paid tribute to the veterans in this House of Commons with whom I deem it an honour to sit as a member. When the second world war ended I was 15 years old. During the hearings of the defence committee reference was made to members of the committee who did not have any military service. This is the type of remark which I think is uncalled for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I might ask at this stage whether anyone who would make a statement of that kind is insinuating that there should have been another world war since the last one so that those of us who were too young for the last war could have had an opportunity to have military service. We must remember that there are a large number of young people across this country today who have never had military service. But that does not mean to say that they do not have the opportunity to run for parliament and take part in


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Great issues in the history of any nation have been debated in the past on the merits of the proposals. When we are in the middle of debate a great many doubts are stated. On the other hand, many statements are made in defence of proposals. There is one thing we must remember when we are so engaged. Time heals, but the passing of time does not produce progress unless there is planning for the future. This bill plans for the future on the basis of what we know today. Members of this house in the future will have to bring about changes on the basis of their experience in the house. This bill does not throw disdain on anyone who has walked the military paths before.
I should like to leave these thoughts with the committee. We must look at this bill in perspective. Out of this debate must come a sense of mutual respect for the views of various members of the house. I do not think there is very much ground for some of the personal attacks we have heard on the floor of the house. I hope that as we continue with the debate on this bill all hon. members will address their remarks to the merits of the bill as a whole or to the clauses in the clause by clause discussion. The Canadian people today are saying; Get on with the business of the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: This is the business.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Let us discuss the matter-


An hon. Member:: You have not been home lately.
Another hon. Member: Thank you, teacher.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Let us discuss the matter, keep personal conflict out of it, and consider the merits. Someone on the other side just made the remark, "Thank you, teacher". I hope I have taught my lesson well, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I believe all of us were interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew North when he said that it is the view of those on the government side that we should get on with the business
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
of the house and that the people of this country are saying: Get on with the business of the house. I happened to be a member of this house 11 years ago when another famous debate, the pipe line debate, took place. At that time the matter being debated was not whether or not Canada should build a pipe line. Every member of the house agreed that it should be built and that it should be a Canadian pipe line. The question under discussion at that time was whether or not the government had the right to deny essential information to the representatives of the people. That was the issue and the only issue.
At that time Mr. Howe and all hon. members on the Liberal side of the house kept telling opposition members that it was their duty to stop the debate, back down, and agree with what the Liberal government was trying to cram down the throats of opposition members. They said we should get on with the business of the house. It turned out that they had completely misread the feelings of the people of Canada. As was demonstrated in the election of 1957, the people deeply resented the fact that the then government would not provide information which the opposition had a right to require it to give. For that reason that government was thrown out of office unceremoniously.
Now we hear the same old Liberal call-get on with the business of the house; do not interfere with what we want to do. We know what is best for you; we know what is best for the armed services. Do not interfere with us. We have all the answers, and if anybody in the armed services dares to disagree with us and teli you anything different from what we say, they will get their marching orders very quickly indeed.
Three years ago when the minister presented his white paper we were told that this measure of unification would give us a more effective and more efficient defence at less cost. Let us take a look at the results that are becoming apparent today because of the proposed or actual introduction of this measure in respect of the armed services. In this regard it is impossible for us to obtain any answers from the minister, the government or the minister's officials. I have made a point of speaking to a great many members of the armed services. I did not speak to them on the parade ground or anywhere where they could be overheard by agents of the minister and his officials. I spoke to officers, non-commissioned officers and men of our armed services in very large numbers in their own homes where they could talk, say what they
National Defence Act Amendment think about this whole measure and state whether they think it is good or bad. I have had an almost unanimous expression of opinion by a great number of these men in all ranks in the various services along the following lines.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
First of all, Mr. Chairman, they do not like losing their identity as a service. They join a particular branch of the services because they like its history and traditions. These are proud men and they want to continue to serve in that branch with its ranks and uniform. Some of these men have served for many years and they do not like the way the unification program is being put into effect. This is a very sore point so far as members of the armed forces are concerned. They cannot find anyone of any rank who can tell them what will happen to their particular branch of the service in the future. Very often when they make inquiries they are told that no one knows the answers and if they do not like the situation they should get out on civvy street and look for something else. Very often they make these inquiries of politicians and are told the same thing.
Because I have an admiration for the men in our armed services and feel that they must be protected I advise them to carry on and remain in the services while we try to convince this stupid and perverse cabinet to change its mind. I have told these people that I cannot believe the government could persist in this kind of stupidity. Surely in some way we can push some sense into the heads of those stubborn government members who, for reasons known only to themselves, are trying to shove a measure through which obviously cannot and will not work. It is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
When the minister presented his white paper in 1964 he said that as a result of his program we would have a more efficient and effective force at less cost. It is apparent today that the cost of maintaining our armed forces has increased by $161 million per year. I suggest that this is only the beginning of the increase in the cost of maintaining our armed forces. What will happen when the minister has really had a chance to implement his program? I suggest that the cost will soar and that our forces will become less efficient and effective.
The minister, as I said, suggested that his program would result in a more effective and efficient service at less cost. Let me ask the minister, who considers he is among the
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment world's greatest military thinkers, why all of the great powers of the world who have considered the idea of unification have turned it down as cold as a mackerel. I suggest these great powers are aware of two things. They know that unification will not work and will not increase the efficiency and effectiveness of an armed service. They realize that a uniform and an identity have great meaning to fighting men.
If we persist in unifying our three services, there could be only one possible advantage. That would be that it we are a few thousand men short in the navy we could bring in replacements from the army or the air force. Obviously that is the only advantage which unification could bring. The minister has not referred to any other advantage and no one else claims there is another advantage. Obviously this idea of easy transfer of personnel is not practical.
In this day and age each member of the armed forces, regardless of the branch to which he belongs, has been trained in a specialty. The tasks performed by our service personnel are complex and specialized. If we move a man or woman who has been trained in one specialty in one branch of our services to another branch we will lose the advantage gained by that specialized training as well as the many thousands of dollars required to retrain that individual. The day of the manat-arms is past.
It must be obvious to the members of the government that one sure result of unification will be the loss of morale, which in turn will lessen the effectiveness and efficiency of our armed forces. Morale is built up as a result of historical tradition and uniform identification. These things mean a great deal to people who have been in combat, although perhaps little to those who have not.
Let me elaborate on that point. Any man who has been in combat, whether in the navy, army or air force, knows fear. No matter how many times a man has been under fire he knows fear, and anyone who suggest differently does not know the facts. It would be unnatural for a member of our armed services to go into battle without knowing fear. It would be unnatural for anyone to charge out of a trench, fly a bomber through burning flak or man a ship during a bombardment without some degree of fear. In order for our service personnel to serve efficiently they must have high morale, made up of a love for family, for their country, and for the tradition of their units. These men [Mr. Hees.l
need a lot going for them in order to be efficient during a combat.
The minister can well afford to sit there and laugh because he does not and cannot know about these things. Let me assure him that these things are true. He can doubt my word about other matters but in this regard what I am saying is accurate. The minister laughs because he does not think our fighting forces need morale in order to carry out their functions efficiently and obtain their objectives. He laughs because he does not think those men who were wounded and those who died in battles required these things. He thinks these things are unnecessary and that our forces can be effective even though we put them all in Coca-Cola uniforms and make them as alike as peas in a pod. How does the minister know? Of course it makes a lot of difference.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If we ever get into another combat the men under the minister's command will have to have a great deal going for them. They will have to have pride of self, pride of country, pride of unit and pride of service in order to push themselves forward. If you take away some of these things, as the minister is proposing, you take away their ability to perform well. If you take these things away from our armed forces personnel you will destroy the armed forces' objectives and their whole ability to do the job. We as Canadians, like everybody else in the free world, are in favour of preserving peace. There is only one good, sure way to preserve peace and that is to make it known to possible aggressors that we and our allies are so strong, have so much will to resist, so much power to resist, that our services are so well trained and their morale is so high, that if they try to gain their objectives through force we can hurt them far more than they can hurt us.
Everybody knows why there is not an atomic war today and will not be an atomic war. It is not that people have no desire to drop atomic bombs; it is simply because those who might be tempted to do so know perfectly well that they will be hit many times harder than they could possibly hit us. Logic tells them not to start an atomic war. That is why germ warfare, which we were told would be the deciding factor in the last world war, was never started. Both sides knew they would be hurt at least as much as they could hurt the enemy. If those who started the first two world wars had realized the will, power and ability to resist of the allied forces in
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
1914 and 1939 we would not have had those world wars. That is why those of us who have had something to do with the services seriously urge the minister, not for political motives but because we as Canadians want our armed forces to be as efficient as possible, not to weaken the ability of the services. We should show possible aggressors that we are a strong, able link in the allied chain. Possible aggressors should never be tempted to try to go through a weak spot. They must realize that we have the morale, the weapons and the men to stop them and that we will fulfil our task as we have so ably in two world wars.
The people in our armed services today are the finest you will find anywhere. They want to be able to resist an aggressor and do just as good a job as their brothers, fathers and grandfathers did in the first two world wars. The reducing of their morale, which is what the minister is doing with this proposal, is greatly resented by them. They resent the fact that their future ability will be weakened, because if they ever have to do this terrible job again they want to do it well.
If morale in our forces is not what it should be we might be considered a weak enough link that a potential aggressor might take a chance and start a war, as was done in 1914 and 1939 when, I am told, 16 million members of the allied forces were killed. These are the serious matters we put before the minister. We put them before him seriously because we love our country. Those of us who have had some connection with the armed forces know that they want to continue to do the job that should be done. We do not appreciate it when the minister sits over there so smugly and smiles and laughs when we tell him what we must do to ensure that our forces are able to do their job well. The minister sits back when we tell him these things and snickers and laughs because he does not care. The fact is that he does not know, he does not understand and he tries to cover it up by laughing, smirking and smiling. The minister is insulting the men in his armed services who want to do a job for Canada.


An hon. Member:: Don't go too far, gorgeous.


George Harris Hees: I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that those of us who have served in the armed forces, who have members of the forces as constituents and have talked to them in their own homes and know them well, know that
National Defence Act Amendment these people are as fine Canadians as one can find. We know that the men in the forces want to make a real career of the service. They want to stay in the armed services to do the job. If they join the navy they want to be in the navy, if they join the air force they want to be in the air force, if they join the army they want to be in the army.
These men want to know that there is a future for them in the services. If they ask a sergeant, lieutenant, flight lieutenant or naval lieutenant, "what is the future for me in our service, where are we going", I tell you, Mr. Minister, that their officers are not able to tell them because they do not know. It has not come down from the top. Nobody seems to know where the armed services are headed. They want to know. They do not want to waste their time in a career that is going to collapse. They want to know where their particular service is going. The minister has not told them because I do not think he knows.
I would like the minister to answer this question before the debate ends. Lieutenant General Moncel said when giving testimony before the defence committee that if we continue our present commitments in NATO, NORAD and the United Nations we will require an additional force of some 50,000 men and an additional expenditure of $500 million a year. I do not know anybody in this country better able to give these facts than General Moncel, a brilliant soldier, an honest soldier and a man who I say is telling the truth. If he is not telling the truth, I want the minister to say in what way he is not telling the truth. If the minister says General Moncel is wrong, I want him to tell us whether he is completely wrong and that the figure is 10,000 men, 15,000, or whatever it is. If General Moncel is wrong about the additional expenditure that he says will be required, I want the minister to show us just how wrong he is. I believe that General Moncel is right, because I know him and can state that he is one of the most brilliant soldiers this country has had. I think the minister would agree with that. General Moncel would not make such a statement if he did not mean it.
I ask the minister: Where are we going in this area? Are we going to fulfil our present commitments, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said we were in his speech the other day? If we are going to do our job in NATO, NORAD and the United Nations, are we going to do it on the same scale as in the past or are we going to do it in a smaller way? Do we intend to let the United States
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment come in and take over on Canadian soil? Do we intend to fulfil the commitments that we undertook in the NORAD operation? The Canadian people want answers to these questions. They want to know whether this government intends to humiliate them by having nationals of another country come in here and giving them the right to operate on our soil and do our defence job for us. I want to hear from the minister whether there is any inclination to do this. Are we going to continue our operations in NATO, NORAD and the United Nations on the same scale and not withdraw from these organizations in any way, shape or form? The public have a right to know these things. These are the things that this minister, like Mr. C. D. Howe exactly 11 years ago today, refuses to tell the Canadian people.
The minister sits and smirks, laughs and smiles. Mr. C. D. Howe used to do quite a bit of the same thing. I had a great respect and liking for Mr. C. D. Howe. He made only one mistake. He believed he had the right to run parliament and tell parliament what it should do, ignoring the wishes of the Canadian people. That was his mistake and it was the reason for his personal defeat exactly one year later. It defeated his government one year later. I tell this minister that if he persists in this kind of thing he and his party will suffer a great defeat when we go to the country. This is what happened one year later in the case of Mr. C. D. Howe.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The pipe line issue did not come before the electorate in 1956 but in 1957, and the minister knows very well what happened at that time because it happened to him personally and to a great many of his colleagues. I can tell him that if he is going to continue to kick the armed services around as if they were his own private football because he believes that this is the thing to do, it will not be long before his government will receive exactly the same treatment as did the great St. Laurent government in 1957 when on the night of June 10 they suddenly found themselves ousted.
I suggest to the minister and the government that they should now give an answer to the questions which have been put by me, by all of my colleagues in the house, and by the people of Canada. This is nothing new. We have demanded answers on behalf of the people of Canada and of the service personnel. We ask the government to give us the answers. The sooner it gives them the better. If they

are not satisfactory answers, if the government cannot produce proof of a good purpose in upsetting the whole armed service personnel, if it cannot prove that it will improve our armed service operations, and thereby bring about savings, as the minister said, then there is only one honourable course and that is to withdraw the bill immediately.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate until I heard the Minister of National Defence make the following remark the other night just before the closing of the house at ten o'clock; "Tomorrow we will carry on with this fascinating debate". I decided then and there that I should take part in this fascinating debate. May I also remind hon. members of what was said by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) when he concluded his remarks on Tuesday, April 11, as recorded at page 14778 of Hansard. He said:
The opposition undoubtedly has a duty to perform and as everyone knows I have never questioned that. But I am questioning it now. There is considerable, though as I have said perhaps unintentional, danger if we persist with this debate much longer. I think it can rightly be claimed that the opposition has played the game and has put up a fair fight with tangible and valuable results.
I believe that this debate has been worth while. I think that all the members of parliament who have been elected to the House of Commons feel very deeply about the unification bill, and I am sure that hon. members on our side of the house have opposed this issue in a most sincere and dedicated way. The members of the defence committee sat through 55 meetings of that committee over the course of the past two months. I am sure our members participated in those meetings in a very dedicated and sincere manner because they felt they were fighting in defence of a good cause.
I believe that the members of the armed services who were called before the defence committee were outstanding witnesses. I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I was not a member of the defence committee nor have I been a member of the armed services, apart from a short period of time. Owing to circumstances beyond my control I did not stay in the services. However, I wish to point out that if I had taken part in world war II, like all other members of the services, I would have wanted to join a particular group. By this I mean that I would have wanted to serve in the army, the navy or the air force. I believe the hon. member for Northumberland who has just finished speaking described the
April 13, 1967

differences among the three services in a most striking way. I intend to refer to this a little later. I believe this is one of the basic reasons for opposing unification.
I should like to refer to an article which I came across in the last day or two. It is an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of Wednesday, April 4, 1967. I will not read all of it but I wish to quote one paragraph. It is entitled, "Destroying Defence". It sets out one of the main reasons I am taking part in this debate. Another reason is that I will have to stand up and be counted in the House of Commons when the vote on this issue is taken. The paragraph reads as follows:
As members of parliament cast their votes in support or rejection of Mr. Hellyer's bill, they must surely recognize the grave responsibility they bear individually. It is a question that far transcends both politicking and party. Canadians will not lightly forgive or forget if our defence structure is thoughtlessly dismembered. 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. The reputation, character, efficiency and traditions of Canada's regular and militia units have been won and tested in action in battlefields in Europe, Asia and Africa, in the sea lanes of the North Atlantic and in the bombing and fighter missions in the air. 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.
I think that this is the decision we as members have to take. We will have to make a decision on the change which will be brought about in regard to the service personnel on whom we have relied over the years to volunteer to fight for our country.
I believe that very few people, if any, oppose integration with regard to arrangements for the paying of personnel and the provision of food supplies, clothing and equipment. I am not in favour of a common uniform and I have very definite opinions about this. There is no argument that integration of the services would bring about greater economy in the provision of these essential services for the different sections of our armed forces.
As I said, I was not a member of the defence committee although I sat in on some of the meetings and I have read some of the evidence with great interest. I realize that many members of the house on both sides have served with distinction in different branches of the services. Many members on this side of the house who have served in the forces with distinction have put forward outstanding arguments for opposing unification.
National Defence Act Amendment It is my belief that not too many people oppose the idea of integration in purchasing the essential products used by all branches of the services. I think this is only good, common sense.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I should like to refer to the history and background of one of the witnesses called by the defence committee to illustrate that the witnesses were dedicated men from the time they first joined the forces having gone through the officers' training school. I refer in particular to the evidence of Lieutenant General Fleury, to be found at page 1489 of minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 24. He said:
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I took my first faltering step in the military service when I joined the Canadian Officers Training Corps in 1929. I stayed with the C.O.T.C. for some five years; then I returned to it a couple of years later, early 1937, and I was still an officer in C.O.T.C. when war broke out. At this point I held the rank of captain. I was adjutant of a training centre at Farnham, Quebec. I went overseas in 1941 where I took up the appointment of adjutant in a reinforcements unit. The following year I was posted to the Canadian military headquarters in London, where I stayed on the staff until November 1943, then I went on staff to Italy in the rank of major. I was returned to London as the military secretary of C.M.H.Q. in the spring of 1944. I returned from overseas after V.E. day in 1945 with the rank of colonel.
That discloses Lieutenant General Fleury's record and the positions he held during the last war. He continued:
Since the war I have been director of personnel, director of organization and vice-quartermaster general at army headquarters Ottawa for various periods. I was also the chief of staff, prairie command, Winnipeg; commander Canadian military mission Far East, 1950-51; commander Eastern Quebec area 1951-56; general officer commanding Quebec command 1961-65.
As a result of his vast experience he was ordered to Ottawa, promoted to lieutenant general and appointed comptroller general of the newly integrated Canadian forces headquarters. He concluded:
I retired a few months ago and my legal status at the moment is that of an officer on leave pending retirement.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the background of one of the witnesses and explains why he was finally promoted to the position of comptroller general of the defence forces in Ottawa.
Another point is that we should ask ourselves some of the basic questions of concern to the people of Canada, especially those on whom we rely to constitute our armed forces.
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment As I have already said, I do not think integration is a great issue but, as the hon. member for Northumberland said a few minutes ago, I believe there is one basic problem with integration. I have talked to many service personnel across Canada during the last year or two and I have come to the conclusion that these men are dedicated to the service of their country. They want to serve in the armed forces of Canada but they want to be free to make their choice. Many men are army-oriented. They love the army, want to serve in it and join that branch of the armed forces for that reason. On the other hand, there are many young men, particularly in this day and age, who have a flair for flying, just as was the case between 1914 and 1918 when the old R.F.C. was formed. There were many young men during the last war who wanted to fly and that was the basic reason they joined the air force. They desired to be in the air when they took part in the defence of their country. Personally I had two brothers who served in the air force.
I suggest, that the minute we take away from the men who volunteer to serve in this country's defence forces the privilege of joining the particular service they desire to serve, we destroy a basic principle. I believe that such action would lead to conscription sooner than any of us realize.
There has been a lot of publicity during the last few months given to young Americans who arrive in Toronto from the United States. I happen to know personally one man who came from the United States for no other reason than to avoid being conscripted into the American army. I suggest that this could very well happen in Canada; I think there is no argument about it. For example, some men have a genuine desire to serve on ships. But today, if this bill passes, they will join "Canada's armed services"-period.
As I say, some of our young men want to be pilots. Personally, if I had to join the services and I thought I would end up serving on water you would never get me into the services. I am sure this feeling is typical among young men today. If this bill goes through I am satisfied, as I said before, that we will destroy the fundamental freedom of choice on the part of the volunteers who join the services.
I confess I do not know the difference between integration and unification, though I have had it explained to me many times. I have talked with a military friend of mine from the west who said he really did not

understand it either. I freely admit that I do not understand it. One hon. member said in this chamber the other night that integration and unification are like conception and childbirth, but I do not think that integration is nearly as simple as that.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I shall now put on record some of the reasons for the resignation of Lieutenant General Fleury a man of 52 who retired three years prematurely. As found on page 1490 of the proceedings of the committee, the hon. member for Vancouver East was questioning and in reply Lieutenant General Fleury said:
I myself held an integrated position in headquarters for just under a year, from the fall of 1965 to the summer of 1966. There had been over the years a good deal of consideration-possibly more consideration than action-toward integration. I had always felt that the armed forces would benefit by a much greater degree of integration than was the situation in 1964. I think it would not be unfair to say that I was a supporter, maybe even an enthusiastic supporter, of the principle of integration. I have noticed, particularly in recent months, that the terms "integration" and "unification" seem to get confused and indeed, sometimes-have been treated as synonyms, which of course they are not, in my lexicon. Does that answer your question?


Mr. Winch:: It is a nice start, sir. To your latest knowledge, has integration been successful, with its faults, and should it be pursued per se?
Lieutenant General Fleury answered:
I can speak from personal and more or less official knowledge only up until the 15th day of July last, when I relinquished my appointment as quartermaster general.
Farther on he said:
I meant to say comptroller general. Up to a point shortly before the 15th of July, I thought we were on the right road. I thought that the integration of the three services headquarters in Ottawa was a good thing because it would increase the efficiency of the armed forces, because it should save money, and because it would bring the three services closer together.
I began to have considerable misgivings about the direction and speed of integration some weeks at least, if not months... I came to realize, or I thought I came to realize, that things were being done under the cloak of integration which really were not part of the integration process at all. I discovered to my surprise, because this was not my first tour in Ottawa-it was my fourth-that communications were very bad within the headquarters, and between the headquarters and the commanders in the field. I found that the tried and true channels of communication which had been the warp and woof of navy, army and air force procedures in chain of command for decades had largely been discarded. I found that officers working for me knew more, or said they knew more, or thought they knew more, about what was in the mind of the minister than I did. I found that security information as I knew it, was practically non-existent. The whole headquarters reminded me of a giant sieve. I saw evidence of disloyalty,
April 13, 1967

and near disloyalty, in some people to the point literally that on one, two or three occasions a week, I would sit at my desk and feel like vomiting. I decided after all these years that this was an atmosphere, that these were conditions under which I could no longer conscientiously serve, and I asked for my retirement.
This sort ol thing takes place not only at the top of the service rank structure but all through that structure. People become fed up, decide to leave and they go. We will have problems in securing the personnel for our forces.
The end result of this measure can only be more disunity, more confusion, than we have today. This bill will not bring about savings within the Department of National Defence. It has been said today that the money spent in that department has increased in amount year by year. I am sure that expenditures will continue to rise. It is interesting to note that the Minister of National Defence sent a gilt-edged book, which cost $5,398 to produce, to leading people in this country in an attempt to convey his message. The minister in so many words said: 1 believe this bill will do wonderful things. I do not share his view and I feel that I have no alternative except to vote against the principle of unification.
To return to a point I tried to make previously, young men join our forces voluntarily. When they join they join a particular branch of the services. They like to be known by their uniform. We see a similar attitude reflected among people joining service clubs. There must be some reason for people prefer-ing to wear different blazers, pins and emblems to distinguish them from the members of other clubs. Similarly, personnel of the forces like to wear uniforms which distinguish them from others in the forces. If that privilege is taken from them they may not want to join.
I say we are going in the wrong direction. I urge the minister to delay this measure to see if we cannot arrive at an equitable solution acceptable to the men, to our people, to members of parliament and to all those Canadians who will have to carry this program through.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few comments on this important piece of legislation which creates an about-turn in an important department, for many years one of the prestige departments in the government of Canada. I had not intended to take part in this debate because I felt that after all the days of discussion, after all the committee meetings, after
National Defence Act Amendment all the information obtained from representatives of the armed services, members of this house and others, the government would reconsider this legislation and withdraw it or amend it so as to make it more acceptable to the armed services and to the people of Canada.
I enter the debate today, however, for a couple of reasons. First, I feel that this legislation is similar in many ways to a great deal of the legislative program on which the government is priding itself these days. So much of it has a certain degree of finality attached to it. In other words, once this legislation is passed and the machinery is set in motion that will destroy the traditions, the insignia and the unity within each branch of the services which have made for the greatest effectiveness in the past, the process will become an accomplished fact. It is almost forever. Those things which have created such effective, friendly rivalry in the past will then have disappeared and our armed services, as one hon. member has said, will become just a grey mass of uninterested and uninteresting individuals.
Perhaps this is the ultimate goal in the eyes of the minister. Perhaps he hopes that nobody anywhere will raise objection to the things he is doing. He would like to see an army of puppets or robots who could be moved by remote control from one place to another. I believe this is what the minister would appreciate. Indeed, it would appear that this is their present role in view of the lack of respect he has paid to the opinions of distinguished officers who have come forward to offer their counsel on this legislation.
I referred earlier to legislative measures passed by the house in the last few years which have had a measure of finality attached to them, measures which have had a tremendous effect on the economy and on the social welfare of this nation. One of them is the Canada Pension Plan which also had a difficult time in the House of Commons. It was brought in and withdrawn time and time again through every phase of its consideration, and it made necessary the passing of two other important pieces of legislation, the Canada Assistance Act and the guaranteed income bill.
This was legislation which put a great strain on the economy. Indeed, the bill to supply a guaranteed income resulted in an increase in the sales tax. So we have every reason to be sceptical about the legislation now before us. One might mention the medicare legislation which had to be amended to
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment take effect in 1968 instead of 1967 so that the economy would not be overheated. Not only have such measures as these overheated the economy but they have burdened the bookkeeping facilities of the small businessman, the farmer and the pensioner to the point of exasperation. The reason I mention these particular pieces of legislation in connection with the bill before us is that there has definitely grown up around the legislative program on which this government prides itself a great deal of public cynicism. In this connection I could refer to the fanfare which preceded the legislation creating the Canadian Dairy Commission, a commission which in the first year of its operation, whether on its own or by government direction, produced a dairy policy entirely unacceptable to all facets of the dairy industry.
I mention these things because much has been made in this house about the need to think in terms of constant dollars and the contention that in 1961 there was less money spent on defence than there was in the past year in terms of purchasing power. That may be true. But I am critical of the reluctance of the government to do anything to control the decline in value of our dollar. We have watched its purchasing power fall day by day until the people of Canada are wondering how to meet their bills and other commitments.
I speak in this debate in the knowledge that much of what I say will be repetitive. However, having listened to many of the contributions made so far I realize I will not be the first offender. I must say also that I was not a member of the defence committee, nor did I have the honour and privilege of being associated with any part of the armed services, though I do honour to all those in this house and outside who have given distinguished service in this field and to whom so many impassioned and important tributes have been paid in this chamber.
I had hoped that before long the minister would have realized that the opposition, not simply in this house but outside it, by those closely associated with the defence of this nation and even on the part of the general public, was serious in its intent, and that the minister would have taken a second look at this legislation with a view to removing the areas of controversy. Like the hon. member for Northumberland who spoke earlier this afternoon, I am reminded of a debate which took place some years ago in this house and in which I took part. I cannot say the same for the Minister of National Defence. I refer to the defence production debate in 1955.
[Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron) .1
This, we must recall, was in the era of the trained seals who were kept in subjection by a ministry which had been in power for so long that it did not believe it was necessary to consider the rights or opinions of the people of Canada. In fact things became so bad at one time that the late Hon. James Gardiner, then minister of agriculture, made the statement that as long as the Hon. C. D. Howe and the prime minister of the day, Mr. St. Laurent, remained, we would have exceedingly good government in Canada.
As I say, those were the days of the trained seals when, in practice, three men were acting as the executive. All the others followed along. Events then had a great similarity to those surrounding the present debate. Here we have a minister who in spite of all the criticism and advice given him by knowledgeable individuals and in spite of all the indifference and criticism which is apparent within his own party-most of the Liberal members who have taken part in this debate have done so through the medium of carefully drafted texts-continues stubbornly upon the course he has set himself.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I would say that today we have a new, modern type of trained seals who are allowed to speak in debates of this kind but not freely or openly as they would like. We have a minister who has decided that this bill must be passed in its entirety in spite of any opposition. There were times, Mr. Chairman, when members of the Liberal party spoke out against their own party and ministers, times when they considered they were not being fair or just in their treatment of the House of Commons and the nation. In this connection I refer to a statement made by the late Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, former Liberal minister, on February 9, 1943, after he had broken all ties with his party. I quote from page 282 of Hansard for that date:
We are fighting for liberty, we are fighting for democracy and parliamentary institutions. Yet most of our activities are in the hands of little potentates, men of no experience, dictators in the field that has been given to them for administration.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that history is repeating itself in this debate. I might also refer to a statement made in the House of Commons by a very distinguished former member who is continuing to distinguish himself in the Senate and who was not afraid to speak out against legislation, introduced by his own party. I refer to Hon. Charles Power
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
who on March 21, 1946, had this to say as recorded at page 172 of Hansard for that date:
We have fought a victorious war after four years. We have talked glibly of the new order which was to follow it, and it almost appears to me as though we the victors had taken on the manners and customs of the vanquished... If this is to be the funeral of Liberalism I do not desire to be even an honorary pall-bearer at the funeral-
These were men of dignity and integrity who were not afraid to speak out against their party when they felt in their own minds that the particular legislation before the house would not be in the interests of the particular area affected or of the nation at large. I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that the character of the debates of that day will be duplicated.
Perhaps I should remind those who were in the house at that time, and those who were not, of the events that took place. After many days of debate in the house, gradually the press of that day began to realize that the Conservative party was in deadly earnest and that the cause for which it was fighting was a just one in that wartime emergency powers should not be continued forever. Because of these facts public opinion began to be felt and pressures were exerted that brought the prime minister into the act.
The press of that day did not always accuse the opposition of using delaying tactics, of opposing for purely political purposes, as part of it has been doing now. Instead, just as part of the press is doing today it gave us credit for acting as an opposition should act by examining and discussing all legislation with a view to its improvement or better acceptability to the public and, in cases such as this, by preventing the passage of unjust legislation.
I am hoping that the Prime Minister, who I am sure is deeply concerned about this legislation, will take some action. I feel that he has three choices in the action he may decide to take. I hope he will not be swayed by the antics of other ministers and of the Minister of National Defence who threatened to resign because of differences of opinion. There are times when such juvenile actions would place the participants in the class of cry-babies.
The first choice which the Prime Minister has is to amend this legislation and remove the clauses dealing with unification. I suggest that the same procedure could be followed as was followed in 1955 when the minister involved was conveniently sent on a special mission and during his absence the required
National Defence Act Amendment amendments were approved and the legislation passed.
The second choice the Prime Minister could follow would be to have a free vote in the house. He could take the whips off in order that all members in all parts of the house would be free to express their opinions. Such a move would indicate a truly democratic action on the part of the government and remove the possibility of the overthrow of the government if the measure was defeated.
The final choice is closure. Today we had an indication that this course may be followed. I am sure that every member abhors it as it has the effect of interfering with the truly democratic rights and privileges of this institution.


Mr. Roxburgh:: May I ask the hon. member a question? For closure to take place I think he will agree a government has to have a majority. This happens to be a minority government. Therefore how can closure take place with a minority government?


William Marvin Howe: I think the hon. member has answered his own question. It can happen in the same way that most legislation is passed by this parliament. It is passed by reason of the fact that the minority government is joined by other groups in the house.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Which means a majority of opinion.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from the words of a very distinguished individual who was a member of the cabinet for many years. I refer to the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King. This quotation is from a time when he was in opposition in 1920, and it is to be found on page 4540 of Hansard:
The government must be by parliament and through parliament. It must not be carried on by cabinet ministers in their secret chambers. The aim of Liberalism is to seek a wider freedom for the masses in social, political, religious and industrial life, to restore the control of the peop-ple over parliament and to restore the control of parliament over the executive.
As the hon. member for Northumberland indicated a few minutes ago, we have a government that wants to push things through the house, a government which went down to defeat in 1957 for that very same reason. We have a minister of the crown who, in spite of all the arguments advanced by the opposition and by interested and knowledgeable individuals outside this chamber, will not budge
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment one iota or admit that this legislation has been conceived with too much haste. The government should take the sensible course of amending or withdrawing this legislation.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, Her Majesty's loyal opposition welcomes the present debate. It is the first real opportunity that has been afforded members of parliament to discuss external affairs since the government assumed office almost four years ago. All of us here and people all over Canada know that the government has shunned opportunity after opportunity to provide for a full discussion of Canada's external affairs policy and its demands on defence policy. Its reluctance has been the notable characteristic of the present administration.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has earned a reputation for evasiveness, a reputation for restriction of discussion, and this attitude has destroyed the unanimity that once characterized Canada's external affairs policy.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has tried to wrap the function of democracy in a cloak of secrecy so selective that only the government, and perhaps not all government members, could be taken into his confidence. He has made a mockery of the democratic process. He has been able to do this because of the carelessness of the splinter groups within this parliament which place tenure of office above a careful assessment of the situation based on a knowledge of the facts. This minister has harmed and damaged the image of our nation abroad and in the councils of the world wherever they meet.
I believe, sir, that history will record the results as the most glaring shortcoming of the present administration. The failure has been the result of the deliberate decisions taken by a most experienced minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That is the atmosphere in which Canadians and members of parliament have been compelled to resort to speculation concerning the nature and posture of Canada in respect of external affairs and the demands of that policy on Canadian defence policy.
The desire of Canadians for peace and for the solution of international disputes within the rule of law remains unchanged. Our belief in and our dependence on co-operative action by the community of nations as an instrument to preserve peace remains unchanged. Any

Canadian government, even the careless government opposite, can rest assured that parliament will never fail in its responsibility in that regard. Nor would any of us deny our support and prayers for the ideals embodied in the resolution presented at the United Nations which sought the establishment of an international force to implement the observance of the rule of law in respect of international disputes. However, it would be more than charity for any of us to commend the minister for his failure to discern and assess world opinion and his failure to rally that opinion to the objective which all of us applaud.
The failure to attract that support for the government's resolution draws into question the minister's judgment. It draws into question the government's judgment in respect of the matter of timing. I say to you, sir, there are serious students of world affairs who believe that the precipitous haste exhibited by Canada has set back the clock in that regard and even endangered the ultimate achievement of an objective with which Canadians and many other people throughout the world have little quarrel. There are those who have admired the evasiveness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs over the past many months. The minister himself almost appeared to be delighted with his own performance in the house. Parliament has been denied the knowledge upon which a good understanding and a spirit of good will could sprout and flourish. Thus we have before us this measure apparently predicated on the assumption of acceptance of Canada's resolution at the United Nations last fall. Parliament is being asked to commit the Canadian defence effort to a concept which failed to secure endorsation last fall at the United Nations.
The Minister of National Defence had some harsh words for the Leader of the Opposition indicating that he had not pointed out the avenues of information even though they were not readily available from the government opposite. What we attempted to do, without putting it too bluntly or too forthrightly, was to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence to spell out the basis and premise upon which the government now believes that the resolution it brought forward last fall at the United Nations now stands to gain favour in the councils of the world.
Why this pall of secrecy? Why this reluctance to confide in the Canadian people?
April 13, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Macaluso:: Did you lose your place?


Edward Nasserden: Well, I can tell the hon. gentleman opposite that I did not have to have hired help in the gallery to write anything I have to say in this debate today. Why is there this reluctance by the government opposite to provide information to the Canadian people and to parliament? The only logical conclusion certainly is not a pleasant one for Canadians to contemplate. It is not pleasant to think that the decision to proceed with the resolution at the United Nations last fall was ill-fashioned and ill-timed. I ask you, sir, under the circumstances which now prevail and which prevailed at that time, is there any other conclusion that can be reached other than that the government and the minister opposite bungled the whole matter?
The government has placed before us a measure that will bring to an end the character of the Canadian armed forces as it has been known in the past. The government proposes a new concept. This is how it has been described by the Minister of National Defence. Yet the new demands envisioned by the resolution at the United Nations were defeated. That concept was set back by the precipitous haste of this government acting in the name of Canada. Now the parliament of Canada, without a definitive statement from the Prime Minister or from any other minister, is being asked to embark upon what appears to be an equally precipitous course, thereby establishing a new concept within which we will have to live in a world as we find it.
The carelessness for which this government has been famous at home seems to be the same kind of carelessness it has practised abroad. Time after time the government has displayed a lack of foresight and there has always followed a reluctance to take Canadians and parliament into its confidence. The Secretary of State for External Affairs just cannot admit that he could ever be wrong. Indeed, his attitude reminds one of a pyramid of pomposity. From that ineptness we are invited to accept another measure which is now before us. This measure is nothing more than a brazen attempt on the part of the government to bluff their way along, carelessly hoping that the future will take care of their problems.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Reference was made by the Minister of National Defence to the decision to scrap the Arrow aircraft. The minister tried to compare that loss to the losses sustained by Canada
National Defence Act Amendment because of the respective elements of the defence effort under his proposed legislation. The significant fact of that argument is the admission by the minister that there has been a loss arising from his proposed legislation.
How can this government opposite, in its wildest, most desperate and degenerate dreams, imagine that the foremost bastion and fortress of democracy and freedom would be willing or ready to rest, in the custody of a nation ten times its junior in population, the supremacy of its air power? Does this nation think that it could at this time meet that challenge which must be faced, by the nation upon whom the mantle of final responsibility falls? Canadians are not that ignorant or that ungrateful. The minister brought in a red herring. But the carelessness remains, the carelessness of a minister and a government ready to throw away the heritage, the tradition and the sacrifice of its people in their most challenging hours when life itself was laid down for kin and country.
I cannot speak for those who have fought or died. Nor can I put into words the thoughts and vision that carried them on to victory. I have read some military history and it seems to me that the substance and history of victories throughout the ages has been elusive indeed. A lock of hair caught in a helmet, a patch of colour stitched to a sleeve, a snatch of verse from out of the past, a bar of music or a banner proudly clutched-throughout history the intangible something has been the difference between victory and defeat.
No one will quarrel with the idea of a unified command. That has been and is one of the requirements of modern military science. No one will quarrel with elimination of duplication of supply. Indeed, the standardization of numbers in supply between the services is a worth-while objective and one that should provide some small economies. But the greater benefit would be the elimination of one of the oldest frustrations that must have troubled men in all ranks in all services.
I suppose it is old-fashioned but I like to see the distinctiveness of the various services as indicated by their uniforms-the style and colour and decorations. I do not consider myself a military person but I must confess that recognition of the various units affords me a thrill when I see them. I believe it does something for the enlisted man as well. Why do they choose one service over another? I believe it is the spirit of the service that attracts men and women. It is a delicate quality. I do not think it can be coerced. I believe it may
April 13, 1987

National Defence Act Amendment be cultivated, nourished, cherished, held close beyond the scrutiny of anyone outside that service, and in the final, desperate clinch it will remain an inspiration and command when that is all that makes the difference. That quality of Canadians should not be destroyed or lost or lessened. I do not know whether the minister understands this but it seems to me his duty cannot allow that to happen.
The government made certain presumptions which may have appeared valid at the time but with the passage of time they have proven to be unattainable. Moreover, this measure involves more than the physical substance and form of the armed forces. I would think that the minister has some greatness within him and that he recognizes these facts. Many of us see some desirable aspects in this bill but as its stands we are compelled, with regret, to oppose it and vote against it. I believe it destroys a great deal that is good in our military lore and tradition. I believe it destroys some of our nation's spirit and in its own way it denies some of the sacrifice that was dearly given. I am left cold by the claim of savings to be made with dye for uniforms. I believe that our airmen are distinctive. They have a role in our services not fully known by any other service. The role at sea cannot be compared with that of the other services, and it is a continuing one. When all others have completed their tasks, whom can you substitute for an infantryman? The minister can show his greatness in this matter or he can indicate his arrogance and add to the pinnacle of arrogance with which he has become associated.


Mr. Brand:: Mr. Chairman, originally, like many others, I had no intention of entering the debate on Bill C-243. I felt justifiably that the members of the defence committee, at least those on this side of the house, were infinitely more qualified than I to discuss the intricacies of the evidence on this most important matter. I believe my confidence in my colleagues has been confirmed and strengthened by the excellent speeches they have made. As I perused the monumental work of the defence committee I was proud of the exemplary way in which they discharged their duties as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
What has dismayed me, however, is the epidemic of intransigence that has afflicted the government side. Incidentally, I make no apology for medical references. Indeed, they seem to have become an integral part of this

debate. I recall hearing some reference to obstetrical measures by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who referred to cutting the umbilical cord after a baby is born. This is astounding because presumably the baby would still be in utero. The epidemic seems to have been spread by the minister to almost every member on the government side. One might well ask what the symptoms of this affliction are. I shall delineate them, but first may I hazard a guess that the epidemic started from a germ of an idea which was somehow fully incubated in the laboratory of perhaps an executive assistant. I think it started in that way and has been spread by the minister.
The symptoms of this affliction are, as will become obvious, all mental, and the first is confusion. In this regard one has only to read the words of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to understand how confusion has become one of the symptoms. The second is vertigo, a medical term which perhaps I had better explain. It means dizziness, going around in circles. We can all recognize immediately that this has been epitomized by the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The third is incoherence. Who else but the Minister of Transport? Fourth, and above all, is intransigence.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
What I simply cannot understand is how the government can be so uncompromising in face of the clarity and cogency of the arguments presented by the opposition. Why does the minister have to be contumacious instead of conciliatory? Why is he not sage instead of so stubborn? Surely the words of the military experts before the defence committee have meant something. Surely their years of experience count to a certain degree. Can we simply dismiss their views in a cavalier manner as being hopelessly out of date or are they just out of step with the minister, 'out of step with our Charlie?'
How in heaven's name can the expertise which has been exhibited by so many of the best brains of the armed forces of our country be completely ignored and tossed aside as completely unimportant? Yes, we have heard the evidence. On looking over the evidence one finds that there seems to be a preponderance in favour of delaying the bill, until integration is complete and working well, which from the evidence apparently it is not, until we have a chance to reassess what unification really means, and until we have a chance to plan a proper foreign policy and a proper utilization of the Canadian armed forces in
April 13. 1967	COMMONS
the framework of such a proper foreign policy. It is inconceivable to me that the words of Canada's foremost experts can be dealt with so cavalierly. I believe their words bear repetition.
But first, what are the real issues before the house and the country today? Surely one of the issues is morale. Another is the savings that may be effected by the proposed unification. Increased efficiency is another. Another is the matter of conscription. Another is, exactly what do we mean by unification? Another is incompatibility with foreign armed services and, most important of all, our ability to meet our commitments with a unified force.
If we turn to the evidence we find that the question of morale was dealt with by the experts who appeared before the committee. I have heard many comments from hon. members on the other side of the house that morale in the forces is fine. As one reads the speeches one finds the minister saying that morale is at an all-time high. The minister is shaking his head. I happen to agree with that shake of the head. Then we listen to hon. members on this side of the house and hear that morale is seriously affected. But when it is discovered that morale is not as good as it was, hon. members on the other side of the house blame us and say we are responsible for it because we are doing our job as a loyal opposition in the House of Commons.
Air Marshal Annis made a comment on morale which is to be found on page 1435 of the proceedings of the committee on national defence. I will not read it all but in part it reads as follows:
Therefore it is the worry about the morale and the difficulty of acquiring into the services and retaining the hard core people that I worry about. Unification, in my opinion, would have a very difficult psychological impact on them.
He goes on to say that we should have more time, which is a point that has been raised many times in the house. If I may paraphrase his remarks, he points out that unless we have time to see what this program is going to do and to plan properly, the detrimental effect on morale may be incalculable. The last part of his statement in this regard reads this way:
It might even happen that the time would come when we could safely say, "We are going to unify", and a gasp of dismay through these trades would just not occur.
It might, but we must have time to look carefully at this matter and try to understand what the minister is proposing. General
National Defence Act Amendment Foulkes, as found on page 1216 of the committee proceedings, said:
Another issue which has come in for a lot of criticism has been the lack of authentic information. Information was replaced by rumour and conjecture, which no doubt disturbed the morale of the forces.
I will leave out a few sentences. Then he said:
This, Mr. Chairman, in my view, is the surest way of breaking down the morale of any force.
In other words, lack of information. All that we on this side of the house have been trying to get is information from the minister. But he has built around himself an ivory tower in which he is unassailable and unavailable so far as clarification is concerned. The minister makes a great many comments. I have heard most of them. He made quite a speech the other day about what was going on in the United States. What this had to do with unification I did not quite understand.
General Foulkes in his testimony quoted General Montgomery, Monty, as he was known. At page 1217 of the committee proceedings, referring to Monty's memoirs he said:
He can think, he can appreciate, and he is definitely prepared to criticize.
He was talking about the fighting soldier. The passage continues:
He wants to know what is going on, and what you want him to do, and why and when. He wants to know, in doing it, that his best interests will be absolutely secure in your hands.
General Foulkes went on to say:
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that those responsible for implementing unification ponder over these remarks, especially over the last sentence-
Then he repeats it:
He want to know, in doing it, that his best interests will be absolutely secure in your hands.
Unless he has the information and knows what is going to happen the inevitable result, as is already happening and as we have seen from the minister's acquiescence, is that morale will decline. Morale is beginning to suffer. General Moncel also commented on morale. At page 1308 of the minutes of the proceedings of the committee the hon. member for York-Sunbury asked this question:
How much value, General Moncel, do you put on morale and esprit de corps in private units and private service in the matter of ability and willingness to do a job in this disturbed world?


Mr.   Moncel@: It obviously is a very, very real factor. In a voluntary force such as ours it is of very real importance.
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
So there is no question that morale has suffered. There is no question either, if we had proceeded with integration with which we all agree and this red herring had not been brought in, this idea that was conceived for what purpose no one knows, although there have been many suggestions, to unify our forces and put them all into one basket, what would have happened to morale. Surely not what has happened. The minister has talked about the tremendous savings that unifying the forces will mean for the Canadian taxpayer. The hon. member for Northumberland has already pointed out that these "savings" have already amounted to an additional expense of $161 million to the Canadian taxpayer. If these are savings I would very much hate to see what would happen when we tried to increase expenses.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I go now to page 1452 of the proceedings and evidence of the committee where the following question and answer appear:


Mr. Harkness:: Do you see any advantage in doing away with our present three forces and putting them into one force called just a defence force?


Mr.   Hendrick@: Not the slightest hit; it baffles me completely. I think the economies could be achieved by much more simple means and I do not understand the advantages of this proposal at all.
Again, at page 1476, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, Mr. Hendrick said:
No, I cannot. From the details, as they appear to me, now outside the service, I cannot see anything that would cause a saving. As I said earlier, I do not even believe the savings are substantial in eliminating waste. I believe the only way you can save money in substantial amount is to cut the manpower. That really is the only basic way you can save money in substantial quantities.
That was the answer given by an expert. The minister has done even better than that. He has cut the manpower and raised the expenses. I wonder what some economists would have to say about this new approach to saving?
On the matter of economies General Moncel pointed out at page 1335 of the committee evidence that it would cost much more money to operate with a unified force in conjunction with our allies. I quote the following excerpt from that page:


Douglas Scott Harkness: In effect, in order to produce any reasonable defence effort commensurate with our population, our manufacturing ability and our general economic situation, we have to operate with allies.


Mr.   Moncel@: Yes, unless you want to spend a great deal more money.

Yet the minister says we are going to save money. At page 1330 of the committee proceedings, when General Moncel said there was no economy in unification the following exchange took place:


Douglas Scott Harkness: And I say it does not matter whether you call them by those names or not, in effect, you still have to have those three services.


Mr.   Moncel@: This is right, and there is no payoff for calling them anything else.
What about efficiency? We have heard how efficient the unified services are going to be. Let us say we unified parliament into one group under a prime minister. Would it not be tremendous? The government, which would be composed of everyone in the house, would bring in bills and they would be passed. The rights of the people of course and of those directly involved would be trampled upon. I ask hon. members to look at some of those countries where this has happened. It would be a very efficient parliament. We could even get home for very long summer vacations. We could get home for long Christmas and Easter vacations if we were still observing our religious traditions.
Let us turn now to page 1428 where Air Marshal Annis was giving evidence. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked the following question:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do you see an increase in the fighting efficiency of the armed forces through unification?
Air Marshal Annis answered:
No, I do not, sir.
How definite can one be? Then he went on to say:
I do not see a great deal provided one is successful with integrating fully the supporting services and the top command structure.
Earlier I mentioned conscription. Surely that is what unification is. Members who are now in the armed services may or may not want to go into the unified service proposed by the minister but they are in effect being conscripted into the new force. I do not understand how the splinter parties at the far end on this side of the house can support conscription when they have opposed it in the House of Commons for so many years. The government is conscripting these men into the new force against their will.
What is unification? The minister's definition of unification is a dandy one. He says that unification is the end objective of a logical and evolutionary progression. One could
April 13, 1967

Private Bills
almost apply that to the evolution of the species. It would look pretty silly if every one of us looked like the Minister of National Defence.


J. Michael Forrestall: And what if we thought like him?


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I do not even want to think of going that far. It is much more than my mind could possibly stand at this late hour.
I wonder whether the experts who appeared before the committee really understood unification. At page 1233 of the committee proceedings the following exchange took place:


Mr. McIntosh:: Could you give us your definition or understanding of what you think unification means?


Mr.   Foulkes@: It is completely beyond me.
Yet I have heard suggestions from hon. members on the other side of the house, including the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, that we on this side also lacked understanding. He thought unification was very simple: it was just a matter of changing the uniform and changing the name. He said that is all this bill means. This shows how clear his understanding is of what is going on. It is very nice when one can make decisions without regard to what the experts say.
At page 1396 of the committee proceedings the same hon. member, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, asked Air Marshal Annis the same question. Air Marshal Annis did not really know what unification means. There does not seem to be great agreement on what unification actually is. That is certainly true of the expert witnesses who appeared before the committee. Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Immigration-reported presence in Canada of German war criminals; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Health 23033-941
and Welfare-protection of nutrition standards following milk price increase; the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard), Postal Service-delay in the delivery of mail in the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe, P.Q.
# (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-31, respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company-Mr. Blouin-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Extension of time for completion of line.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I was present in the standing committee when this bill was discussed and I am surprised to find that the evidence taken before the committee is not yet available to us. Therefore there is some reluctance in discussing the bill at this time. The discussions in which I participated led me to believe that the extension of time for the completion of this railway is not necessarily in the interest of the community it will serve in view of the fact that the company has failed to live up to its original obligation.
Originally the Labrador Mining Company, which was owned and operated mainly by Hollinger Gold Mines, was granted a charter to build a railway line to bring out iron ore from the area in which it intended to operate. Many people have been inclined to wonder why the company sought a federal rather than a provincial charter, but a perusal of the map which has been supplied indicates that the line crosses the boundary between Quebec and Labrador at least once. I believe there are other spurs which cross the border, and for this reason a federal charter was sought.
In granting a charter to a company engaged mainly in mining one must bear in mind two major considerations. One is the advantage which will flow to the country in general by the opening up of a particular mining development. The second consideration is the service which will be provided to the people who will move into the area and become permanent residents. Obviously colonization takes place when a primary industry is developed in a given area and a community is built around that industry.
This company originally thought it would be able to use one of the ports in the northern extremity of the province of Quebec, namely,

April 13, 1967
Private Bills
Ungava Bay, as a terminal and loading point. I have been quite closely connected with the mining industry and I remember the discussions that took place about the deep sea transportation which would be available when this railway line was built to Ungava.
It seems to me that since May 14, 1947, when the charter was first granted, the situation has changed substantially. I think that the development contemplated at that time has been brought to pass. The communities of Schefferville, Labrador City, Wabush and other small settlements in the area have established themselves and mining activities have spread to the extent that several mining companies are now in operation. Throughout the whole area extensive developments are taking place and an immense number of strikes involving various minerals have been recorded. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion it is now doubtful that this company should be operating a railway at all as a directly and totally owned subsidiary. I wonder whether the time has now come when the major railway companies of Canada should establish connections to this area and provide the transportation facilities required.
Several years ago this company experienced considerable difficulty with Wabash iron mines. The company wished to start developing its own mine but found itself what the members of the transportation committee would call a captive shipper of the line in that it would have to meet the rates set by the line. As I say, a great deal of difficulty arose in providing the extension necessary to tap the ore bodies of the area. For this reason there was considerable consternation in the area which resulted in a number of hearings before the Board of Transport Commissioners. Eventually a second subsidiary railway not connected with the first was built, and this line is now tied into that development.
In the original act passed in 1947 section 19 reads as follows:
The Company may, within five years after the passing of this Act, commence to construct the line of railway, and may within ten years after the passing of this Act complete the said line of railway, and if within the said periods respectively the said line of railway is not commenced or is not completed and put in operation, the power of construction conferred upon the Company by the Parliament of Canada shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line of railway as then remains uncompleted.
In my opinion this is what should have happened, and it would have happened but for the extension granted by parliament in 1956 of an additional ten years, extending the

charter to 1967. The company is now returning to parliament, having done no further work on the line and given no further consideration to the problem, and asking for another extension of ten years to construct the line which has already been approved by parliament. The plans for the construction of the line have been submitted to agencies of the government and have met with the approval of parliament. Yet the line is no closer to completion than it was ten years ago. In their evidence before the committee officials of the company indicated, I suggest, that they had no intention whatever in the foreseeable future of extending the line to its final destination at Ungava Bay.
For this reason, I think this company is being both unfair and unreasonable in expecting parliament to extend its charter, which also gives it the right to limit the activity of other companies. The Board of Transport Commissioners would have to examine, of course, any additional request for railway facilities in the area, whether for the purpose of transporting ore from the mine or for the general conveyance of passengers. The board would have to consider the fact that a charter covering this area had already been granted.
It seems to me that the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company has been given a grave responsibility by parliament. In turn it has received a very large concession. It has been given the benefits of the Railway Act which allow it to conduct the business of railway transportation in all its forms -passenger service, baggage, movement of iron ore and minerals and other goods. It has been given the right to build hotels, telegraph and telephone lines, to operate pipe lines, to engage in shipping and in the development of all facilities made possible under Canadian railway legislation. In the minds of members of parliament when granting the original charter was the idea that in return for benefits the company would incur liabilities or obligations.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The people living in the Ungava, Labrador and northern Quebec areas have the right to expect the railway company we are considering to provide a service so that agricultural, forest and other products may be shipped and the mining communities, as well as persons engaging in exploration, may have the benefit of rail transportation. It seems evident, however, that this company does not intend to continue the development desired. It asks
April 13, 1967

permission to extend its line for another 60 miles to join another line servicing another property. Though this company has come to parliament asking for an extension of time there is no legitimate reason for parliament to give a blank cheque, a charter to develop something that the company has no intention of developing. It seems that the company will do only a small portion of what it originally committed itself to do. I should like to see the railway extended to Ungava Bay and the Atlantic ocean. I should like to see railway lines extended in the northern areas of James Bay and Hudson Bay. We have many resources there. Enough iron ore exists in the Belcher Islands area to justify a railway being built on the east shore of Hudson Bay to provide service for a big steel plant which could be erected there.
Living in the north I am aware of the resources there. Communities will spring up around these resources and in time the entire area will be developed. I say that the Canadian National should have been entrusted with building a line to this northern area in Quebec. It was foolish to entrust a private company with the building of a railway to transport an important part of our natural resources. What has happened disturbs me.
The Labrador Iron Company can transport what it needs to transport much more easily than others who have no ownership in this railway. Parliament gave this company an important asset to help it develop its properties in the north. Some development has taken place and transportation needs for the area will continue to grow. Quite obviously, however, difficulties will arise should this line be extended to the Ungava area. Those difficulties were originally mentioned when the charter was first sought.
The management of Hollinger Mines has never been completely stupid. It was aware that Hudson strait freezes over, and that Ungava Bay is closed for many months of the year. It was aware of the difficulties of building a line into that area. Nevertheless the management did agree when seeking a charter to undertake development beyond its needs at that time. In fact, 150 to 200 miles north of where the line was to end large bodies of ore were blocked out.
I repeat that much development will take place in these northern areas. The hon. member representing the area in question is optimistic about its future. Having connections with diamond drilling companies working in that area, I am familiar with the fact that 23033-9411
Private Bills
there is a tremendous potential for mining minerals there. It is estimated that there are hundreds of millions of tons of various kinds of ore there. I maintain that companies wishing to develop that region will have to depend for another ten years, should this charter be granted, on a company that may not build the railway that is needed.
Is it the intention of parliament to let this entire northern area be at the mercy of a company that may not build a needed railway? Do we in this house not wish to provide transportation facilities for the northern mining areas? Do we not wish to see transportation needs and rates determined by the Board of Transport Commissioners rather than by a private company? The board could set rates based on the cost of operating that railway. I point out that this private company would not be responsible to the board. Users of the railway would not have the board's protection.
I represent an area serviced by a provincial railway which operates in a manner different from that of other railways. It is interesting to note, for instance, that the Ontario Northland Railway employs licensed engineers, though other similar companies do not insist on their engineers having licences. Department of Transport examinations are the only criteria required.
It is also interesting to note that iron pellets are transported to Pittsburgh via five lines at a cost of less than $100 per car. I am told that the clay necessary for making these pellets comes from Manitoba over two lines at a cost of $285 per car. As can be seen, there is a great difference if goods are coming into the area or are being taken from it. I cite this example to show that the people in northern Labrador will find themselves in a similar situation.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
There is a great disparity between the needs of the people and those of industry in that area. You subsidize one and you soak the other and there are always more people getting soaked than there are people receiving benefits.


The Deputy Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, realizing that Bill S-31 was to come before the house during this hour I looked for the evidence before the standing committee and, like my hon. friend from Timiskaming, I was unable to find it.

April 13, 1967
Private Bills
Apparently it is not in print yet. My hon. friend did have the opportunity of attending the hearing before the committee but I was not able to do so and I am therefore somewhat at a loss in considering the merits of the bill now before us in committee of the whole house.
However, as I examined the title of the bill I discovered it to be "An Act respecting the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company". This rang a bell in my mind and I recalled that I had been a member of the old committee of the house on railways, canals and telegraph lines some ten years ago when a similar measure was under consideration. So I looked at the statutes of 1956 and examined chapter 68 entitled "An Act respecting the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company". I found there were some interesting similarities between that bill and the bill now before us. Both bills contain only one clause, the clause now before us, and I believe the differences and similarities between them may be of interest to hon. members who were not present when chapter 68 was enacted in 1956.
Clause 1 of the bill now before us reads:
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company, hereinafter called "the Company", may within a period of ten years from the 14th day of May, 1967, complete that portion of its line of railway authorized by chapter 80 of the statutes of 1947 which is not now completed, namely, from the town of Schefferville, in the province of Quebec, to Ungava Bay, and, if within the said period the said line of railway is not completed and put in operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the Company by the Parliament of Canada shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line of railway as then remains uncompleted.
This is what is set out in chapter 68 of the statutes of 1956:
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company, hereinafter called "the Company", may within a period of ten years from the 14th day of May, 1957, complete that portion of its line of railway authorized by chapter 80 of the statutes of 1947 which is not now completed, namely, from the town of Schefferville, in the province of Quebec, to Ungava Bay, and, if within the said period the said line of railway is not completed and put in operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the Company by the Parliament of Canada shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line of railway as then remains uncompleted.
It will be obvious to hon. members that save for the fact that the date is changed from May 14, 1957 to May 14, 1967 the bill now before us is identical in its terms with that which was before us ten years ago. This leads me to wonder whether this is likely to

be a hardy decennial bill which will come before parliament every ten years from now until we celebrate our second centenary. In view of the fact that ten years after its earlier application the company is apparently in the same position with respect to the extension of this railway as it was in 1956, one wonders whether there is really much point in renewing this charter in respect of the portion of the line which still remains to be constructed.
If my understanding is correct as to what was said before the committee by a spokesman for the railway company, the company has indicated that it has no present intention of completing the line of railway to Ungava Bay within the next ten years. This is what I have been told. It seems to me that when the company comes before parliament with a request of this kind it should have serious intentions because undoubtedly the terms of this bill do confer rights and privileges and its passage may have an impact on other concerns and interests and what they may wish to do or be able to do within this large area of Canada. Having renewed the company's privileges for one period of ten years during which they apparently were not exercised, it seems to me the house should do nothing more now than extend the company's rights in respect of projects it has every intention of fulfilling.
When I realized that this bill was in terms almost identical with the one introduced ten years ago, I took the trouble to refresh my mind as to what had gone on in the committee when the earlier application was under consideration. In the proceedings of the house committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in 1956 we find that Mr. Hugh E. O'Donnell, Q.C., solicitor for the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company, appeared as a witness. He had this to say, as reported at page 10 of the committee evidence:
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is a very simple bill.
I do not know why it is that all these bills that come in as private bills are always described as being very simple bills. Whether this is because they consider that members of the House of Commons are a bit simple minded and can only cope with simple bills, I have never been able to decide. Mr. O'Donnell continued:
It is merely asking for authority to extend the franchise for a further ten years. The railway was incorporated, as hon. members know, in 1947 and its purpose was to permit the construction of a railway from a point on the St. Lawrence River to Ungava Bay.
April 13, 1967



Then he went on to describe the route of the railway, which was shown on a map placed in a position where members of the committee could see it. He pointed out that-
[DOT]-it runs from Seven Islands to Schefferville which is 375 miles; 138 miles roughly from the river to the southern boundary of Labrador and then for a distance of 212 miles across Labrador and back into Quebec at Schefterville which is approximately 25 miles beyond; there is approximately 300 miles from Schefferville to Ungava Bay, and at the present time there is no requirement for transportation in that area.
Then a little later on we had before us Mr. W. H. Durrell, the vice president and general manager of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. The then hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, now Hon. Howard Green, was a member of the committee and he questioned Mr. Durrell as follows, at page 14 of the evidence:
By Mr. Green:
Q. Your company built this railway in order to get out your own iron ore deposits in the vicinity of Schefferville?-A. That is right.
Q. That is the real and only reason that you constructed the railway?-A. We had sufficient tonnage to justify the building of the railway.
Q. Have you any rights north of Schefferville towards Ungava Bay?-A. Yes. Our company and our subsidiaries are doing a lot of work in that region. When you say 'rights', you mean ground?
Q. Yes?-A. We have a subsidiary company called Orlando mines which spent several million dollars in the last few years to justify the extension of the railway.
Q. Would you please point out on the map where you have these deposits and rights north of Schefferville?-A. On this ground we staked the same as any other prospector.
He went on to point out that at Fort McKenzie they have a small copper showing. Mr. Green then asked:
Q. What other companies or groups have rights, or are working in that area between Schefferville and Ungava Bay?-A. I could not name them all, but there are a number, such as Long Lake gold mines which is in the same general vicinity. They are about here on the map at this point, south of the Koksoak River, and Fentimore iron is in there. They will be doing considerable work with their base metal concessions. The Labrador trough is about 50 miles west, and in this 35 miles of the western section is where they find iron. Due east of this brown area, there is a belt about 15 miles in width.
Q. That little strip from Schefferville to Ungava Bay is a very promising area?-A. Yes, it is very promising.
Discussion proceeded on the basis of inquiry by Mr. Green and other members of the committee into the mineral potential of the area as it was then known. At page 19 of the
Private Bills
evidence there appeared this question by Mr. Carrick:
Q. Have you in mind any estimate of the time likely to be needed for this construction?-A. My understanding is that it would take at least six years.
Q. Would you feel justified in commencing the
construction of the railway right away? I understood you to say earlier that the date of beginning construction depended upon exploration to be carried out in the northern territory.-A. There is nothing at the moment to justify the construction of a railway. Surveys show areas which may be suitable for mining development, but so far, as I said, we know of nothing which would justify beginning construction.
Q. So in addition to the six years you think it would take to complete the project you would need to have a period of time in which to consider whether it would be justified to begin construction?-A. It would take at least three years to locate sufficient tonnage.
Then Mr. Hamilton, who was then the
member for York West, went into some questioning about what they had in mind when they got their franchise, and as the evidence proceeds it is clear that in the minds of at least some members of the committee the proposal to grant this franchise for a further ten years from May 14, 1956, was conferring pretty firm monopoly rights upon this particular concern, at least for practical purposes in the future exploitation of the mining resources of that whole area.
At page 26 of the evidence Mr. Green, who was one of the principal spokesmen for the then Conservative opposition in the house on matters dealing with transportation, said this:
On clause 1, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment in line 9, to substitute the word "five" for "ten". The result of that would be that the extended time within which this company could complete the extension to Ungava Bay would be five years from the 14th May 1957 instead of ten years. In other words, they would have until the 14th May 1962.
In support of this amendment I point out the nature of this railway changes from Schefferville to the north. The company built this line from Seven Islands to Schefferville for the purpose of getting out this company's own ore, the parent company's own iron ore. But once it goes beyond Schefferville then the company has no specific interest, and the line will then become a railway for the use of other Canadians who are interested in that particular area. There is quite a different background, then, for the construction from Seven Islands to Schefferville.
Based on the evidence that had been given to the committee, Mr. Green added:
I would point out also that the area is developing rapidly. Mr. Durrell admitted that himself ...
It is all right to give this company a concession, but there is no rhyme or reason why this company should have a strangle hold on the country in question for ten years. They can sit down and

April 13, 1967
Private Bills
do absolutely nothing tor ten years, and in fact nobody else can move into that area.
That was said in 1956. Now, in 1967, we have this company coming before us with an identical proposal for a further ten year extension which, if one accepts Mr. Green's view as stated in 1956, gives them a "strangle hold on the country in question for ten years," and "nobody else can move into the area". I suggest that Mr. Green's words have proven to be quite prophetic.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The bill which we have before us today shows that in fact Mr. Green was quite correct when, before the standing committee of 1956, he suggested that parliament was then creating a situation in which this company could sit on this franchise for 10 years and do nothing about it. Now the company comes before us again to ask for a further 10 year extension. From the understanding I have of the evidence they gave before the committee, they have no intention to build this railway line to Ungava Bay within the period of the next 10 years. I would suggest with all seriousness that this sort of approach to parliament is one which should give rise in the minds of hon. members to some very serious questions.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Mr, Barnett:: I am sorry I did not get around to quoting my own remarks.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether we might hear a few remarks from the sponsor of this bill. If he is prepared to speak to it, I would be glad to yield the floor to him.


Mr. Blouin:: Mr. Chairman, I feel everything has been said which could be said about Bill No. S-31, entitled an Act respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company. Still, I noticed what the hon. members for Timiskaming and Comox-Alberni (Messrs. Peters and Barnett) had to say.
I do not think that the company concerned, or the other companies, because there are others operating in that area-

I should like to say to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni, in respect of his statement that for the past 10 years, or at the time when

Mr. Green gave evidence before the committee in 1956, everything was frozen, that there has been a great deal of movement in that part of the country in question. As you know, this was started by one company, the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Three very large companies are operating up in that area now.
From Schefferville to Ungava Bay there are 282 miles of country in which at the present time there is absolutely nothing. I do not believe this company should be forced to build a railway 282 miles in length for the caribou. With the development which is going on in that area, we have no assurance that some other company will not ask for a charter to build a railroad in that part of the Ungava and Labrador area. I do not see anything in this bill which suggests that with this 10 year extension this area will be frozen.
The proof of this is that we have seen the Wabush mines develop the Wabush area. They built their own railroad on a 42 mile stretch which connected with the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway which comes down to Seven Islands. This railroad was built, even though this clause in respect of the 10 years existed at that time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question. He said that another railway company could come to parliament and obtain a charter. This I believe was in respect of the unbuilt line of railway from Schefferville to Ungava Bay. Is the hon. member seriously suggesting that another company could come along, ask for a charter, and then take the risk of building a railroad through that distance of undeveloped country which he mentioned? I am sure he knows the country much better than I do, although I did fly over it last summer while on the way to Frobisher. Is he seriously suggesting this would happen when another company has been given by parliament the right to build a competing line running parallel to it?
I have another question which has to do with the area he mentioned, where the Wabush Mining Company has its railway. Does he not feel, because of the charter granted by parliament to this particular company, that it would have a big hand in negotiations with another company in respect of an extension to that line? Does he not feel that this charter extension gives this particular company an unfair advantage, if it wished to use it, in its relations with another company which might wish to develop a mine?
April 13, 1967

Private Bills


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first question, as this area between Schef-ferville and Ungava Bay is entirely in the province of Quebec, if because of economic developments some company wished to build a railroad there, they would not have to come to the Canadian parliament; they would just have to go to the Quebec parliament and obtain a private charter in the same way the Quebec-Cartier Mining Company did. They are private carriers; they are not common carriers because they are operating in one province only.
In respect of the second question, I do not think the charter of the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company has prevented the Wabush mines developing this large area, because so far that company has invested $295 million and another $112 million in their pelletizing plant at Sept-lies. I should like to repeat that even though this clause in respect of the 10 year period is in existence I do not think, if economic developments warranted the building of a railroad, that anybody else who wished to build a railroad would be prevented from doing so. They would merely have to apply to the Quebec parliament for a charter, and obtain it.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question. I have been endeavouring to get this matter straightened out in my mind. Is it true that this charter which was granted to the company originally 20 years ago was contingent on that company completing the railroad through to Ungava.


Gustave Blouin: So far as I know this charter was granted in 1947 and renewed in 1957.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, but it was
granted contingent on the railroad being completed from the St. Lawrence river to Ungava bay.


Gustave Blouin: The original charter, yes; but there was nothing to justify their going beyond Schefferville. The original charter was granted in respect of a line to Ungava, because of the desire to have access to a seaport. At that time the engineers said that the only way to ship this ore through a deep sea port was by building a line to Fort Chimo on Ungava Bay. Since then the engineering studies have indicated that this ore can be shipped feasibly over a rail line from Schefferville to Seven Islands. That is what is being suggested at the present time.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, this bill was considered extensively by a committee. The officials of the Iron Ore Company appeared and told in a straightforward way about their future plans for the development of that area. I was very much impressed with their testimony and the story they told about this development in Quebec and Labrador. As one who does not know very much about the area, let me say I think this is an interesting idea and I support their request for a 10 year extension.
Some information was given today by an hon. member to my left to the effect that this company was asking for an exclusive franchise or a blank cheque. Actually the company is asking for nothing more than a 10 year extension. They have indicated the difficulties involved in this whole project, and that apparently no other company seems to have an interest. That to me is significant. I recall asking the representatives of that company during a committee hearing whether there was any such interest. If we do not grant this extension and take away this franchise we will do a disservice to this area because the rail line may never be built. In view of that fact I for one want to indicate my interest and personal support in respect of this request for an extension.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? If I understood him correctly, he made some reference to a statement made by an hon. member in this area of the house. Is the hon. member trying to suggest that the concern expressed by Hon. Howard Green ten years ago was concern expressed through the top of his hat? I am not suggesting that Howard Green was not interested in the development of that area, but he certainly expressed some concern originally about the kind of action proposed by this bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I was probably a member of the committee at that time, though I do not remember the particular hearing to which the hon. member has referred. Presumably Mr. Green was his usual optimistic self at that time, but things did not work out as expected. Surely we should not criticize his optimism. The only thing I objected to in the hon. member's statement was his reference to a blank cheque. By adopting this bill we will not be issuing a blank cheque. All we will be doing is extending the company's right to continue

April 13, 1967
Private Bills
something in which nobody else seems to be interested.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it is all right to suggest that this charter does not have an exclusive aspect, but every time a property is discovered with some valuable ore deposits, this company will be able to dictate who can develop that property, just as the Wabush Company has done. Anybody who appreciates the troubles between the Wabush Company and the Iron Ore Company of Canada must be aware that this whole matter is not a simple one. We gave that company the absolute right to say who is going to operate a mine in the area in which it is located.
If we do the same thing in respect of the company in question no prospector will go into that area looking for whatever resource properties may exist there, because he will not be able to develop them without building a rail line at a construction cost of perhaps $500,000 per mile. We will in effect be allowing this company to decide what arrangement may be made for the development of this area. It may well go to the provincial government for a charter as a common carrier, in order to develop its own holdings.
Surely it is apparent that this company no longer intends to do what it originally had in mind. In the original charter it was stated that if within set periods the line of rail was not commenced or completed and put into operation the power in respect of construction conferred upon the company by the parliament of Canada would cease, and be null and void in respect of that part of the said line which remained incomplete. The company agreed that if it did not build the line outlined in the charter it would not have control of the construction of the remainder.
I am in agreement with the hon. member that the company found it extremely expensive to build a line in order to have a deep sea port on Ungava Bay. For that reason the company decided not to use that area as a shipping point. Almost all line construction now leads to Seven Islands, and the company is not at all interested in developing this other portion.
Surely there is no reason for extending this charter for another ten years. The hon. member for Skeena suggested that this company should put up a performance bond in the amount of $10 million, or $1 million per year for ten years. That amount of money would finance the construction of an additional 20 miles of line. Surely that is not an un-

reasonable amount in light of the fact that some 220 miles of line is contemplated. That is not an extravagant requirement.
Originally we gave this company an opportunity to develop this rail line in a certain area. There is an inherent commitment on the part of the company. I predict that within a short period of time the company will come back to this house or to the provincial government asking for another extension in respect of another 60 miles of rail line to be built in another direction. The original charter was quite explicit as to where the line was to be built, although the company was given a great deal of leeway.
It is my opinion that if we grant this extension the company will build rail lines in directions other than the one originally contemplated. While I have no objection to giving this company the right to develop their property or to construct a rail line, I believe the people of Canada should not allow it to develop its rail lines in a disorderly fashion-a short piece of line going this way, another piece going that way, and still another going another direction.
For the various reasons I have outlined I think this company should be required to abide by the original injunction to which it agreed in 1947. If the company is prepared to make a commitment similar to what has been suggested, I am prepared to support this bill. The very fact that they have not suggested a performance bond is an indication that the company has little interest in the extension of this line as originally contemplated.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, may I call it seven o'clock.
Progress reported.


@Acting Speaker: The
hour appointed for the consideration of private members business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
April 13. 19S7	COMMONS
Maurice Rinfret: This sitting is suspended from now until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was discussing several of the seven points which I believe are at issue in this very vital debate. If I may review them briefly, they concern the effect on morale of the proposed unification bill, the so-called savings about which the minister has been talking, and the so-called increase in efficiency which will result from unification. I mentioned briefly the issue of conscription, and what we mean by the expression "unification of the armed services".
Now I should like to go on to discuss briefly the sixth point, namely whether or not the unification proposed by the minister and the government will create any incompatability between our armed services and the armed services of other countries. Let me refer once again to the committee's proceedings which, at page 1320, contain a remark by General Moncel in response to a question by the hon. member for Queens. It reads as follows:


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Do you believe that our oportunity to gain from the experience and resources of our allies, which you mentioned some time ago in reply to a previous question-chiefly, Great Britain and the United States-will be lessened if we have an entirely different organization in the form of a unified force?


Mr.   Moncel@: Of course, it will.
He goes on to give an example. From General Moncel's reply one gathers there will be a great lessening in the amount of interplay that can go on properly between the armed services of this country and the armed services primarily of Great Britain and the United States. Yet the minister still persists in pointing out how efficient we are going to be if we have a force which will be, as he says, truly Canadian, with one uniform but no Royal Canadian Navy, no Royal Canadian Air Force and no Canadian Army: Just the Canadian forces. But is this realistic? Can we, so to speak, go it alone? Can we have an armed force, unique in every sense of the word, but different from the armed forces of our allies? Do we plan to fight our own wars or do we plan to let somebody else do the fighting for us? Is this the type of attitude 23033-942
National Defence Act Amendment that Canada exhibited during the last two wars? Of course it is not. But is it the minister's plan for the future? We are being inundated with plans for the future.
I read a rather interesting article in last night's Ottawa Journal under the byline of Peter Newman. I think it is a very interesting comment which should go on the record. Mr. Newman says this:
It must be emphasized that none of these startling ideas are in the process of becoming government policy. They reflect only the serious questioning that's going on about Canada's military future.
A little later I will explain why I feel it is worth putting this article on the record, but let me diverge for a moment. When I listened to the minister's speech the other night I could not help but be struck by the similarity between the article which appeared in Tuesday night's Ottawa Journal written by Mr. Peter Newman and the speech made by the minister. Far be it from me to suggest that there was any collusion between the minister and Mr. Peter Newman. I would never think of suggesting such a thing; but the fact is they were both discussing in exactly the same way-and the words are indeed very close-the relationship between Mr. McNamara and the joint chiefs of staff in the United States. With this background, and realizing that there appears to be some rapport of some kind, I would like to read the following excerpt from Mr. Newman's article:
A much more dramatic break with Canadian military tradition is being advocated by some of Ottawa's younger Liberals. They want, in effect, to demilitarize our unified armed forces-
Let hon. members note that the services are already unified in their view.
-and turn them into an economic instrument. This would mean moving young men into temporary service in the armed forces during periods of economic recession,-
I have no doubt that the government is afraid of exactly that in the near future. It goes on to read:
-giving them trade training while they serve, and letting them rejoin the labour force when jobs become available again.
This is what the government is planning for the armed forces of our country. It continues:
At the same time, the Department of National Defence would be turned into the headquarters-
And this is the piece de resistance.
-for a sort of domestic and foreign peace corps.
This is an incredible summation for a journalist who over the past few years seems to
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment have had a tremendous affinity for hon. gentlemen opposite. I am sure that Mr. Newman would not think of writing anything in the Ottawa Journal, or any of the other papers which carry his column, which did not have a large element of truth in it. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, turning our armed forces into an economic instrument.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
What about our commitments? The most important point of all is our ability to meet our commitments with a unified force. Many references were made in the evidence to this point. As reported at page 1384, Air Marshal Annis pointed out that he did not believe that with a unified force we could carry on our present commitments under NATO, NORAD and so on. As reported at page 1312 General Moncel said exactly the same thing, Let me just quote briefly what he said in reply to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, whose name I understand is familiar to the minister:
-I will write you a commitment tor the country which will generate the need for a unified force. It is very simple. But with your current commitments you do not want one. In fact, it Is better that you do not have one.
Air Vice Marshal Hendrick gave evidence on this point at page 1451 of the report. Lieutenant General Moncel dealt with it again, as reported at page 1323. He was asked this question by the hon. member for Greenwood:
Therefore, the real choice that we have to make, as a nation and that we are responsible for making in parliament, in the matter of making sense out of unification, is whether we are going to continue the roles that we have or concentrate on this mobile intervention force?
To that question General Moncel answered: "Yes".
I could draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to many more comments of this nature. I think it is interesting to note that General Moncel made a rather appropriate comment when he said that we were moving on an unchartered course at a very high speed toward an unknown destination. And guess who is at the helm, Mr. Chairman-a man with no navigation experience at all, the Minister of National Defence.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, in view of the preponderance of evidence-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I have just one final sentence, if I may have the permission of the committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I thank the members of the committee for their generosity; I have one final summation to make.
In view of the preponderance of evidence, which indicates that we should stand back and take a second look at what is going on here, I submit we should heed the advice of these experts who appeared before our defence committee and the minister should take time for sober second thoughts about this legislation. Let him put if off for now, think about it, plan for it properly. Let him meet with the minister of external affairs, and perhaps they together can come up with some ideas about a force and a foreign policy which can be integrated. I think this is essential if we are to continue to be able to defend our country in the future as we have in the past.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but on listening to the minister's speech last Tuesday afternoon it seemed to me there was an indication that he might be mellowing just a bit. Since I have had the pleasure of knowing the minister personally for a number of years, I thought that if I stood up and made a personal plea to him to reconsider his position he might do just that. I have known the minister, as I said, for a number of years and had always thought that he was an understanding and tolerant man. Regrettably I must say that some of his recent actions and some of his not so recent actions could well indicate otherwise.
I want to talk for a little while about integration and then about that now infamous word, unification. I am not going to speak on the subject with the degree of authority that someone who has considerable military experience might. I do not pretend to be an expert. However, I do have some views to express, mainly because I have had the opportunity of discussing this issue with many people right across Canada. I have talked to people of all ages, people with military experience and otherwise, people in the army, the navy, the air force and civilians.
I agree, I say at once, with the principle of integration. I think there are services that
April 13, 1367

operate economically and efficiently under integration-for example, hospital services, medical services, chaplain services, administration, and in some respects supply services. They can be and are integrated, with a saving of some considerable consequence. I am sure that with research and with a little greater knowledge of the subject I could make many suggestions where like savings could be effected. I also believe that practical business procedures should not be foreign to defence administration and that the application of some business sense and business law can effect some significant savings in the long run.
Getting back to this infamous word unification, Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the minister does not know what the word means. The previous chairman of the defence committee was not sure what it meant when he spoke in this house Tuesday last, April 11.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if you take away from servicemen the identification of their skills, the uniform that identifies them with a specific service, and you give all servicemen a pea-green uniform, then you have nothing left. You have no meaning or symbol; you have no tradition; you have no history. You really have no meaningful defence posture. I suggest that in his haste the minister is willing to sacrifice all of this identity because he wants at all costs to create this new warrior as his personal centennial project; and for the sake of the minister I hope that he is right and that he knows what he is doing.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The minister is not altogether without friends. I read the white paper when it came out in March of 1964. In April of that year I was invited to speak to a service club in Edmonton, and at that time I tried to show some of the anomalies and inadequacies in the proposal. The only newspaper in Edmonton, The Edmonton Journal, on April 9, 1964, took it upon itself to criticize me for expressing a view on the matter. I have the editorial before me. Subsequent action and the introduction of legislation proved that my initial contention was correct. The editorial said:
Mr. William Skoreyko made some reasonable criticisms of the new defence proposals, when he spoke to the Macdonald-Cartier Club here, but he also fell into a number of careless or Inaccurate statements-
What Mr. Hellyer has emphasized over and over again, and what is a central theme of his white paper, is that housekeeping costs are to be reduced so that a higher percentage of the defence budget can be devoted to the purchase of capital equipment.

National Defence Act Amendment
I agree with the sentiment of the last sentence. It continues:
At another point in his talk, Mr. Skoreyko tried to make a problem out of the proposed gradual conversion of the fourth brigade (in reverse in Canada) "into a special service force."
We quote the white paper's wording. He asked how the three services would feel, after being jumbled into one force, when they see a new force created with special uniforms and name.
Mr. Skoreyko sees something that isn't there. We take the white paper and the minister to mean, simply, a force or unit for special service. Who, apart from Mr. Skoreyko, has suggested that it would have a special uniform?
I do not wish to criticize the editorial writers of the newspaper, though I know something of their political backgrounds. I would not ask the minister to communicate with them, telling them to write another editorial to tell the people of Edmonton that the previous editorial was wrong, that the minister has now decided on a pea-green uniform. The editorial goes on to say:
By no means all Mr. Skoreyko's statements are open to criticism. But in so vital a matter as a radical change in defence policy he ought to be certain that none of his remarks is careless, inaccurate or misleading. Defence is much too important to be left to confusion.
I agree with the last paragraph. But that newspaper is not justified in asking us to refrain from speaking when the responsibility for unification or integration is that of the present Minister of National Defence.
Turning to another subject, I listened with considerable interest to the minister's speech of last Tuesday afternoon. Most of us, when we are apt to be affected politically have short memories, but I wish to refer to a paragraph on page 14788 of Hansard of last Tuesday afternoon, in which the Minister of National Defence attacked the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The minister said:
The second example I should like to give is the choice of the airplane for the strike role; I am referring to the CF-104. Here again, Mr. Chairman, there is a very unusual sequence of events. The choice that was made of the CF-104 was a government decision. It is true that eventually the chiefs of staff made a recommendation, but only after they had been directed to do so by the government-
Who, does the minister think, should have directed the chiefs of staff, if they needed directing?
-of the right hon. gentleman and only after they had already said that this was not the best airplane to carry out the role and was in fact not suitable to carry out the role.
It is interesting, when reading the clippings, to see that the minister does not enjoy
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment the cleanest record when it comes to taking advice from people in authority in the defence structure.
I have in my hand a clipping headed, "Hellyer Rejected Plane Advice". To me that means that the Minister of National Defence is putting himself above a prime minister of a country. The minister says that the prime minister, obviously in 1961 or 1962, rejected the advice of the chiefs of staff and bought an aircraft. The present Minister of National Defence rejected advice, and he also bought an aircraft. The article says this:
Hon. Paul Hellyer, minister of defence, rejected the recommendation of most of his senior military advisers when he decided on purchase of a fighter-bomber.
Informed sources made the disclosure Tuesday.
However, the sources added, the senior officers did not resent rejection of their advice nor did Mr. Hellyer question their ability in making it. Such decisions were up to the government and the military accepted them.
The minister sits on the government benches today; it is all right for him to recommend certain things to the chiefs of staff, but it is not all right for the former Conservative prime minister to have advised his chiefs of staff. This is an interesting article. It continues:
Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller, chief of the defence staff, issued a statement Tuesday denying a Canadian Press report Monday that Air ViceMarshal Wilfred Bean was transferred to Europe because he opposed purchase of the CF-5.
Perhaps the minister will take the opportunity to answer that charge:
The statement did not deny that Air Vice Marshal Bean had opposed acquisition of the CF-5. It described his posting overseas to 4th Allied Tactical Air Force as routine. He had been assistant chief of defence staff.
Informants said Air Chief Marshal Miller and Air Marshal Clare Annis, chief of logistics, as well as Air Vice Marshal Bean, favored purchase of the American McDonnell Phantom jet fighter-bomber on strictly military grounds.
They noted that Air Chief Marshal Miller did not attend the press conference at which Mr. Hellyer announced choice of the CF-5 though he had attended a similar press briefing in December when selection of other defence equipment was announced by the minister.
One can see the degree of co-operation existing as early as August 25, 1965.
Another interesting point in this article is that the CF-5 program of up to 125 aircraft made by Canadair Limited, Montreal, is relatively cheap, as such weapons programs go:
While the decision to turn down the Phantom and buy the CF-5 was in the long process of being made, the objections of senior officers to the latter plane filtered down through the RCAF, officials said.

As a result, they said, a major "selling job" had to be done among men who would fly and maintain the plane. There are already two Nor-throp-made CF-5s at Cold Lake, Alta., the RCAF's big jet training base, for demonstration purposes.
Northrop has made no secret of the fact it accepted an extremely low payment-
It does not matter how cheap an aircraft is. Another article that I have describes the CF-E as a peashooter.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I wish to refer to another editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 12, 1967. It read in part:
More than one year ago John Diefenbaker asked for an investigation of the proposed purchase of CF-5 aircraft to cost $215 million. The leader of the opposition made the demand because of continual changes in the assessed capacity of this plane.
Briefly it had already been established that the CF-5 had:
(a)	No capability as a fighter.
(b)	No interceptor use.
(c)	No long-range capacity.
(d)	Could not be refueled in the air without expensive tanker aircraft.
(e)	No ability to take off from improvised fields with a bomb load.
(f)	No adaptability for close support as a bom-ber-strafer.
(g)	And deemed useless by the U.S. air force for service in Viet Nam without costly modifications.
Yet the minister criticized the present Leader of the Opposition for adopting the CF-104 which had been developed by the Liberals and which, as I am sure he will now admit, has done excellent service in NATO and elsewhere.
This is not all that has been said about the CF-5. An article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal, written by Charles Lynch and headed "Combat Tests on Tap for RCAF's New Jet" stated:
One of the embarrassing things about Canada's purchase of the American Freedom Fighter aircraft is that, to date, the United States hasn't bought any for its own use.
That is wrong, now. They have bought about 100. The article goes on:
Officials of our defence department have been saying all along that the U.S. intends to make such purchases, and that the United States Air Force desperately wants the Freedom Fighter, the Canadian name for which is the CF-5.
Now, the evidence is beginning to come in and the defence department is delighted.
What's happened is that the U.S.A.F. has persuaded Defence Secretary Robert McNamara, long a sceptic about the Freedom Fighter, to send 20 of the planes to Viet Nam for combat testing. Later,
April 13, 1967

in the fall, they will go to Viet Nam for strafing and bombing missions.
The writer goes on to say:
After all, the Tories turned down an earlier version of the Freedom Fighter in 1959, and it is unlikely that they will applaud the government's purchase of it now.
That is very true. How could we?
Freedom Fighters for Viet Nam cost $700,000 apiece, somewhat lower than the starting price in Canada of $900,000 each which would be inflated by other charges.
In the words of one Washington dispatch, the Freedom Fighter might well serve as a better peashooter than some of the planes now in Viet Nam. I should like to hear a little more about this fantastic aircraft, in the light of the hon. gentleman's criticism of the CF-104.
With reference again to the minister's speech of Tuesday, April 11: After an exchange of words with the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. gentleman said-and he was referring to my right hon. friend:
He was not going to be pushed around by the Industrial military complex. He was going to show who was running Canada and cancel the Avro Arrow regardless.
Well, it seems the Minister of National Defence is not going to be pushed around by anyone. I will come back to that later.
If hon. members would refer to Saturday Night of March 1965 they will find there an article written by Kenneth McNaught which states, in part:
My conclusion is that the Liberals never really wanted to accept nuclear weapons, that they did so in order not to upset their principal supporters in the business community, who were worried about the possible effects of our recalcitrance on economic relations with the United States, and that we are now seeking a way out of the nuclear commitment.
Here he is saying that the Leader of the Opposition did not wish to be pushed around and thought it best that he cancel the Avro Arrow because it did not fit well into the economy. Because he did this he was showing that he did not intend to be pushed around. But the Minister of National Defence did not intend to be pushed around, either, because in 1962 he spoke up in the House of Commons, as only he could, in favour of a policy of no nuclear weapons for Canada. Then he changed his mind.
I wish to speak for a few moments about the veracity of this government and of the minister. We are now asked to believe the government when it says that all is well in
National Defence Act Amendment the armed forces. We should have no doubt about the government's sincerity in connection with Bill C-243. But we have had considerable experience with this government. The desire to get elected was a major reason for some startling changes in their attitude a few years ago. But sincerity is not something which one practices only when it is convenient.
I have here an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of February 13, 1963 and I think it should once again be placed on record because it is a most interesting article. It begins:
The Liberals are the most bewildered and bewildering of all the four parties on the nuclear issue. Statements by Lester Pearson and Paul Hellyer after the Liberal council meeting this week have added to the confusion.
This is not surprising. It is in keeping with the party's attitude for the past four years.
Since 1960 the Liberals have been against nuclear weapons and for nuclear weapons; they have been partly against nuclear weapons and partly for nuclear weapons; they have been against nuclear weapons in Canada but maybe for nuclear weapons for Canadian NATO forces in Europe.
Here are some highlights in the Liberal record:
Paul Hellyer, Liberal defence critic, announced his party's defence program in the Commons on August 4, 1960. The main points were no nuclear weapons for use on Canadian soil or in Canadian air space; scrap plans to acquire the Starfighter for Canada's NATO forces; scrap the Bomarc-SAGE program for anti-bomber defence of this continent.
[DOT] (8:40 pun.)
That was a noble stand.
The following day Mr. Pearson said in the Commons:
"In my view we should get out of the whole SAGE-Bomarc operation, and we should not spend any more money on radar gap fillers. Our objection to the Bomarc is not only that we do not think it is an effective weapon ... our objection is the kind of defence strategy it represents and which we do not think will be effective, however effective the weapon may be. If the United States wishes to continue that kind of protection, let the United States do so. Let us withdraw from that direct form of continental defence."
That is also a noble statement.
The Liberal leader took a different attitude toward "commitments" at that time.
Mr. Pearson went on to say, "After all, this kind of defence is primarily a United States responsibility. It is the defence of the deterrent. We know how important that is; but it is a deterrent which is under the sole control of the United States of America."
Nor was the Liberal leader much concerned about anti-Americanism, for he continued, "It is not a defence, and in the nature of things I submit it cannot be a defence, of our territory in the traditional sense of the word, and it will soon be no defence of anything ... It seems to me, Mr. April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Chairman, that our experience in the past three years has shown that in attempting to participate in continental defence in the way we have, we are becoming nothing more than just the last two knots on the Bomarc tail of the defence kite."
I do not need to tell the committee what happened only weeks after he made those statements. For the benefit of hon. members on the other side who were not here at the time and would like to read the record, they will find it at page 7606 of Hansard for August 5, 1960. This seemed to be the Liberal party position until January 12, 1963, when the Prime Minister visited Toronto and had this to say at a meeting of the York-Scar-borough Liberal Association:
"It (the Ottawa government) should end its evasion of responsibility, by discharging the commitments it has already accepted for Canada. It can only do this by accepting nuclear warheads, for those defensive tactical weapons which cannot effectively be used without them, but which we have agreed to use. An agreement with the United States for this purpose would have to be negotiated-
That was on January 12. A few days later it was not negotiation he spoke about. He said it should be reviewed. I do not need to put any more of this article on the record, Mr. Chairman.
I again point out one simple fact. The Minister of National Defence is asking us to accept his word that everything is all right so far as Canada's defence structure is concerned. His attitude is, "We will look after the armed forces. Leave it to us. Pass the bill and let us get ahead with the job." All I say is that we have had considerable experience with the government. We have had considerable experience with the Prime Minister. We have had considerable experience with the veracity of the Minister of National Defence. I am not sure that as a member of parliament I want to turn over to him the sole responsibility of taking care of an essential part of our country's defence.
How confident is the minister that the program he has embarked on is the right one? I suppose any normal human being, after making a statement of fact in the House of Commons, would assume that, if it was a statement on a subject of vital interest to Canadians, they would read it in the press, and if further interested they would find ways and means of obtaining more information relative to the subject. That is nbt the case with the Minister of National Defence. He made a speech in the House of Commons, and then to make sure it was read, though it really did not matter whether it was read or
[Mr. Skoreyko.l
not, he went out and spent $5,398 of the taxpayers' money to make sure that it was read. I quote this report from the Edmonton Journal of March 14:
Defence Minister Hellyer disclosed in the Commons Monday that his department spent $5,398-


Maurice Rinfret: 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 there unanimous consent in the committee to allow the hon. member to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Skoreyko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was quoting a newspaper report dealing with the degree of confidence that the minister had in his own policy statement. It says that the minister ordered 45,240 copies of his December 7 speech for distribution at the taxpayers' expense.


Mrs. Rideout:: Don't be nasty.


William Skoreyko: I beg the lady's pardon. I say again, Mr. Chairman, the minister is asking us to turn over to him, without debate-


Mr. Matheson:: Without debate?


William Skoreyko: -the full responsibility for the job he is trying to do. I am not sure he knows what it is that he wants to do. I am more and more convinced he does not know the implications of the word unification. He has still not told us the state of affairs respecting our commitments to NATO and NORAD. When he finds time to answer some of these questions we may be able to take a better and closer look at this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, you know I am the soul of brevity and I just wish to take two or three minutes to correct some inaccurate information given to the press last evening by Mr. Lee who, I understand, is the information officer for the minister's office. Yesterday I asked the minister this question, as recorded at page 14829 of Hansard:
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 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?
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, not only am I unable to explain it, I had not heard about it until this moment.
I will make inquiries.
However, as soon as I had asked the question Mr. Lee went around to the press and to the radio people in the house and informed them that the reason these men were not allowed in the house in their uniforms was because this was a tradition from the time of Charles I. While there was no law in this respect-he had consulted the legal office of the minister's department-it was a tradition and a practice in all parliaments of the Commonwealth.
This is quite incorrect. During my experience here of nearly 22 years I have never seen a member of the armed forces denied admission to the galleries. I have made inquiries since yesterday and I can truly say that no Speaker and no Sergeant-at-Arms has ever issued an order that members of the armed forces who come to the galleries, unarmed and in uniform, shall be denied entrance to the galleries of the house. The same rule applies to the mother of parliaments.
As a matter of fact I was at Westminster in Great Britain when, for one moment, being a member of parliament from Canada I was what is known as a distinguished visitor. The procedure is that you line up and your name is called. In front of me was an admiral of the Royal Navy in full uniform and we sat together in the distinguished visitors gallery of the house, one of my brief moments of glory in a rather mediocre career.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Anyway the practice is the same in the mother of parliaments. Last evening I was asked to appear on television at a private television station. I made some comments on this matter. One of the members of the press finally came to me with the statement made by Mr. Lee. 1 said this was nonsense. Strangely enough a gentleman who stays at the University Club of Toronto immediately wrote me as follows:
Dear Mr. Herridge: I have just heard on "The World at Six" C.B.C. radio program of your hassle with Mr. Hellyer over his ruling that it was improper under a tradition going back to Charles I for military or naval personnel to appear in the gallery of the House of Commons in uniform.
Of course it was not a hassle with the minister; it was a question of something
National Defence Act Amendment which originated with the minister's information officer, parliamentary assistant and chief factotum. The letter continues:
This is nonsense. In 1917, after being wounded and invalided home, I was for a year private secretary to Sir Edward Kemp then minister of militia and defence in the Borden government. In September or October of that year I sat on the floor of the house in uniform, in front of the minister, during the debate on the Military Service Act providing for conscription. The gallery was liberally sprinkled with officers and other ranks of the army and navy-no Canadian air force then existed-all in uniform.
The reason for my presence was that I had assisted in drafting the bill which was finalized by the late Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, then solicitor general, who steered it through the house.
The late Major Gen. Eugene Fiset, then deputy minister, later Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, would normally have been on the floor on that occasion and had, of course, been there many times during the war years always in full uniform.
It looks as if Mr. Hellyer has pulled another boner.
Yours sincerely, Everett Bristol, late Major 15 Bn. 1st Can. Div.
He is quite mistaken. It was not a boner on the part of the minister; it was a boner on the part of the gentleman behind the scenes. However, I am sure all of us, the minister and everyone in this house regardless of party, welcomes members of the armed forces of Canada to the galleries of this chamber. I am very pleased to see that Mr. Lee's decision already has been revised, because in the gallery behind me are two members of the Royal Canadian Navy in uniform.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Regardless of our opinion for or against, this debate on the unification bill is of great importance to the Canadian people and of great interest to members of the armed forces.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Chairman, many members have been prompted to speak for various reasons. My reason for speaking is the fact that I completely agree with the Minister of National Defence on the principle-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Wait until you hear the rest of it-on the principle that it is the civilian authority which runs the nation and not the military. This is a principle which I believe the minister has enunciated more than once. I completely agree with him. I do not see how any Canadian could disagree with him on that score. History has shown us that in any nation, where the army or the military forces
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment have taken over the government, civil freedom and civil liberties naturally were kicked out the window. I also wish to speak in respect of Bill C-243 as a Canadian expressing a civilian point of view. I have listened with interest to what gentlemen on both sides of the house have had to say. I attended some meetings of the committee on national defence and have read very faithfully the comments which have appeared in the press.
As a Canadian with near relatives who have served this country as members of the forces I am as confused as some of the gentlemen who have spoken during the last number of days. I am confused, and I believe people in the rest of Canada are confused by the very fact that there is such a divergence of opinion between the Minister of National Defence and those who either were fired from the forces, or left before their normal retirement period. I am referring to those men who performed a distinguished service to this country as members of the army, navy or air force. These men who have served this nation well do not agree with the proposal submitted by the Minister of National Defence and his government. What axe do these men have to grind? Is this what one might call a conspiracy against the government? I do not think so; I do not think they are doing this for political reasons. They simply do not believe in this policy.
Whose judgment should the people of Canada accept? Should they accept the judgment of these distinguished men who have been in the services or the judgment of the government which is proposing something altogether new? This is confusing. Another thing which leads me to believe there must be some substance in this is that on the opposition side we have men who have distinguished themselves in the army or the navy, and have served this country well. These men are of the opinion that this policy of unifying our forces and making them into one force is not to the advantage of this nation and is not something which will provide a proper defence for this nation. Whom should the people of Canada believe?
I even have had a letter from a constituent who wonders why green was chosen as the colour for the uniform. Why not yellow, white, grey, black or any other colour? If we were in Ireland and the Irish Republican army were dressed in green we would not be surprised; it is the Emerald Isle. I do not think that green is an attractive colour. I do not look at our stewardesses on the airplanes more than once now, because they are dressed

in green. They looked much better when they wore air force blue. Why, of all colours, did the minister choose green.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would my friend like an answer to that question?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not choose it. The armed
forces have been responsible for the colour of the uniform, as they have in respect of all the other details related to the principles we have been discussing in this house. Surely the hon. member would not wish to reflect on their choice. It was a spontaneous choice and they have been responsible for the development right from the outset.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Thank you. I am glad the minister gave us this explanation. If he were as frank in respect of all matters which come up in this discussion, I think we would make more progress.


John Ross Matheson: Read Hansard.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I will be putting more questions to the minister before I am through. One of my colleagues on this side of the house was considerably perturbed, and really wondered who was behind this and who conceived the idea of the unified force.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Who fathered the thought behind this program? My colleague did not want to give that honour to the Minister of National Defence, and I agree with him. I believe this idea was fathered by another gentleman who sits in the front benches. That gentleman holds the portfolio in the ministry of external affairs. He is a man who, during the last several years, has gone to great pains to establish peace in the world, and I take my hat off to him. He is an idealist and feels that Canada can play a great part in stamping out small conflagrations. He believes that Canada has a great part to play in policing the world. And we have considerable experience in this regard as a result of our efforts in the Gaza strip in keeping the Arabs and the Jews away from each other's throats.
Our boys have been stationed in various areas of the world, keeping the peace, and as things now are it looks as though they will be there forever. Hon. members of this house will recall that the Minister of National Defence jumped at the idea of sending our troops to keep the peace in Cyprus. The United Nations had no funds at that time and we had to shell out the money. This exercise
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
was supposedly to last tor three months, but our troops have been there for several years. The minister has been very quiet about this fact and has made no forecast as to how long they may be required; but the taxpayers are paying the shot. There is no hope of a settlement because presumably no steps are being taken to encourage a settlement, or at least the newspapers have not been reporting these steps.
The minister of external affairs has indicated that he hopes his peace efforts will be successful in Viet Nam, he is in favour of sending our boys to Viet Nam to keep the north and south Vietnamese from fighting. He believes in keeping peace in the world. I do not doubt the minister's sincerity, but I wonder why he feels that Canada should no longer worry about her own defence. That worry has been prompted by the words of the Minister of National Defence regarding the proposed mobile force which can be sent to any part of the world under the auspices of NATO, the United States or some other power.
The Minister of National Defence is becoming complacent about Canada's position, because of the considerable diminution of the cold war. We have all observed the outstretched hand from Moscow and we are not going to refuse to grasp those hands which offer friendship and peace. We have all listened to those friendly overtures from that red empire, which now occupies most of Europe. We have all heard of communist attempts to establish consulates in western countries, including Canada.
It is my belief that we are being hoodwinked by the cultural exchanges of communist students and students of the western world. We are beginning to believe that there is no longer any danger of difficulties with the U.S.S.R. It is my feeling that this is the belief of the minister of defence and the minister for external affairs. Apparently on that premise they have adopted this unification program.
Our position is becoming somewhat confused. We have spent a great deal of money in conjunction with the United States to set up a defence against the onslaught of the red army. We have spent a great deal of money in respect of our NATO efforts. I hasten to add that were it not for NATO many countries in Europe would not be free today. We will not refuse to grasp the hand of friendship. Before we place trust in the friendship of men like Kosygin and Brezhnev we should ask
National Defence Act Amendment them to go further to show their good intentions.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, the Soviet union should remove the iron curtain and that abolish their border restrictions so that Canadians and citizens of other western countries can visit their lands, and in order that the people of those iron curtain countries can visit and even emigrate to western countries. These communist countries should allow the wives and children of people living in Canada to rejoin their families. Once they have shown that type of goodwill, perhaps we can accept their proffered friendship without restraint.
The right hon. leader of the official opposition suggested when he was prime minister that Khrushchev should free the 14 nations that compose the U.S.S.R. empire today. These people have different cultures, languages, and history. They should be allowed to vote freely, to retain their status in the union or to become independent. In this way the Russians could show their goodwill.
Apparently the Minister of National Defence is not concerned in this regard, but concerned only in grasping the outstretched hand. I suggest there is a good reason for this extension of friendship to the Americas by the U.S.S.R. That reason relates to the fact that officials in Moscow and Peking have ideological differences and are at loggerheads. Let us not forget that the Chinese have a claim against Russia in respect of some lost land in Siberia. The Chinese feel that Stalin was a good man and that the present-day officials in Moscow have torn him from his exalted position. One faction idealizes Khrushchev while the other does not. Let us never forget that neither of these two giants has renounced the idea of burying the western powers, just as Khrushchev suggested to the United States.
What will happen if these two great communist powers embrace each other again as they once did? They will likely march together hand in hand to capture the entire world. If that should take place the U.S.S.R. will again show its teeth by building a bigger wall in Berlin. If the worst happens Canada will become a buffer zone between the United States and the Soviet union. This will be the battleground between these two nations, and let us not fool ourselves in this regard. Which side will we join? I mean every word when I say that I would rather be clawed by the American eagle than crushed by the Russian bear.
April 13, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
One thing leads to another. We are pleased to see the world heading for what we think is peace. But is our force going to have no other duties to perform than policing difficult areas in the world? Are we going to have a force which will contribute to the defence of this nation? Have we no national pride? I believe that those gentlemen who have served in the forces, and the gentlemen on this side of the house who are opposing this bill so strenuously, deserve support; and I think they are getting a great deal of support in the country.
I received a telephone call just today. I asked the gentleman, a constituent of mine, "What is the reaction to this continuous debate on the unification bill?" He said, "Our request is, kill it." This is actual fact. I do not think we will kill it because the minister has sufficient guarantees from some of the smaller groups in the house to push the bill through; but he will not push it through until the country realizes what the bill means. Once the country realizes what it means, and that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, the minister and the Liberal party will pay for it in the next election.
Ladies-excuse me, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: There is one here.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, there is a lady here. Another point is economy. We heard a great deal from the minister a couple of years ago to the effect that it would be economical if we unified our forces. We do not hear so much about that today, because the estimates show that the minister's department is spending more than it ever did. Of course, that is the usual thing. That is what this government has been doing in every department. They talked about economy in 1963 and 1965, but that is now forgotten. Political promises are made only to be broken. That is the way this government has been carrying on. Where is the economy in this proposal? Canadians swallowed the idea that it might be more economical to have one unified force rather than providing supplies for three forces.
In 1966 the minister said that a survey was being made of our defence establishments with a view to cutting them down, and as soon as the survey was made a decision as to their future would be reached. There is no harm in having a survey. But when asked from time to time whether he had made his decision, the answer was always no, a decision had not been made. In spite of that, certain defence establishments were nibbled

away. I have in mind the one in my riding, the Canadian joint air training camp at Rivers. Personnel of the various units were moved out; they vacated the houses they had been renting in the area. Their children have had to get out of school. The population of that training establishment has been reduced, in spite of the fact that the minister says he has not made up his mind. When I placed a question on the order paper asking the minister when this establishment was going to be phased out, his answer was that it would not be done this year. But apparently it will be done some time in the future, if what his department is doing is any indication.
The minister should be honest and frank, just as frank as he was about the colour of the uniform, and tell these people what is to happen with that camp. Why prolong the agony? Why not tell them whether the establishment at Rivers is to be retained or phased out? The minister flew down there last fall in order to appease some of the vociferous Grits who were complaining, together with the Tories, that they wanted the issue brought to a head and wanted to find out whether this establishment was to be phased out. The minister neutralized some of the vociferous complaints, because these people are now keeping quiet. They trust that the minister will keep the establishment in operation, but it is being nibbled and nibbled away.
What function does this training establishment perform? It was set up in 1939. It has all the buildings and runways necessary for parachute-jump training. The river there has been dammed. There is a wonderful lake where the troops can practise jumps on the water. They have a joint school. The high school is only three miles from the base and it is at the disposal of the students at the base. Considerable sums of money from Ottawa were poured into the erection of the school at Rivers. The facilities at the base were not suitable or sufficient for the junior and elementary grades; they did not have the proper teaching staff, and these students have been attending the Rivers school.
What is the situation there today? I say that this establishment is being chiselled away. Rivers high school has lost 44 students because their parents have been moved to God knows where. The elementary school has suffered because two rooms are now receiving no school grant. We have in this small community 1,600 people. This establishment depended on defence dollars for its existence. I tell the minister quite frankly that today
April 13, 1957

there are 55-this is the situation today because I have today's statistics-houses and suites which stand empty. The people of Rivers built these houses for business purposes. They were rented by the personnel at the base. As I say, 55 houses and suites are now empty. Three houses built with the assistance of C.M.H.C. mortgages have been empty since last year. A house that cost $15,500 last year can be bought for $9,000 this year. I suggest that if the minister wants to retire somewhere in Canada he can buy a cheap house there. These people are going through the agony of uncertainty.
The minister tells us that the base will operate this year, but what will happen in 1968? This base has been nibbled and nibbled away and there will be nothing left in 1968. All the millions of dollars that were poured into the base to provide all these facilities will go to waste, Mr. Minister. Why is this? Why not be frank and tell the people what you are going to do?


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I agree that he doesn't
know. The survey has been carried out, but the minister has not yet made up his mind. I think he has made up his mind but will not tell us his decision. Last fall he made up his mind to receive a delegation from Rivers. The Minister of Defence Production was to set a date for the delegation to attend here. That date still has not been set, and these people are angry and unhappy.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, as a contribution to this debate. We are disturbed because under the guise of economy more money than ever is being spent by the Department of National Defence; under the guise of economy certain areas in Canada will be ruined, because Rivers air training camp is not unique and I understand training camps in other parts of Canada are threatened with the same fate. The minister, just like Nero, fiddles away while Rome burns. This nation is in desperate straits and it must be given some clarification.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say a few words at this point in the debate.
I have no wish to prolong the debate for I feel it has already lasted long enough. I listened closely to several speeches and, to my mind, they are all alike.
I shall not say exactly the same thing as the other members, because I have different
National Defence Act Amendment convictions. What I have to tell the house will therefore differ from what has already been said.
I believe there is general agreement with regard to maintaining armed forces and their role. The two parties, Grits and Tories, wholly agree on that score. The only disagreement between the two concerns unification.
I do not think that is so important. I do not see why there is so much insistence on telling the minister and reminding the gov-erment that this is not the time to unify the armed forces. Unified or divided, they will always be armed forces and that does not change the situation.
Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of unification too. We want the least division possible because the more united things are, the better. I do not think that dividing the armed forces will improve things. I suggest that perhaps everything will go better if we unify them. It is something worth trying. If that does not work, we can always come back to the present situation.
In my opinion, the Progressive Conservatives are wrong to maintain their argument, to maintain that the status quo must be preserved at all costs. In life one must move ahead. That is progress. We, for our part, are in favour of any possible progress, of anything that can be improved. We are all for that. And that is the reason why we will vote for unification of the armed forces. That does not mean we fully agree with the government on that matter, because I feel that the armed forces we keep in Europe, supposedly to maintain peace, should be brought back to Canada.
I think that we should bring back home all our troops which are in Europe at the present time. I ask the minister and all the hon. members this question. Who are our enemies? Why do we maintain troops if we have no enemies?


Mr. Webb:: May I ask the hon. member a question? He just stated that he agrees with the policy which the government is introducing now. There is no question but that this policy will result in conscription to supply our armed forces with the necessary personnel. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with conscription?


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I do not favour conscription, far from it. But, on the
April 13, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment other hand, I agree with the maintenance of an armed force in the country, not outside the country. I see no point in maintaining armed forces outside the country and I even believe that it is against unity and peace in the world to send armed forces to Europe.
Coming back to the point I wished to make, 1 want to say that the troops we maintain in Europe cannot be of much use. An analysis of the situation will show that if we accepted the facts as they are, we would come to the conclusion that a withdrawal of our troops from Europe would be better.
If we want peace, it is certainly not by waging war that we shall have it. If we really want to help the destitute and needy people of Europe, it is not by showing them guns or by keeping them in fear that we shall succeed.
You know, it is by practising love and charity that Our Lord made conquests. Now, we must practise charity. Since we are able to practise charity in Europe, let us do so. European people want peace. Instead of sending them guns, deadly weapons and armed forces, let us provide them with bread to enable them to live and develop like all other nations.
This would enable us to reduce our armed forces and as a result achieve considerable savings on that score. These savings could be used elsewhere. In fact, we could help entire countries for several months.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that if we want peace, we have to show it. It is not by showing off our armed forces that we will win. Once again we will succeed through love and charity. We shall win by doing good.
We all have a mission to fulfil. If we fulfil it well we may do great things for the world, for the development of individuals not only physically but morally and intellectually. We could help so many people with these same sums of money. We are wasting considerable money on our armed forces.
Yet we are not doing Canada much good. If we decide to unify our forces and strengthen our armed forces in Europe and in Canada, Mr. Chairman, what will that mean? It will mean more taxes for Canadians, who are having a hard time as it is. They must be shamefully over-taxed in order to maintain and finance our armed forces today.
What will we gain by making enemies in Europe and by making enemies of the Canadian people? We know that all is not well [Mr. L.atulippe.1

in Canada, that there is dissension and dissatisfaction throughout the country. We see strikes happen here and there, and that may be the reason for the general dissatisfaction. In fact, it is one strike after another; when one is settled, ten others are called. We will not settle the problem in that way.
Now if we sent our armed forces to Europe and if we were attacked tomorrow morning, how would we defend ourselves?
Mr. Chairman, I submit all those things to the attention and consideration of the minister.
Mr. Chairman, we are often unable to bring unity in our homes, our industries, our country, let alone in a world torn with fear, envy and hate.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
When a legislature such as ours is no longer afraid of what people will say, it may be in a position not only to act justly, as the Almighty wants us to, but also in legislating and seeing to it that justice may prevail in North America. Once again, it may disclose to other nations the secret of enduring freedom and show the world the way leading to a durable peace. Where in this world can we urge people to live in our modern society and build a brave new world? We must build a complete new world. The world of warfare and destruction is far from being a novelty, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, there is nothing older, more cruel, more diabolic and more inhuman. Let us get out of the dreadful chaos which leaves the people fearful, destitute and insecure.
If we have insecurity in Canada, it is mostly due to those armaments, those funds squeezed out of Canadians while they are deprived of their purchasing power, their power to live properly and comfortably, with all that earmarked for the upkeep of our peacekeeping forces under the pretext that other countries will be saved.
What did we do during the last 1939-45 war, Mr. Chairman? We fought against the great communist theories and we implanted communism in 50 per cent of the countries throughout the world.
That is what we have achieved, and we are now fighting against the same ideology. We must strengthen our forces and our finance. We must discover all these techniques by our own means, and we must also devote all that to destruction.
April 13. 1967

For once, let us try to work like men. Let us work to rebuild ideals, to save the situation and to establish, once and for all, a lasting peace in our country, a country that abounds with riches.
Mr. Chairman, if we mind our own business, if we put our nose where we should put it, in short, if we do not attack anybody, it happens very seldom that others attack us. Then, if we take care of our own business, if we stay home, if we provide people with bread instead of guns and weapons of death, we will really work for the good of mankind. We will show that we will really work for peace and not only for war.
Man has risen through technology and industry. We have become giants in this field, able to wipe out continents, explore the stars, exchange information between continents, through means we could not even think of hardly 50 years ago.
But the fact remains that there are serious problems to be solved in this country. We must realize that most of the problems go about on two legs and the colour of those legs does not alter the problem.
Mr. Chairman, until such time as we resolve to create a force composed of capable, intelligent, honest men who will not be corrupted by money or power, in short, men capable of building our country, we will continue to live in fear and growing division.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the only thing we will achieve by broadening the scope of our armed forces, by increasing the moneys to be spent to that end, will be merely to enrich arms manufacturers, shipbuilders and financiers. They are the ones, Mr. Chairman, who will be favoured and well paid at the expense of the Canadian people who are bled white in order that we may maintain our armed forces.
Therefore, we should fight against this and withdraw our forces from Europe. I am in favour of a good common force in the country, a mobile, active and modern force, but that is all. We will defend ourselves when we are attacked. For a long time now we have put our nose in other nations' business and some day we will suffer for it, because we are too active and too curious about things which are none of our concern.
That is what I wanted to tell the minister. That is my idea of the army and the funds earmarked for its upkeep.
If labourers copy capitalists and claim more and more, while they work less and less, this will cause a continuous increase in the prices


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the previous speaker, a member for the Ralliement Creditiste, it is easy to see why he and his party will vote with the government. The hon. member qualifies himself almost for a Nobel peace prize, paralleling, in his speech, other hon. members who also qualified for peace prizes. The hon. member was more forthright in his remarks than have been members on the government side. He intends to solve the world's problems by financial means, by encouraging food production, and so on. In this way, by helping the peoples of all the world, some future conflagration may be prevented from breaking out.
It is interesting to note that the contempt felt for the United States was greater after huge gifts of foreign aid had been given than the contempt felt before those gifts had been given.
If we do as the hon. member suggests, if we bring our armed forces back to Canada and give them the role to play that he suggests they should play, we shall wind up with having the largest police force of any nation. We shall have a force of boy scouts who do nothing but put out forest fires, and that sort of thing. When I speak of forest fires, I do not do so in the same way that other hon. members have spoken of forest fires.
I suggest to the hon. member that as a centennial project the members of the Ralliement Creditiste should travel around the world informing other people about the Social Credit creed. The people in the various troubled spots of the world will become so confused that they would have no stomach for causing more trouble.
It is always interesting to hear hon. members with high ideals, like the one immediately preceding me in the debate. Unfortunately, however, those ideals are being preached to the wrong people. The hon. member should convince those who are behind the iron curtain; he should convince the people in the
National Defence Act Amendment troubled parts of the world to live in a spirit of brotherly love, to expend their efforts more in raising food than in making weapons.
I do not pretend to be an armed forces expert. As a matter of fact I had not intended entering this debate. I decided, however, to enter it, after becoming concerned with the government's lack of co-operation in showing exactly what is meant by unification.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
As a result I have read some of the evidence which was placed before the committee on defence and I find that most of the witnesses were also confused as to what was meant by unification. It is fortunate that the minister was able to find someone in the senior ranks who agreed with this concept of unification, whatever that happens to be, before he ran out of officers. Statistics show that one after another a great number of officers in all three services were fired, or retired early, because they did not agree with the concept of unification as laid down by the minister.
The minister has his own interpretation of unification. It is not spelled out in the white paper. Most of the witnesses expressed a fear that there was some hidden reason for ramming this bill through parliament at this time. Most of the witnesses said we were not prepared for unification. Some of them said they did not understand what unification meant. In the absence of definite information from the minister we can only assume that he himself does not know what unification means; possibly he is a tool of some higher authority.
There has been considerable criticism of the common rank structure. There has been criticism of the effect this bill will have on morale. There has been considerable discussion about the economics of this policy. The minister has not been able to show us that there will be appreciable savings as a result of this step. He has not been able to show that we shall have sufficient personnel to maintain a unified force. One of these senior service witnesses estimated we would need 150,000 service personnel at a cost of slightly over $2 billions in order to maintain the commitments we have undertaken.
It seems strange to me that the minister, if he desires this bill to go through, cannot be honest with the house, and explain what unification means and how it will bring economic benefit to this country. Can he assure us that we shall have sufficient personnel

April 13, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion whose morale is sufficiently high to maintain our defence forces at the standards we have known in the past?
One of the witnesses before the committee was Air Marshal W. A. Curtis. He found it peculiar that we should be discarding the three separate services and placing them in one uniform under one command. He had this to say-and I quote from page 2149 of the 33rd report of the committee on national defence:
In 1918 the British government decided that air operations were so important a part of war that they should be a separate service, and on April 1 of that year the RAF was created.
In 1924 when the entire defence budget was only a fraction of today's, the Canadian government decided to separate the Canadian Air Force from the Army, and on April 1, 1924, the RCAF was born.
The United States government was convinced during World War II that the United States Army Air Corps should be a separate service, and as a result the United States Air Force was formed in 1947.
In my opinion the proposed organization whereby the Canadian Air Force becomes nothing more than a branch of the ground forces, is a fantastic attempt to turn back the clock.
A little later on, he said:
I have quite naturally discussed the proposed changes to our military organization with friends in other countries, and the reaction goes all the way from shaking the head in disbelief to asking whether the Minister is out of his mind.
The same thought occurs to us on this side of the house. We wonder whether the minister is out of his mind. Our two largest allies have separate forces, yet we are in the process of unification. The military experts, on whom we rely for the training of our forces, break the forces down into three component parts; yet we are talking about unification. It makes some members on this side ask the same question as was asked by Air Marshal Curtis: Is the minister out of his mind? I am sure the minister is not out of his mind; he is just stubborn. Otherwise he would be forthright enough to give us the answers to our questions, or else he would delay the passage of this bill or listen to the advice of military experts in this country and in others. I will leave it at that, for now. I ask the question: Is the minister out of his mind?
May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the menu for tomorrow?
[Mr. Ballard.J


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with this debate.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on April 1 of this year there was a program on the C.B.C. with respect to certain nazi war criminals now living in Canada, which caused considerable concern to many persons who heard the program. Later on the same date a Canadian Press dispatch dealt at somewhat greater length with the question. I am going to quote the press dispatch so that the house may understand what I am talking about. It emanated from Ottawa and read:
Ottawa admits it got list of war criminals.
The External Affairs Department confirmed yesterday that a list of names of people alleged to be nazi war criminals living in Canada was given to the Canadian embassy in Vienna last year.
Simon Wiesenthal, the man who found Adolph Eichmann in Argentina in 1960, said in Toronto Friday that the names of 15 eastern Europeans who had committed crimes in Poland and the Baltic countries had been given to the embassy in Vienna about six months ago.
He said the people were not of serious consequence in the nazi hierarchy.
An External Affairs Department spokesman said Wiesenthal had handed the list of names to the embassy with no documentation. The names were sent to Ottawa where they were distributed to "the appropriate government departments."
He declined to say how many names were on the list.
The C.B.C. news report and this press dispatch have given concern to a good number of people and I have had letters on this subject and some phone calls from those persons who were concerned. To illustrate the concern of some Canadians with this situation I wish to quote one letter which I received: Dear Mr. Herridge,
I was quite shocked tonight to hear via the C.B.C. that we are harbouring at least 15 nazi war criminals in this country. The author of this statement is a chap called Wiesenthal, or reasonably close to this spelling, who operates out of an office in Vienna. He is Jewish and has dedicated his life to tracking down nazis who were and are responsible for many atrocities and he has had some considerable success. He claims that he advised the Canadian government of this fact some time ago but does not know if they have taken any action in this regard.
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
I would certainly like to have this matter raised in the house and can think of no one better equipped than yourself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad I got
applause on this occasion, from the limited audience on both sides of the house.
I now wish to refer briefly to an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on May 1, 1953, after Mr. M. J. Coldwell, former national leader of the C.C.F., had raised this matter in the house. He was very concerned at that time that we were somewhat lax in allowing these people into the country. This is what the editorial had to say:
There is sound sense in what M. J. Coldwell, C.C.F. national leader, says in warning against letting fascist and nazi sympathizers immigrate to Canada. If as he claims too many of these people are getting in the department of immigration is at fault and should institute more rigorous checks.
We wouldn't accuse anyone in the department of being secretly sympathetic to totalitarian thinkers of this shade. But the current strict check on communists possibly causes an unconscious attitude of carelessness at the other end of the political spectrum. The inquiries into the political pasts of the intending emigrants should be more searching.
I wholeheartedly agree with that editorial and with the prior remarks made by Mr. Coldwell in the house. That is why, Mr. Speaker, on April 4 of this year, as recorded at page 14488 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) this question:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and I do so at the request of a number of persons who are quite concerned about this matter. In view of the statement made on the C.B.C. on April 1 by Mr. Simon Wiesenthal that Canada is harbouring at least 15 nazi war criminals and that he advised the Canadian government of this fact some time ago, has the minister been advised by Mr. Simon Wiesenthal of these war criminals being in Canada and, if so, what action does the minister Intend to take on this information?
I shall look forward to the reply to my question by the minister or by the person representing him here this evening. I shall be anxious to know what action the government is taking in an effort to locate these former nazi war criminals, because I believe, as I think a good many other members of this house and the Canadian people believe, that the sooner the government takes action to rid Canada of people of this type the better it will be for the maintenance of democracy today and in the years to come.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that Mr. Wiesenthal did indeed come to Canada several weeks ago. He came to Toronto in connection with the release of his most recent book. Last summer Mr. Wiesenthal did, as the hon. member said, write to the Canadian embassy in Vienna to provide the embassy with the names, and in some cases the addresses, of people who he alleged were war criminals resident in Canada. The evidence respecting four out of approximately 12 such persons was considered by Mr. Wiesenthal to be particularly strong. He did not, however, supply our ambassador with detailed documentation concerning his allegations.
The information received from Mr. Wiesenthal was passed to other Canadian government departments, and the government departments concerned are continuing their examination of the general questions raised by the allegations that there are war criminals residing here. I am sure that the hon. member would be the first to agree that we should be governed by the system of law that we have in force, and, therefore it might be useful for him to know the exact circumstances under which these cases are considered.
A most careful study has been given to this matter and it is the considered view of the departments concerned that, even if such a person has in fact been guilty of a war crime committed abroad, it is unlikely, should he have acquired the status of a landed immigrant in Canada, that he could be punished in or deported from Canada for such activities. The Canadian Criminal Code does not extend to crimes committed outside this country-with one or two exceptions which are not relevant to the present circumstances- and, once an immigrant has acquired Canadian domicile, he is not subject to deportation for any but a specific and limited number of crimes which have been committed in this country and which are not relevant to the matter at issue.
I am sure the hon. member will recognize that there is a conflict in principle here between the grave concern we may have that persons who may have been guilty of the most abhorrent crimes have not been brought to justice and a basic principle which we have inherited from British justice, that criminal law should not be made retroactive in its application. However, with regard to the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration concerning the admission of persons in respect of whom there might be evidence of this kind, in the future I am sure the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and his officials will take notice of this question and bear it particularly in mind with regard to future applications.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-PROTECTION OF NUTRITION STANDARDS FOLLOWING MILK PRICE INCREASES

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago, in view of the fact that the price of milk was to go up by two cents a quart within a month, I asked the Prime Minister what plans he and the government have to protect the nutrition standards of individuals and families on low incomes. Mr. Speaker said that that was a question which should not be asked at that time, on orders of the day. We have talked about reforms here in this house and I should very much like to see a change made in the rules so that it would be possible to ask such questions on the orders of the day, especially questions which have to do with nutrition, housing and other important problems which affect the consumers of the country.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
My question was based on two news stories, one of which appeared in a Toronto paper and the other in an Ottawa paper. The Toronto paper mentioned that a two cent increase in the price of milk is expected on May 1. The Ottawa paper mentioned two cents or three cents. When I investigated the story I was first inclined to think that what we had been told was correct, that this increase in the price of milk would help the farmer. However, I discovered that the director of the milk marketing board for Ontario clearly pointed out that in any case only one cent of the two cent increase woud go to the farmer, and if the story in the Ottawa newspaper is correct that three of the leading dairies here will increase the price of milk by three cents, the farmer will still get only one cent and the dairies will get the other two. He also stated that the one cent received by the farmer would be practically wiped out because of a decrease in the consumption of milk. As a result I am beginning to wonder whether this increase will go to the farmer or whether the dairies will cash in.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
April 13, 1967
I am concerned with the living standards of the people in this country on low incomes. According to Canada's food guide, a publication of our own Department of National Health and Welfare, children up to 11 years of age require 2J cups or 20 fluid ounces of milk per day, adolescents require 4 cups or 32 fluid ounces per day, adults require 1J cups or 12 fluid ounces per day, and expectant and nursing mothers require 4 cups or 32 fluid ounces per day.
Nutritional experts suggest that milk is essential for growing children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, and that there is no other food which will provide calcium in sufficient quantity. A child would have to consume 7J cups of raw cabbage in order to obtain the same amount of calcium obtained in one quart of milk. When considering that a child needs 2J cups of milk per day one realizes how ridiculous it would be to suggest that cabbage could be used as a substitute.
I am also informed that one would have to drink 11 cups of orange juice to get the same amount of calcium obtained in one quart of milk. Calcium is a basic need for healthy teeth and bones.
According to the best information I have available the consumption of milk has been dropping over the years. In 1940, Canadians consumed 1,160 pounds of fluid milk per year per person. By 1950 this consumption had dropped to 1,140, by 1960 to 900 pounds, and in 1965 the consumption was 907 pounds per person. There were increases and decreases in consumption in the intervening years, but the figures I have given indicate a definite trend.
I do not know all the reasons for this trend but the basic one is the increased cost of milk during the years. On January 31, 1940, whole milk cost 11 cents a quart here in Ottawa. By 1951 the price had increased to 22 cents a quart. Last year there were two increases in the price of milk, one in March and the second in July. Today the cost of a quart of whole milk in Ottawa is 30 cents.
These increases in costs are beginning to interfere with the nutritional standard of people in this country. I should like to know what is going to be done about this situation to assist those families on low income. These days we hear a great deal about physical fitness. A man who raises chickens once said that if a small chick's nutritional needs were neglected for even one day, the chick would

April 13, 1967	COMMONS
be unable to recover that loss during its entire life. If that is true for chicks, what about children?


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and I appreciate her concern in this most important matter. I must hasten to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I prefer not to compare children with chickens. In my opinion children have a far higher priority. My interest is a very personal one because I have three children and I recognize the importance and need of nutrition and nutritional value for the children of today and for our future generations.
I am sure the hon. member is well aware of the fact that the government is as concerned as everybody else that Canadians have access to food of the highest nutritional quality. While I cannot with any great wisdom comment on a possible increase in the price of milk, I can assure the hon. member that the Department of National Health and Welfare is obliged to ensure that milk is clean and safe and meets adequate standards of nutrition and purity. One of the most economical and best sources of nutrient value in milk is in powdered milk, and as far as we know to date this commodity will not be affected by the price increase.
I should like also, if I may, to draw attention to a recent conference that I had the great privilege and pleasure of attending. I refer to the conference on child and maternal health. That conference was sponsored by the Department of National Health and Welfare and problems of this nature were brought very forcibly to the attention of all who were there. I think this government has made every effort to ensure that all Canadians, whatever their means, will be able to provide their families with sufficient quantities of milk.
I would refer particularly to the Canada Assistance Plan. This plan was enacted by parliament to ensure that people who do not have means adequate to provide food and other necessities can, through the assistance of the provincial and federal governments, meet the needs of their families for these necessities. I would like to assure the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that not
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion only am I concerned about this problem but the department for which I have the great honour to work shares her concern, and indeed concern for all the people of Canada.



POSTAL SERVICE-REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN GASPE AND BONA VENTURE CONSTITUENCIES

Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 1967, I put the following question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote):
In view of the large number of representations received from the far-away county of Bonaventure and a few communities in the county of Gaspd 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?
In raising such a question, which I admit, Mr. Speaker, is not of national urgency, my intention was not to delay unduly the normal proceedings of this house nor to embarrass the minister, but rather to point out to him in a particular way a problem which, in the area concerned, is considered as one of great local urgency.
In order to show more clearly the seriousness of the problem, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to give a brief historical account of the recent changes that occurred in the delivery of mail in the constituencies of Bonaventure and Gaspe.
For many years, numerous representations were made to the Post Office Department, through local parliament members, responsible bodies such as the district chamber of commerce, several local chambers of commerce, municipal councils, etc., in order to improve postal service on the southern shore of the Gaspe peninsula, from Cross Point, in the constituency of Bonaventure, up to Gaspe, in the county bearing the same name.
The Gaspe peninsula, which unfortunately is always considered as too remote every time one insists on establishing industries in that area which would improve its economy and even attract members of the professional classes, doctors, lawyers, to provide normal and essential services, has suffered and is still suffering from this remoteness, as regards mail delivery.
14912	COMMONS DEBATES	April 13, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The present minister is well acquainted with the Gaspe peninsula; since his appointment to the department which he is now heading he has thoroughly visited the Gaspe area and obtained on the spot, not only from those who make use of the mail, but also from the post office employees and civic authorities some information in the light of which he has set himself to the task not to attain perfection in the mail distribution in the Gaspe peninsula, but at least to bring some considerable improvements.
For example, in order to dispatch the outgoing and incoming mail in the shortest possible time, the Post Office Department initiated on February 1 last on the southern coast of the Gaspe peninsula, the transport of mail by truck, forgoing the traditional mode of transport, the railway.
An experiment had been made last year whereby second class mail and newspapers were moved by truck; the experiment had proved most satisfactory to the whole population.
In spite of this, Mr. Speaker, the new system inaugurated on February 1 last does not seem to operate to the people's satisfaction. It must be said that the numerous storms that struck the Gaspe peninsula last winter did not help matters. Still, February, March and half of April have gone by and the situation has not improved. Delays do not seem frequent in the delivery of mail from Gaspe to outside points, such as Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa, for instance.
As proof of this, I have here a letter from the secretary and general manager of the Gaspe C.F.U., Mr. Jobin, to the Postmaster General. Dated April 10, mailed on April 10 at Black Cape, in the Gaspe peninsula, it reached the House of Commons on April 11.
In general, complaints deal with mail deliveries between local post offices. The trouble is with the routing of the mails between post offices in Gaspe.
In the same letter addressed to the Postmaster General by Mr. Jobin,-he mentions, for instance, a letter mailed on March 31, 1967, in New Richmond, in the riding of Bon-aventure, to the parish priest at Grande-Riviere, 85 miles away. It reached its destination on April 5. It took 6 days to cover 85 miles, whereas another letter from Gaspe took only one day to cover 700 miles.

Mr. Speaker, that is a new service and, as in the case of any new business, before the personnel is used to its operation and its organization in every detail, it may take some time, and some difficulties we are not accustomed to may arise.
Tonight, however, I would ask the hon. minister, whose efficiency is only equalled by his talents and stature and who, in establishing transportation by truck in Gaspd, wanted not to delay the delivery of mail but to improve it considerably, to insist that his officials keep their eye on the present situation in Gaspe, in the best interest of those who use the mails and of the Post Office Department in general.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I readily understand that the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bechard) is somewhat disappointed by the reorganization of postal services in the Gaspe peninsula.
If I were living there, I would possibly be disappointed also. But I should like it understood, Mr. Speaker, that we have undertaken a complete reorganization of mail delivery in the Gaspe peninsula. This reorganization is in two stages: the first, as the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) mentioned, was first to carry outside mail by truck instead of by railway. And the same thing applies to the mail from Gaspe to the outside.
The second stage is the reorganization of mail distribution within the Gaspe peninsula. This phase, not yet completed, produces some temporary delays in mail deliveries.
For instance, sorting which used to be done on the train between some centres of the Gaspe peninsula, is now done in the offices and the distributing offices which we organized.
We still have to organize the rural routes before June 1st, and many small post offices will also disappear because too much mail is now spread about in too many small post offices and the postmasters, even though they would like to complete the mail bags intended for a given place, must, to complete a bag, put in it several letters which are often sent to a community where the addressee does not live, and that causes undue delay.
But I can assure the hon. member that, before very long, instead of finding fault with the Post Office Department, he will only have congratulations to offer that department,
April 13, 1967	COMMONS
because we think that within a few months, the reorganization will be fully completed and the Gaspe peninsula will then enjoy one of the best mail services in Canada. That experiment which we tried this year in the Gaspe peninsula will surely be carried out elsewhere in the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that an inspector has been on the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion spot since last Monday

he got there during a snow storm at that-to inspect all post offices and to explain to the postmasters the new departmental instructions. 1 believe this will result in an improved service within a short time.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, April 14, 1967