1967-04-14

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-289, to amend the Canada Elections Act (students' franchise).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: During the general election of November, 1965, many university students found themselves disfranchised under the provisions of subsection 9 of section 16 of the Canada Elections Act. I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that pursuant to subsections 6 and 7 of section 16 of that act, ministers and teachers may move into a new constituency at any time in the interval between the date of the issue of the writ and polling day, and register as voters. All this bill is asking is that registered university students be given the same privilege.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AIR POLLUTION


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-290, to control air pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Stanley Haidasz: Air pollution is today one of
the most vital and urgent problems confronting Canada. Pollutants in the air are causing injury to people, animals, vegetation and property. The progressive increase and complexity of air pollution brought about today by urbanization, industrialization, automobiles and the nuclear age, call for increased national leadership to protect all our national resources, including clean air. Within the limits of federal jurisdiction, this bill provides for action to assist provincial, regional, municipal and private agencies to abate air pollution.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MAINTENANCE OF PROTECTION FOR CANADIAN AGRICULTURE IN UNITED KINGDOM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I take it that the right hon. gentleman is referring to his own view that the bombing should be stopped and no action taken concerning the infiltrations from the north into the south. That is not the position of this government. The position of this government is that the war should stop and that there should be a cease fire at once.']
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the departure on Monday, I am informed, of quite a large number of Canadian ministers for the United Kingdom will leave a large void in the treasury benches for the time being. I presume that one of the subjects to be considered will be Britain's application for entry to the common market. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would assure the house that the cabinet delegation, while admitting Britain's right to make her own decisions as to the course she will follow, will press strongly for the protection of Canadian agriculture in the maintenance of those preferences that are now in existence?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the delegation undoubtedly will listen with interest to a report by the United Kingdom government on its recent policies and approaches with regard to entry into the common market. I can assure my hon. friend that in any discussions that take place we will make Canadian interests quite clear in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: And does that include agriculture, to which I specifically made reference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed it does, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, over a week ago the Prime Minister promised to look at the text of the appeal by Secretary General U Thant with respect to a unilateral cease fire in Viet Nam, and particularly to look at that part of the text which was quoted in the press as follows:
It becomes ever more clear to me that this impasse can be broken and a halt put to the increasingly horrible slaughter and destruction of the Viet Nam war only if one side or the other shows the wisdom and the courage and the compassion for humanity to take the initiative of a

April 14. 1967
Inquiries of the ministry first step, that is to say, by undertaking unilaterally to put the standstill truce into effect and thereafter to fire only if fired upon.
The Prime Minister was going to look at this text and, I believe, seek some clarification from the Secretary General's office. Is he now in a position to say what is Canada's position with respect to this request by U Thant?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the United States government has already indicated its willingness to accept at once the Secretary General's proposal that the fighting stop and peace negotiations begin. That proposal which would have brought the war to an end and have instituted a cease fire was rejected by the government of North Viet Nam.
The Secretary General made an additional proposal to which my hon. friend has referred, that unilateral action be taken by one side-in this case that could only be the United States and the South Vietnamese side-that the fighting stop on one side irrespective of action taken on the other side. This proposal is no doubt being discussed by the Secretary General during his present trip to Asia.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs expects to see the Secretary General next week in London when he will be discussing this whole matter with him, including the proposal to which my hon. friend refers. I should add that the Secretary of State for External Affairs tells me the meeting may not be in London, but he will be seeing the Secretary General shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Secretary General has again made an appeal for a unilateral cease fire, which he has repeatedly said would be applied only if the other side did not fire on United States forces, do I take it that the Canadian government is not yet prepared to support this appeal to the government of the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, any proposal to bring about an end to hostilities certainly will be considered by this government. As I have said, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be discussing this matter with the Secretary General of the United Nations following his visit to London next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread feeling on the part of Canadians

that there should be a pause in the bombing in Viet Nam, may I now ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? Will he reconsider the decision he made some months ago and have placed before the House of Commons a resolution so that Canada can speak with unity on this subject, and so that Canada's position will be clearly understood?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the committee on external affairs is meeting at the present time, and this matter could be discussed before that committee. I cannot think any useful purpose would be served at this moment by putting such a resolution on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister then suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs make known the view of this house, which seems to be fairly general, in a clear and definite statement instead of leaving the equivocal uncertainties which exist in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that the right hon. gentleman is referring to his own view that the bombing should be stopped and no action taken concerning the infiltrations from the north into the south. That is not the position of this government. The position of this government is that the war should stop and that there should be a cease fire at once.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, who is responsible for ARDA.
Did the minister have any talks with northwestern Quebec organizations with a view to proceeding to the development of the James Bay area, where tremendous resources could be developed if only ARDA assistance were available.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Under federalprovincial agreements, Mr. Speaker, organizations in northwestern Quebec should discuss this matter with the provincial minister responsible for ARDA, not with the federal minister.
April 14, 1967



FRASER RIVER-REQUEST FOR PREVENTIVE ACTION BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. When replying to a question raised by the hon. member for New Westminster a few days ago the Prime Minister indicated that the officials had been instructed to look into the question of the flood danger in the lower Fraser valley. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had a report on this situation, and whether he could make a statement to the house at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I have had a report from the officials and experts to the effect that it is too early to reach any conclusion concerning whether there is going to be really dangerous flooding in the Fraser valley, but that we should certainly be on the alert because this could happen. We have advised the provincial authorities who are in daily touch with the situation that the federal government will help in every possible way if this danger should materialize, and that we will be ready to meet any reasonable request for assistance in this regard.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (Si. John's Easi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister inform the house what steps have been taken or what measures are contemplated to assist the residents of Bell Island in Newfoundland as a result of the sudden closing of the DOSCO iron mines?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe a similar question was put to the Prime Minister yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. We have been in continuous consultation with the government of Newfoundland concerning appropriate measures which would assist the island.
In anticipation of the lay-offs, in the spring of last year we designated the island as an area whose work force would be eligible for
Inquiries of the Ministry grants rather than loans under our mobility program. So far this measure has resulted in moving out of the island almost one quarter of its population of 8,500 persons. The workers concerned have either been placed in employment or are being provided with retraining. The radically changed provisions of our mobility program, which became effective two weeks ago, will increase our ability to give effective help to the remainder of the population.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration what plans the federal government has in respect of the three quarters of the population who have not been moved out of that island, who are still apparently unemployed and suffering great hardship at the present time.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered the question in so far as the jurisdiction of my department is concerned. I do not think there is any one answer in so far as the second part of the question is concerned. It is always difficult for any community when the only company or plant is closed down. There are problems of reclassification, retraining, relocation and so on involved. It is not easy for us or anyone to solve this problem. We are trying to relocate these people and retrain them. That is all we can do at this moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that more than one department was involved in the discussions between the federal government and the government of Newfoundland. I should like, to ask him whether any plans are under way to assist in the development of new industry in that area. What other departments are negotiating with the government of Newfoundland to help the people of Bell Island?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the people on that island have been helped and we are continuing to help them in the manner indicated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister consider pulling the Minister of Industry off his world trip and sending him personally to Bell Island to do something about this situation? It has been known for many years that the island was in trouble.
14918

April 14, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



INQUIRY AS TO CONCLUSION OF GENEVA NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Because of the serious implications to the agriculture industry of any changes in tariffs in regard to fruits and vegetables I should like to ask the minister, who I know is very close to this matter, whether he is optimistic that the very serious negotiations being carried on at Geneva at this time will be completed before the prescribed time limit set by the United States.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. According to the authority under which the United States is negotiating the negotiations will come to an end at mid-year. They have no legislative authority to negotiate beyond that time. Most of the nations-I think it would be fair to say all of them-are now negotiating on the basis of a target date of April 30 for completion of the substantive negotiations so as to allow an adequate opportunity to complete the details and related arrangements that are necessary in the time intervening between then and mid-year. We are negotiating on the basis that the target date for terminating arrangements will be met.



BID BY CANADIAN COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR REACTOR IN FINLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that General Electric of Peterborough, Ontario was the successful one of three bidders for the construction of a $100 million nuclear power station in Finland, and in view of the Russian pressure put on the Finland authority to delay the project in order to provide Russia with an opportunity to bid on this project, have the Canadian authorities been aware of this situation and what action have they taken to counteract the Russian pressure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think both the preface and the question should be placed on the order paper.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent matter which might involve the loss of a $100 million contract. I do not think there is anything more urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the contract will be saved by the hon. member's question, or by the answer which might be given.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think it is urgent that the Secretary of State for External Affairs ascertain the position in this regard through the proper diplomatic channels, so that Canada's opportunity will not be jeopardized by any intervention on the part of Russia.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. However, he and I will discuss this matter at once.



REQUEST FOR ADVICE ON SPRING PLANTING ON PRAIRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. With wheat seeding operations on the prairies about to start is the minister in a position to advise farmers whether they should increase or decrease their wheat acreage this year in view of the apparent difficulty in negotiating a new international wheat agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much advice the western farmers need from me about planting wheat. However, earlier this week I had the opportunity to be in Regina, and stated that according to the forecast by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics western farmers will plant more acreage in wheat this year than in any year in history. I think that indicates the confidence they share with us that a new and better world wheat trading agreement will result from the negotiations now taking place.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my first question of the Minister of Justice. Being the first question it will be a simple one. Can the minister inform the house whether Harold Chamberlain Banks is going to be charged
April 14. 1967

with an offence under the Criminal Code as a result of consideration being given to this matter by the minister, the attorney general of the province of Ontario and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer would be that in normal cases the administration of justice does come under the province, but there may be special circumstances here. With your permission, sir, I would take the question of the hon. member for Kootenay West as notice and look into it.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I have before me a document entitled "Coat of Arms of Canada", issued by the Secretary of State, showing the coat of arms with the union jack, the unicorn, the lion and the fleur-de-lis. Has there been any change made of the coat of arms for Canada in recent days or weeks?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I want to know on what basis the centennial medallion which is shortly to be distributed is accompanied by this explanatory note: "The obverse or front side of the medallion has on it the Canadian coat of arms with the word 'Canada' ", I have here a replica of the particular medallion, which is an emasculated neuter. I ask on what authority that is going to be distributed to the school children of Canada when there has been no change in the coat of arms?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the medallion for some months, and unfortunately I cannot say from recollection what differences there may be. But I shall of course be happy to look into the matter and make a report to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate on what basis the lion and the unicorn, the words A mari usque ad mare, and some other portions of the coat of arms have been removed; I ask why this kind of caricature is going to be distributed to Canadian children when it does not represent Canada's coat of arms.
Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



DISCUSSION WITH C.B.C. RESPECTING EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the board of directors of the C.B.C. in its comments on the white paper on broadcasting which were made last November requested a discussion on the question of who might operate educational television broadcasting, may I ask the Secretary of State whether there was any discussion between the government and the C.B.C. with respect to this matter before the policy decision was made which is now before the house.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. During the formulation of the policy itself the C.B.C., as the major adviser to the government on broadcasting matters, was of course consulted. The matter was discussed. There is no compulsion, of course, to always accept the advice of your advisers, and in this particular case the advice of the C.B.C. was not accepted, by virtue of the fact that the C.B.C. is primarily a program producing agency while an educational television agency as conceived by the government is primarily one of providing facilities only and renting air to other program producing agencies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that in the field of educational broadcasting the C.B.C. has been only an operating agency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative, and is not in order.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The government has placed $100 million at the disposal of the department to build roads in the far north to improve communications. Has the minister been asked to build, out of those $100 million, an access road leading to James Bay in northern Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question should be put on the order paper.
14920	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment [English]



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Some days ago the minister's parliamentary secretary indicated that the government was giving consideration at this time to the regulation of cigarette advertising on radio and television. Can the minister indicate when a decision on that important question may be expected?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me to say when a decision will be made on this point.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the premier of Ontario has indicated possible financial help to the unfortunate shareholders of Prudential Finance, does the federal government intend to participate in this plan of reimbursement to the persons who have suffered?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the plans of the government of Ontario. However, I can say that the government of Canada has no intention of participating.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 13, 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.

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last night I was in the process of pointing out to the minister that he was flying in the face of convention by trying to unify Canada's armed forces while in the past few years our two traditional allies, the United States and Great Britain, have proceeded to a policy of deunification. I pointed out that at one time Great Britain, Canada and the United States all considered their respective air forces so important that they set them up as separate units. As a matter of fact the United States separated the air force from the army and the navy in 1947.
Toward the end of the sitting yesterday I echoed a question asked by Air Marshal Curtis; "Is the minister out of his mind?" I do not think I am alone in questioning the ability of the minister to make a decision such as the one he made. As a matter of fact I also pointed out last night that the minister found it necessary to fire or retire a great number of high ranking military officers until he found a corps of officers who would agree with the stand he has taken.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Raymond Ballard: So the minister is sitting on his side of the house stubbornly ignoring all the pleas and suggestions put forward not only by members on this side of the house but also by senior ranking officers who have gone into retirement, either voluntarily or been forced to do it. Even the press of Canada has written about the stubbornness of the minister. As a matter of fact one of Canada's foremost columnists, Mr. Charles Lynch, wrote the following in the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, March 22:
Mr. Hellyer has locked himself Into so rigid a position in support of the unification bill that it is hard to imagine him accepting major modifications.
We are not asking for major modifications. We are asking for minor, reasonable and sensible modifications to the bill now before us. Mr. Lynch went on to explain the reason the minister will not accept any changes. He wrote the following:
If he did accept them, it is hard to see how he could stomach the political implications of such a humiliation-and that is how his critics would interpret it.
At best, he would have to move to some other portfolio, accepting a major setback to his political ambitions.
April 14, 1967	COMMONS
So it is not only we on this side of the house and some members of the minister's own party who recognize the fact that the minister has political ambitions. It is recognized by all across the country that the minister has designs on the highest office in this land, and in my opinion he is prepared to frustrate the defence efforts of this country in order to further his own political ambitions.


Mr. Byrne:: Who is Mr. Lynch? He is not a member of parliament.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Lynch says also:
The simplest solution, and the one that most likely would have been adopted had rigor mortis not set in as stiffly as it has, would be to amend the bill in a way that would preserve the army, navy and air force identities within the proposed unified structure.
In other words he suggests integration but not unification. The opinion is now fairly widespread regarding the unacceptability of the concept of unification. As a matter of fact some of the prominent witnesses who appeared before the defence committee were quite convinced that a change in the armed forces to bring about the unification which is now proposed would automatically alter our defence commitments. I should like to quote two or three of these, Mr. Chairman, but I do not want to quote them all because that would be too time consuming. First of all I should like to quote from the evidence of General Charles Foulkes as recorded on page 1220 of the evidence before the defence committee:
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
However, the roles of these two brigades in NATO are not indicated. Nobody knows what they are going to do-if they do, they do not say so-or under whose auspices these forces will be employed in this world-wide pacification role.
We are suspicious that Canada's defence forces are being tailored for a particular purpose. We suspect that the defence forces are being groomed with the idea in mind of dropping out of our defence commitments in NATO and NORAD and carrying on with only our commitment to the United Nations.
I should like to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should take a look at history. He would find a very distinct parallel between what is taking place today and what took place prior to the war of 1939-1945. He would find that the attitude of Great Britain and other countries was pacific. At that time the major nations of the world were putting a tremendous amount of faith in the League of Nations. They considered that
National Defence Act Amendment the greatest deterrent to any armed conflict was the world opinion that would be against any kind of war. As a matter of fact, even in the last days before the war the British people were convinced that the public opinion that would be aroused against any action taken by Adolf Hitler would force him to recant and proceed with his plans in a peaceful manner.
We find ourselves in the same situation today, Mr. Chairman. We have people advocating that we ignore what is commonly called power politics and pin our hopes entirely on the United Nations. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister of this country, before he was prime minister, made a speech at the University of British Columbia on this thought that public opinion would deter any future war. He was speaking to the University of British Columbia on the transformation of the traditional concept of international power politics to the rule by international law, international organization and international force. He had this to say in 1961:
During this period of transformation, it is certain that force will continue to be a basis of policy. In the past, it has often been used with cruel injustice. But not always. In the hands of conscientious patrons it has also been the instrument for maintaining rough international justice, as well as security and stability. It is when great power is controlled by governments that cannot be counted on to use it justly or responsibly, that we grow fearful. So we collect counterforce and use it through power politics to prevent ourselves being overpowered. If we did not, diplomacy and the negotiation of disputes would be determined by the threat of one sided force in the background.
This, then, is the situation which in reality determines our approach to the ideal disarmament and the abolition of national force. All our high sounding declarations must be interpreted in that context. We should not try to deceive ourselves.
Well now, Mr. Chairman, this was the attitude of the present Prime Minister of this country. He said, and I repeat:
This, then, is the situation which in reality determines our approach to the ideal disarmament and the abolition of national force. All our high sounding declarations must be interpreted in that context.
How does this statement fit into the present situation? We find that the Minister of National Defence is trying to abolish the traditional fighting forces of this country. We find the Secretary of State for External Affairs trying to assure this house that we are not going to change any of our international commitments. When he was referring to NATO and NORAD he made it very plain to this house that the government had no intention of changing those commitments for the moment. There was no suggestion we would carry on these commitments for a year or five
14922	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment years or ten years; he said "For the moment".
I think we are entitled, and the people of Canada are entitled, to know that these commitments will be continued for an indefinite period.
As we all know, the NORAD agreement will be renegotiated next year. The question I should like to ask is this. Will our defence forces be changed to such an extent that we will not be capable of being a partner in NORAD? Is this a deliberate move by the government of this country to develop forces capable only of action in respect to our commitments to the United Nations? The attitude of the Prime Minister leads one to believe that he is staking his political future on the hope that moral suasion will be an effective deterrent to war. If it is, it will be the first time in history that this has happened.
It might be pointed out that the only countries that have really followed the dictates of the United Nations have been the western countries. The eastern countries, for example Soviet Russia, have used the veto over 100 times. The only large concessions that have been made have come from the western countries. In spite of this the Prime Minister of this country, according to his speech to the University of British Columbia in 1961, believes that the United Nations can mobilize the moral forces of the international community against any bloc which threatens world peace. I remind you that the same thing was said of the League of Nations before the war of 1939.
Referring again to the speech delivered by the Prime Minister I find this:
The United Nations assembly is creating something in the nature of a world public opinion. This does have an effect in checking, if not yet in preventing, aggressive actions by predatory individual states. It has its own power for peace.
Lord help us, Mr. Chairman, if we rely strictly on world public opinion for the peace of this country. I say I suspect the change in the military forces of this country and the adoption of an untried method of operation is directly designed to tailor the forces of this country for the United Nations, and for the withdrawal of this country from its commitments to NORAD and NATO.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I am not alone in that thought. Lieutenant General Moncel, when questioned about changes in commitments, said this at page 1305 of the committee evidence:
-if you do change your commitments and produce a unified force to meet these much reduced

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
commitments, then you should bear in mind that you are never again going to have a commitment that might call for something other than a unified force.
Lieutenant General Moncel was saying that once a force is unified it can only be used in the context where a unified force is necessary, and it will not be useful for NATO or NORAD. Air Vice Marshal Hendrick at page 1451 of the committee evidence agreed with Lieutenant General Moncel and said:
The policy changes, in my view, are there by implication; by the withdrawal from NORAD, the withdrawal from NATO, and the concentration of our efforts in the support of the United Nations. This seems to be inevitable from the events that are taking place and the equipment policies that are going on.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say that we do not intend to change our commitments for the moment. We want to know, are the defence forces of this country being tailored to suit United Nations projects to the exclusion of commitments that we have with NATO and NORAD? Lieutenant General Moncel has suggested that this is so. He said that once you start down the road of unification there is no turning back.
Members of this house and the people of this country have a right to demand a fuller explanation from the ministers than has been given up to the present time. I suggest that consideration should be given to withdrawing this bill, and more thought should be given to the commitments we have abroad.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to many excellent speeches in this debate. Many of the speeches were by hon. members with tremendous experience as soldiers and outstanding records in this regard to back their opinions. If experience in war is not the best qualification for participating in this debate, then I should like to hear hon. members on the government side say what is the best qualification. I was astonished to see the light attendance on the government side when the former minister of national defence opened this debate in the house. He has a tremendous record as a minister, a tremendous record in war, and he is one to whom everyone in this house should listen with great respect.
I was amazed yesterday, when the hon, member for Northumberland was speaking from first hand experience about the vital importance of morale in the armed forces, to notice considerable smirking on the government side. I heard one backbencher saying
April 14, 1967

"What's that got to do with it?" I submit what the hon. member for Northumberland said was extremely relevant. Seldom have I seen an ex-minister, a former soldier of the hon. member's calibre, faced with such a smug reaction. If hon. members sitting opposite take the trouble to look into the contribution made during the war by the hon. member for Northumberland, they will probably blanch. They ought to have had the good sense to listen to what he said on this subject, and they should have shown respect.


Mr. Churchill:: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: Knowledgeable speakers have made reasonable speeches in this debate, but they have been met with supercilious smugness. Rarely do we see this behaviour when hon. members who are doctors rise to speak about medicine. They are not met with derision. Treating their remarks in that way would be silly. It seems silly, under these circumstances, to treat with derision the remarks of hon. members who have experience and knowledge of the subject.
I support the hon. member who has just spoken and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, who appealed to the minister and to the Prime Minister to reconsider this legislation which is meeting such sincere and stiff opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: Yesterday the hon. member
for Victoria-Carleton made an excellent speech in which he asked the minister questions. The minister either cannot or will not face them. Every member of the house knows that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton does not speak lightly, that he does not often take up the time of the house. He speaks when he is gravely concerned with an issue under discussion.
I heard a smug interjection yesterday from the government side of the house to the effect that those members on this side now taking part in the debate have been told to do so by our whip. That was letting the cat out of the bag. If that sort of thing happens on the other side, I can only assure hon. members that it does not happen with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Dinsdale:: They even get their speeches written for them.


Jean Casselman Wadds: They are lucky. We speak when we want to speak, and if the government will not respect our contributions of
National Defence Act Amendment sincere criticism then I feel that the Canadian public will.
A great deal of the spirit in our centennial celebrations, much of the pride we feel in being Canadians, a pride built up over 100 years of nationhood, comes from the achievements of our armed forces. We are a thinly populated country with vast land area, but we feel akin to other countries with relatively small populations such as Finland, Norway and many others like them, which have histories of glorious military achievements.
As has been asked by other hon. members, are we to barge blindly into a position where we cannot dovetail our forces to fit our international commitments? Are our forces to be left sadly at home on Canadian soil, carrying on in their own little Canadian way? The Secretary of State for External Affairs, in supporting the Minister of National Defence, says this measure will not make any difference to our commitments; yet the testimony of military experts is that it will make a difference, a great difference. Surely that very possibility points to an uninspiring future for a country that has done so much already by way of international military co-operation.
I noticed yesterday that when hon. members mentioned General Moncel or quoted from his testimony there was no great show of joy on the faces of government members sitting on the front benches. On page 1317 of the committee proceedings Lieutenant General Moncel is reported as saying:
[DOT] (12 noon)
It must be a progressive thing all the time, toward the most effective Canadian defence force. This is the object of the exercise; it is not unification.
This is an eminently sound, sensible and reasonable statement. Integration has been progressive and promises to continue to be acceptable as it proves itself step by step, but I submit that an attempt to impose unification on Canadians as a sort of extended integration is unfair. It has been said by the opposition in the course of the democratic process which is practised here that we should know where we are going before we take such a gigantic step, such an irretrievable step.
Yesterday the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, asking whether the government was justified in taking such a serious step, wondered whether they had anything further to back them up than promises of success and improvement. Experts say that morale will not be improved and that costs will not decrease. But the minister chooses to make fun
April 14, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment of experts, using an amusing rhyme. I am sure the minister can be very entertaining on other occasions with such amusing rhymes, but I submit there is hardly a place for them in such a serious debate as this, particularly in an age in which specialization is the keystone of success in science, medicine, education and certainly in military affairs.
Ridiculing experts in any area is hardly in keeping with the kind of society in which we are living today. If the government is as sure of itself as it should be in connection with such a serious matter as this, why are not more of the senior ministers coming to the aid of the minister of defence? The Minister of Transport was not very convincing. On April 7, as reported at page 14666 of Hansard, he said:
The idea of parliament prying, probing and trying to get at the advice the minister received instead of discussing the question on its merits ... does not seem to be an effective way of reaching a conclusion.
It seems to me it is important for the house to know where the minister gets his advice, if indeed he gets any advice at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: It seems to me it is fundamental in our approach to any legislation to know where a minister obtains his advice. Further, the Minister of Transport said we were heading straight into an unknown area. As reported at page 14667 he stated:
The point I am making is that in so far as the progress on integration is concerned, that has been going on for three or four years and the evidence of military experts is, of course, of great relevance. However, in so far as unification is concerned it has no relevance whatever. I want to repeat that. The evidence of experts is of no relevance whatever because there are no experts. There never has been, under modern conditions at least, a unified military force.
I want to repeat certain of those words.
The evidence of experts is of no relevance whatever because there are no experts. There never has been, under modern conditions at least, a unified force.
Later the hon. gentleman told us:
It is a step into something which nobody has ever experienced. I suggest that generally we are apt to get the most imaginative views from young people who have a sense of adventure and not from people who fought in the last war, however gallantly.
I regret that an hon. gentleman I find so personally amiable as the Minister of Transport, and one who is considered such a great source of strength to the Liberal party, 
should make a statement of that sort. A sense of adventure is a delightful attribute and may well lead to imaginative views, but to imply that a sense of adventure and imaginative views replace the blood and sweat of experience in combat seems to me a trifle ludicrous. One would imagine we were discussing the qualifications for modern art rather than the realities, in deadly earnest-kill or be killed -which war brings.
The present debate reminds me of a family which is trying to urge a senior member to make a will. Nobody likes to put into words the real reason why it should be done. Nobody likes to discuss the realities of war, the killing side of it, the horrors of war. But we would be derelict in our duty if we allowed this debate to slide along on a superficial level at which men of proven courage, bravery and experience are listened to less than those of imagination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: The Minister of Transport continued by expressing an opinion that in the last war there was very rapid promotion of young people "because it was felt that in battle young, vigorous and imaginative people were needed". The former minister of defence, my hon. friend from Calgary North, interjected "It was a question of endurance to a large extent." To which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate answered "Maybe it was. Perhaps this is not a very good or strong argument." Mr. Chairman, the minister of defence needs stronger support than this from his cabinet colleagues if he is to convince us on this side that the government has its heart and soul behind this project.
Surely it is fair to ask the minister what he proposes to do if the opinions of the experts -experienced people, intelligent people, and certainly sincere people-prove to be right and no one wants to join this unified force. Is he prepared to let Canada's defences collapse and tell the world that we have disarmed ourselves by accident, or confusion, or misunderstanding? Or is he prepared to accept conscription? Or does he know some way of un-unifying unification? It may not be considered flattering, but it might well be considered sensible to ask a person in a leaky boat whether he knows how to swim. Has the minister any alternative apart from abandoning our defence contribution to the free world should the criticism directed at this bill prove to have been correct?
I am afraid the charming gentleman of the navy, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.)
April 14. 1967

(Mr. Groos) will not like what I have to say now. On Tuesday of this week he expressed the opinion that too much criticism in this house might be demoralizing to the armed forces. I submit that any legislation which will not stand up to criticism will not stand up to practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: I do not consider myself irresponsible, and I do not consider those who have taken part in this debate so far from these benches to be irresponsible. Much as I would sincerely regret any demoralization of the armed forces for any reason, it does appear to me that this bill is worthy of further study and consideration. If the very discussion of it may cause demoralization it is obvious that we are not on very firm ground. Surely discussion and debate of good legislation improve and strengthen it. It is the responsibility of the government to prove that this legislation is good. Scoffing at opposition warnings on the ground that debate and criticism are demoralizing is hardly designed to carry out that responsibility. To expect authority to continue with integration where each step can be followed and observed is one thing. It is altogether another thing to expect authority to proceed on a course which the Minister of Transport tries to classify as an adventure by stating there are no experts with regard to it because the plan is too imaginative.
The controversy with regard to Lord Louis Mountbatten's opinions has been far reaching, but the position is now entirely clear. The daily Colonist of Victoria, B.C. of April 5 reported the following statement:
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
In the British reorganization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale and those traditions which help to maintain this in the services and fighting units.
It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary.
Further on he said:
The general cut and colour of naval uniforms are internationally so well known that a sailor from any one country can readily be recognized as a sailor in any other country. Sailors the world over take great pride in this and so in their own services do soldiers and airmen. No compensating advantage could be seen in attempting to impose so unpopular a change.
National Defence Act Amendment
The minister and the government cannot hide behind accusations of opposition obstruction and delay in this debate. There has been too much criticism outside the house, even in the Winnipeg Free Press, which on Tuesday, April 4 carried a lead editorial headed "Destroying Defence." Part of it reads as follows:
This revolutionary gamble and experiment is being foisted on Canada in face of the strongest possible protest by nearly every experienced admiral, general and air marshal in the country.
If this step could simply be classed as a further blunder by an accident prone government, and could be corrected when its faults became clearly apparent, the country could perhaps afford to go along for the ride.
When it is realized, however, that Mr. Hellyer is playing with an annual investment of some $1.6 billion which vitally concerns the defence structure of the nation and involves our international obligations, the magnitude of this error becomes obvious.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, "We on this side of the house have said that we should retain the three services, work away at the integrated side and see whether we can make a success of it." The insistence on hurrying this bill through seems to us unnecessary, at least militarily though possibly not politically. The Minister of National Defence seems to be very pleased when he is referred to as a minister of the jet age. That seems to me rather close to being called a minister of the jet set. We all know the jet set go very fast but it does not follow that they are accomplishing anything of much value.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member realize that regardless of the issue, her entry into this debate and her charming presence and delivery have raised the morale of members on both sides of the chamber?
Some hon Members: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see the hon. lady nods her assent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, for reasons that will be obvious in a moment or two, I do not rise to discuss the terms of the bill now before us. Neither do I intend to make any comment on the nature of the debate or on the positions taken by the opposing sides. But I do have a suggestion to make regarding our procedure. I make it in the best of faith, and I make it now in the hope that it might be considered over the week end or perhaps for even a day or two longer than that.
April 14, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
If I may say so without arousing any feelings, it is now fairly clear that there will be a time established when this debate will come to an end. That may be arrived at by agreement or it may be arrived at by the procedures laid down in one of the provisional rules under which we are operating. At the moment I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of that course. I am simply suggesting that it is fairly obvious that a time limit will be set.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a matter of some concern that during the time this bill is before us we should have discussion on a number of its clauses. It looks to me as though the earliest this debate could end under provisional standing order 15-A would be a week from next Tuesday, but I think it would be most unfortunate if all our time between now and then were spent on clause 2. That may happen, though there is always the possibility that the debate on clause 2 could end even without any arrangement or understanding.
But, Mr. Chairman, there are 65 clauses in the bill and two schedules. I recognize that many of them that are clauses which contain details may not need to be discussed at length, but there are some very important provisions in some of the other clauses and I think we ought to have a chance to discuss them. It would be most unfortunate if the application of rule 15-A were such that we spent all our time on clause 2 and then had to vote on all the other clauses without any discussion. This would be unfortunate in terms of the bill and unfortunate for parliament, and I can readily imagine the things that will be said if this happens. All this could be avoided if we could come to an agreement.
I am not proposing that anything should be done in any other way than by agreement. Let me put it this way. Maybe on Monday night we could agree to adjourn the debate on clause 2 and proceed to take up some of the other clauses. I am not suggesting that a vote be taken on clause 2 at that time. I am only suggesting that we adjourn the debate on it and move on to some of the other clauses which deserve to be discussed. I understand that clause 6 should be discussed at some length and a few other clauses dealing with uniforms and rank structures in the services. There are also matters in the schedules that should be discussed.
It may be argued that we should not discuss these other matters until we have decided on the principle of a unified force which is
[Mr. Knowles.J

set out in clause 2, but I suggest we should not try to reach a decision on that clause by forcing a vote on it if hon. members want to discuss other clauses. Let us not get ourselves into a position where we can be called upon to make a final decision on a bill 64 clauses of which have not been discussed at all.
Again I say I am not assessing blame. I am not saying the opposition is preventing the discussion of the other clauses by discussing clause 2, and I am not suggesting the government is to blame for asking the house to consider the use of standing order 15-A. I am asking all of us to face the fact that we have a limited amount of time left-it might be seven or eight days or it might be longer-to discuss all the clauses in the bill which hon. members want to discuss. I am sure there are many other clauses that are important, and they should get a bit of an airing in the committee of the whole.
Of course I hope the application of standing order 15-A will not be too severe. As I say, even the minimum times allowed under it would keep this debate going in committee stage and on third reading until a week from Tuesday night, but it may extend longer than that. All I am asking is that we think about this over the week end and come to some agreement.
I have looked up the rules and I believe you would have difficulty, Mr. Chairman, if a motion were made to stand clause 2 without general agreement. There would be no point in having a procedural wrangle over that. But I think we could have an understanding that having spent 10 or 11 days on clause 2, without taking the vote on it at this point, we should go on to discuss the other clauses. The result of this might be that if members of the official opposition continue to stage their case on some of the other clauses they would persuade the government that the bill should be held off. Let us not use all our time on one clause. Let us take a good look at all the provisions of the bill. I hope this proposal will be considered.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, this is a most reasonable suggestion on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I must say that I am in complete agreement with it, and I would hope this idea would commend itself to members of the committee. It is in fact the same procedure which was followed in the standing committee on national defence, which worked very well there. Perhaps during the course of the day representatives
April 14, 1967	COMMONS
of the various parties could meet under circumstances which would enable us, later this day or at the first of the week, to continue under a procedure along those lines.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question. There is another suggestion which might be advanced. Over the week end would the minister consider withdrawing the bill and postponing it until the fall because, as he has told us, it really will not become operative until about five years from now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, of course I would be glad to consider that, but as I have told my hon. friend I really believe it would be irresponsible action on my part if I were to withdraw this bill at this stage and postpone it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You would be praised for it and would be a man of great distinction.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I might be praised by the hon. gentleman, but certainly not by the officials who are charged with the responsibility of implementing the integration and unification program. It is as a result of their advice that I feel we must proceed at the present time. There are a number of questions which must be answered. Only when we know the will of parliament will we know on what basis to proceed.
I agree completely with the advice of the sincere, dedicated and experienced hon. lady who spoke a few moments ago that we should proceed at this time and let the will of parliament be known so the officials who have the responsibility of implementing this policy will be able to prepare their plans based on the will of parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it not a fact that in the committee General Allard told us that he would like to see the proclamation of the bill postponed for at least four months, and that until the bill is proclaimed no action can be taken with regard to the steps toward unification. That is the advice of the senior officer in the defence forces.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is quite so, Mr. Chairman; it will not be proclaimed for several months after parliament approves it, if it does approve it. Even more time than that may be required; but as was clearly pointed out in the committee certain action must be taken in the department which really can be done only after the bill has received parliamentary approval and after the exact wording of the bill is known to the staff in the department. This 23033-9441
National Defence Act Amendment includes a rewriting of the entire Queen's Regulations and so on. It is for that reason it is necessary to have the parliamentary decision now. The proclamation, of course, will be postponed for some months while the detailed planning directly related to the bill in so far as personnel management is concerned is worked out by the responsible staff.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it not a fact that not one single act with regard to unification can be taken until the bill is proclaimed? Until the bill is proclaimed it is not the law of the land.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is quite true that it is not the law of the land, but the planning which is required to implement the bill can proceed once the bill is passed and once the staff know what are the provisions of the law.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister, is it not a fact that General Allard said in his evidence that he thought it would be extremely damaging to morale if there should be a continuation of the uncertainty which exists at the present time. I believe he urged the committee to proceed to a decision at the earliest possible date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct; that is General Allard's opinion, and I concur in it. It is also the opinion of other senior officers at headquarters who are charged with the responsibility for implementing the reorganization program.


Mr. Lambert:: This is putting the cart before the horse.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are getting slightly away from the point. The minister made an interesting statement. He said the plans have not been completed in respect of this bill concerning unification which we are discussing. Obviously if we do not know where we are going we should not have this bill in front of us. With regard to proclamation, what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said is quite correct; there is no legal possibility of proceeding with any plans until we do have the bill proclaimed. For the life of me I do not see why, if the bill is going through, it should not be put through and proclaimed immediately rather than be delayed for some further decisions which perhaps the minister wishes to have included.
In other words the bill itself is a carte blanche for anything the minister should like to put forward. The fact of proclamation cannot change this in any way, shape or form. I
April 14. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment fail to follow his argument in respect of proclamation. I do not understand why we should hesitate. I am sure there is some planning necessary, but the intention of the minister should be placed before the house so this can be discussed when the bill is before us and when we are considering it clause by clause. We should have from the minister a clear statement concerning what he intends to do.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This question was raised in the standing committee on national defence and the Judge Advocate General pointed out that there are certain regulations which cannot be completed until the form of the bill is known. Let me give an example. The committee already has proposed an amendment which gives to the governor in council the responsibility to designate the names of the ranks to be used, whereas in the original draft of the bill this power was given to the minister. This means there will be a difference in the type of order which must be promulgated in order to give practical effect to this provision.
It is quite impossible for the legal staff to properly prepare the orders until they know what actually is the text of the law. The Judge Advocate General said it would be several months after the bill has been approved by parliament before we would be in a position to ask the governor in council to proclaim it.


David Vaughan Pugh: On that point may I say that I fail to see what effect the fact that orders will have to be issued down through the services will have on the matter of proclamation. This will in no way be affected by the fact that the bill has been passed by parliament but is unproclaimed. The proclamation of the bill in the end will not take away the uncertainty. Certainly any problems which might exist in respect of the issuing of orders down through the various services cannot have any effect on the proclamation. The bill will not be changed in any shape or form, nor will any new wording be introduced in the bill. After the bill is passed, if it is passed, there will be no changes made in the bill itself. The final proclamation of the bill will give it full effect and force under the law. If the proclamation is held up I think this will leave in the minds of the people a doubt concerning what the minister intends to do.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend seems to miss the point. A number of changes were made to the text of the law during the hearings of the committee on national defence, and these


changes have been recommended to the House of Commons and this committee. It is possible that during the course of the deliberations in this committee there might be other amendments. I cannot say whether there will or will not be. It is quite possible, however, that we might find that other technical changes are desirable in the interests of implementing the general proposal. If that should happen this would alter the regulations which must be prepared based on the law. Consequently I believe it is a perfectly valid proposition that the staff cannot provide the draft regulations until they know precisely what the law looks like.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


David Vaughan Pugh: Far from my missing the point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that what the minister has just said of course bears out exactly what I have put forward. Nothing in this bill can be changed in any way, shape or form after it has been passed by this house. Any amendments which may be put forward by the government or accepted by the government as proposed by the opposition cannot be made after the bill has passed this house. These changes must be made during our clause by clause consideration. I suggest the regulations will be made in accordance with the bill as passed.
The suggestion that proclamation be withheld leaves me uneasy in my mind. I have an underlying uneasiness that the minister proposes to hold up proclamation because he is finally afraid to implement the purposes of this bill. Maybe he has received some advice from the cabinet that we should not go ahead with these measures, in which case we are now wasting our time. We should know now that when this bill is passed it will go immediately to that other place, where I hope it will be given long, serious and sober thought. Perhaps they will throw it out.
We should have proclamation at the earliest possible time following passage of the bill. We do not want any hidden idea that the minister is getting advice from down the line somewhere regarding possible changes. Regulations can only be made according to the bill as passed by this house, and the bill as passed by this house will be the bill finally proclaimed. Why should we wait for months?
I read over General Allard's evidence, and assure you that he said it would take some time before the bill would be proclaimed and that when he was good and ready he would tell the minister to proclaim it. That is in the evidence and I heard him say it. I wondered
April 14, 1967

about it at the time. It seems to me that withholding proclamation after passing the bill for any purpose whatever will raise the speculation that something else will be slipped in, in some way or another.
I am very clear as to what the minister has said, but surely we cannot hold off proclamation after passing the bill. To do so would be completely and utterly wrong and would leave a feeling in the minds of all members of the house that there is something devious going on. The minister gave one example of why proclamation could be withheld, but surely that related merely to a departmental matter. How can they go ahead and implement these measures if the bill is not promulgated? These people know it will be promulgated unless the government is defeated in the meantime. That might change the whole pattern.
In any event the armed forces will be left in doubt about the whole matter until proclamation. Whether that takes four months or four years does not make much difference if these measures are to be implemented on a piecemeal basis, but this will leave an uneasiness in the minds of many people, and this uneasiness will find its way to service personnel. This in turn will have an effect on the morale of our servicemen. Surely the minister must realize that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We shall keep in mind the advice of the hon. gentleman to the effect the bill should be proclaimed as expeditiously as reasonably possible after passage by parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It should be withdrawn now.


Thomas Miller Bell: After listening to what the minister has said about delaying proclamation I cannot help but say that this sounds like someone getting married six months after a child has been born. I do not need to tell you what kind of a child that is in my opinion.


David Vaughan Pugh: They do not proclaim it very loudly at that time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is like getting a licence before getting married.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have not spoken so far on this bill although I have intended to do so for some months. So far as I am personally concerned this is the time to speak. Whether the proposal suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be considered over the week end-and
National Defence Act Amendment that is another matter-it is at this time I feel I should speak on the bill. If the hon. member's proposal was accepted we would to a certain extent be anticipating the prerogative of Mr. Speaker to allow two days for the proposal of amendments under the new procedures, but I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration.
Many hon. members have said they had not intended to speak during this debate but have done so because of the arrogance of the minister and the lack of information. I have always felt that the part of this bill which abolishes the navy is shocking. For many months I have felt that I must say something in this regard. The traditions and the separate identity of the navy are very important. On many occasions I have risen in my place and said that I for one have been alarmed at the lack of attention given to the sea and its importance to this country which perhaps has the longest coast line in the world. This is a nation of landlubbers. Instead of being proud of the traditions of the sea and bringing up our young people accordingly, we forget about it.
By passing this bill we will completely wipe out the navy. That is a retrograde step, and as one who has been kicking around the waterfront for many years, and who was privileged to sail from the rugged shores of Canada and safely return, I am alarmed. I think this step will set us back many years.
The tradition of the navy is very interesting. I wonder what will happen to all those posters that one recalls in a nostalgic way which suggested to our youth "Join the navy and see the world"? I suppose the old slogan that a sailor has a girl in every port will no longer be of any value. I do not know what the girls will do or whether they are concerned, but that has always been part of the adventure of joining the navy. That idea will be completely forgotten as part of our Canadian way of life. I have very carefully read the testimony and the speeches pertaining to the navy, and I find they have been mostly one-sided. No answers were given in respect of the pride of separate identity. Our youth will no longer have the opportunity of feeling that pride.
If one needed an excuse to take part in this debate the intervention by the Minister of Transport last Friday is excuse enough. The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas has referred to one or two quotations from the speech of the Minister of Transport. I am comforted by the fact that in her excellent
14930	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment address she used them to even greater advantage than I might have done, Mr. Chairman. I was amazed to sit in my place and listen to the Minister of Transport refer, as he always does, to what went on in the minds of the members of the cabinet and other members on the government side regarding this abolition bill. Why a minister from Newfoundland should speak in such gloating terms about doing away with the navy is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps that is the reason he was sent up north this week.
The minister has had many troubles in his department with respect to navigation on the St. Lawrence. The Registrar General was in the chamber a moment ago following the debate. I would have liked to hear him express his opinions on this matter. We all know the reason for not having Canadian navigation on the St. Lawrence river. It is because we do not have qualified seamen here. Seamen of this type are not trained in Canada. We have to go to the United Kingdom for most of our pilots. Our young fellows do not follow the sea.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Many measures have been taken by the Department of Transport to try to interest our youth in this career. We have a coast guard training school. Its members are in naval uniform. We are trying to build up a pride of service there. If this bill goes through where will Canada stand as far as our navy is concerned? We will have coast guard officers and ferry boat captains. Won't that be nice when we meet the nations of the world at naval meetings? I recall nostalgically the large convoy meetings that were held in Halifax and Norfolk during the last war, when the various ships and navies came into port. It was a sight to see them all in their naval uniforms receiving orders for the convoys that were the lifeblood of the troops and the people in Europe. Will it not be ridiculous if we have another war and hundreds of naval officers are gathered in a room planning the convoys and the Canadians are sitting there in their jolly green jumpers? It is too ridiculous, in my opinion, to even talk about.
The remarks of hon. members opposite, and particularly those of the Minister of Transport, show what little consideration was given in cabinet to this matter. I searched the record vainly for answers to the questions we have asked. I searched for answers to the questions we have raised about naval tradition, particularly in the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), a distinguished naval officer. We have asked why morale is

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
reduced, recruiting so difficult, and our young people are leaving the service. The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) and the Minister of Transport dragged in everything they could about the swingers, Marshall McLuhan and other things.
I have mentioned the naval record of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), and I wish to pay tribute to the admirals who courageously came forward and were criticized by many hon. members for stating their opinions. I have read the testimony of Admirals Lan-dymore and Rayner. Everybody in Canada, regardless of the outcome of this debate, owes them a debt of gratitude for putting their case forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: I can say this from a very unprejudiced standpoint, because I am one person in this chamber who was as far removed from admirals as anybody could possibly have been during the last war. In fact my only contact with an admiral was in a certain port where I helped carry a case of rum ashore from our merchant navy ship for some rear admiral.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was the case full when it was delivered?


Thomas Miller Bell: I suppose that is another tradition that will be lost. I imagine the minister will wipe out that tradition, too, and will try to prevent anybody who goes to sea from drinking rum.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The case for the admiral or the tot for the crew?


Thomas Miller Bell: I pay tribute to these admirals for expressing their views in a straightforward way. I have looked through the record of this debate for answers from the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), the chairman of the committee, the Minister of Transport and others who have spoken on that side of the house, to the questions that have been raised. One remark by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) struck me as needing further explanation, though I appreciate that he did not put it forward in too serious a way. He said that if the navy on the east coast was not able to do the job, then the west coast could take over. This burns me up. There are many good sailors on the east and west coasts and they were interchangeable during the war, but Halifax was the only city in Canada that really felt the brunt of the war. Those in Halifax knew the battle of the Atlantic. They knew what it was to lose sons, fathers and brothers.
April 14, 1967	COMMONS
1 can pay tribute to Halifax because I am not from that city. We in Saint John rival Halifax, but that was the only Canadian city to really feel the effects of the war. I think this is why tradition dies hard down there, and we should take note of their feelings in this matter. I say to the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) that the people in this area have experienced the hardships of war and we should pay attention to their feelings. Not only will they be hard hit when the navy is abolished, but it will cut into their whole way of life and decrease to a sad extent the interest of those who go to sea.
I wish to make a personal remark here because many of us who were in the services during the second world war-I do not believe for one minute in trading war records-did not end up doing the jobs we wanted to do. The second world war was very different from the first in this respect. In the second world war we dreamed of being Spitfire pilots and leading commando raids, but this was not possible for all of us. This was the situation of about 90 per cent of those who served in the second world war. In the first world war you fought in trenches, and that was it; it was simple. You might not have lasted long, but there it was.
The second world war was global. We had different responsibilities, and many of us were frustrated by what we were doing and were perhaps not happy about it. I for one have always felt that although many Canadians made just as great a contribution as anyone else, they would have been happier with a little more glory and glamour. It could be the case that the minister, in becoming mixed up in this business, is carrying over a frustration from some of the things that did not turn out the way he wanted in so far as his own personal career was concerned; and I say that without any animosity.
I have read the record of this debate to try to find the reason behind this proposal. I have tried to find where the unification idea came from. The other day somebody told me that when he was at a defence college they used to throw this out as an exercise when you first arrived. They said "Go and write an article on unification", as though it was a big joke and something very hypothetical. Is this where it came from? Did some junior officer at defence college write a thesis on unification, and was it picked up? Did the idea come from this unknown wing commander who hovers around this chamber on cloud nine? Who conceived this idea? We do not know where it came from.
National Defence Act Amendment
We have not even heard from anybody who supports it. There must be some retired officer in this country who could come forward and support it. I have looked for such support and for the answers to the questions we have raised. I have looked to the navy for support for this proposal. I read the debate on the contention put forward by Admiral Rayner, and I compliment him for putting it forward. I was amazed to find this answer given by Admiral Rayner, as reported at page 2022 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 31 of the committee, and I presume it is true because it was not challenged. This is an insight into the thinking of the minister:


Mr.   Rayner@: I think the uncertainty is caused in large measure by changes in plans. To give you an example of what I mean, in the spring of 1964-in April-the Minister of National Defence went to Esquimau and talked to the sailors there. He was questioned on interchangeability.
He explained that he did not see why an army cook could not cook just as well at sea as he could ashore; and similarly, with a radar technician, he did not see why any air force radar technician could not serve just as well at sea in a ship as he could on an R.C.A.F. station.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Everyone knows that a cook aboard a ship is important when sailors have to be at sea for three months or more. I admit that one could recruit a cook from the shore and put him on a ship, but he would not last very long, and that is why cooks have been dumped overboard late at night. Another question was put to Admiral Rayner concerning the uniform. In answer he quoted the minister as follows:
Well, take the case of the Bonaventure, for example. When you have soldiers and airmen and sailors all on the Bonaventure and have them all falling in in these different uniforms-
Does the minister mean he is going to put the three services on the decks of the Bonaventure, if we ever do get the bloody ship fixed, and have them running around there? What is going on in the mind of the minister is fantastic. I suppose this is the reason he wants the three services in the same uniform.
The navy is a very special service. It is a service which demands high quality and high standards. It is the one above other services which has a definite role to play. Yet the navy is the first to get the axe. Those of us who went to sea-and I for one have never felt that the sea got me-have recognized that one must have special attributes to join the navy.
14932	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Admiral Landymore, in his brief on the navy's place in unification dated February 1966, pointed out in admirable fashion that, first of all, a young man going to sea must be a tradesman as well as a sailor. I do not know which qualification he puts first; they are interchangeable. A sailor has one particular job to do aboard a ship, but he has to learn many other duties. I know this is why we have had difficulties in building up a merchant navy in Canada. We are a very affluent country and our sailors are reluctant to undertake the hardships at sea without receiving wages comparable to those of their fellow workers on land. This makes it more difficult to interest men in a merchant seaman's career.
Admiral Landymore in his brief remarked on the extra hardships imposed on sailors because of their long absences from home. In this regard they are unlike other members of the service. This is particularly true in peacetime when they are away from their families, and that is an important point in today's modern society. Sometimes they are away for long periods of time. For this reason among others there is a lower re-engagement rate for those in the navy. The navy has a hard time to hold them in the service.
The third point Admiral Landymore made, and which I think is of great significance, refers to the separate identity and esprit de corps which are particularly necessary aboard a ship. The best sailors are those who possess this spirit. The same applies to a football team, and we dress a football team in a special uniform so as to build up the necessary esprit de corps. The leaders of the teams are those who have the most spirit and who take the teams and their colours seriously. Yet it is the best men, the ones who want the traditions of the silent service to be maintained, who will be the first to go under the plan proposed by the minister. They will be disappointed and will leave the service.
On page 4 of his brief Admiral Landymore said:
The man we want is one who under no circumstances will let his ship down, who is proud of his uniform, who does his job to the best of his ability regardless of how long it takes him to do it, and who is ready to die if need be, to prove he is better than his enemies.
In closing I ask again the question, who is the power behind this unification program? Where did the idea come from? Did it come from the unknown wing commander? What is his experience? We know the experience of the minister and I have suggested, I hope not

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
unfairly, that perhaps what motivated the minister was a touch of frustration during the second world war. Is the minister saying that he and this unknown wing commander have more knowledge than the 80 officers who were retired or have resigned? This is the conclusion one must reach. We did not hear an answer from the Minister of Transport, nor did we hear an answer from the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), however distinguished a war record he may have.
My final plea is to ask the minister not to rush this program of unification. The minister was in the house, as I was, when the defence production bill was being debated. I am not harking back to the pipe line issue, which is another story, but the minister will recall the defence production legislation brought forward by the late Mr. Howe, who asked for blanket authority. Some of us took an interest in this, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Why did Mr. St. Laurent, the prime minister of the day, send the late Mr. Howe on a fishing trip during which time he changed some of the key clauses in the bill?
This might be a way out; but no, this is an action of an arrogant government. Introducing a common uniform will not bring about an economy. There is no rhyme nor reason in the loss of identity of the services. I like the comparison of this government with its prime minister to a crew, adrift 40 miles out at sea, and the prime minister saying "Untie the ship". I think this is an excellent naval example describing what is happening here.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being one o'clock, and pursuant to an order of the house made on Thursday April 6, this sitting stands suspended for one hour. The committee will resume at two o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have a minute or two left. I want to put on the record one of the reasons for my intervention in this debate. Before I do so, I want to tell the minister that my remarks about landlubber cooks in the navy should not be misinterpreted. My colleagues wish me to say that they hope anything I said will not affect recruiting of cooks for the navy in the future.
April 14, 1967	COMMONS
I have a copy of a telegram sent to the Prime Minister by the Naval Officers Association of New Brunswick and I should like to read it into the record:
The Naval Officers Association of New Brunswick at annual meeting in Saint John April 7, 1967 unanimously agree that while we wholeheartedly approve of integration at the command level, for logistic support, in administration and of medical services, we abhor the thought of total unification of the armed forces.
We feel that the arguments put forward opposing unification as expressed before the House of Commons defence committee far outweigh the ideals as put forward by the defence minister. We concur and fully endorse the recent statement of Lord Louis Mountbatten and urgently request you and your ministers to take appropriate steps to ensure that the three services retain their individual identities which we sincerely believe is vitally essential to the morale of our armed forces.
Naval Officers Association of New Brunswick
This telegram speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman. I hope the minister will take note of this telegram from men who probably know a lot more about this problem than the minister and I. I have made my plea and I hope the minister will take full cognizance of it. He has made exceptions already in the case of the Scottish regiments which can retain their kilts and in the case of the French through his offer to retain the Royal 22nd Regiment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to create an impression by that remark which he might have created inadvertently. The exception in so far as the regimental system is concerned is a commitment that I made three years ago and has nothing to do with English speaking or French speaking people or the Royal 22nd specifically.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thank the minister for his refinement of that statement. The fact, is, however, that concessions have been made to certain groups. As one who has always thought, with some justification, that we have to interest our young people in the great sea traditions of this nation, I humbly ask the minister now to at least give the sailors their distinctive uniforms.


Mr. Loiselle:: When the previous speaker commenced his remarks, Mr. Chairman, he said he was intervening in this debate because of the arrogance of the minister. I am intervening in the debate for the same reason but because of the arrogance of the members of the opposition. They are doing their utmost to delay the passage of this bill, and that is my reason for taking part in the debate.
National Defence Act Amendment [Translation]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, as Canada is becoming increasingly aware of the role it can play on the international scene, it will be able to perform that role even more effectively.
Indeed, our country is undergoing deep changes at present and thanks to its dynamism and its vitality, it is now reflecting in foreign countries a favourable and influential image.
Canadians are proud to note the increasingly important position their country is occupying within the United Nations, and they are also proud when they realize that Canada is providing developing countries not only with financial assistance, but also all kinds of assistance in every field, with the help of its experts, which gives our country a sense of leadership and dynamism.
Bill No. C-243, which we are still studying today, deals with the proposed unification of the Canadian armed forces. Therefore, this intention on the part of Canada is no secret. Some people, afraid of the decision we are about to make in this respect, are fighting it desperately. They are against the new plan. However, I must tell them that a number of experts in this field have pointed out to us in various ways the importance of unification and of certain legislative and national values implied in the concept.
I should like to make some comments on Personnel and Careers in the Canadian armed forces. First of all, I should like to read a statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) in answer to certain assertions made by some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee on national defence. They claimed that integration and unification would turn the members of our armed forces into jacks of all trades. Then on December 7, 1966 the minister said:
The combat units will retain their identity, and their specialized functions and training. It is important to state-
-continues the Minister of National Defence-
-that it is not and never has been any part of the planning associated with unification to convert our servicemen to "jacks-of-all-trades". An infantry soldier will not be asked to do the job of a sailor in a fighting ship; a sailor will not be asked to fight in an infantry platoon; and a fighter pilot will not be required to drive a tank.
I agree with the minister whole-heartedly. Besides, is it not true that those who put this argument forward seem to ignore the following fact: All the members of a defence force
14934	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment must acquire a certain basic training and discipline, although each service must play its proper role.
I must also point out that, in considering this matter more closely, I based my opinion on the very evidence given by qualified people responsible for setting up and carrying out the said Personnel and Careers plan. It is all there in black and white and references are available for those who might have some doubts.
As announced last fall, the major interest of career men as far as prospective promotions are concerned is based on the new structures. These measures, however, constitute a serious problem in the sense that they bring about the dearth of subjects, that is, there were 346 subjects and there are now only 97. The chief of personnel, Air Marshal Reyno testifying before the national defence committee on February 9 said as reported on page 597 of the proceedings:
I should add that this reduction has been achieved with remarkably few complaints, and no loss of efficiency, and will in time produce considerable economy through consolidation of training.
The many trades involving few people have been merged into 97 trades involving larger numbers. The restrictive rank structure of the smaller group has been eliminated by the personnel concerned having the opportunity to compete for promotion in the larger group. In doing this we have eliminated a number of minor trades which were unattractive as career prospects.
Mr. Chairman, this is the opinion of an expert who is currently member of the general staff and who would be responsible for the success of integration and unification.
This new structure required an increase of 14 per cent in pay and this has been the starting point of the first revision in pay in 20 years. And it is that review, postponed for such a long time, which undoubtedly put the positions of the members of the armed forces on the same level as civilian positions in industry. Of course, that was only the beginning of the readjustment. Several other things, beneficial to servicemen's families, as, for instance, certain allowances, etc. clearly indicate all the efforts made to protect the rights of these people and their families. Some persons asserted that all those steps could have been taken without resorting to unification. But I should like to point out that the program is still incomplete. It cannot be denied that it was that reorganization which revealed all those shortcomings and it was that progressive spirit, put in concrete form

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
by unification, which brought forth the solution of those difficulties which were due to incompleteness.
After reading once again Marshal Reyno's brief, we notice that he deals accurately with the conditions and qualifications necessary to have armed forces made up of men interested in a promising career. And he sees in them individuals able to adjust to new conditions.
Moreover, that reorganization attracts individuals able to adjust to these new conditions. Reclassification will add to the flexibility of the personnel. It will be an organization able to compete with industry in the matter of manpower, because its leaders will be able to initiate its members in various jobs so that they in turn, can become leaders, able to take over.
We can but approve the tremendous amount of work that has been done and applied by the new organization.
Air Marshal Reyno summarized his testimony by saying, as reported on page 605 of proceedings No 16, justifying every opinion expressed before the national defence committee-and this confirms that those responsible for carrying out unification are aware of their problems-
Finally, I would like to say that we are extremely conscious that personnel constitute our single greatest asset and that is worth repeating and also that we would fail in our task if we did not ensure that the complete management system would respond to the needs of the commanders as users of the manpower in both peace and war.
I would point out again that the development of our structure and the management organization is the result of continuous consultation with our field commanders and senior managers and I am confident that the system I have outlined will meet the requirement.
Mr. Chairman, if I quote some sentences, some excerpts from our experts currently responsible for the application of such integration and unification, it is to counterbalance, as I said at the beginning, the other outside experts who claim that unification and integration will not bring about the hoped for results.
If we understand the main objective of the personnel and careers program within a unified defence force, we must recognize, in view of the overall plan, that we can no longer delay unification which will achieve good results, both economically and administratively. I am sure that those who oppose it, for patriotic reasons which must, however, be admired, will adapt themselves and will substitute to the traditional customs the necessities of the role Canada must play in the council of nations.
April 14, 1987	COMMONS
Even Air Marshal Sharp, vice commander of defence command, favours the new organization of the personnel and careers program. In his evidence before the defence committee, he singled out seven reasons which justify the move. Those reasons can be found on page 460 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence for February 7, 1967, and here is the table set up by Mr. Sharp:
1.	An occupation which is clearly worthwhile.
2.	Work which challenges the capabilities of the individual.
3.	Work which employs up-to-date methods and equipment.
4.	Work in an atmosphere or environment which accepts the change necessary to keep up with advances in science: an environment which is recognized as a leader in the field.
5.	Advancement based on ability, and at a reasonable rate.
6.	Reasonable financial and other compensations.
7.	Recognition by the public and friends that the individual's work is demanding.
And, by the way to prove the measure of success which was achieved, he added:
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Full implementation of the policy contained in the white paper will go a long way to providing these necessary conditions.
The important thing in considering this matter, and 1 hope everyone has now realized it, is that there is no question at all of turning members of the armed forces into jacks of all trades, as was suggested by some witnesses before the committee. I mentioned the fact at the beginning of my remarks when I referred to this statement of the minister in his speech to the house on December 7 last. I am also gratified to note that staff officers have repeated this assurance during the sittings of the defence committee.
I am positive, Mr. Chairman, that we have recognized, up to now, that any person who joins the armed forces has great and new opportunities to make quite a promising career. Those same recruits will have the advantage, with that new organization, to go ahead in a force which will facilitate their promotion according to their ability and their potential and not simply on seniority. The military candidate has a greater realization of the special interest taken by the Department of National Defence in his possibilities and his welfare, contrary to what some have attempted to make us believe. In fact, that interest has already been shown by the new structures, a salary increase, an allowance increase and the undertaking of a planned career. Therefore, he will rightly be proud to represent Canada when putting on the new
National Defence Act Amendment proposed uniform and he will be happy to wear it.
The integration and unification project is not new; for many years, prominent people, civilians as well as military men, have considered it. Within the Canadian forces, and even at the Liberal national convention in January 1958, when the Liberal party was in opposition, the project was revived and this can be seen from the minutes of that convention as shown on page 223 of the proceedings.
Since the coming into power of the Liberal party in 1963, it has been the first task to which the Minister of National Defence has set himself. As early as March 1964, the white paper on defence was published and since then integration has been emphasized, the unification stage being the next problem which the defence staff will tackle.
Since the publication of that white paper, that is three years ago, the matter has been constantly raised in the House of Commons and it has made the headlines not only in the press, but also on television and radio. Finally, all sources of information have stopped reporting the views of experts and so-called experts on the matter.
For the past three years, the standing committee on defence has been sitting and hearing witnesses, not to mention that certain politicians kept debating the matter and that the news media did not fail to talk about it.
We can very frankly say that the opponents of the principle of the bill were given ample opportunities to present their views.
The defence committee, which sat from February 7 until March 21, held 55 meetings and heard more than 30 witnesses. As a member of this committee, I can tell the members of this house that the same questions were duly put to each witness. In short, I believe that we have debated this subject long enough for the past three years, that the house has now reached the last stage of discussion on this bill, and that the opposition would be acting in bad faith if it attempted once again to make the headlines as we have known it to do during the flag debate.
In all that time, opposition members have had the privilege, and they used it, to criticize the project. You will agree with me that, in three years, everything that could be said was said long ago. But there is a constant repetition of what has already been said.
As a party in opposition, they have done their duty to the people, and therefore a decision must be made. Whether they accept the
14936	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment principle or vote against the legislation is their privilege. They must go one way or the other, and not indulge in endless debate.
I fully realize, Mr. Chairman, that I am not an expert on military matters and yet, as I read the proceedings of the defence committee-of which I am a member-what struck me was the appropriateness of the action taken for the realization and success of the amalgamation of our three armed forces into a single Canadian force.
If we want to define the word "unification" and make its meaning known, I wonder why we are taking so long to reach a decision on that matter. Let us think of the very aim of that meaning and we have in fact unification. That very meaning of the combat forces differs not in their aims and objectives but rather because of their means and tactics, in short because of their instruments.
Moreover, in view of the vastness of the country in which the three defence services operate, would not unification help to smooth out the difficulties which arise due to the lack of communications between headquarters and the field services?
Other countries, which are not faced with such a widespread territory, have not felt the same problem. After weighting all the points raised here, I think that a decision must be reached for unification.
Before concluding my observations, Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to quote, in summary, the concept of the commander in chief of the Canadian forces, General Allard, at the end of his brief submitted to the committee on national defence. Here is the opinion of the commander in chief of the Canadian forces, whose task it will be to bring into being such a unification, in which he believes whole-heartedly, as can be seen on page 1770 of the minutes and proceedings No. 27. Here is what he said, and I quote:
In summary, then, gentlemen, the situation is this: The idea of a single force, in a single, distinctively Canadian uniform, working, living, training, and- most important-thinking together as one entity is an exciting and challenging idea. After all it is designed to meet the problems of a modern world -a scientific world-which is growing away beyond the barriers of the past at a speed that cannot stand the slow pace of yesterday. For all this, you know that we do not intend to proceed in haste-
I said it was a starting point-but rather in a carefully planned manner which will extend over a number of years. All that is required now is the authority to do so.
Mr. Chairman, before resuming my seat, I appeal for the last time to the hon. members opposing Bill No. C-243 to grant the general,

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
the members of our staff, this permission, this right to pursue the unification of our forces and if, by any chance, it should prove unsuccessful, which I do not believe, the opposition members would then be free to attack the government and at that time, they would be acting in good faith.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is customary for anybody embarking on a discussion of matters military to try to establish his credentials. In my case I have none. I am certainly a layman, not an expert. However, I confess that as a civilian I volunteered my services to the army and served therein, volunteered my services to the R.C.A.F. and served therein, and got out as fast as I could when the war was over. I have served in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Air Force, and under an American general, British officers and Canadian officers. I believe my experiences with senior officers have been the same as 99 per cent of the troops -most unhappy ones. Like many serving personnel I could never tell for certain whether I was going to be courtmartialled or praised. So with this limited background I have naturally refrained from debating this subject.
On the other hand, it is true that I did serve in a theatre of war where it was very hard to distinguish the services. Even though I was nominally in the Royal Canadian Air Force, at the time I wore a green uniform in the jungles of Burma I found it was just as smelly, dirty and dilapidated looking as the battledress I wore in the army and the dress uniform I sometimes wore in the air force. I do not think that is the key issue, and if I pose today as one giving advice to the minister it is as one who is trying to find an answer from the point of view of a layman trying to make the right decision.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
This bill has a finality about it that makes it imperative that we give it more than the casual type of attention that we give to bills that can be amended from year to year as more experience is gained. I have been watching this debate. I think the position of the people of Canada was well put last autumn in a Globe and Mail editorial dated November 7 which said:
There must be a most thorough public discussion of where the Canadian forces reorganization act is leading us. Mr. Hellyer must be made to show the urgent and valid reasons for undertaking the changes he has proposed or forced to admit that there are none.
April 14, 1967	COMMONS
That puts the matter into a simple sentence. Has this information been made available to the House of Commons and to the public?
One of the subjects that was debated at length in the defence committee and the committee of the whole was the morale of the armed forces. Was recruiting falling off, was recruiting holding steady? I have looked at the evidence on both sides and so far as I am concerned it is very difficult to decide. When you look at one set of figures it looks like there has been a serious falling off in the totals. Yet the minister and his staff have done their best to show that there has not been a falling off. But this misses the point I am coming to. On the question of recruiting there is no clear evidence.
The question of morale has been dealt with by men who have had experience in all branches of the services and they have emphasized that if we are going to have a defence force morale is the key to it. Canadians are a type of people much different from the British. We are certainly much different from the Americans. We tend to lack the discipline of the many centuries of military service which the English have. We tend to lack, do lack, and in fact are rather proud that we lack the statistical approach, the computer approach to manpower in our services that the Americans seem to have. We are different. I suggest that one cannot ignore the very sincere and heartfelt observations made by men in this house with much vaster military experience than I have, men who certainly climbed to higher ranks than I was able to achieve. They know the necessity of morale. I cannot deal with it. All I know is that the people do not know who has won the debate as to recruiting.
The second question which the layman is asking all across Canada is, will this bill save him, the taxpayer of Canada, money so that he can put that money into things desperately wanted by the Canadian people? I would say that in the beginning, eight months ago, the vast majority of laymen across the country were, like myself, in support of unification because they believed that it would save money. On the surface unification into one force instead of having three or more forces seemed to be the answer to a desperate need of our people.
The majority of our people do not object to the taxes which are necessary to maintain our military posture but they do wonder whether they are getting the maximum results for
National Defence Act Amendment their money when there are so many other things they want just as desperately. On this second issue, the saving of money, I have read the evidence on both sides and on the figures it looks like we are not saving money. The minister answers by saying that if we take the real value of money today we are saving or are roughly holding our own. But once again that is not clear to the public and so there is a certain amount of confusion.
In the last two or three days another issue has arisen, and this is the question of parliament itself. Ordinarily in our concept of government when we deal with a matter that requires expert advice we use the technique of the committee to draw from the experts answers to the questions which are in our minds.
The vast majority of the evidence given to the defence committee indicated that we should go slow, and take three to five years to decide on the question of unification. The military experts say, "Give us time to put integration into effect." I am assuming that we are all in favour of integration. If we believe in the parliamentary system we must consider the advice of these experts to the effect that we should take time on this very small item which is so close to the emotions and the hearts of the serving personnel, because to them matters such as the uniform and one service are desperately serious, something which I find it hard to understand. To a layman these are small points, but all the experts are asking is that the minister go slow.
Therefore I was very pleased today to detect what I thought was evidence of a trend toward moderation. We heard the minister say he would be willing to listen to proposals made on this side of the chamber for some sort of understanding over the week end. Therefore my next remarks are going to be directed toward some form of compromise proposal that will not only permit parliament to work effectively but will also move toward a more rational and responsible type of action.
Speaking now of the field in which I have some knowledge and dealing with the perspective of this bill and the over-all responsibilities of government, what do I see? First of all, military policy is not an end in itself. It is simply the operational arm of a policy of a government. The policies of the government in matters foreign and in matters economic must be clear to us in the house so that we may understand that in the bill which deals
April 14, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment with the operational arm, the military, designed to carry out one component part of government policies, there is coherence and there is logic.
At the present time and going back for many years Canada, not just under this government alone, has had no clearly delineated foreign policy. No government has directed its attention to what role this country, with 20 million people now and unlimited resources, is going to play in the future defence not only of this continent but in peacemaking all over the world and in space as well. We lack a clearly defined foreign policy which would enable us to know what type of military posture we must assume in order to carry out in our sphere of activity the foreign policy of our country.
o (2:40 p.m.)
To be more specific, how can parliament decide whether this bill is the correct and only course we should follow when we have had in the committee evidence to the effect that the unified force concept does not meet all the responsibilities which have been partially accepted by governments of the past and the present? For example, the United Nations is an organization which we have supported and still support. It was originally set up to include a United Nations force. That never came into being because of the veto power in the Security Council. In the last two or three years there have been proposals that smaller nations of some strength, which are not leaders in the major power struggle between the large nations, should have forces which could act in the policing role if the United Nations so requests. This is a concept which I believe members of all parties support. According to the evidence this type of unified force might be able to meet that function of a military posture.
Second, there is NATO. Is there any member of this house or any opinion leader in this country who does not know that the whole purpose and method of operation of NATO must be redefined? The need to redefine NATO both in the military and economic spheres has been clear for many years. The failure on the part of the members of NATO to define clearly for the next 10 or 15 years the purpose of NATO, in view of the new technology in the military field, makes it almost impossible for members of this house to make a learned and responsible decision in respect of this bill. We cannot do this until we know what our responsibilities in NATO will be.

The evidence given by the experts who appeared before the committee on national defence was that a unified force would not meet our present responsibilities to NATO. The fact that we do not have a 10 or 15 year projection of what our various responsibilities will be under NATO certainly adds weight to the view expressed by the experts that we should not rush into the unification concept and then take three to five years in bringing about a result which could be final and fatal.
Third, under NORAD we have responsibility under a treaty with the United States for the defence of the North American continent. Surely any person who has looked into the situation in respect of NORAD knows that this organization must be redefined in view of the new weapons which have come into technical use in the past few years. Once again we would be able to perform our function in this house in a much more responsible manner if we had a clearcut statement concerning the role of NORAD not only in the ballistic and antiballistic field but also in respect of the seacoast and the defence of North America.
The fourth point, which deeply concerns the members from the maritimes, is the question of the anti-submarine role allocated to Canada in the North Atlantic. Is this role to be discarded? We do not know. We are told it is still one of our responsibilities. Yet the experts tell us that under the unified force concept we cannot carry out this role. This is the type of evidence we have before us. Once again, instead of giving hints that we are going to withdraw and reduce our strength on the sea I think any responsible government, before asking us to rush into unification which could be so fateful, should give us a clearcut statement on this point.
Finally, and most important, is the matter of the defence of Canada itself. I believe there is a general hope that war never will come to the shores of the western continents of South and North America. However, I believe it is our responsibility to make plans to be able to defend our continent by land, by sea and by air. What is the capacity, what is the effectiveness of a unified force in Canada when working with a military force to the south and sharing the responsibility of carrying out this most vital of all the defence postures which have to be assumed in peacetime by Canada?
I believe the evidence here is most disturbing. It would seem to indicate that the
April 14, 1967

unification concept will not work in any modern concept of a joint defence of Canada which means, in truth, a joint defence of the continent. Therefore, since we do not know how this will be done under the unification concept, what is my proposal?
I suggested that I thought I had detected an air of moderation on both sides of the house earlier in the debate today. One idea which recommends itself to me is the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He put forward the simple proposal that we adjourn this debate and then bring the matter up again at the next session when a little more would be known about the plans of the defence department. I would like to modify this proposal, if I may, for a slightly different reason than was advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I believe there is general agreement in Canada that all the provisions of this bill must be debated with some responsibility by the members of this house. I suggest that a precedent has been set in this parliament during this session. We had before us a very difficult bill which was presented to this house last September concerning the national transportation commission. It had been introduced originally in 1964 and was so unacceptable that the government withdrew it. In 1966 they brought in a new bill on which they had worked for two years. It was a much better bill. Even though it was a much better bill, in the standing committee and in the committee of the whole house it was amended almost 80 times. On that occasion we had the Minister of Transport working with those of us in the opposition not only on the floor of the house but in the committee, outside the house, and in corridor sessions. Some of our amendments were accepted without debate and others were fought by the minister. Parliament then was at its best when members of all parties worked together to achieve, in respect of a matter which had tremendous implications for the transportation system of Canada, the best bill we could provide.
The key to the success in respect of that bill was the fact that the minister knew there were two or three items which were extremely controversial, just as we have two or three items in the 61 clauses of the bill we are now debating which are deeply controversial. For the sake of common sense and logic I would ask the minister to consider over the week end letting these two or three controversial clauses stand.
National Defence Act Amendment


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not an authority on this bill but I would certainly suggest that clauses 2 and 6 should be put over. However,
I would ask that this matter be discussed with spokesmen on this side of the house because I am not an authority on the bill. I am sure the chairman of the defence committee will be glad to discuss it with the minister. If we could move into a consideration of other clauses of this bill in the way the people of this country expect I think we would clear up some of the controversial points that are bothering us. It is my hope that the minister will accept my main proposal in good faith. Several weeks ago we received a pleasant surprise. An article appeared on April 4 in the Toronto Globe and Mail headed "Hellyer Says Bill Statement Of Intent", "Instant Unification Is Ruled Out". In the body of the article the following is stated:
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Approval of the bill to unify the forces will not mean instant amalgamation of the navy, the army and the air force, Defence Minister Paul Hellyer assured the commons yesterday.
"It will be a statement of intention that the ultimate goal is a single service", he explained. "This must be known so that planning can proceed on an orderly basis."
I took from that statement there was an understanding in the minister's mind that it would take some time to implement this measure and therefore there would not be immediate unification. The minister confirms that understanding now by nodding his head.
Preceding that article another article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on March 29 in respect of what the Prime Minister stated. This article states in part:
Prime Minister may exercise his influence to delay the implementation of the defence unification bill after it is passed.
Later in the article the following is stated:
-an effort on his part to see that defence minister Hellyer does not attempt to implement the unification legislation right away.
That article appeared about two and a half weeks ago and it gave a breath of hope that some statesmanship would emerge in this debate. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion that members on this side of the house are quite sincere in their concern about this matter and the people generally are concerned because they have yet to receive satisfactory answers.
We do not wish to hold up discussion on the clauses of this bill and I think we should


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Which ones?
April 14, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment leave the controversial ones for later and consider the others. We should not ram the whole bill through at this time. The controversial clauses, perhaps 2, 6, and 61, which is the proclamation clause, should be deferred at this time and left to be dealt with at the next session. If the minister could bring back the drafted regulations at that time we would know what we were buying, know his plans in detail, and at that time we would be happier to deal with them.
It may be that the military experts are right that we should leave out one or two clauses of this bill and not deal with their purposes for a couple of years. However, if we knew the mechanics for unification we could then consider the body of the bill and move forward. In this way we could leave the controversial clauses until next session. In this way we could indicate to the country our desire to move forward on this bill but that we were not yet convinced of any immediate need for unification. The majority of the experts hold this view.
I am not an expert but I cannot see how a decision to put our forces into a single force and a single uniform would prevent integration. In this way I am sure we would show statesmanship on the part of this house and particularly on the part of the minister and the Prime Minister. This would be welcomed by the people of Canada and it would give the opposition a chance to show its willingness to co-operate.
Let me conclude by saying I think we are aiming at the wrong target in this debate when we aim at the minister. He has been somewhat inflexible, but I think the real target should be the lack of a foreign policy and a clear definition of what the government wishes the military to accomplish. Surely that is the root of the minister's difficulties. If he has been a little hard to get along with as an individual I suspect it is because he has been attempting to carry out an instruction he felt he was given. Now that we have received further information from the experts it would be wise on our part to put a little pressure on the Secretary of State for External Affairs to give us a clear definition on behalf of the government regarding the direction of our external affairs policy for the next 15 years. We could then define what we think our role in NATO and NORAD should be and what we should do about the anti-submarine role we are supposed to be playing. Certainly we have a right to know these things.

What are we going to do in respect of the defence of Canada and the continent? We should have a clearcut delineation in respect of this function. We might then be able to decide what to do about this bill. As I understand the evidence of the experts, a unified force will not help us meet our commitments to NATO and NORAD and certainly not to the defence of Canada. For that reason we have a right to ask the Prime Minister of our country to give that leadership prime ministers are expected to give at times of difficulties such as we are now experiencing.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, reminded us this morning of the defence production bill and that Mr. Howe had lost touch with reality in that it was introduced in peacetime in 1955 rather than in a time of war as in 1945. At that time Mr. St. Laurent watched the developments and realized that the house was approaching an impasse. He took the necessary and available steps, exercised the art of getting along, and asked Mr. Howe to disappear for a few days until arrangements with the opposition to accept an amended bill could be made. In other words, he properly exercised the functions of a Prime Minister.
If the minister has been forced to accept a rigid position, and we have seen this hurt him so far as public relations in this house and across the country are concerned, perhaps the Prime Minister could move in and accept the responsibility of making those little adjustments required to make possible the efficient working of this house. Canada would be well served if we had that type of statesmanship from the Prime Minister at this time.
I know enough about government policy to realize that the government cannot come out with policies in respect of NATO and NORAD overnight, but we could have some clear definition or indication of the direction in which we think our military should move. I hope the minister will consider this suggestion over the week end. After consultation between members on all sides perhaps we could deal with the non-controversial clauses of the bill and then come to some conclusion about what to do with the controversial clauses in light of what the experts have said.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I hope the suggestions of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle will commend themselves to the minister and that there will be some compromise in our approach to this bill. In this way we could consider the bill in a more
April 14, 1967

sane and sensible manner without becoming boxed into irreconcilable positions.
In my opinion the press does a disservice to this institution when it talks about this debate dragging on for nine days. After all, this bill relates very fundamentally to our defence structure. Surely it is not unreasonable to debate for nine, 10 or 20 days something that has been in existence in this country for a hundred years. We have had many longer debates in this house since I have been a member on less important matters than the reorganization of our defence forces. This bill proposes to change the entire structure of our defence forces which have been tested and tried during two world wars and the Korean war. Surely this should be considered seriously, particularly when one remembers that old Liberals of certain fame have crossed party lines by suggesting that the minister should take the pause that refreshes and look at this whole plan again.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
If this debate drags on for nine days or longer, members on this side of the house are prepared to face whatever penalty or reward follows at the next election. The debate does not make startling news for the members of the press gallery. There is no scandal, no sensation, no sex. It is a debate on the very substantial topic of defence and what we are to do in this area. If unification goes through, I suggest that within five or 10 years we will have another debate in the house on this question.
Perhaps the minister should have taken the bull by the horns and we should be debating whether Canada should have any defence stance or posture. Perhaps that would be a debate the minister would like to carry on, because the ultimate conclusion of the path we are now on-we have not reached the dead end yet but we are certainly quite a way down the road-leads to a position where Canada cannot contribute anything constructive to the defences of the free world. The important question that is being asked by Canadians is, how are we to contribute to the free world with our population of 20 million and the giant to the south of us with a population of 200 million or more?
The press are doing us a real disservice when they criticize members with no military experience, of whom I am one, for participating in this debate. Hon. members are confined by the rules of debate and have spoken less than the Minister of National Defence or other ministers, the three musketeers on that
National Defence Act Amendment side of the house, who have spoken. These members of the cabinet can speak a little longer than we on the opposition side. However, I have no qualms about participating in and making a contribution to the debate. In the last few days the debate has not gained the headlines that other topics are given in the press. I believe we are debating a matter of substance and that hon. members opposite have misjudged public opinion and the opinion of hon. members of this party who have contributed with sincerity and purpose to the debate.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I feel sorry for the minister sitting there in solitude, in a sort of stubborn isolation, supported by the 26 other members of the cabinet. The other day there was a cabinet reorganization. A couple of very bright, virile, intelligent Canadians were appointed to the cabinet. They will contribute much to this land but they have not contributed to this debate. I can understand the minister, in view of his present position, finding some solace in and relying on lyrics and poetry to help while the hours away so he will have something with which to occupy himself. He is not going to listen to what we have to say and therefore has to compose lyrics or poetry. I am not sure of his family status but in my opinion he cannot have read children's tales and those lyrics which we read in our childhood. He cannot have read the folklore that we as children used to read. I say that he cannot have read these things in view of the debate we have had in the house. The minister certainly cannot have read to his children the tale of Lady Godiva on the horse that I mentioned once before.
Hon. members opposite have taken great pride in the fact that they are blazing new trails, that the world is looking at them in splendid isolation. Lady Godiva was looked at and peered at and she was somewhat embarrassed and, I would suggest, somewhat exposed as we are going to be exposed if the plans of the minister do not succeed in detail, principle and purpose as he hopes. Lady Godiva perhaps had more on the ball because at least the horse on which she rode knew where it was going whereas frankly we are not too sure exactly where the minister is going.
This minister cannot have read "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" to his children because in the new, rewritten, revised and unrepentant edition of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" it is "Goldilocks and the One Bear." Who cares about three? "The Pied Piper of Hamelin" must cause the Minister of
14942	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment National Defence some concern, because if he is not successful with regard to this measure he must ponder the fate of the many people coming behind him to the tune of the flute and falling in the "drink."
We are worried about the navy. We do not have the ships for the navy to carry out its task effectively. That must cause the minister some concern, let alone the fact that the story of the turtle and the hare and the barnacle on the shell of the turtle shows that much steadier and more worth-while progress is achieved than in the case of the flea on the behind of the rabbit. These stories illustrate that steady progress is much better in the long run than the pace exhibited by this new race of Liberals. If we look at the record, without going much further on the philosophical topic of Aesop's Fables, or Hellyer's tunes and tales, I think we should wonder where we are going in respect of this proposal. Frankly, I have not contributed to any war effort because I was too young to serve. I am not, therefore, speaking from any war experience. My only experience is that of a great many Canadians in that I was a cadet.
It has been interesting to me since this debate started months ago-not in the last nine or ten days only-to learn that the sea cadets, the air cadets and the army cadets want to know just what is going on and what is the purpose of having a separate identity for the cadets if we are not going to have a separate identity for the forces to which they eventually aspire. This has caused a great deal of confusion in the ranks of the cadets across the country. It is one question that could be easily answered, I suppose it might be said, if the cadets read the minister's statements in the house, the press releases emanating from his office and the remarks of his "Lee ward" friends because the cadets would certainly get clarification on some of these confusing points.
One reason for my entering this debate, regardless of some interest I have in it because in my riding there are defence bases, is the apparent hypocrisy in the whole attitude toward efficiency and economy if our forces are unified.
Right here in parliament we have two legislative assemblies, the Senate and the House of Commons. We have separate protective staffs for the Senate and the House of Commons, we have a separate messenger service for the Senate and the House of Commons, we have separate cleaning staffs, those ladies who clean our offices. We even have

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
separate barber shops for those of us who are fortunate enough to have any hair to cut. If there is efficiency and economy in the concept of unification, let us have for the first time-there have been in the past so many people who have just preached the gospel- ministers who are prepared to put into effect all the changes they say they would like to make. One hon. member recently elevated to a portfolio, and a friend of mine off the floor although I have to disagree with him in this chamber, goes around making speeches and soliciting support for nefarious purposes. These people who go around the country recommending changes here and there should put their theories before cabinet and see that changes are made in government so that we may have a much more efficient system. They are not doing anything in a constructive way by just making speeches. They should see that these changes are brought about.
The minister says that the program of unification will result in efficiency and economy in our armed forces. Yet we are split right down the middle of this building because we have separate services in both houses. I believe that the cleaning ladies even order different wax with which to polish the floors and tiles of the Senate and the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, I will permit a question. Whether I can answer it is another matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member advocating that if this bill is put through by the government another bill should be introduced to abolish the Senate? If he is, that is a good argument for it.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of a party that has a vicarious interest in the Senate which perhaps distinguishes me from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am not debating the merits or demerits of the abolition of the Senate; I am debating the proposition of the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and others in the party on that side of the chamber with regard to unification and its economy and efficiency. I am suggesting that the ministers opposite should look at our own house and instead of several ministers travelling across the country recommending tremendous reforms of parliament and everywhere else, they should see that the reforms they advocate are put into
April 14, 1967

effect. In other words, they should put into deeds some of the words they are speaking. The greatest hypocrisy in this respect is the fact that the efficiency and economy of the Senate and the House of Commons are impaired because the functions in respect of each are divided as though they were east and west and would never meet. When one considers that even the wax purchased by the Senate is different from the wax purchased by the House of Commons and that the two houses even have separate post offices, then one realizes that efficiency and economy right here in the House of Commons could surely be improved under the joint direction of the chiefs of staff of the two speakers. Instead we proceed in our own merry way. Perhaps there are some hidden advantages in this practice of which I am not aware and perhaps I am not sufficiently initiated. However, what I cannot understand is that the minister, who has a lot of good qualities, is engaged in this sheer hypocrisy of announcing greater efficiency and economy in the services when right here in parliament we allow such inefficiency to exist. I think it is time for this jet age minister-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. gentleman would give me credit for the following facts. The armed forces are by law within my administrative responsibility and, having discussed this proposal for a number of years, I am doing now exactly what he has suggested, attempting to implement it, to end the talking and get on with the job. In so far as this house and the Senate are concerned, they come within the jurisdiction of parliament itself. I have no more voice and no more responsibility concerning these matters than has the hon. member. I agree with him that there is room for improvements, particularly with regard to the rules of this house.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad the minister has intervened. I will not belabour the point further. However, as we proceed with the issue of integration and unification I believe I should mention a point in which I am particularly interested. It concerns interchange or mobility. What is to stop us from applying interchange or mobility with regard to ministers of the crown? Who is to say whether the most efficient and economic way of running the government would not be to interchange clerks in the different departments of the government? A clerk in the Department of National Health and Welfare could fill a vacancy in the Department of National Revenue. In view of the amount of money which
National Defence Act Amendment goes in and out of the Department of National Revenue, there are certainly many holes there which could be filled.
I see the Postmaster General is present in the house today. Credit can be claimed for the fact that words expressed on this side of the house have brought forth so many ministers today. There are exactly two here at the moment. I think the minister as well as the opposition can claim credit for the fact that so many ministers are present today. Who is to say, following the philosophy of the minister concerning interchange or mobility, that clerks, stenographers and in fact whole secretariats could not be interchanged from one department to another when vacancies occur? According to the computers this would be the most efficient and economical way of filling vacancies. Is this the next step in government management? Perhaps this question should be asked of the Minister of National Revenue.
But the same principle should apply to the government as to the forces, and this is certainly not the way to run the armed services. Perhaps this is why these examples are ludicrous. In spite of my limited knowledge, which I have gained through association with various armed forces personnel, I do not believe that the armed forces can be run in the same way as General Motors is. If the government is going to operate on approximately the same principles as General Motors does, then let us apply an interchange of personnel and trade employees back and forth.
The minister answered this point in a way when he spoke about being in charge of defence and about the responsibilities of the House of Commons. Frankly I must say I have tried to rationalize his arguments through the use of arguments which have been put forward on this side of the house. Yesterday one of the young members on the other side of the house made a speech. I believe it was the hon. member for Renfrew North. He spoke about his youth and about the fact that he had not been in the forces, as is true in my case. He gave examples going as far back as the Napoleonic wars and he referred to Hannibal's forces travelling across the Alps on elephants. I will not go that far back to criticize the minister's program. It is sufficient to look at the record of what the minister has said. Without getting too involved, we have only to look at what has happened in the last two or three years to find out whether there is a foundation or basis for unification and by examining how successful the minister has been in the steps
April 14, 1997

National Defence Act Amendment he has taken. All we can see is that the steps which the minister has taken can be compared with those taken by an infant who takes one step along an uncharted road full of perils and pitfalls and ends up flat on his face.
Let us consider the compulsory retirements. I will not go into this matter too deeply because many experts have talked about it. The compulsory retirements have had a most unsettling effect on the armed forces at a time when integration was supposed to stabilize and unite them. For instance, we had the case of the 500 trained pilots. According to General Foulkes' estimate, the training of each of these pilots cost this nation $50,000 and the total cost of training the 500 pilots amounted to $250 million. Yet they were dismissed arbitrarily. Would it not have been better to have retired older pilots and given them gratuities so as to make way for younger men? I am advised that the jet pilots who serve in the armed services can expect to fly for eight to ten years before being retired to a desk job. This was certainly not a very constructive step on which we could congratulate the minister.
Then we witnessed the reflex action of the minister and his advisers who tried to counteract the drain of pilots in the air force by increasing their pay. As a result other air crew members were angered and the minister had to revise the whole pay structure. It is questionable how successful the re-engagement bonus has been. The expenditures of the Department of National Defence have gone up by $125 million. According to the return tabled on October 12, 1966, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Halifax, there were 79 premature retirements of officers of the rank of commodore and above. This figure is given at page 8561 of Hansard. If one totals the years which those men would have spent in the service of this country one finds that 59 years of experience have been lost. This has not been a very efficient action by the minister and I cannot see any economy resulting from it.
I should like to mention an interesting fact which I do not believe has appeared in the press lately. I wonder how many people realize that the turnover of what are termed fogbound generals, brainless colonels and other top armed service personnel has resulted in a decrease of only seven officers. This was the fantastic turnover of which we have heard so much. There were 79 retirements between January 1, 1965 and August 30, 1966, 59 of whom were prematurely retired for various
[Mr. Nowlan.l
reasons. The more the defence committee met the more disagreement there was with the policy of the Minister of National Defence. In December of 1965 there were 119 senior officers in the rank of commodore and above. As of February 28, 1967, there were 112 officers in the rank of commodore or above. How can the minister speak of economy and efficiency when this supposedly tremendous turnover has resulted in the loss of only seven officers? All the other retired officers have had to be replaced. The positions of these men who have given tremendous service to this country in two world wars have had to be filled. I was amazed when I first heard of this fact. How can one believe the minister's argument that his program will bring about greater economy and efficiency?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
There is another area about which I should like to talk and it is a little parochial. One can talk grandly about strategy and tactics. I do not know what the tactics or over-all philosophy or policy of this country should be. I have some ideas and obviously the minister has some ideas. However, there is something not too many people realize, and I want to put this to the minister, in connection with the turnover. We have heard the minister stand up in the house and deny that there has been any decrease in enrolment. He has said that the enrolment curve has flattened out and the position has become stabilized.
I want to tell the minister that I have had letters from many serving officers, not colonels or commodores but flight lieutenants and petty officers. I have four or five of them in my hand now. Within the last two weeks these people have been told that they cannot get out of the service. There is no longer the problem of transferring within the services because you do not have services now. You now transfer from one environment to another. We are not a warlike country now, we are a peace keeping country. I think it was Moncel or Fleury who said that in his day, according to his terminology, peace keeping meant preventing war or fighting a war.
Today, as I said before, we do not have services or we will not have if this bill is passed. We have environments and interchange within environments. 1 should like the minister to stand up and deny the fact that there has been a freeze on the release of officers who under normal circumstances would be qualified to obtain their release from the service so they could go to whatever vocation or occupation they would like to
April 14. 1967	COMMONS
follow. I will not read the names of these people because they are still serving officers. I have a letter from the wife of one of them dated March 29, 1967 in connection with his enrolment. She writes that he was told the policy would allow him release on request three years after graduation. This is not a man who has been commissioned under the R.O.T.P. plan, whose education was financed by the government and who now wants to get out early. Every one of these letters is from a man who has served his time, in all cases over three years.
There is a certain regulation-I do not know the numbers of these regulations-to the effect that in normal cases six months' notice is sufficient to allow a release.


An hon. Member:: That is what the minister told us.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I can believe that because the hon. member always makes good sense. These men are pilots and they want to get out. They entered the service under certain conditions, namely, that they could get out on six months' notice. The wife of one of them writes she has been advised that her husband has to complete two more years of service. He has been serving for three years and has a commitment to a private firm which, of course, is jeopardized. This man is not one of those at the top; he is right in the ranks.
Another pilot writes under date of March 29, 1967 to the effect that last week officers had their release dates cancelled. Another member of the air force says that service policy resulted in a statement to the effect that all graduate pilots holding permanent commission will be retained in the service until the completion of five years of qualified pilot service. I am suggesting that at the time these pilots entered the service this policy was not in existence and it has resulted in discrimination. This man wants to go back to law school.
I should like to ask the minister to tell us, either now or at the end of my remarks, if there has been a change in policy with respect to the length of time these men will be retained in the service and what is being done about it. I should like this statement so that people who may want to join a unified service, if there are any and I hope there are, will not walk into this situation blindly where people who are not colonels or commodores are being retained in the forces.
If I were a young applicant for the forces I would not want to be trained by any of these
National Defence Act Amendment officers. Two of them are not in my constituency but are in another area in the west where training is given. If these men really want to get out, I would not want to be trained by them because they might become a handicap. I have other remarks to make but this was one detail to which I wanted to refer, without generality or platitude, to illustrate the way in which the present unification policy is directly affecting these men. I am told there are many more like them. This all has to do with the turnover.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. gentleman would like me to do so, I would answer this point now. I may say that there has been some consideration of this matter by the staff. The same question was raised earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Lapointe. I hope to be able to make a statement on the question on Monday.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for those remarks. I know that these gentlemen and others as well will certainly appreciate the minister's statement because they have made business commitments which are now in jeopardy. I did not hear the hon. member for Lapointe but I intended to raise this question many days ago. However, I thought this was perhaps the proper time to raise it. I am glad the minister is going to make a statement on Monday.
All these things, Mr. Chairman, cause concern. When one looks at the over-all picture one realizes that, no matter how well-intentioned the minister may be or how much backing or lack of backing he may have, there is no doubt that Canada is going against the current. The hon. member for Queens summed it up well yesterday when he said it is not a question of being a trail blazer or leader. How can you lead when no one is behind you? We are off in the pasture so far as military philosophy is concerned with this unified force.
I believe the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was quite correct when he said the minister deserved some credit for tackling this problem. He has focused attention on defence but undoubtedly defence is intertwined with foreign affairs. With all respect to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think the position of the Minister of National Defence has been made untenable because of the fuzzy or foggy approach of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In Britain reference is made to a foggy bottom or perhaps it is in connection with United States foreign affairs that the term "foggy bottom" is used. If there is a
April 14, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment foggy bottom in connection with foreign affairs we certainly have it with our present minister who gives the most convoluted answers to simple questions. We recognize that the job of the Minister of National Defence is difficult when the foreign affairs position is so foggy. I believe this has been the real problem with which the minister has had to cope, but of course he cannot speak about that.
I should like to deal with another area during the time I have left, and it relates to something very close to home. I should like to reduce the general talk about the policy of unification to human terms. It is very easy to sit in a gallery and write an article asking why this or why that. I have not taken a partisan, provocative interest in defence policy in the last few months regardless of the fact that I might have received the stimulus from the minister to do so.
I have several bases in my riding, one of which is the naval base, H.M.C.S. Cornwallis, as the minister knows. The minister, as well as the minister from my province, have come down there and said that statements about this base are unfounded or irresponsible rumours. There is one way to clarify a rumour and that is to have a statement from the minister. The base at Cornwallis was commissioned in 1942 and it has been a training base. Training is part of the program if we are going to have forces. At the moment there are 400 personnel at the base which is the second largest single employer in my riding. There are 400 military personnel, 500 fulltime civilians and 800 trainees. There are over 2,640 dependants of these people who are involved with the base. There are over 4,300 people directly involved in the operation of Cornwallis, not including farmers or fishermen who are naturally tied up with it. About 90 per cent of these people live right in the area within a 20-mile radius.
[DOT] ('3:30 p.m.)
It has been estimated that one person out of every four in our area either works at or is supported by a person working at H.M.C.S. Cornwallis. All these people will be adversely affected by any program of consolidation. I realize that we must have progress. If we are to push buttons, and if that is progress, then we must accept it. Nevertheless bases must be maintained. My constituents cannot see the logic in removing this base from their area and placing it in another part of Canada with greater natural resources. They cannot see the logic of removing it to the prairies or to
[Mr. NowlanJ
the rocky mountains or to another part of our vast country.
Our history has been one of providing service for the services. That is how we have gained our livelihood. As I say, we have not the resources of other parts of Canada with which to earn a livelihood. We are also close to the sea. No matter what one calls this program, be it unification, integration or anything else-some of our people have strong names for it-closing this base and removing it to another part of the country does not make sense, especially when one considers that it is useful for training those who go to sea.
Many of our people have built their lives around the base. Over 80 per cent of the people in the immediately surrounding area have been employed there for over 11 years. Three persons out of four live in their own homes, homes bought mostly by veterans with the help of the Veterans' Land Act. Should the base close, what alternative source of employment will our people find? How will they make payments on their homes? Many of the people employed are not professionals but would be classified as semi-skilled or unskilled labourers. They may not find alternative sources of employment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the committee. I shall try to consolidate my remarks more successfully than the minister is consolidating
his bases. We have many bases in the east and undoubtedly some of them will be affected by any consolidation program. As I said previously, we must have progress. On the other hand, we find it illogical to close down a base on the seashore, the largest establishment of its kind in the Commonwealth, when its facilities are needed for training. Though the evidence of Admiral Rayner may have provoked some hon. members opposite, he did say that if people are to go to sea they must be trained on the sea. For the initial six or eight weeks sailors may be trained inland but eventually they have to learn to live with the sea.
April 14, 1967	COMMONS
I had intended reading some letters received from 300 of my 900-odd constituents at that base but I shall not do so. The letters speak in provoked terms about the effects of closing this base.
I hope the air of moderation which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle optimistically detected in the chamber will prevail. I hope the minister will not act as a builder who has constructed something but in so doing has forgotten the rights of parliament and constructed an edifice against the wishes of parliament. We must be positive in our thinking.
I hope the minister will not follow the philosophy of another minister who thought he could act in a manner contrary of the wishes of parliament. I hope the minister does not fall into that trap.


Mr. Souiham:: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my original intention to participate in the debate on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof; and my remarks will be relatively brief.
Unfortunately I was too young to enter the services in the first war and too old to join in the second world war. As a result I felt that consideration of the proposals of the Minister of National Defence and his advisers to amend the National Defence Act should be left to those members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition who have had actual military experience and who have served so faithfully and, I must say, so effectively on the defence committee over the past few months.
I should pause here to say that we backbenchers owe those committee members on our side of the house a deep debt of gratitude and, yes, the people of Canada owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their careful examination of the witnesses and exhaustive study of the testimony which has been evidenced many times in the house in recent days by the calibre of speeches. After listening to these contributions and studying the committee reports, I felt impelled to speak. I had no alternative to adding my voice to the widespread cry of alarm that Canadians across this land are expressing from day to day as they finally realize what the Minister of National Defence and the Liberal party are bent on doing to Canada's defence forces.
Following the more expert technical contributions made by our members who have served in Her Majesty's forces and on the defence committee, the speeches made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on
National Defence Act Amendment Tuesday and by the hon. members for Vic-toria-Carleton, Northumberland, and Rosthern yesterday must surely sound a serious warning to the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and others across the way that the present policy espoused in Bill C-243, especially that segment dealing with the principle of unification, is entirely wrong. Many observers and responsible writers outside parliament have come to the same conclusion.
I now wish to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Wednesday, April 4, a newspaper not entirely favourable to the policies espoused by our party. The heading is in strong language, "Destroying Defence", and the editorial reads in part as follows:
It is beyond comprehension that Mr. Hellyer, by insisting on total unification, should ask parliament now to endorse a completely new defence structure, entirely foreign to both British and U.S. defence organizations. Unification, and elimination of service identities, despite Mr. Hellyer's statements to the contrary, have been openly rejected by Britain after much study-as declared in the white paper of 1963. A check with Washington would also reveal that the U.S. has no intention of unifying its combat units. To the contrary, the present purpose is to build up the proud reputations and esprit de corps of individual fighting units, whether it be the "Green Berets", the Marines or the First Cavalry Regiment. For Canada to launch into a radical experiment which will make our defence organization incompatible with U.S. and British organization constitutes the most drastic step ever taken with the defences of this country. It could, in large measure, destroy our existing defence structure.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Here is another excerpt, this time from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail under the heading "An Unseemly Rush To What?" I will quote the salient points for the sake of this debate. Citing Air Vice Marshal Miller, the article states:
He said that he saw no significant financial or military advantage in unification as compared with integration."
Another expert, Admiral Louis Mount-batten, expressed his views on integration and unification in an article which appeared in the Colonist on April 5. The question was brought up by an hon. member who is well known in the house, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), and the admiral's views are stated as follows:
In the British reorganization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale and those traditions which help to maintain this in the services and fighting units.
It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank
April 14. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary.
There is one other comment which I believe adds weight to my argument. It is one of the points raised by the Tri-Service Identities Organization.
It seems remarkable that the critics of the reorganization have been variously categorized as emotional, unprogressive, unreasonable, disloyal, obstructionist, destructive, politically motivated, or without responsibility. Do none of the extensive body of Canadians who hold opinions contrary to those of the Minister of Defence do so by reason of knowledge, capability, experience, conviction, concern or sincerity? Surely the calibre of some of the witnesses who have appeared before the defence committee dictates a high degree of credibility for their views and in no way justifies any discounting of their evidence and opinions.
The memorandum goes on to say:
Overwhelming support for the reorganization program does not exist amongst Canadians generally. Thus the latest Gallup poll showed less than 50 per cent of Canadians support it. Observing that this poll was taken before the defence committee started its hearings, and before so much cogent evidence was presented by so many knowledgeable persons against the plans and policies as presently disclosed would certainly permit the conclusion that even fewer Canadians support the programme now than six weeks ago.
One could continue to read weighty evidence for hours on end in support of the contention that the Minister of National Defence would be well advised to go slow on this issue. However, it is on the basis of the many expressions of concern which I heard from the ordinary man in the street while visiting my riding during the Easter recess that I turn to the next part of what I have to say. These conversations made me appreciate that Canadians everywhere are becoming deeply concerned about the direction in which the minister is taking us. They are additional reasons for my asking the minister to turn back before it is too late. I realize it would be tough medicine for him personally but it would help to vindicate him in the eyes of the nation and atone for some of his serious misdemeanours such as tampering with evidence, charging high-ranking officers with disloyalty and using what many have referred to as the big lie technique employed so effectively by one of the world's most hated leaders of a foreign power not so many years ago.
Canadians thought at first that the government's policy on defence was bold and daring and that it would save them millions of dollars. This impression was, of course, created by the minister's own public relations effort and resulted from the emphasis laid on the integration of our services. However, when

the minister began the infiltration process by using the word "unification" from time to time, interchanging it with the word "integration" and even using the term "amalgamation", people in general and even the commanding officers in the forces became completely confused. Many are still confounded and confused, as previous speakers in this debate have so clearly illustrated in the course of their remarks. Now, however, the people of Canada as well as those in other parts of the world are beginning to ask questions. The ordinary man wants to know whether Canada has any bona fide external affairs policy. The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle mentioned this point a few moments ago, as did the hon. member for Digby-An-napolis-Kings. External affairs policy as enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been so fuzzy and woolly that none of us understand it and Canadians do not appreciate what it is.
Does Canada have an adequate and proper defence policy? Defence and external affairs are, of course, so closely related that we must have a good idea of both before we can be sure about either. This has been said by many previous speakers who are more qualified than I am to debate this problem. Nevertheless it is pertinent. The average man is beginning to ask what our defence policy is and what our foreign policy is to be. This subject alone could lead us into a lengthy debate.
The third question which is often put to me is: Now that the 1967-68 estimates are out and defence spending has risen by $120 million, where is the saving which the minister suggested we would make? Out of our total budget we are spending between 20 and 25 per cent on defence. Since the total is 15 per cent above that of last year, some $1,600 million is involved. The taxpayer is naturally interested in the direction our defence policy is to take.
A fourth question, and one which has been put to me many times, is: In the light of the low morale of our services, will it be necessary to bring in conscription to keep them up to strength? What about the Liberal members and the Creditistes from Quebec? What is their reaction to this question?
The fifth question I have been asked is: What is to become of our commitments to NATO, NOHAD and the United Nations? This again is an important question tied in with Canada's external affairs policy. How can we make a decision on this bill until we decide
April 14. 1987	COMMONS
where we stand as far as our NATO and NORAD commitments are concerned?
Another important question which has been raised over and over again is: Did anybody estimate the cost in millions of dollars to the taxpayer represented by the loss of some 75 or 80 of Canada's most highly qualified military officers in the three services who felt impelled to step into retirement prematurely because they could not stomach the minister's policy of unification? Here is a question serious enough to warrant a wide-ranging debate. It is hard to determine the size of the investment represented by the training of these men, so many of whom have stepped out of the picture. How can they be replaced, and what would be the cost to the taxpayer?
Another question I have heard is: Can the great loss of these military officers with their vast reserve of practical experience be adequately replaced by the appointment of others who have never had the same experience or proper baptism in the line of battle? I would remind the committee of the old axiom that experience is the best teacher. These younger officers are naturally full of vim and vigour, but without this experience how can they properly provide for the defence of Canada and for the fulfillment of our commitments to other countries?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Next: Will the cutback in the number of ships and navy personnel mean that our neighbours to the south will have to move in along our shores to defend us and that as a consequence Canada will lose yet another segment of her sovereignty? Today we are worrying about our economic sovereignty. Will our military and political sovereignty be our next worry? This is an important question to Canadians. Why should Canada, which established such an honourable reputation with her fighting forces in two world wars, be the first country in the world to toy or experiment with such a questionable policy as unification when all the evidence is stacked against it? If the policy of unification of our armed forces is so good, why have not senior ministers of the crown, including the Prime Minister, supported the Minister of National Defence in this debate and at least made it appear they believe in this policy? Instead we have had silence, smirking grins and catcalls.
Another question that has been asked over and over and over again, and one that must be answered, is, where did the idea of unification come from in the first place? The hon.
National Defence Act Amendment member for Saint John-Albert emphasized this in his speech this morning. Where did this idea come from? Who is behind it, and why? These and many other questions are deeply worrying Canadians everywhere today.
The minister has created a military mirage, an Alice in Wonderland military fantasy, a boomerang. He has loosed a wind and will reap a whirlwind. I implore him to turn back before it is too late. In my honest opinion unification cannot work, will not work, and is only an exercise in futility.
As the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton pointed out yesterday, it is not our responsibility to prove the minister wrong; it is his responsibility to prove he is right. As the hon. member for Wellington-Huron suggested yesterday in his speech, I would also like to suggest that the Prime Minister allow a free vote on this legislation so that members will not have to follow party lines. Such a vote would be a truly democratic expression of opinion and the quickest and most logical way to settle this most controversial issue. If the minister does not need the advice of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and amend this bill to make it a reasonable and rational piece of legislation, I will have no alternative but to vote against it.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the unification bill must not go through. There is sufficient evidence to show it would create great and long-lasting harm to Canada's armed forces. I am equally convinced that integration as we now have it under our present laws is quite sufficient in the light of the objectives which our armed forces must be prepared to attain, whether in defence, peace keeping or whatever other role may be necessary in accord with our foreign affairs policy.
I am not participating in this debate without having first considered the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before the defence committee. I was not a member of that committee but I had a good record of attendance there and I listened not only to the witnesses in favour of the proposal but to those who were against it. This has helped me make up my own mind. There is a preponderance of evidence on one side to create a doubt in my mind as to the validity of the bill which the minister has presented.
This debate is not new. Those who say it has been going on for nine days must realize it is the culmination of two to three years
April 14, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment hard work by the defence forces to bring about something new in Canada's defence image, force-wise. We had a debate on second reading of the bill. We had committee meetings recently and now we are debating the matter in committee of the whole house. I feel this bill is of such importance to Canada that we should forget the political aspect and re-examine it in the light of the knowledge we have gained.
The suggestion was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that the minister might have been put on the spot and told: Go ahead; you have got to do this. He suggested that the minister had quite a cross to bear because of that. I do not believe so. The minister may have used his authority in the cabinet. It may be that it was a decision of the cabinet to go ahead with this bill but in any event, giving the minister the benefit of the doubt, as Minister of National Defence he has been most delinquent in his duty because he should have told the cabinet that this whole unification plan was not feasible.
There is sufficient evidence on very many points to raise serious doubt in the minds of all thinking people right across Canada. I shall enumerate these points on which we have secured evidence in the defence committee and from elsewhere. First, there is the very word unification itself, its definition, and the public relations image of the minister with respect to it. There have been continuous efforts to maintain the minister's shining, bright, forceful image, all those wonderful qualities the minister would like to have and to retain after this debate is concluded. Second, there are the statements by senior officers that unification was not the subject of discussion in depth. Third, there is the minister's lack of understanding of service abilities and traditions. Fourth, there are the voluntary resignations of senior officers and, fifth, the forced resignations of senior officers. Sixth, there was the Landymore incident, that horrible incident and, much more horrible, the minister's subsequent apology. Seventh, there was the denial of evidence in committee prior to second reading. We asked for committee hearings before second reading so that we might hear further evidence but we were forced to vote on the bill in principle without being allowed that. Eighth, there are the uncertainties and the effect on morale, which have been mentioned so forcefully by many hon. members. Ninth, there is the role of Canada's armed forces as against Canada's foreign policy commitments.
[Mr. Pugh.l
I have always wondered about the term "unification". I wondered even more when we heard the minister in the defence committee stand up and say he wished he had never heard of the term "unification". When he said that, there was a sort of gasp from Liberal members of the committee. Whenever they were asked about the meaning of unification all they would say was that it is a glorious thing.
The most telling part of this debate on the tern "unification" came when the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) was speaking. He, incidentally, was chairman of the defence committee and he said, as recorded at page 14774 of Hansard lor April 11:
My personal definition or view, which incidentally is the same today as when I started considering the matter many months ago, is that when we speak of unification we are talking about taking integration as far as it is practical to go.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Then he says that instead of using the word unification-the minister's word-he is going to use the expression integration-unification. I have heard a lot of rough words in this chamber and there are some I could use now. It seems to me that that is the most telling argument against unification. I started out by saying that I thought under present circumstances integration is all that is necessary for the good of our armed forces and for any role which they might happen to be called upon to play.
Another thing which attracted my attention in committee was the fact that the little trained seals in the Liberal party, without any ifs, ands or buts got up and spoke of the United States Marine Corps. They wondered why we could not have unification like they have in the United States with their marine corps. This shows a complete lack of knowledge. If anyone thinks that the marine corps is the total of the United States forces, then he is mistaken. They have an army and an air force. The point is that it takes each part all down the line to form the whole.
No one can tell me that in Canada we can do it in any other way. Let us take the word unification. The hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) used the expression integration-unification. No member of that committee, no member of this house, no senior officer, not even any Liberal, has said that he does not believe in integration and does not believe that it is a good thing for our armed forces. We know it is. It is not new. It started many years ago. Integration is something which we all know must be carried out. But to do what the hon.
April 14, 1967
member for Victoria (B.C.), suggests we should do, carry integration as far as we can and then call it unification, is not good enough, because we have had no definition whatsoever of the term.
The white paper, of course, set out the aims and objects of unification. These were good: a more effective and more efficient defence at less cost. There is, however, not one nickel's worth of evidence in this house or in the committee which would indicate that the minister's proposed force would be any more effective. In fact, as I read and listened to the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller I could not help but be struck by the answer he gave to the hon. member for Calgary South when he was queried about the effectiveness. His answer left in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of many members of the committee, the thought that probably by implementing the minister's new idea we might have a less effective force.
Let us take the reference to a more efficient force. There is no evidence of that. Then we have the suggestion that the cost would be less. We have heard all the evidence on that and we know that it is costing more. So I am a little suspicious of the minister in that regard. This has given rise to grave doubts in my mind and in the minds of members of the press throughout this country. Someone said, the press has suggested that we are spending a long time on this. I do not think we are. From my reading of editorials all across Canada it would seem the opinion is that we are not spending too much time. There seems to be a suggestion that we should hammer at this thing and not let it go through, because there is a reasonable doubt as to its value.
Let us consider the senior officers who held high positions in the Canadian Armed Forces. The minister has shown a careless disregard for their advice. He has not paid any attention whatsoever to their advice. I am glad to see the minister leave the chamber now because he looked as though he had had enough. I am not surprised, because when I listened to what he had to say last Tuesday I thought what he said about the senior officers was one of the worst insults I have ever heard flung at the armed forces by anybody. He said that the senior officers were prone to become fixed in their views. He suggested that because they had grown up in one service they would favour that service over any other. Were he in the chamber at this moment I would ask him a direct question, but perhaps be will read this and answer it later. What about Air
23033-945J
National Defence Act Amendment Chief Marshal Miller who was chief of staff? He was one of our great men and was appointed by the present Minister of National Defence.
The information I have been able to obtain is to the effect that Air Chief Marshal Miller, who was trained and brought up in the air force, when acting as chief bent over backwards in favour of the other two armed services. There is no question about that. If the minister has one tittle of evidence to bring forward in that regard, I hope he will do so. He has, however, insulted the senior officers. He says that they are service trained, came up through one service, and that if they do think they think wrong. Those are not his exact words, but the implication is there. If you read his speech I am sure you will not obtain any other inference from it.
As I said, we have a series of doubts. That is one more doubt in my mind and I am sure it would be a doubt in the minds of members opposite if they would read the editorials. Now there is an even graver doubt. We have senior officers who voluntarily retired. I should like to emphasize this. These senior officers have voluntarily retired because they could not put up any longer with the backhanded unification which was going on. The evidence of the senior officers is that unification would not work. I am not basing this statement on what I have read in the press. These officers were subjected to cross examination recently in the committee, and that was their evidence.
What about the senior officers who did not leave voluntarily, but were fired. Any officer who did not give a "yes man" answer when he was asked for his opinion about unification was forcibly thrown out; he was retired prior to his proper retirement time. This is a disgrace; it is something which never should have happened in our Canadian armed forces, but it did happen. Here we have senior officers, who were either kicked out of the forces or retired voluntarily, who were in the armed forces at the time of the moulding of integration. Men like that are not replaced too easily.
I hear Liberal members moaning and groaning. It does my heart good. It is not necessary for me to mention the name of Mountbatten, but I will; and I will mention other countries which have exceedingly good armed forces.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
What is the attitude of those countries of the world that have studied this proposal for unification? They have all emphatically

14952	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment turned it down. Mountbatten was very forcibly against this proposal. The minister thought he would be in favour of it but he got a rude jolt the other day as a result of an editorial in this regard.
In the minister's treatment of Admiral Landymore, we have witnessed one of the most terrible and shameful things to have ever taken place in Canadian military history.


An hon. Member:: Hah.


David Vaughan Pugh: I heard a Liberal say "Hah". I wish you had been there to hear the minister apologize.


An hon. Member:: I was there.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am glad you were there because you must have heard all about the charge regarding the 18 months of continuing disloyalty of Admiral Landymore. When the minister was asked to indicate how Admiral Landymore had been disloyal for 18 months he said that we could not pin him down. He could not tell us what the disloyalty was. Even the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, suggested there was no evidence whatsoever in this regard. Therefore you need not bother to tut-tut on that side of the house. The chairman of the committee said this, as reported at page 1754 of the evidence of the committee:
While I certainly can find no evidence of disloyalty in anything that has been revealed here this morning, I think it is probably fair to say that if I were looking for a man to help me support the idea of unification, the name of Admiral Landymore would probably come slow to mind.
At page 1755 of that same volume the minister made this statement in apology:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I accept completely Admiral Landymore's statement that he was at no time disloyal. I believe that it is absolutely correct, that there was never at any time any disloyalty intended to his service or his country. This does not mean that I condone all of his actions, during the period in question, because I could not.
I suggest this represents a shameful chapter in the history of our Canadian Armed Forces. It is no wonder that the minister was annoyed at Admiral Landymore. We all know about the tampering with the evidence. We all wanted more evidence from other witnesses before giving approval to this bill in principle on second reading. The minister was afraid to hear that evidence before second reading because, had we heard the evidence at that time, I am sure this bill would never have been given second reading.

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
In view of the lack of evidence to support the charge that Admiral Landymore was disloyal for 18 months, I keep asking myself the $64 question: Why was Admiral Landymore fired? He was fired because he refused to be a "yes man" for the minister. There is no doubt about that. Incidentally, I should like to point out that Admiral Landymore received a pat on the back by General Simonds, who is no mean slouch as a military expert in this country. That gentleman said that Admiral Landymore not only had the right to make inquiries, but the absolute duty to report the results to his senior officers.
In this regard I heard the minister make one of the most laughable statements I have heard made in a committee of this house. He criticized this man, used the word disloyalty, and then admitted before the committee that he had never looked at the reports Admiral Landymore had made to his senior officers. I was flabbergasted when I heard that statement. The minister levelled charges on the basis of fictitious evidence. He then apologized and that was supposed to end the matter. Surely that is a terrible way to treat such a man.
Every serving officer must be satisfied with the state of morale of his command. General Simonds testified on this point, suggesting that good morale was probably more important than equipment. Anyone who knows anything about military action will realize that without morale and the ability to stand fast a force will not be successful, regardless of whether or not it has the best equipment in the world. Surely that has been proven by all the great battles of the world. That will be the situation a thousand years from now.
Let me now refer to the evidence of Lieutenant General F. J. Fleury. He said he found a lack of security in headquarters. Junior officers apparently knew more about what was going on in the minister's mind than he did. Let me repeat what the general said. He said that other lesser lights knew more or said they knew more about what was in the mind of the minister than he did. He said that he found security information, as he knew it, practically non-existent. He said the whole headquarters reminded him of a giant sieve.
This man found he could no longer accept things as they were, and resigned. This situation in respect of the lack of security prompts me to ask where the minister got his information about what was taking place in the services. He apparently did not get his information from the senior officers. Where did the
April 14, 19G7	COMMONS
information come from in respect of the minister's charge that Admiral Landymore was disloyal? Perhaps this whole thing is nothing more than a public relations effort. In any event, this whole story creates grave doubts in my mind about the value of unification. I suggest the minister should have the common sense to either withdraw this bill or amend it.
A committee of this house was denied the right to hear additional evidence before the bill was accepted in principle. When we were discussing this matter I made a speech, as a result of what the Associate Minister of National Defence had said. He indicated that he had had some sleepless nights over the questions surrounding unification. I respect that man, because I think he is reasonable. He had some doubts in his mind and he felt he should find some answers. He went to the senior officers and asked questions.
The thing that bothers me about this whole matter is that we were not allowed to obtain the answers to our doubts and questions regarding the same things which apparently bothered the associate minister, and bothered him to a point where he took it upon himself to find the answers.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We do not have to accept the hearsay given to us by the Associate Minister of National Defence that everything is rosy. His idea of "rosy" and mine are entirely different. I have no hesitation in saying that having listened to the evidence of all those very, very eminent men who appeared before the committee, there is left in my mind no doubt-and I do not think there is any doubt left in the minds of the people of Canada-that there is a very reasonable suggestion that unification is nothing but an airy-fairy word and is a concept which, if we are to understand the evidence presented to the committee, cannot possibly be put into effect in its final form, as the minister would like, until after about five years of integration. It is said that it will take this long to put unification into effect because of the work involved with staffs, equipment, and so on. We have been told that this program cannot be put into effect quickly, that it cannot be done at headquarters, materiel command, and so on, because these things cannot be changed quickly.
Next, Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the role of Canada's armed forces vis-a-vis Canada's foreign policy and commitments. In fact this is one of the most important points in this whole defence debate. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle and others have dealt with
National Defence Act Amendment this question during the last few days. We have heard it discussed from all sides of the house. I wonder whether there might not be some truth in the assertion that the Liberal government has not really made up its mind about what our role is to be in this area. Are we going to be a brush fire outfit, a peace offering to the United Nations? Are we going to prevent little wars starting? Are we going to police areas in which there is likely to be trouble? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I am very much concerned about this aspect of the matter.
If our whole effort is to be directed toward peacekeeping, I believe we will leave ourselves open to becoming very, very quickly embroiled in a larger conflict. The United States went into Viet Nam with not too many troops. They now have 400,000 troops over there and are hopelessly embroiled in the conflict; they cannot withdraw. It is all very well to say that in a peace keeping role we will be able to go into these areas and act as policemen, but these things are not that simple.
There is another point where I think the people of Canada are very interested in the concept of a peace keeping force. It costs a great deal of money to maintain peace keeping forces. Our troops are abroad acting on behalf of the United Nations. Who pays the shot? The United Nations does not pay the shot; it is the Canadian people who pay. Every dollar spent on maintaining and equipping our troops abroad is paid by Canada. Peacekeeping is quite an expensive operation.
As I listened the other day to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the other Paul, I was wondering-I have never been able to learn this, and I do not suppose anybody has; I do not think the minister himself knows -just where we are headed in our external affairs policy and in respect of the commitments we have been so proud to make to NORAD, NATO and the United Nations.
I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that in this area of defence and unification far too many things are suspect. Most of the evidence heard by the committee indicates that there is a very serious doubt in the minds of men whom throughout the years we have learned to respect. There is doubt in the minds of those in the armed forces. There is doubt in the minds of many officers who have not spoken out. Perhaps they have not spoken out for good reason, because if they spoke out they would jeopardize their careers. The sum
14954	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment total of the evidence presented to the committee has raised a serious doubt in my mind, and I know it has raised a serious doubt in the minds of people for whom I speak, and others all across Canada. It has also raised a serious doubt in the minds of a great many newspaper editors.
The doubt raised is of such a serious nature that if this question were dealt with in a court of law the judge would say, "You cannot possibly do this." I have serious suspicions and doubts about this proposal. The preponderance of the evidence has been such that it has raised a great deal of doubt. We believe that unification is not necessary. Integration, if carried forward properly, will do each and every thing that the minister has stated he requires under unification, with the exception of those little green uniforms and one or two other items. I believe that the minister should impress upon the cabinet, or the cabinet should impress upon him, the advisability of reconsideration of this whole question before the government allows it to come to a vote in the house.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I enter the debate at this time with absolutely no apologies and with a definite interest in mind. As a matter of fact, after reading the terms and clauses of this bill, being familiar with the debate and reading the evidence presented to the committee, I fail to see how anyone who at heart is interested in the future and the defence of this country, or who is speaking on behalf of the constituency he represents in this house, can refrain from participating in the debate. I hope to approach the problem with which we in the house are faced with all due sincerity and a sense of responsibility, and I hope I can logically and factually place on the record, on behalf of those people I have the honour to represent, the feelings in regard to this unification bill.
When this proposition was first advanced -I think its aims and objects were very well presented-and it was said that an undertaking of this kind by the government would safeguard the defence of Canada, would uphold and magnify the military prestige we have won through the years, would give us the most modern and up-to-date fighting force in the world and at the same time save a tremendous amount of money-I think it was said that the saving would be $100 million per annum-I, and I think the people in my constituency, thought that those aims and objects were very admirable indeed, and that this was perhaps what had been

DEBATES	April 14, 1967
needed for a great many years as far as our armed services were concerned.
Therefore, in all fairness, at that time in my area of Ontario I think there was a great deal of support for this undertaking which the government was proposing. It is true that there were individuals with military experience, veterans of two world wars, students of military tactics, men who have been connected in different ways with the armed services, who were a little sceptical and questioned this proposal, because the Minister of National Defence who is actively promoting and guiding this new concept had not in previous months been too consistent in his views.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I do not propose to dredge up all the activities which led to this view. I will simply state that when the present Minister of National Defence was in opposition he was of two minds as to whether or not Canada should have atomic weapons, when he first opposed it and then favoured it, and then when he became minister showed hesitation in equipping our planes overseas with the very atomic weapons which he said were absolutely necessary for a proper operation, and which were a definite commitment made by the previous government, he delayed the implementation of this proposal. Naturally there was some doubt regarding the validity of the claims which the government had made. Nevertheless I will say in all fairness that the majority of the people in Canada, especially those who are not experts in military matters and who only wish their interests to be safeguarded, went along with the proposal which the government made to the Canadian people. In looking back I believe the Minister of National Defence made a cardinal mistake when he refused to answer completely and frankly the questions put forward by the opposition. There is no doubt that he had his own personal reasons for taking this attitude, but it soon became apparent from the questions asked on this side of the house that a growing doubt arose that the aims and objectives of the new proposed measure would be attained.
In fact, grave doubts began to creep in concerning the very wisdom of the action proposed by the minister. As is always the case with any major legislation facing this country, there is much speculation in the press, and many editorials concerning this legislation appear in the newspapers. It became apparent here and there that second thought was being given to this problem by
April 14, 1967	COMMONS
some newspaper analysts, men who had considerable experience in politics and who had the opportunity to visit the various theatres of war during active engagement. These men began to point out the various weaknesses which were beginning to appear in the administration of our armed services. Most members of the house and people across this nation began to realize that not only was this new legislation going to be brought before parliament but that the minister had already taken the first steps in implementing it before presenting it to the house in its entirety.
Naturally the questions from this side of the house increased in intensity. Once again the minister in his wisdom took an evasive course and refused to give us the detailed information which we sought so earnestly. This lack of response from the minister intensified the growing doubt across the nation as to the absolute wisdom of this course of action. Later the question of the drop in morale in the armed services was discussed on the floor of the house, among the personnel in the armed services, in the press, on radio and television. It was charged that a tremendous drop in the morale of the armed services had taken place, that men were becoming very dissatisfied with their jobs in the armed services, and that they were asking to be relieved of their duties. Yet the Minister of National Defence gave us assurances at that time that morale was never better, that all this was mere speculation and that the rumours had no foundation. As a matter of fact hundreds of our R.C.A.F. personnel left the Royal Canadian Air Force at that time; many officers left the armed services. As we have heard in this debate, officers of the highest rank retired a great deal sooner than was anticipated. Still, the minister maintained that all was well.
I think that at that time the people of Canada were prepared to accept the minister's statement that all was well. Certainly the public relations branch of the Department of National Defence was sending out across the country hundreds of thousands of words in support of the minister's proposal. I have great sympathy for the news analysts and political commentators who were bombarded daily with this deluge from the office of the Minister of National Defence. I do not think it helped his cause, indeed it hindered it because the very men who were receiving this deluge of one-sided opinion became increasingly suspicious that if such action was necessary then indeed all was not as portrayed.
National Defence Act Amendment
It is at this time that the eyes of the ordinary citizens were opened because when leave was granted to servicemen they greeted their relatives and friends, whose interest in this issue was aroused through the various means of communication, with their accounts of and opinions concerning unification. It is my opinion that it was at that time that the ordinary citizens of this country became convinced that the constant protestations by the minister and by his department with regard to the morale in the services were absolutely incorrect and that the assurances given in the house that all ranks, particularly the lower ranks in our armed services, supported unification completely were a hollow mockery, because it soon became apparent that such was not the fact. This is why we scanned eagerly the reports at the end of the year to find out how much the enlistment in the armed services increased.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We find the story has been put on the record, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of the pay increase, in spite of the re-enlistment bonus and everything else, enlistments did not increase but decreased. So, Mr. Chairman, we have this-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. This statement is not correct because enlistments did increase over the previous year, and they were higher than the two previous years. I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave that mistaken fact on the record.


Harold Warren Danforth: I am prepared to accept the allegation of the minister at this time, that this statement is incorrect. However, Mr. Chairman, when the various service personnel come home and assure the people that there are tremendous numbers of units that are undermanned, that we have not enough sailors to serve on our vessels, that we have not enough aircraft to defend this country, it is a hollow thing indeed for the minister to say that all is well. This will not serve to satisfy the people who feel they have first hand knowledge.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as a result of a feeling that all was not well across Canada, when this bill was presented to the house the opposition seriously requested the government to consider sending the bill to committee before the second reading stage, in order that evidence could be heard on the principle of the bill before this country was committed to
14956	COMMONS DEBATES	April 14, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment accepting it. When this request was not accepted by the government, it added to our suspicion that something was indeed wrong. Since we are not qualified military experts, and since we began to get this idea, that all was not well in Canada, each of us started a search in his own fashion for pertinent information.
What about all these great savings in money that were to take place? We have had put on the record by speaker after speaker facts to prove that not only was there not a saving of $100 million, as there was alleged to be as a result of this action, but expenditures have increased by $125 million or $160 million. I think, in all fairness to the minister, I can recall his putting forth the proposition that had money been worth today what it was when he brought forward his original proposition there would not have been any increase in expenditures. However, when you get down to the facts, Mr. Chairman, we find that not only have we not saved this $100 million, but expenditures have increased by $160 million. If my arithmetic is correct this gives us $260 million or a quarter of a billion dollars by which expenditures have increased.


Mr, Hellyer:: Your arithmetic is not very good.


Harold Warren Danforth: How about all this new equipment? We were going to have the finest equipment in the world. Since I am not a military expert, I was interested in the fact we were told we were going to have some of the new types of equipment; we were going to have an armed service which would be the envy of the world. I think the minister did receive favourable comment as the proponent of the jet age, the man who was going to give us everything modern.
We know the story of the attempt to develop the hydrofoil; the disastrous fire and the delay in assessing the damage. Then there was the indecision about whether or not to proceed. There was delay in the purchase of new air equipment and controversy followed. We are in a predicament because we do not know where we are going. To the ordinary layman it seems we are in a period of absolute confusion. I listened to a chap the other night and I thought he advanced a proposition which covered the position of this government. He said it seems they cannot formulate an opinion at this time where they are going because they not only do not know where they are now, but they do not have the faintest idea where they have been.
CMr. Danforth.]
Speaking on behalf of ordinary Canadians, I should like seriously to ask this government and this minister to consider the people of this country, to consider the future of this country. Instead of trying to give the impression that the bill before this house is complete so far as research is concerned, they should allow the House of Commons to work as an important component of parliament. I suggest the minister should listen to the opposition in all seriousness, so that working together in a new session we can bring about, by combined effort, a bill that will indeed work in the best interests of Canadians. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, this was accomplished in connection with the transport legislation, another important item of business.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the desire to do what is best for Canada does not lie solely within the government. We in the opposition, all parties in opposition, are sincerely concerned about the defence of this country. We are going to have to share equally the responsibility for any major mistakes that are made in connection with our future defence. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a sincere plea on my part for the minister and the Prime Minister to rise to the occasion and put country ahead of partisan politics for the benefit of Canada.


Mr. Kennedy:: I see there are only a few minutes left, Mr. Chairman, and I regret this because I have been waiting for some time to take part in this important debate. I can say frankly that as time goes on the debate becomes more interesting. There has been a lot of information divulged and good thoughts have been brought forth. This makes me feel more convinced that we should not proceed with this measure.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
My conclusions derive partly from about 30 years of military connection in full time and part time service, ending on the fields of Normandy. In that regard one of my friends once made the humourous quip that my military career might have been longer if I had been able to get closer to the grass roots. I thought I was as close as I could get to the grass roots. If at that moment I had been two inches closer I should not have bought the package.
I know the evidence of the defence committee, on which I did not serve, was overwhelmingly against the major change contemplated in the bill. People generally I expect are against change. The older we become the
April 14, 1967

more we tend to resist change. The officers who testified had had expert experience, with a lifetime of loyalty and service to the country. Most of them had gone through many experiences. One cannot conceive that they would base their thinking on something that is out of of date. Rather, they were concerned that the right step be taken.
I recall during the war that a proposal was made for officers to be formed into a corps, out of which they would go to various units needing replacements. It was proposed, for instance, that officers with artillery training, with engineering training and so on would be sent to various units to fill vacancies caused by promotion. Had this idea been implemented it would have been disastrous. The step we are about to take, with this bill, is much more serious than that, and needs to be even more carefully considered. We are not considering this measure as a general staff, but as representatives of our nation. We must first think of defence.
Though we are at peace many problems must be faced. Many of those who served in the forces during the war would have nothing to do with the forces after the war. When war came they gladly enlisted and accepted hardships because of the emergency which existed. They hoped that by playing their part they might in some measure shorten the war, and they served without grumbling too much. That is a contribution one cannot expect in peacetime.
I do not think the Canadian people support this major change in the armed forces. It is hard to change traditions, and anything that changes a tradition should be considered carefully. It is said that young people do not care about tradition; I doubt it. I think they should care, and I think they do. When I undertook military training as a young man I did so voluntarily. Reserve units in our area were looking for young people to train, to give them experience as soldiers. There was no remuneration in those days. You packed your lunch on Sunday, walked six miles, trained all day and walked back. You were not remunerated but you felt you had done something for your country, that you were taking your responsibilities seriously as a young man.
I do not think that this government, a minority government, a government without a particular mandate from the people, had the right to take a step as big as is contemplated in this bill. I do not recall support for this
National Disasters
measure being solicited during the last general election. This country cannot maintain forces on a war footing because our resources will not permit it.
I see you looking sideways at me, Mr. Chairman. May I call it five o'clock.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: I assure the hon. member that I had not lost interest in his speech.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to consideration of private members business listed on today's order paper, namely public and private bills.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, may we, by unanimous consent, stand public Bills Nos. 1 to 14 inclusive on the order paper and proceed with public Bill C-52, in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to allowing orders 1 to 14 to stand, and taking up for consideration the second reading of order No. 15?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-52, to provide for the Establishment of the Canada Disaster Fund.
He said: I am sure that as I begin my remarks in connection with this bill every member of this house is thinking of the disaster which recently occurred in Femie. As we discuss this measure and the need for legislation to meet the consequences of such disasters as these from a national point of view, I am sure the sympathy of all hon. members goes out to the miners and their families who have suffered so greatly as a result of this mining disaster.
For years the federal government has made contributions to various disaster funds across Canada because in some cases the losses involved obligations beyond the resources of the municipality concerned, and in others they were beyond the capacity of the provincial government in question. I think it is right that these contributions should be made. Not only is financial assistance provided but an

April 14, 1967
National Disasters
indication is given to those who have suffered that their need is recognized all across Canada.
I wish to give full credit for these contributions to the governments which were in office at the time, as well as to members of the armed forces and civil defence units which have been called in on numerous occasions, for example in connection with works to confine flooding in Manitoba, and in British Columbia on the Columbia and Fraser rivers.
After discussing this question with a number of organizations and groups across Canada I am of the opinion that we should set up what I would term a national disaster fund. The bill before us is entitled "An Act to Provide for the Establishment of a Canada Disaster Fund". I suggest that in view of a later development it might be better at a later point in procedure to amend the measure so that it may be referred to as an act to set up a national disaster fund. I will deal with this point shortly. I found after consulting with organizations in my constituency, elsewhere in British Columbia and in Toronto that it was considered by them to be a good idea for this parliament to establish a national disaster fund, and this is why I have introduced a bill to that end.
The purpose of the measure is to meet the problem of deciding at what point a province becomes incapable of dealing with disaster losses effectively, and to determine when a disaster becomes national in scope. The bill sets up a fund to which contributions can be made in advance by federal and provincial governments and by individuals, companies and institutions. The board of trustees each year determines in advance in respect of each province the provincial financial tolerance point above which losses are considered to be national in scope. Should a disaster occur in that province, the board contributes to the province out of the fund in respect of the losses above the tolerance point.
This, in brief, is the general purpose and objective of the present bill. On discussing this matter I find there is general support in the house for what it seeks to do. I recall that on the last occasion it was before the house the cabinet of the day gave some consideration to its subject matter. Since I introduced Bill No. C-52 I have received the following letter and I intend to place it on record for the information of hon. members, and in fairness to the organization concerned.
[Mr. Herridge.J
This is a letter from Mr. A. Ross Little, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Disaster Relief Fund Incorporated, and it is addressed to me. It reads as follows:
We wish to call to attention the close similarity of the names and objects of this fund and of the fund which you are proposing by seeking the enactment of Bill C-17. We feel quite strongly that there should not be a second fund called "The Canada Disaster Fund" as people might think they are dealing with one fund when in fact they are dealing with another.
We would be most appreciative if you would consider proposing some other name which would avoid such confusion.
I enclose herewith a copy of our act of incorporation and a copy of the press release which was issued when our last annual statement was filed with the Secretary of State and which will give you some idea of the uses to which the fund has been put.
We trust you will agree that it would be in the interests of both our fund and your proposed fund that confusion in regard to the names should be avoided if at all possible.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I suggest my bill could be amended at a later date in order that this fund might be called the national disaster fund.
In dealing with this question I wrote a letter to the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). I intend to place this letter on the record for the information of hon. members who may wish to follow the developments which have taken place since this bill was introduced.
Dear Mr. Gordon:
No doubt you have noted that I have introduced a private bill to provide for a national disaster fund. I have had it drafted so as to escape the Speaker ruling it out of order because it involves the expenditure of public funds. In view of the present uncertainty of the provincial, federal and municipal Governments as to their responsibility, I do think it would provide an opportunity for some discussion of this immediate question.
I would appreciate any information which you could let me have with respect to the disaster funds to which the federal government has contributed during the past ten years. I would also like to know the names of the trustees, if possible, and the amount of the unexpended balances in each case.
Thanking you for any information which you can render an unsophisticated countryman who has ventured into a field of legislation that would, I presume, come within your responsibility and jurisdiction, and I trust your later beneficence.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert W. Herridge
Hon. members will notice my reference to drafting this bill "so as to escape the Speaker ruling it out of order". I had to be very careful in that respect. I went to great lengths and consulted several members of the legal fraternity as to the best way of doing this in
April 14, 1967

order to avoid the Chair's ruling the bill out of order on the grounds that it involved the expenditure of public funds.
In reply to that letter, the hon. gentleman went to considerable trouble to obtain the information I needed and I will quote his reply in order that members may appreciate the circumstances which exist at the present time, and more fully realize the weight of my argument.
Dear Mr. Herridge:
I must apologise for the delay in answering your letter of April 21st in which you asked for information about disaster funds to which the federal government has contributed during the past ten years.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The information given below has been taken from departmental records and I hope it will serve your purpose. I should mention however, that with one exception disaster funds have been administered by some government or agency other than the federal government and consequently our records show only information about the federal contributions rather than the disaster funds themselves. The exception is the Mackenzie District flooding in 1963; most of the disaster relief funds in this case were provided and administered by the federal government.
This is the information:
1954-	Hurricane Hazel.
An amount of $1 million was appropriated in supplementary estimates 1954-55 payable to the government of the province of Ontario. $330,258 was in fact paid during the fiscal year while the unexpended balance of $669,742 was re-voted in 195556; of this latter amount, $434,379 was paid.
In summary then, $1 million was appropriated, $764,638 was paid to Ontario as a federal contribution towards the disaster relief fund, and there was an unexpended balance of $235,363.
1955-	Saskatchewan and Manitoba floods.
In the supplementary estimates of 1956-57, an amount of $120,000 was provided for payment jointly to the governments of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba for disaster relief. The actual payment amounted to $49,549 leaving an unexpended balance of $70,451 which duly lapsed.
1956-	Springhill Mine Disaster.
This was a very similar disaster to the one which happened recently at Fernie.
The federal contribution was $25,000 and was paid from funds appropriated in 1956-57 supplementary estimates directly to the Springhill Mine Disaster Relief Fund. There was no unexpended balance.
There rarely is when you come to deal with a mine disaster.
1958-Springhill mine disaster.
On this occasion an amount of $100,000 was appropriated in 1958-59 supplementary estimates and the full amount was paid directly to the Springhill Mine Disaster Relief Fund.
23033-946 \
National Disasters
1959-New Brunswick fishermen's disaster.
A payment of $50,000 was made directly to the New Brunswick Fishermen's Disaster Relief Fund- this was the amount provided in supplementary estimates 1959-60.
1961-New Brunswick floods.
$50,000 was made available in supplementary estimates of 1961-62 and was paid to the New Brunswick Disaster Relief Fund.
1963-	Mackenzie District floods, N.W.T.
Supplementary estimates (A), 1963-64 of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources provided an amount of $1,500,000 for financial assistance in respect of losses incurred during these floods, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board. Payments against individual claims amounted to $805,471 during the fiscal year leaving an unexpended balance of $694,529. Further assistance was voted the following year in an amount of $400,000 which included contributions towards the relocation of housing and the development of a new subdivision. Payments to date out of this provision total $237,558 -I am told that the accounts for the fiscal year have not yet been closed.
The Council of the Northwest Territories appropriated $100,000 from territorial funds for flood relief and rehabilitation. This money, together with the federal contribution, was disbursed by the chief treasury officer of Northern Affairs who was also acting in the same capacity for the territorial government. With the approval of the Treasury Board, on the recommendation of the territories council, compensation was based on a graduated scale for various categories of appraised damage-100 per cent of the damage to residential real property, 80 per cent of the damage to all personal effects, 70 per cent of damage to commercial stock in trade, and 80 per cent of damage to business real property and equipment.
Apart from the funds provided by the federal and territorial governments, contributions for flood relief were also made by private citizens. I regret, however, that we have no information on file about these funds which I understand were administered by a local flood relief committee. Possibly the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories could give you some information about the activities of this committee if you wish to pursue the matter further.
1964-	Port Alberni floods.
A payment of $250,000 was made to the Alberni Valley and West Coast Disaster Fund as provided by 1964-65 supplementary estimates.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Gordon.
I place that information on the record because I think it will be of interest later on when this subject receives further consideration. I know this matter was discussed within the cabinet this time, and I know there was considerable support for the principle of this bill. I was interested to read in the May 19, 1966, issue of The Manitoba Co-operator the following item:
Disaster Legislation May be Introduced in Ottawa.
The Federal government is considering introducing legislation to cover all types of disasters rather than deal with each one as it arises, Prime Minister Lester Pearson told the house last week.

April 14, 1967
National Disasters
He said the situation has been under consideration for some time and it is hoped that progress in parliamentary business will enable the government to deal with this matter before long.
In the Manitoba flood situation this year the federal government, following the policy set in the 1950 crisis, provided 75 per cent of the flood fighting costs.
I do not know what the government's intentions are at present. I realize, Mr. Speaker, we have got a lull agenda in front of us before this session is prorogued. However, I do trust that this legislation will receive consideration by the government before it introduces its legislation for the coming year. I know there is a great deal of support for this legislation, and once again I suggest that if the government introduces legislation to meet this situation it should recognize the fact that there is this other fund incorporated, known as the Canada Disaster Relief Fund, and introduce any federal legislation as a national disaster fund.
Since the introduction of the bill I have been discussing this matter with some members of the cabinet and with other persons, and I do hope before too long we will see the government take action to introduce legislation along the lines I have suggested in this bill, so that the parliament of Canada will have a rational and, shall I say, logical basis for meeting the needs that occur in any disaster in any part of Canada, in association with the provincial government concerned and the municipality particularly affected.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on Bill No. C-52, an act to provide for the establishment of the Canada Disaster Fund. I note that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) introduced a similar bill in 1965, which received first reading as Bill No. C-17 on April [DOT]8, 1965.
It is often said that the times in which we live are characterized by the rapid development of science and technology. Our times are also characterized, on the human plane, by the interdependence of peoples which is exemplified by their solidarity in times of disaster.
Thus, when part of the coast of Ceylon was devastated by a tidal wave a few years ago, the Canadian people, through the Canadian Red Cross, helped the fishermen deprived of their livelihood by that disaster.
The Canadians also gave assistance to India, stricken by starvation, and more recently to Chile, where earthquakes had made

many victims and caused a great deal of harm to part of the population.
Such mutual aid at the international level made it possible for a great many victims of disasters throughout the world to benefit from assistance which their respective governments could not afford.
Transposing the situation to the national level, it can be said that the same applies to Canada. Indeed, in the case of disasters, floods, hurricanes and other calamities, causing considerable material losses, the local public powers are primarily responsible for the organization of assistance. Thus, municipal and provincial authorities have the power to operate directly in such a held.
Since the world war, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has granted assistance in the case of certain disasters. The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned a few of those. Allow me to point out others: the Fraser river, in 1948, the federal contribution was $14,700,000; the Red river, in 1950, $16,000,000; the fires in Rimouski and Cabano, in 1950, $2,800,000; the Sarnia tornado, in 1953, $137,462; the Hazel hurricane in 1954, $764638; the Saskatchewan floods, in 1955, $32,000; in 1966, on the occasion of the Red river flood in Manitoba, the assistance granted by the federal government in this respect is not definitely known, but if we take as a basis the cost estimates for the province of Manitoba in this regard, the total assistance of the central government came to $11,550,000, of which $9,600,000 will be used to fight the flood, to restore highways, bridges and waterways and to offset damages to houses, farms and small enterprises.
I think it is understood that the rest will be mainly earmarked for the building of permanent dikes.
Bill No. C-52, now under study, is intended to lead the public authorities to take another step toward granting adequate help to the victims of a disaster. Although the principle of this bill is most praiseworthy from the humanitarian point of view, the fact remains that it brings up a constitutional problem which deserves a very careful and detailed consideration, as any matter of such an importance.
Thus far, the government has participated in emergency programs only on the special request of the provinces concerned.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) briefly indicated the course to be followed in such a case when answering a question asked in this house on April 29, 1966
April 14. 1967

concerning requests for help from areas devastated by a storm on Lake Erie. This is what he said then:
This matter was called to our attention yesterday by a member of the house as well as by letters from members representing the area concerned ... In respect of matters of this kind any approach for assistance should come through the provincial government.
Several days later, on May 5, he stated that he was fully aware of the problem and added that the government had been considering it for some time and that he hoped soon to be able to deal with this matter in a different way, and not pragmatically as it had been the practice in the past. Indeed, no plan for federal participation to those rescue operations has yet been evolved, so that support by the central government has always been in the form of an ad hoc measure, consecutive to a provincial request to this effect.
The federal government recognizes, Mr. Speaker, the problem posed by the establishment of an appropriate compensation plan for victims of peacetime disasters and it realizes that past action, in such circumstances, may not always have been satisfactory from all points of view.
For this reason, the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) was authorized last year to initiate an interdepartmental study of these problems. That authorization gave rise to the setting up of an interdepartmental committee, and the Emergency Measures Organization was entrusted with the task of ensuring its continuation.
The merit of Bill No. C-52 would be to create a fund to which the federal and provincial governments could contribute as well as private individuals, institutions and companies. A board of directors would have to evaluate beforehand each year the maximum amount which each provincial government would have to contribute. If losses exceeded that amount, they would be considered to be on a national scale and that is when the board of directors would step in to take from the fund all the money needed to provide compensation for losses in the province concerned.
Such a measure would result in providing all Canadian provinces with equal opportunities, so to speak, in case of public disasters, caused by an act of God, or and in cases of absolute necessity.
The purpose of this bill is therefore to co-ordinate the national effort so as to repair the damage sustained in any area of Canada,
National Disasters
in cases where the province concerned could not cope with the situation alone.
But as has just been pointed out, the wording of this bill raises a constitutional problem which may give rise to some protests on the part of certain provinces. As a matter of fact, federal participation in such activities could be denounced as an infringement by the federal government in a field considered as coming under provincial jurisdiction.
Moreover, before undertaking such a plan, I think it would be advisable and wise to study thoroughly the cases in which the federal government has been called upon to assist the victims of disasters in various regions of the country. It must be considered that Canada is an extremely large country where all sorts of disasters may strike: floods, forest fires, land-slides, etc.
If we refer to the crown liability act, we realize that it does not extensively involve the responsibility of the federal government and thus it seems that Bill No. C-52 would not be in agreement with the general economics of the above-mentioned legislation since the bill would considerably increase the responsibility of the federal government.
In the field of relief to victims of disasters, the federal government of the United States took, a few years ago, a number of adequate steps to ensure efficient action from the states as well as from the central government. In accordance with the 1950 "Disaster Act", the president may, at the request of a state, declare that a disaster is such that it requires federal government intervention.
Therefore, the president empowers the federal government to grant the proper assistance to the state involved. A federal law provides, on the other hand, for a federal relief fund for people who are victims of flood, under the "Flood Insurance Act" of 1956.
Another federal legislation provides for the organization of civil defence to help the states repair essential public works, such as roads, bridges and buildings, for instance.
Mr. Speaker, there is still quite a bit to be done by the interdepartmental committee; it is already obvious that a large number of difficult questions still have to be solved, most of which are not dealt with in Bill No. C-52,. as for instance:
(a)	The definition of allowable expenses, more particularly how to deal with insured; and insurable losses, public and private-losses, maximum and minimum amounts, etc.;.

April 14, 1967
National Disasters
(b)	Should the federal government, or rather Canadian taxpayers, pay contributions for comparatively small disasters and, if not, what is the limit and how is it arrived at?
(c)	Furthermore, would it not be preferable, particularly in the case of commercial establishments, to consider a disaster insurance scheme?
(d)	Also, what relationship is there between a general proposition to help the disaster victims in peace time and the current programs on certain types of disasters as, for instance, the crop insurance plan and others?
But before such measures can be translated into legislation, inherent constitutional problems should be discussed and resolved at a federal-provincial conference.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
{English]


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, not too long ago on an occasion when I spoke in this place the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) applauded me. I was very grateful for that applause, if a little bit surprised. I was not surprised at the conclusion of my speech when the same hon. member on a question of privilege asked that his applause be rescinded because I did not agree with him. This afternoon I hope that hon. member will not have reason to do the same thing. On this occasion I am almost totally in agreement with him, or at least with the principle of his bill.
There are many meanings of the word disaster. Webster's second edition says that the word disaster is of astrological origin, hence an ill portent. It also states it means a sudden and extraordinary misfortune or a calamity; an unforeseen and ruinous mischance or misadventure such as a shipwreck. I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that we from Newfoundland know plenty about shipwrecks. It is also suggested that the word means the failure of a great enterprise. We also know something about that situation. The hon. member for St. John's East represents that little Bell Island. I think it was Mary Queen of Scots who once said- perhaps the historians will correct me if I am wrong-that when she died the word Calais would be found written on her heart. When this hon. member passes on and someone takes the trouble to look he will find written the word "Wabana", the Indian name for Bell Island.
Webster's third international dictionary defines disaster as to bring harm upon, to

injure or to ruin. The Oxford English dictionary suggests that great poets and writers have used the word disaster in many different connotations. The famous writer Macaulay stated:
Faithlessness was the chief cause of his disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory.
Milton's reference was:
-From behind the moon in dim eclipse, disastrous twilight sheds on half the nations.
You will all remember Goldsmith who said in his delightful if poignant "Deserted Village":
Full well, the boding tremblers learn'd to trace the day's disasters in his morning face.
Be that as it may, most of us in our own lifetime have often had tragic reason to know just what disaster means. Before I proceed may I pay full and sincere tribute to that wonderful company of men and women banded together under the Red Cross. Of course there are many other organizations and individuals, many of whom if not most are completely voluntary. The good these people do simply cannot be weighed in words. Even they cannot know the good they do; just as one unremembered act of kindness by an individual lives.
The effects of disasters have been little studied and are difficult to summarize. It is especially difficult in the present state of knowledge on the subject to differentiate accurately between the effects of a sudden catastrophe and a long drawn out disaster. Often when a large area is affected there ensues a period of social and economic instability. This is often characterized by fluctuating prices, shift of class lines and movement of population.
The shock of sudden disaster often produces unusual or extreme types of human behaviour. On the one hand acts of kindness, of help, of assistance, and plain good neighbourliness and charity are called forth. On the other hand there are often exhibitions of unusual greed and of publicity seekers. We are inexorably involved with and responsible for each other.
For nearly 500 years our province has been bothered by the disasters of history. More often than not disasters are caused by men, not by God or by nature, although we have had our share of those. Bell Island, another area in my own district within a few miles of St. John's, is a battery of impending disaster.
We have had only 18 years of Confederation, not 100 like most of you, yet Newfoundland will not be lacking in enthusiastic
April 14, 1967

celebration of our centennial. We, like Abou Ben Adhem, may still lead all the rest.
The bill presented by my hon. friend opposite, Bill C-52, would set up a national disaster fund with a board of trustees to determine in advance a point for each province over which disasters would be considered national in scope. Contributions to the fund could be made in advance by federal and provincial governments, and by individuals, companies and institutions. Disaster is defined in the bill as:
-an inevitable accident or an act of God resulting in losses to persons within a province where such losses exceed in total an amount fixed annually by the trustees in respect of a disaster within that province.
I do not necessarily agree with that definition. I have several questions I wish to ask although there may not be time to ask them all. Could the amount of federal contribution to a disaster be influenced by the size and wealth of the province in which the disaster occurred? In other words, should the federal response to a $1 million disaster in Ontario be the same as the response to the same $1 million disaster in Prince Edward Island, or indeed Newfoundland?
Implicit in the proposal is the relative weakness of any province, particularly the have-not provinces. Although Newfoundland is now a have-not province I am sure that within my lifetime it will become a have province. This proposal would regularize the function of disaster relief in the cases that are not clearly national emergencies, but outside the ability of the province to control. At the present time there are no regular channels or plans and each emergency is met in ad hoc fashion. For example, during the Red River flood in Manitoba, federal aid was worked out through the medium of defence capabilities-the emergency measures organization. One could conceive of some level at which a disaster would be large enough to endanger defence preparedness, even under unification.
In the United States, as a result of the federal disaster act of 1950, the national government can provide disaster aid to states in the most effective way by co-ordinating, through the federal civil defence administration, the activities of all pertinent federal authorities.
The point of view of the Canadian government on the matter of disaster relief was
National Disasters
clarified on May 5, 1966, by the Prime Minister in the following statement:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We in the government have been giving consideration to this situation for some time, and I hope the progress of parliamentary business will enable us, before long, to deal with this matter of disasters, on a somewhat different basis than the pragmatic way in which we have been approaching it over the years.
Certain general aspects of any effective approach to the problem comprise the broad review of the physical characteristics and the human and physical consequences of natural disaster; the nature and scope of government efforts that must be far reaching, complex and co-ordinated in the handling of voluntary relief. The kinds of accidents to which Canada is prone are widespread and no one should approach this issue without a detailed knowledge of such historic disasters as wartime St. Lawrence shipwrecks, a tragic fire in Newfoundland, a tornado that blew down much of Regina, a hurricane that hit Toronto, an avalanche in Alberta, a coal mine disaster in Nova Scotia, a flood in Winnipeg, tragic bushfires in the north and in my own province of Newfoundland, and a bridge collapse in Vancouver.
The essence of the matter is that there is no actuarial basis for such events and normal insurance techniques will not apply. Related to this is the fact that Canada is one of the most accident prone countries in the world, and all the demographic aspects of this problem must be taken into consideration. The effect of Bill C-52 would be to regularize the function of disaster relief in those cases not clearly national emergencies, that is, that would impair defence capabilities-but which are clearly beyond the ability of the province to cope with. The board proposed would set a limit in dollars for each province, which would be a measure of that province's ability to cope. This fund would cover all amounts above these limits.
At present there are apparently no regular channels or plans for federal relief and each request for disaster relief is met in ad hoc fashion. Several recent examples have been reported in Hansard debates. One case was the Red river flood of 1966, in which federal aid was carried out through the medium of federal defence capabilities, the E.M.O.
The proposed fund is all-inclusive. In the United States there is a federal insurance plan for flood relief only. Another plan is tied in with the federal civil defence organization to assist states to restore essential public

April 14, 1967
National Disasters
works, that is, roads, bridges, waterworks, building, etc. Under the disaster act the president, on a request by a state governor, may decide to declare a "major disaster" and so authorize this form of federal assistance. The main problem for such proposals in Canada is a constitutional one. Disaster relief is under provincial jurisdiction. I know the problem Bill C-52 is proposing to meet has accordingly been referred by the Prime Minister to the federal-provincial conference for discussion. Whether or not discussion has actually taken place is a matter for conjecture.
The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) stated on October 22, 1964, that informal consultation was being carried out with the United States on the question of peacetime disasters and the role played by a federal civil emergency organization. He said:
Specific recommendations can be expected to emerge from these discussions.
I am in complete agreement with the necessity of providing relief in the case of disasters. I do not suppose there is a province in Canada that has had so many disasters as my own. Perhaps they have not been big, national disasters, but every disaster, if it affects a human being, affects all of us. You, sir, and I know of the many nights when the door was kept ajar while the storm raged outside. I believe our friend, Ned Pratt, who is a Newfoundlander-he was born in Newfoundland-and who should be, if he is not, poet laureate of Canada, stated it perfectly when he wrote:
It took the sea a thousand years,
A thousand years to trace,
The granite features of this cliff,
In crag and scarp and base.
It took the sea an hour one night,
An hour of storm to trace,
The sculpture of these granite seams,
Upon a woman's face.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the principle of this bill.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to give my views concerning this Bill No. C-52.
It is evident that everybody should agree that the principle of this bill is based on the most ancient and the most natural humanitarian laws.
In my area, and even in my riding, since the beginning of the century, we have suffered several disasters and conflagrations.
I remember the stories told by older people regarding the shipwreck of the Empress of

Ireland in 1914, at Sainte-Luce, near Rimouski and Pointe-au-Pere.
I also remember very well the fire that destroyed at least a third of the town of Rimouski, where I live, on May 6, 1950. One third of the city was destroyed and the damages amounted to several million dollars. I remember that we got help from the Red Cross, the army, and that a special fund was created thanks to people of goodwill. Insurance companies helped us also. Besides, I think that the C.M.H.C. let us use all the advantages it can offer by way of building and home reconstruction, so that we could rebuild our city. That is why Rimouski was able to remain one of the most important cities on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, in eastern Quebec.
At the same time, on the same day, I believe, another town in our area, located in the constituency of our colleague the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron), the town of Cabano, was almost completely destroyed by fire.
Those two fires caused damages amounting to $12,023,400. Insurance policies covered damages up to $2,545,000 and we suffered a loss of $9,478,000. On the other hand, we benefited from all the help I have already mentioned.
Along the Rimouski river there was also another disaster, another calamity: a mountain of mud and clay slid into the Rimouski river; this landslide destroyed several farmers' establishments, changed the course of the river and buried machinery valued at several thousand dollars owned by contractors who were doing work in the vicinity.
The hon. members who spoke before me mentioned many other disasters which happened here in Canada. In addition to those disasters, I think that it is advisable to remember also the collapse of the Quebec bridge about which a lot was written at the beginning of the century, and which caused some casualties and a great deal of damage. That accident occurred on August 28, 1908, with 75 dead. When the Duplessis bridge collapsed, on January 31, 1951, it was also a conflagration if we consider the damage and the four casualties.
Upon consideration of those disasters as well as those mentioned by the hon. members who spoke before me: the fire in St. John's (Newfoundland) which caused several casualties, in 1942; the tornado which destroyed 500 buildings in Regina, in 1912; the hurricane
April 14, 1967
Hazel, in 1954; the avalanche in Alberta, which completely destroyed a town and killed 66 people; several disasters in coal mines in Nova Scotia; floods in Manitoba; the forest fires of 1911 and 1922; the Porcupine Are in 1911, and the Haileybury fire, in 1922. It is obvious that we cannot disagree with the principle of this bill.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
However, upon reading the bill, I think that three major points must be considered, and all our colleagues in this house, I am sure, have already examined them.
First of all, as someone said a while ago, in the past the federal government did not delay in meeting the requests of the provinces in such cases. Often, federal assistance even preceded the requests. Moreover, a federal minister has been assigned to correct the effects of those disasters.
Mention was also made a while ago of the amounts the federal government paid to alleviate the distress in those circumstances.
I have a few figures here which I want to mention rapidly: the Fraser river disaster of 1948: contribution, $14,700,000;- may I mention that all these disasters occurred since world war II-the Red river disaster, in 1950, $16 million; Rimouski and Cabano, in 1950, federal contribution, $2,800,000; the Sarnia tornado in 1953, the federal contribution was $137,462,000; hurricane Hazel, $764,638; the flood in Saskatchewan, in 1955, $32,000; other floods in 1955, in Manitoba, $18,000; the Springhill disaster in Nova Scotia in 1956, $25,000; another disaster, at the same location, in 1958, $100,000; the New Brunswick fishermen disaster in 1959, $50,000; certain floods in New Brunswick, in 1961, $50,000; and other floods in Port Alberni, $250,000. This makes a total of $34,927,000.
The second point which is important and on which it is essential to call attention-it is almost a corollary of the first one-is that the federal government recognizes a real need to establish a statute to correct the effects of disasters. On the other hand, as I said a while ago, the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) was given authority to direct interdepartmental studies on these problems with a view to setting up a commission.
Business of the House
Third, in order to draft an adequate bill providing compensation when a disaster occurs, many difficulties and complications must be considered. For instance, it would be advisable to set up an acceptable scale of costs. It would be a good idea also to some disasters which are not big enough to require the help of the federal government.
The size or importance of a province's territory or wealth should also be considered. For instance, should a disaster resulting in a loss of $1 million in Ontario or Quebec be considered on the same basis as a similar disaster in Prince Edward Island?
It would also be necessary to enter into certain agreements regarding the participation of the provinces, because even if the federal government were to pass a legislation to that effect, the provinces would be required, under the constitution, to continue their participation to such programs.
On the other hand, the part played by insurance companies in the past and still to be played in the future must also be taken into consideration. In addition, there are certain details to be spelled out.
In summary, it is those small details which lead me to believe that the bill in its present wording is perhaps being presented in too simple a form to succeed in correcting a complex situation and in solving difficult problems.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members business is expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, what will be the business for next Monday?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I expect the item of business with which we have been dealing today will be called on Monday.


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


Monday, April 17, 1967