1967-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Roger Duhamel, f.r.s.c.
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1967
23033-911*
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 3, 1967

[Stage Direction]
corporation feels are not covered by the provisions of Part IV, General Holidays, of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and, if so (a) how many persons are employed in each classification not so covered (b) what reasons does the corporation have therefor?

Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: I have the honour to present the second and final report of the special committee on drug costs and prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: On
behalf of the chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the standing committee on national defence.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. that all employees on the regular establishment of the corporation are covered by the provisions of part IV of the labour code, with the following exceptions: (a) Those in management and professional categories, numbering approximately 1,500, who along with other regular employees do, however, enjoy 10 statutory holidays annually. Section 3(3) of the code exempts this group, (b) Those employed on a casual, temporary or part time basis and those retained by the corporation under letter of agreement who are considered by the C.B.C. as independent contractors. This is a relatively small number which fluctuates widely according to operating requirements.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,553-Mr. Andras:

Mr. Howard: Are there any persons In the employ of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who the said


BILATERAL FOOD AID SHIPMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Wheat	Flour
Quantity $	Quantity $
What amounts of wheat and flour were shipped, and to what countries, under Canada's food aid programs in each fiscal year since 1961?
Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: India	
Pakistan	
Ceylon	
Burma	
Indonesia	
Rep. of Vietnam
(long tons)
94,858.7
56,214.0
5,283.0
7,000,000.00
3,649,999.85
399,343.57
(long tons)
11,301.2
3,294.0
879.0
1,000,000.00
348,164.62
99,998.51
India	
Pakistan	
Ceylon	
Burma	
Indonesia	
Rep. of Vietnam
18,846.7	1,499,999.95
9,687.5	749,999.89
2,114.0	162,500.00
9.708.3	999,947.43
1,483.0	162,488.59
2.966.3	323,346.36
818.0	99,951.47

April 3, 1967
Questions
BILATERAL FOOD AID SHIPMENTS-concluded
	Wheat		Flouk	
Quantity	$	Quantity	$1963-64 India	(long tons) 	
19,322.5	1,500,000.00	(long tons)	Pakistan	
9,508.5	750,000.00	-	-Ceylon	-	8,853.0	999,974.85Burma	
3,087.0	324,950.31	-	-Indonesia	-	2,774.0	323,317.10Rep. of Vietnam	-	825.5	84,627.131964-66	India	
186,157.0	13,999.999.89	-	-Pakistan	
49,244.0	3,682,560.12	-	-Ceylon	-	8,500.0	884,093.48Burma	
4,592.0	349,999.87	-	-Rep. of Vietnam	-	1,463.0	149.972.131965-66	India	
228,784.4	17,359.112.07	-	-Pakistan	
49,691.4	3,649,999.95	-	-Ceylon	-	19,424.0	1,999,835.64Burma	-	3,136.0	349,998.321966-67*	India	
895,488.0	68,593,877.80	33,301.0	3,685,479.62Pakistan	
75,909.9	5,899,999.04	-	-Ceylon	-	-	17,150.0	1,999,941.00Ghana	-	-	15,868.0	1,981,488.76Algeria	8,242.0	999,904.65


ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR OLD AGE SUPPLEMENT, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Ricard: 1.	As of the date on which it was decided to grant a supplement to persons eligible for the old age pension who fulfilled certain requirements, how many employees were added to the staff of the responsible section in the office of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the city of Quebec?
2.	What will he the total amount paid in salaries each year to these additional employees?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Quebec Regional Office is at present employing casual staff to deal with the initial phase of implementation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement Program. Recruitment began in January and the numbers of staff (casuals), employed has increased gradually to the present total of 194. It is anticipated that the initial phase of this program will be completed by the end of April with a consequent reduction in the number of casual employees.

2.	At this time, it is impossible to estimate accurately the number and level of employees that will be required for the ongoing aspects of this program hence the total amount that will be paid in salaries each year. This information will be available only after enough applications have been processed to permit an accurate measure to be made of the amount and type of work to be performed.


HEALTH AND WELFARE ADVERTISING ON U.S. TELEVISION STATIONS
Mr. Priltie: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare, or any agency acting for the department, placed advertising with television station KVOS, located at Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A., in 1966 and 1967?
2.	Has the department placed advertising with any other United States radio and television stations in 1966 and 1967?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. Television spot announcements for the guaranteed income
April 3, 1967

supplement program during the weeks commencing February 20 and 27, 1967.
2.	Yes. KCND-TV, Pembina, North Dakota and WQDY (radio), Calais, Maine tor the same periods as in 1 above.


ORIGIN OF COLOUR T.V. SETS DISTRIBUTED BY C.B.C.
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	How many of the colour T.V. sets purchased for distribution by the C.B.C. to selected persons, were made in Canada?
2.	How many were purchased in the United States?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	All of the colour receivers were purchased from manufacturers in Canada and to the best of the corporation's knowledge all were made in Canada.
2.	No sets were purchased in the United States.


HEALTH AND WELFARE TELEVISION ADVERTISING OVER NORTH DAKOTA STATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare, or any government agency, placed advertising with T.V. station KCND North Dakota, U.S.A., in 1967?
2.	If so, what was the cost to the department
or agency of such advertising?
3.	What was the purpose of this expenditure?
4.	Does the department consider that T.V. stations in Winnipeg and Brandon cannot get the desired information to Canadian citizens?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2.	$900.
3.	To disseminate information on the guaranteed income supplement program.
4.	Television station KCND commands a significant portion of the southern Manitoba television market and was therefore used to complement the coverage provided by Canadian stations in Winnipeg and Brandon.


FARM MACHINERY IMPORTS
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): What percentage of the farm machinery sold in Canada is imported from other countries by the following machine companies:	(a) John Deere
Company (b) International Harvester (c) Massey Ferguson (d) Cockshutt (e) J. I. Case (f) C.C.I.L.?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics
Questions
does not compile lists of companies or manufacturers importing commodities of any type.


SALES TAX ON MARGARINE IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Laprise: Is federal sales tax applied to sales of margarine in the province of Newfoundland and, if not, since when and for what reason?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: To fulfil an undertaking of the government to the Newfoundland delegation during the negotiations leading to confederation, sales of margarine in the province of Newfoundland were not subjected to federal sales tax from the date of confederation. During the period April 1, 1949, to March 30, 1966, annual remission orders gave effect to this undertaking; however, effective March 30, 1966, the exemption was established under an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (Bill C198 which received royal assent July 11, 1966).


MILK TRUCKING, NIAGARA FALLS-TORONTO
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture made any inquiries during the last two months from any trucking company in Ontario concerning the cost of trucking milk from Niagara Falls to Toronto?
2.	If so, what is the purpose of this inquiry?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	No.
2.	N/A.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO &quot;CITE ETUDIANTE DE HULL&quot;
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	What grants have been paid by the federal government for the construction of the "Cite etu-diante de Hull", situated in the municipality of Lucerne, in the county of Gatineau?
2.	What grants will be required in order to complete the said project?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. To date the following contributions have been approved or made toward the Cite etudiante de Hull:
Apprenticeship centre Total cost	$1,653,702
Federal share	1,127,776
Ecole secondaire polyvalente
Total cost	$7,450,000
Federal share	5,303,505

April 3, 1967
Questions
The apprenticeship centre is complete. The secondary school is now under construction.
2.	The federal government has not yet had proposals for participation in other buildings and cannot estimate possible total contribution.


OPENING AND CLOSING OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT OFFICES
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	In each of the last three years (a) how many unemployment insurance offices have been closed and at what places (b) how many new offices have been opened and at what places?
2.	In each of the last three years (a) how many national employment service or manpower offices have been closed and at what places (b) how many new offices have been opened and at what places?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. (a) 1964, none; 1965, 18; 1966, 47.
The offices closed in 1965 were at the following locations: Asbestos, P.Q.; Blairmore, Alta.; Cowansville, P.Q.; Drumheller, Alta.; Edson, Alta.; Estevan, Sask.; Farnham, P.Q.; Flin Flon, Man.; Forestville, P.Q.; Gananoque, Ont.; Lachute, P.Q.; Liverpool, N.S.; Lloyd-minster, Sask.; Minto, N.B.; Mission City, B.C.; Picton, Ont.; Ste. Anne de Bellevue, P.Q.; Weyburn, Sask.
The offices closed in 1966 were at the following locations: Abbotsford, B.C.; Arnprior, Ont.; Beauharnois, P.Q.; Brockville, Ont.; Buckingham, P.Q.; Carleton Place, Ont.; Co-bourg, Ont.; Courtenay, B.C.; Dauphin, Man.; Dolbeau, P.Q.; Duncan, B.C.; Fort Erie, Ont.; Napanee, Ont.; Nelson, B.C.; New Liskeard, Ont.; North Battleford, Sask.; Parry Sound, Ont.; Perth, Ont.; Portage-La-Prairie, Man.; Port Alberni, B.C.; Port Alfred, P.Q.; Port Arthur, Ont.; Port Colborne, Ont.; Fort Frances, Ont.; Gaspe, P.Q.; Goderich, Ont.; Grande Prairie, Alta.; Inverness, N.S.; La Tuque, P.Q.; Lindsay, Ont.; Listowel, Ont.; Louiseville, P.Q.; Magog, P.Q.; Maniwaki, P.Q.; Midland, Ont.; Quesnel, B.C.; Renfrew, Ont.; Springhill, N.S.; Sturgeon Falls, Ont.; Sussex, N.B.; Swift Current, Sask.; Sydney, Mines, N.S.; The Pas, Man.; Tillsonburg, Ont.; Trail, B.C.; Wallaceburg, Ont.
(b) One new office was opened in 1966 at Castlegar, B.C.
2. (a) None, (b) Manpower centre was opened in Williams Lake, B.C. in the year 1966.


LOCATION OF NEW OFFICE BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	In what location will the office building in the city of Ottawa, for which $500,000 is provided in the estimates for 1967-68, be erected?
2.	For use of what departments of government will the building be allocated?
3.	When is it anticipated that this building will be (a) commenced (b) completed?
4.	What is the estimated total cost of the building?
5.	How many square feet of space will be provided in the building?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Tunney's Pasture.
2.	The space will be used to meet the overall forecast needs of several departments. No allocation of space to specific departments has been made.
3.	(a) Late autumn, 1967. (b) Early in 1969.
4.	It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before tenders have been called.
5.	200,000 net square feet.


SAVING IN ESTIMATE FOR ACCOMMODATION SERVICES, OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): Referring to page 434 of the estimates for 1967-68, how is the item of $5,710,000 not required for 1967-68 for accommodation services in Ottawa made up?


George James McIlraith: Vote 15
Ottawa-Administration building for Department of Agriculture-to complete	$ 900,000
Ottawa-Central experimental farm -improvements to central heating plant-to complete	75,000
Ottawa-Confederation Heights- site development and improvements	315,000
Ottawa-Dominion Bureau of Statistics Building-alterations	120,000
Ottawa-Experimental station for fresh water resources branch of Department of Mines and Technical Surveys	100,000
Ottawa-J ackson	Building-improvements to elevators-to complete	100,000
Ottawa-National Library-to complete
3,200,000
April 3, 1967

Ottawa-Norlite	building-alterations and improvements-to complete	200,000
Ottawa

Parliament Buildings centre block-improvements	100,000
Ottawa-Purchase of, and alterations to property at 7 Rideau Gate 200,000 Ottawa-R.C.M.P.	headquarters
buildings-improvements-to complete	160,000
Ottawa-Tunney's	Pasture-improvements to electrical distribution system	140,000
Ottawa-Virus laboratory-addition
and alterations-to complete	100,000


$5,710,000 GOVERNMENT WHARF, SAMBRO, N.S.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	When was the government wharf at Sambro, Halifax county. Nova Scotia, built?
2.	What is its shape, and its length and breadth?
3.	At the time it was built, how many fishing vessels used the same, and what was their approximate average length and tonnage?
4.	At the time it was built, what limit if any was imposed on the weight of vehicles using same?
5.	What moneys have been spent on the wharf since it was built?


George James McIlraith: 1. The government wharf at Sambro was built in 1911, rebuilt in 1935 and in 1951, and extended in 1957.
2.	It is "ell" shaped, having a stem 289 feet long by 20 feet wide and an ell 49 feet long by 20.8 feet wide.
3.	We have no records of the number and size of vessels using the wharf during the year it was constructed.
4.	The first recorded load limit was in 1935 when it was 150 pounds per square foot and concentrated load of 5 tons.
5.	An amount of $66,391 has been spent on this wharf since it was built.


FEDERAL BUILDING, PARRSBORO, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What progress has been made toward the construction of a new federal building at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has a site been secured and, if so, from whom and at what cost?
Questions


George James McIlraith: 1. The proposed accommodation areas required have been approved.
2. Not yet.


DREDGING OF HARBOUR, PUGWASH, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Will a dredging program be carried out at Pugwash harbour in 1967 and, if so, of what will the program consist and what is the estimated cost of same?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Yes. The work will consist of the restoration of the outer leg of the channel to original lines and depths and some spot dredging in the inner harbour. It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before tenders are called.


BREAKWATER REPAIRS, WEST ADVOCATE, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Will breakwater repairs be effected at the breakwater at West Advocate, Nova Scotia, and are any other improvements planned?


George James McIlraith: No, unless an inspection in the spring reveals that repairs are necessary.


HARBOUR DREDGING, PORT GREVILLE, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Will dredging be carried out at Port Greville harbour in 1967?


George James McIlraith: No, not unless maintenance dredging is found to be necessary.


APPLICATIONS FOR OLD AGE SECURITY SUPPLEMENTS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Under the guaranteed income program, how many persons currently in receipt of old age security payments have applied for an additional $40 per month?
2.	How many of the applications have been processed to date?
3.	How many have been approved for payment of an additional $30?
4.	How many have been approved for lesser additional amounts?
5.	How many applications have been rejected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As at the close of business March 17, 1967: 1. 708,121 persons have
14414
April 3, 1967

Canada Labour (Standards) Code applied for a supplement under the guaranteed income supplement program.
2.	570,705 applications have been processed.
3.	355,516 have been approved for payment of an additional $30.
4.	196,032 have been approved for lesser tdditional amounts.
0.	19,157 applications have been rejected because of income in excess of the limit.


EGG IMPORTS
Mr. Nasserden: 1.	How many dozens of eggs were imported into Canada during the year 1966?
2.	How many dozens were imported in each of the months of January and February, 1967?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1, Imports of eggs in the shell totalled 10,601,821 dozen for the year 1966.
2. No statistics are available as yet on imports for the months of January and February, 1967.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Laprise: 1.	For each year, since 1958, what quantities of (a) powdered whole milk (b) powdered skim milk, have been exported and to what countries?
2.	For each year, since 1958, what quantities of (a) powdered whole milk (b) powdered skim milk, have been stocked?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED OR LAID OFF
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-284, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (notice and payment to employees in case of discharge or lay-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to require that employees covered by the code who have been employed for three months or more shall not be discharged or laid off except with two weeks' notice or two weeks' pay in lieu thereof.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


AMENDMENT INCREASING NUMBER OF GENERAL HOLIDAYS
Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-285, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (provision for ninth general holiday with pay).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code with respect to the general holidays provided in that code. At the present time there are eight general holidays with pay each year. This bill would add a ninth, namely the first Monday in the month of August.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Did the minister give clearance, and thus approval, to the speech made by the chief of the defence staff to the International Relations Club at Breboeuf College, in which improper motives were imputed to members of this house and particularly to privy councillors?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know of the speech but I have complete confidence in the chief of the defence staff and he is at complete liberty to express himself publicly as he sees fit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege it seems to me that this is a matter in which the minister, in fact the Prime Minister and the government generally, must take some action. A report has been made as follows:
General Jean Allard, commander In chief of the Canadian armed forces, says opposition to unification mostly is a result of political ambition.
Members of the opposition in the House of Commons hope to strengthen their chances of being re-elected by opposing Defence Minister Hellyer's plan, he told a meeting of the International Relations Club at Breboeuf College.
"I would like to ask former cabinet ministers why they are clinging to the name of the navy, army and air force ..."
April 3, 1967

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is an unprecedented event so far as Canadian history is concerned, that a member of the defence forces of this country, and particularly the chief of the defence staff, would impute to members of this house and members of the defence committee improper motives in regard to the stands and positions they have taken with respect to a measure which is now before the house.
I think there is absolutely no excuse for conduct of this kind. It has never been permitted for members of the defence forces or members of the civil service in this or any other country which has the British parliamentary system of government, and I think it is incumbent not only on the Minister of National Defence but on the Prime Minister to take disciplinary action in this case in order to ensure that there be no repetition of instances of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has raised this matter as a question of privilege. I do not rise to comment on the substance; I have not seen the statement. I do wish, however, to point out to Your Honour rule 41-A which deals with questions of privilege. It is not open to the hon. gentleman to raise the question in the absence of the notice provided for in this new rule which governs our procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no doubt that hon. members will accept the correctness of the procedural point raised by the Acting Prime Minister. I felt it was my duty to hear the statement to be made by the hon. member for Calgary North, but the rule is clear that an hour's notice is to be given on a question of privilege. This is a rule which has been adopted by parliament and which parliament would expect to be followed.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: It arose out of the minister's answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion is made that the question of privilege arises out of the minister's answer. I would not agree with that suggestion. If the hon. member for Calgary North felt he had a valid question of privilege he should have raised it according to the rules. I suggest to him that it would have been very easy to give the prescribed notice, as all hon. members invariably do when a question of privilege is raised in the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I did think my question of privilege arose out of the minister's reply, which was so contrary to what has been the practice in the past in this house. I thought I had a valid question of privilege which arose at that time, but naturally I defer to your judgment on the matter.
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question. As Acting Prime Minister will he take action to ensure that instances of this kind do not recur and that disciplinary action is taken in this case?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated I have not seen the statement. I will be glad to look at it. I will do so in the light of what my honourable and respected friend has suggested.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. In view of the statement by the Minister of National Defence over last week end, I should like to ask whether he was enunciating official government policy when he told the Young Liberals Association that the press of Canada was guilty of irresponsible reporting and had done a great disservice to Canada in the manner in which the news was reported.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it is open to an hon. member to ask anyone in the house whether he agrees with the views of a colleague or another member of this house. However, since my hon. friend has put that question I should like to say in answer to my hon. friend that the Minister of National Defence has the right to state his views, just as my hon. friend has that right. I recall one occasion, when my hon. friend was questioning a matter which I raised about his particular administration, when he made an observation which I do not think reflected too kindly on the press of this country.


Michael Starr: What was it?


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether in his years in office he has familiarized himself with Q. R. & O. If so, does he not realize that his answer is entirely wrong?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
14416

April 3, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


VIET NAM-REQUEST BY UN SECRETARY GENERAL FOR CEASE FIRE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding the appeal by Secretary General U Thant for a unilateral cease fire by the United States, under which there would be a truce under which United States forces in Viet Nam would fire only if fired upon. In view of the fact that the Secretary General has indicated that he himself or a group of governments, who are members of the United Nations, might make an appeal to the United States for such a declaration by a fixed date, will the Canadian government indicate to the Secretary General of the United Nations Canada's support of such a declaration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the official text of the appeal of the Secretary General addressed to the government of the United States, but I expect to receive it later this afternoon. In general terms, however, so there can be no misunderstanding, the position of the Canadian government remains as set out in this house on a number of occasions. We should like to see the bombings stopped; we should like to see the infiltration stopped, and we should like to see this conflict transferred from the battlefield to the negotiating table as soon as possible. Any proposal or appeal which carries us closer to that objective will be supported by the Canadian government.
I should like to remind my hon. friend, and I am sure he will recall this, that in answer to a question from his seatmate I said that the government publicly endorsed the three point proposal put forward by the Secretary-General on March 14. That proposal seemed at that time, as it still does, to offer some hope for early restoration of peace in Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. Is the Canadian government prepared to support an appeal by the United Nations to the government of the United States to set a fixed date for a cease fire to be carried out on a unilateral basis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can say unequivocally that the Canadian government will support an appeal to all sides for a

cease fire. That was the tenor of the first proposal made by the Secretary General on March 14.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs accept the proposition of the Secretary General of the United Nations that the first initiative in stopping the conflict should rest, for the major part, with the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I have dealt with this question.


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


NATO-REPORTED INVOLVEMENT OF OFFICERS IN SPY ACTIVITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Palierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of Canada's deep involvement in NATO does the minister have anything to report to this house in respect of the alarming reports regarding spy activities within the NATO organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a communique was issued by the Secretary General of NATO on March 23 in which it was stated that NATO has been informed that the news carried by the press in respect of the alleged involvement of 300 NATO officers in the ring discovered in Italy lacked any foundation. As a result of conversations I had with the Secretary General in England on Friday I would say there is no reason for changing that reply.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing decline in housing starts as reported last Friday by C.M.H.C., and in view of the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister last week concerning urban and housing affairs and techniques of handling related problems, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is considering a new agency or perhaps a department of housing and urban affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement
April 3, 19G?

speaks for itself. When the government feels that an announcement of its policy now under consideration should be made, it will be made. I am sure it will please my hon. friend.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the self imposed deadline of March 31 having been reached with no announcement from Geneva concerning the future price of wheat under the international wheat agreement, is the minister in a position to indicate whether negotiations have bogged down or is the government still optimistic about a 32 cent increase in the price of wheat?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make regarding the 32 cents, which is a figure unknown to me. I think the suggestion regarding the March 31 deadline may be somewhat in error. The agreed terminating date for the current cereals negotiations at Geneva is April 30.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that it was the terminating date. All reports in the press indicated that the negotiators had set this particular, termination date for the negotiations on wheat, and that the future-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a difference of opinion between the minister and the hon. member which we should not attempt to resolve just now.


NANCY GREENE-SUGGESTED RECOGNITION FOR WINNING WOMEN SKIERS' WORLD CUP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great national and parochial pride to bring to the attention of this house a matter of national significance. In view of the great achievement of Miss Nancy Greene, of Rossland in Kootenay West, in having won the first world cup for women skiers, to the delight of all Canadians, has consideration been given by the government to proclaiming her the centennial athletes'
Inquiries of the Ministry queen for Canada, or to some other recognition such as Canada's centennial champion athlete?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reply to this question. Before doing so may I say on behalf of all of us in the house that I am glad to see the hon. member for Grey North still in his seat, and I should like to extend to his seatmate, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melville-Tisdale, our warmest congratulations-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on being selected whip of a rapidly reducing group on the other side of the chamber.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to make a brief correction. My constituency is Grey-Bruce, not Grey North.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for bringing to the attention of the house the remarkable achievement of Miss Nancy Greene in winning the world cup and thus establishing herself as the top woman skier in the world. She has generated the admiration of Canadians from coast to coast, and this feat certainly will be regarded as one of the most outstanding performances by an individual in the long history of amateur sport in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In paying tribute to Miss Greene I wish also to express my congratulations to all members of our national ski team. Canada's level of performance in world skiing is on the ascent, and this year's team has made a notable contribution.
With respect to the specific and important point raised by the hon. member concerning a suitable award for Miss Greene, I should like to mention that some time ago the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport undertook to consider the question of suitable awards for outstanding amateur athletes in Canada. That proposal has been approved in principle and within a very short time a special committee of the council will be meeting to determine the final details of such an award. Naturally Miss Greene would rank high on any list of possible candidates for such an award.

April 3, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforl-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Acting Prime Minister said my constituency was Humboldt-Melville-Tisdale, instead of Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale. Nevertheless I very much appreciate the Acting Prime Minister's congratulations and thank him for the nice remarks he made on my appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


FREIGHT RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that the Railway Association of Canada, representing some 15 railroads in this country, have filed notice that they intend to increase some class and commodity rates? If the minister is aware of this, I wonder if he could advise the house whether the new railway commission has been set up with all the regulations and administration powers necessary to administer the new transportation policy in Canada, or is this an attempt by the Railway Association to raise these rates under the old act?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the application; like the hon. gentleman, I received it in the mail. Part V of the Transportation Act, which contains the amendments to the Railway Act, was proclaimed on March 23 and is now part of the law of Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know the act was proclaimed and is part of the law. What I asked the minister was whether the new transportation commission, along with the necessary regulations, has been set up to deal with this kind of thing in the event that any of these rates exceed the maximum allowable under the new act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, all amendments to the Railway Act-here I speak subject to correction in detail-were proclaimed on March 23. Among the other provisions in the act is a provision that until the new transport commission is set up the board of transport commissioners will act in its place. That is the law as passed by parliament and given royal assent at this session.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A further supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether the new transport commission is now set up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer, sir, is no.
[Mr. MacEachen.l


TRANSPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the drastic loss of winter traffic to Halifax, I wonder if the minister can now advise the maritimes, including his own province, whether the special maritime transportation study is now receiving consideration by the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the report of the consultants who were engaged jointly by the Atlantic Development Board and my department, their report is rapidly approaching completion and I hope will be in my hands shortly.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. Could the minister now advise us whether this is a matter which will come before the house prior to our summer adjournment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to predict the course of this parliament for even one day.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the transportation aspect of the secret plans to keep open the St. Lawrence up to Montreal, will the minister stop all activity by engineers of his department until we have had the chance to examine this whole question in a committee of the house, as promised before the Easter recess?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would reassure the hon. gentleman that there are no secret plans whatever; therefore there is no need to suppress the secret plans.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give every assurance that no engineers in his department or any other branch of the government are working on any plans to keep open the St. Lawrence in the winter to Montreal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think in the very careful and calculated language of the hon. gentleman I could give that assurance. But I would not want to mislead the house, sir; therefore I might be permitted to add this word. As is well known-there is no secret about this-consideration is being given to improving the ship channel in the St. Lawrence for normal summer navigation.
April 3, 1967


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether officials of his department, in line with modern progress, intend to set up such a committee to ascertain the possibility of keeping the St. Lawrence open all year round to Montreal? Could he also tell us why his department, under which this matter comes, does not see to it that the St. Lawrence seaway is kept open all year round?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I fear that a reply to that question would start a debate, sir.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I take this matter up at ten o'clock?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister advise whether the role or purpose of the CF-5 aircraft is being changed from that of a close support tactical aircraft to that of merely reconnaissance and surveillance, as attributed to General Allard, who says that the aircraft has been found peculiarly vulnerable to ground to air missiles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is very difficult for me to determine whether there is urgency to the question asked by the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker, on the question of urgency, I understand there is a debate coming up on defence, so perhaps we might have the information.


Mr. Speaker:: The question might be asked then.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether it is the intention of his department to pay salaries to teachers of kindergarten classes for native Indian children?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question should be placed on the order paper.


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask the minister whether the government has altered its plans with respect to the development of Fortress Louisbourg?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Not to
my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. Since the minister does not have any knowledge, would he assure the 40-odd men who were paid off on Friday that they will have their jobs back tomorrow or the following day? If the minister is not in a position to answer now I will raise the matter at ten o'clock.


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF MANITOBA REPRESENTATIVE ON BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the importance of history in Canada's centennial year, and the fact that the position of Manitoba's representative on the historic sites and monuments board has been vacant for several months, can the minister indicate when this appointment might be made?


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


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
In view of the fact that this matter is of great interest to all the farmers in eastern
April 3, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada, is the minister in a position to give the names of the members of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, the names will be announced this week.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know if the minister will be able to announce those names definitely, since he has promised to do it three times in the last ten days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will agree that the minister has already answered the question.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister tell the house whether his department has taken any steps to increase air traffic control services in the Montreal flight information region to handle the increased air traffic for Expo and the centennial, announced by the minister on March 27?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of these stepped up air services for centennial year, will the minister make sure that Saskatchewan is not left lagging in the provision of services? There has been considerable complaint in the province that air transport service there is inadequate at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think every effort will be made within the capacities of the air lines serving Canada to provide service to every part of Canada to the best of their ability.


Thomas Miller Bell: supplementary question. Has the minister any intention of bringing Canadian Pacific Airlines service to the maritimes, that part of Canada that was forgotten in this announcement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer to that question is no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence. As it arises out of some remarks attributed to the latter before a meeting of the Toronto Young Liberals Association, I will address my question to him. Has Canada officially offered or will Canada officially offer to make peace keeping forces available to help police a cease fire in Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend restate the first part of his question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has Canada made or will Canada make any official offer to make forces available to help police a cease fire in Viet Nam?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I have read what my colleague the Minister of National Defence has said concerning the situation that would arise in the event that at some point an invitation were extended to Canada to take part in a peace keeping operation, either in an expanded I.C.C. form or in some other form, perhaps under the UN charter. But I cannot see that the question my hon. friend has put is in any way related to what the Minister of National Defence is reported to have said. I do not see how the use of force, in the sense mentioned by my hon. friend, would be very helpful.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In reply to a question asked on March 13 the minister stated that if the report of the committee studying veterans pension rates did not become available in the near future, further interim adjustments might be necessary. Could I ask the minister whether he has yet received the report, and if not has any decision been made with respect to further adjustments?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Velerans Affairs):: I think the clearest answer I can
April 3, 19G7	COMMONS
give to the hon. member is no to both questions.



CAMP HILL, N.S.-REPORTED LACK OF HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): My question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the hon. gentleman aware of the charges and accusations that have been made that legitimate, pensionable veterans have been refused bed space in the Camp Hill hospital while merchant seamen from Canada and other countries are occupying beds? Will he investigate this matter?
Roger-Joseph Teillet: I have certainly not heard of this. I will look into it but I very much doubt the accuracy of that report.



EXPO '67 STATEMENTS IN &quot;LA PRESSE'' RESPECTING LOGEXPO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as the minister responsible for Expo '67.
Can he tell us whether he intends to take action against the Montreal paper La Presse because of the considerable damage caused by the irresponsible reports published in that paper with regard to Logexpo?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been contemplating any such action. Since the initial statement made by La Presse they have given very full coverage to the corrective action that has been taken and to the good progress now being made by Logexpo in bringing together people seeking accommodation and those who have it to offer.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister, with the help of his department and the Department of Justice, make inquiries in order to ascertain whether it is true that members of the Montreal underworld have approached an editorial writer from La Presse in an attempt to divert the attention of the Montreal police during Expo '67?
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I am wondering what would be the implications to the Canadian defence readiness posture if information about the colour and cut of the walking out uniform of the armed forces were to be finally disclosed to an anxious and breathless public.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to know how to cope with such a comprehensive question as that raised by my hon. friend. However, if he is referring to the picture which appeared in some newspapers last week end, it might interest him to know that the gentleman in that picture was Captain Ken McLeod of the Queen's Own Rifles. He is a member of the directorate of ceremonials at headquarters in Ottawa. All the battle ribbons he was wearing were his own; and it is a great tribute to him that after so many years of distinguished service he is as useful -youthful as the picture portrays him to be.


Mr. MacEwan:: Useful to the minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This very effective officer, who was having his picture taken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CO-OPERATIVES INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Registrar General. On the day we recessed, March 22, he took as notice a question I asked with respect to a co-operatives act which the government has indicated from time to time was under consideration. I want to ask the minister at what stage the preparation is and whether we can expect this legislation to be produced in the near future.


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this legislation is still being considered in the light of the eventual amendment of other related acts, and no final decision has been taken at the moment.

April 3, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister it the cooperative organizations will have any opportunity to make representations to those who are preparing this legislation prior to it being introduced into parliament?


Guy Favreau: Of course they will have the opportunity. Especially now that the question has been asked, I assume the hon. gentleman is aware of some who want to make representations, so I will see to it that a proper occasion is afforded.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he assure the house that adequate refrigerator cars for the transportation of potatoes is now available in eastern Canada? If not, would he be kind enough to look into this problem with a view to making transport available for the disposal of surplus potatoes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret very much, sir, that it is not within my power to give such an assurance, as I am sure the hon. gentleman realizes. However, I will be happy to make the most urgent representations to the Canadian National Railways.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: dislike very much intruding twice during one question period, but this is a matter of urgency. In view of the request by the municipalities in Kootenay West, representing the wishes of the people, that the R.C.A.F. Golden Centennials put on a full show while in Castlegar on July 14, and in view of the fact that the Castlegar squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Kootenay West, has been chosen as the top squadron in Canada, will favourable consideration be given to the request of the municipalities and the 25,000 spectators expected to attend-


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



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could the minister tell us whether, after the repeated refusal of the Ontario government to give assistance to Ontario's French speaking classical colleges in order to allow them to survive, especially the college of Sudbury, it is the intention of the federal government to use the ancillary powers vested upon it by section 93 of the constitution to contribute to the survival of the classical college of Sudbury?


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



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Have all the necessary regulations under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and under the Public Service Act been promulgated? If so, when will they be available?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I know the work on the regulations has been going on urgently. I should like to take the question as notice to determine whether or not all of them have been completed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BRITISH COLUMBIA-PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. I have a lack of knowledge about Outer Mongolia, but I rather suspect the question could well be placed on the order paper.']
Frank Howard: Just before you call orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the house about any recent developments regarding the recent proposal by the province of British Columbia to establish a harbours board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not in the confidence of the government of British Columbia.
April 3, 1967


Frank Howard: I rather expected that answer, from the statements made by the Prime Minister over the week end in Vancouver. May I ask the hon. gentleman if he knows whether the act has been passed and what action the government intends to take, that is the federal government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think any action is called for except the action required under the British North America Act, to look at any legislation within one year of its passage. I presume that the Minister of Justice or his officials will do that at the appropriate time.


Frank Howard: In other words-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wish to ask him if action is now in the process of being taken with respect to implementing an exchange of diplomatic representatives with Outer Mongolia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Angus MacLean: I recognize that the minister said three weeks ago that there was no intention of making changes immediately. Nevertheless, considering the changing situation in that part of Asia, coupled with our lack of knowledge of the situation actually existing between Red China and the U.S.S.R., is consideration being given to this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have a lack of knowledge about Outer Mongolia, but I rather suspect the question could well be placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
March 22, 1967-House in committee of the whole on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended) .-The Minister of National Defence.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order on the calling of this item. I do so knowing the
National Defence Act Amendment seriousness of the situation at hand in that the house is being asked, or will be asked, to consider in committee a complex bill of many clauses on which the defence committee held many hearings the transcripts of which have not yet reached members of the house. Some, the later ones, reached hon. members at twelve o'clock today, that is, hon. members who went down to the distribution office and themselves obtained the copies. The last copy of evidence has not yet reached me. It may be in my office now, since 20 minutes to 3, but I do not know that it is there.
As has been the practice with other bills-and I cite the bill with respect to the Eank of Canada amendments where such transcripts were not ready-I submit that the government should defer the calling of this particular item until the complete transcript of evidence given before the standing committee is available for distribution to this committee. I think it would be doing a great disservice to the house to proceed with this matter without the evidence being in the hands of hon. members. I see no justification for the government going ahead at the present time.
Second, and this point is even more important than the first point, if Your Honour refers to Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, March 22, at page 1591, as part of the fifth report of the standing committee on national defence Your Honour will see the following paragraph:
A further report, setting forth the above mentioned amendments to Bill C-243, is being prepared and will be presented.
Well, Your Honour, this afternoon on motions an hon. member of that committee in the absence of the chairman tabled the report. Those amendments are not printed in Votes and Proceedings. They are not available to hon. members as the committee report and they will not be available, other than as photocopies which can be made in a hurry or as some other sort of substitute.
I put it to Your Honour that these amendments and this report do not become official until they are printed in Votes and Proceedings, notwithstanding that in its fifth report the committee did say that it had ordered the reprinting of the bill, and that there is in the midst of our bills a copy of the reprinted bill. Hon. members, from the minister down, cannot take the original bill and the amended bill and show what changes were made by the committee. That would be a laborious process.

April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
I am as anxious as anyone else to proceed to an intelligent discussion of this matter. I have not passed observations on the unintelligent press reporting of the unification evidence, or the evidence on unification that the minister has. I shall refer to that later. I do say, however-and I spoke to the government house leader about this briefly early today- that to proceed with this item the evidence must be available to us. I say that hon. members of this house are entitled to that evidence. It is not a case of saying "Oh, well, it will be presented." We need that evidence to work on this legislation.
I suggest that Beauchesne makes certain references which imply that all the evidence shall be before the house when the matter is being discussed. In any event the evidence must be before hon. members, and it should not be presented merely at 2.30. To do that is contemptuous and frankly contemptible. Second, I put it to Your Honour that it is mandatory that the committee report embodying the amendments be printed in Votes and Proceedings before we can proceed to study the bill as amended.
If Your Honour will look at citation 318 on page 248 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, the paragraph dealing with the report by the chairman or member of a committee, Your Honour will find these words:
If it is long, the house generally dispenses with the reading, as all reports are printed in the Votes and Proceedings for the information of members as soon as they are laid before the house.
I am concerned not only with members of the defence committee-and the acquantance of some hon. members on the other side with that committee was short enough-I am concerned with all members in the house. They must have the contents of the report before proceeding on it. That report was tabled at approximately 2.45 p.m. this afternoon, and I put it to Your Honour that that is not complying with the rules and practice of this house. The house having received the report, it may read it in Votes and Proceedings for today, and at the appropriate time proceed with the discussion of the bill.
I have raised these points because more and more with the evolution of the committee system in dealing with legislation, it will be absolutely mandatory that this house have the committee evidence before it, that it may properly consider the bill clause by clause. I therefore seek the co-operation of the leader of the house on the government side to turn to other business that we may complete these

administrative details and allow hon. members to be properly prepared for this debate.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am always desirous of co-operating with hon. members, particularly when that will expedite the business of the house. I followed citation 318 (1) closely when the hon. member read it. It is interesting to note that it does not provide any requirement for the printing of the report in Votes and Proceedings. It does make reference to the information being available to hon. members.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is nonsense at this stage.


George James McIlraith: Information is made available to hon. members in the report of the committee and the evidence. The evidence has been printed in both English and French and has been distributed, and the sixth report containing the amendments made by the standing committee is to be found on page 2387 of minutes of proceedings No. 37 of the standing committee. That has been distributed.
[DOT] (3:30 p-tn.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister say when that was distributed?


George James McIlraith: If I might just finish my remarks-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When was it distributed?


George James McIlraith: I think the hon. gentleman should have learned by now that in this house members other than himself are entitled to speak and that a little courtesy such as is extended to him when he speaks should be extended in return. I said when he asked his question that I would be glad to deal with that point. As I was about to say before I was interrupted, the bill itself, as reprinted by order of the standing committee of which the hon. member was a member, is in the binder of bills. So not only do hon. members have the bill as originally submitted to the House of Commons but they have the reprint of the bill as ordered to be reprinted by the standing committee which dealt with it. In the sixth report of the committee they also have the amendments in isolation. So it is very easy for hon. members to know precisely what clauses have been amended and what the amendments are.
The hon. member asked me when the evidence was delivered. He was kind enough to call me this morning about noon to say it had
April 3, 1967

not been printed, whereupon I expressed surprise and said I would immediately look into the matter. This I did, and I was assured that it had been printed. I was also assured that at the very moment of that conversation the reprinted bill was being placed in the binders beneath hon. members' desks in the House of Commons. I do not know when they were delivered to hon. members' offices or to their mail boxes but I am assured it was done earlier today both as to the evidence and as to the reprinted bills.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask the minister whether he is satisfied that report No. 37 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence was distributed? He will clearly remember my telling him that No. 37 had been printed but was not available for distribution, though Nos. 34 to 36 were perhaps available to members if they went down to the distribution office and got them themselves. That was at a quarter to one this afternoon. At that time No. 37 was not available for distribution. It may have been printed but it was not available for distribution.


George James McIlraith: I checked on this immediately the conversation had taken place. I do not know the precise time; it was somewhere between twelve thirty and one o'clock. I was assured that it was printed, available, and distributed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have just received my copy.


George James McIlraith: I have no way of knowing, beyond that.


An hon. Member:: In English and French?


George James McIlraith: Yes, in both English and French.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which has been raised, this is too serious a matter to be glossed over so carelessly by the leader of the house. Yes, we have in our possession, placed in the binders today, Bill No. C-243 reprinted as amended and reported by the committee on national defence. Consequently we need some other document to which to refer in order to check with regard to the amended clauses. The old bill has been removed from our binders. I was looking for mine in order to begin making the comparison. Obviously we need something else in addition. It has been normal to use Votes and Proceedings with the amendments printed therein.

National Defence Act Amendment
When the committee reported on March 22 it stated, as my hon. friend from Edmonton West has pointed out, that a further report setting out the amendments to the bill had been prepared and would be presented. This was presented today, but of course it cannot appear in Votes and Proceedings until tomorrow. The leader of the house tells us we have available the final report of the committee on national defence. That is not true. It is not available to me. I have not got it here, unless it is being delivered at this very moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This, I say, is making a mockery of the House of Commons. Here we have the senior page delivering copies of the final report of the minutes of proceedings and evidence-No. 37. I would want to be assured that every single member of the House of Commons has that report in his possession before we proceed with this debate this afternoon. It is all very well to come here with a dozen copies and pass them out to people who may be on their feet speaking or who have said something about this matter. Each of the 265 members of this house is entitled to this report. Even so, I say that the normal procedure is to have the amendments printed in Votes and Proceedings which is available at our desks, having been filed each day by the pages. We wish to refer to this background information right now and this is where it should appear. Unless every single member of this house can give you the assurance, Mr. Speaker, that he has report No. 37 in his possession it is not fair to ask this institution to proceed with the bill at this stage.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, aside altogether from what one might call the legal requirements to which the Minister of Public Works attached a great deal of emphasis, I think it is unfair and unreasonable to expect members of this house to proceed with a bill of this nature when the relevant committee reports and the bill as amended were not in their hands until a few moments ago. I did not receive Nos. 33, 35 and 36 of the committee reports until twelve thirty or one o'clock today. The first time I saw No. 37, which outlines the amendments made in the committee, was two or three minutes ago after it had been distributed in the house. I did not receive an amended copy of Bill No. C-243. The first printing of the bill was on my file when I came into the house.
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
I have taken a fairly active part in the affairs of the committee and perhaps I could get on reasonably well without referring to these documents. But most hon. members of the house were not members of the committee and I submit they are at a complete disadvantage in not having these documents at their disposal in such a situation as this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that on the inside of the first page of Bill No. C-243, which is in our folders, the following words appear:
The amendments made in the committee on national defence are indicated by underlining and vertical lines.
Therefore the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre can simply look through the bill and find out where the committee made amendments, because there will be either vertical lines or the words will be underlined. I do not know whether he has the original bill with him in order to make comparisons but I am sure that like myself and other members he has a copy in his office. Even though the copy of the original bill may have been removed from his file here, surely another copy is available to him. It is customary to show the wording that was in the previous bill and the new wording and identify the amendments with vertical lines or by underlining. I do not see any great difficulty in sending someone to my office for a copy of the old bill if I want to make comparisons.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
However, I am in some measure of agreement with the hon. member for Calgary North when he suggests that the minutes of proceedings and evidence taken during the latter stages of the committee hearings have just now been made available to hon. members and there should be an opportunity for them to review some of the evidence in order to familiarize themselves with it. If the normal course in committee of the whole is followed I suggest that there will be fairly long introductory speeches made by some members on both sides of the house reviewing the general principle of the bill and that by the time we get down to clause by clause discussion of the bill each member will have had an opportunity to review that portion of the evidence that he wishes to review. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of the many months we have spent in this session I suggest that we go ahead and finish the balance of the business on the order paper.
[Mr. Harkness.J


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I subscribe to the views of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). I am not a member of the defence committee. From time to time within the scope of my other duties I have attempted to study the transcripts of the proceedings of that committee. An important issue is involved here. I do not necessarily take the same viewpoint as some of my colleagues on that committee. I may or may not, but I think there is some very important evidence to be considered. I suggest that Your Honour can take judicial notice of the fact that the Prime Minister made a statement in which he said he had an opportunity some days ago to read the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller, that it was evidence which impressed him and that it should be considered in depth. That evidence only became available to me a few minutes ago. On an issue of this kind, Mr. Speaker, I think the whole value of the committee system is at stake. We have now obtained over 2,400 pages of evidence given by a number of witnesses, of which more than 250 pages was distributed today. There was a very excellent series of examinations and cross-examinations of these witnesses. We should have an opportunity to read all the evidence.
I do not go along with the hon. member for Medicine Hat who suggested that we can prognosticate that a certain length of time is going to be taken up with preliminary speeches. This is not necessarily the case. I am looking at the first two or three clauses of the bill, and hon. members who were not on the defence committee will be called upon to take certain positions with respect to those clauses, make important decisions and decide how they are going to vote.
At this stage I suggest it is utterly impossible for hon. members to analyse the evidence of very important witnesses contained in the last two or three transcripts, relate their evidence to what was said previously and come to an independent decision. If we are going to make proper use of the committee system I suggest it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that transcripts of proceedings are in the hands of members of the house in sufficient time for members to read them, examine them and make a decision on them. It is utterly impossible at the beginning of the debate today for myself and other members to examine the very important evidence given by the latter witnesses who appeared before the committee and say. "This is the view I am going to take."
April 3, 1967

I would say that this point is as much a matter of privilege as it is one of order. If our committee system is going to work then inevitably the government will have to do better than this if it is going to ask members to make use of the proceedings of committees. The committees are emanations of this house set up by the house to examine witnesses, something which we are incapable of doing in committee of the whole house. The defence committee has done an excellent job but we want an opportunity, particularly in the light of these recent transcripts, to examine the evidence and come to a decision. Without that opportunity I do not think we can do justice to this bill and to the work that the committee did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two points raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. The first one deals with the question of the report-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member is suggesting that further comments be heard from the government benches. If so I will hear them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hesitate to raise one point again, Mr. Speaker, and I do so only because, unfortunately, the hon. member for Medicine Hat inadvertently misled the house when he referred to the reprinted version of Bill C-243 and said it contained a note at the top of the first right hand page that the amendments are indicated by underlining or by vertical lines. That is only as between the revised bill and the original C-243. If he will look at the original Bill C-243 he will see that the underlinings and vertical lines indicating amendments to the act are entirely different and there is absolutely no relationship among the three at all. Therefore what he had to say in this regard was quite misleading, albeit perhaps innocently.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may resume the suggestion I was going to make to hon. members on the first point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, which deals with the report, the hon. member with support from other hon. members referred to citation 318 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. I must say, with respect, that I tend to agree with the proposition advanced by the government house leader that the only requirement in that citation is that information be available for hon.

National Defence Act Amendment members. That suggestion did not appear to gain much support from hon. members on the opposition side when it was made, but on reflection I believe this is the purpose of this citation. As hon. members know, the amendments are now before the house in two forms, in the form of the report which was tabled and which is now officially before the house and in the form of the amended bill which has been distributed. Of course I fully recognize that distribution might be a bit late, but the report could not be distributed until it was tabled in the house. This causes difficulty but it is not really a point of order; it is really a question of convenience.
I note that the hon. member for Edmonton West during his presentation appeared to appeal to the government house leader rather than to the Chair, assuming, I would think, that this is something the government should agree to rather than for the Chair to rule that it was a valid point of order.
On the other point, the suggestion is based on the desirability of letting the order proposed for consideration this afternoon stand long enough for hon. members to familiarize themselves with the evidence. I point out to hon. members it is not for the Chair to decide whether one hour, one day, or one week is sufficient time for members to familiarize themselves with the evidence, and because of this I do not think I can interefere to ask the house not to proceed with the order of business called this afternoon by the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a second point of order to raise with regard to the copies of the bills which are in front of us. I have in my hand a copy of the bill which was given first reading on November 4 and I also have a copy of the bill which was given to us today, reprinted as amended and reported by the committee on national defence. I ask you, sir, which copy are we to refer to in the course of our committee study?
It says in the explanatory notes in the reprinted bill:
The amendments made in the committee on national defence are indicated by underlining and vertical lines.
Clause 2 of the bill that was given first reading on November 4 was amended in the committee on national defence. There is no vertical line to indicate the change that was made in that committee and even had there been I submit, sir, that the normal practice is

April 3, 1967
Division
for the reprinted bill to show the changes from the original act.
In the reprinted bill, new section 15 in clause 2 reads:
The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is no indication given of the change made from the bill given first reading on November 4. There is not a single indication given of the change from the present act which is still in force and which, in section 15, reads as follows:
The Canadian Forces are the naval, army and air forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of three services, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
My point of order is this: What is the committee of the whole to do? Is it to deal with the bill which was given to us and read for the first time on November 4? Is it to use the reprinted bill which was given to us today? If it is, how is any member of the committee to know from the reprinted bill what changes have been made in the act now in the statutes? By a very careful reading of the act now in the statutes and the reprinted bill now in our hands we can, of course, pick out the changes, but this is not the normal practice at all.
In respect of all previous bills the government has taken the house into its confidence and has always underlined and indicated the changes which were being brought about. Normally on the explanatory note pages the section of the statute being repealed or amended is printed. I submit that this has not been done in this amended bill which is now placed before us for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, this is a very interesting point. I cannot see much difference between the procedure proposed now and the procedure usually followed when bills and amended bills are being considered by the house. The only suggestion I can offer for the hon. member and for the benefit of all hon. members which perhaps is not a very useful one is that members could have both bills before them and compare one bill with the other. If hon. members can show me a standing order requiring that we should follow for the convenience of hon. members the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre then of course I would certainly rule in his favour.

What the hon. member is saying now is that it is not very convenient to proceed in the way in which the house is being asked to proceed. He may be quite right. I am not disagreeing with him. I have no right to express an opinion one way or another on this point. On the strict point of order, however, there is nothing in the standing orders of the house to support the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I am afraid I can only suggest to him as I did in the first instance that both bills be used by hon. members in the course of the discussion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Call the yeas and nays.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss
Division
LaMarsh). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Irvine:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in the negative.


Mr. Orange:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in the affirmative.
The house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof. The amendments made by the standing committee on national defence are included in the reprint of the bill, which I understand has been distributed.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is this going to be a leadership speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -during the last few months the subject matter of the bill now before us has been extensively examined and debated in this chamber, in the standing committee on national defence and throughout the news media. Every opportunity has been afforded those who are opposed to this concept to make their views known. Unfortunately, in any debate of such magnitude it is difficult to deal with each of the various issues raised as precisely as I am sure we would all like. Nevertheless, this kind of open, free discussion is very beneficial, I think, to the understanding of the reasons for the proposal that is now before us.
I thought it might be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if today I went back and reviewed some of the background information which led the associate minister and myself to the position that we have taken in recommending this bill to the consideration of the House of Commons. If I may, therefore, I should like to go back four years approximately to the time that the then associate minister and I were given responsibility for the Department of National Defence and to relate to the committee the series and chain of events which we think justified the legislation now being requested.
At the time that responsibility was accepted there were three things that we decided had to be undertaken. We had, first of all, to bring the past up to the present, and by that we
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment meant to acquire tor Canada the nuclear warheads required for the weapons systems that had been purchased for our armed forces to enable them to carry out the commitments that had been undertaken on behalf of our country. The second was to review the equipment programs then outstanding. The third was to determine a long range defence policy for Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In so far as the first of these is concerned, hon. members will recall that a bilateral treaty was signed with the United States of America under which it would be possible to stockpile nuclear warheads for those weapons systems which had been supplied to our troops and for which they were being trained. Technical agreements were signed between the forces of our two countries. A certain amount of construction was undertaken, and ultimately all of these weapons systems became fully operational.
The review of the existing equipment program involved a study of the requirements from a military standpoint, budgetary considerations and, third and probably most important of all their possible effect on future defence policy. In some cases programs were cancelled because they did not fit into our plans for the future, because there were weaknesses technically and, in some cases, the effectiveness did not justify the expenditure being made. In other cases we decided to continue the programs that had been undertaken and which were current at the time of the change in government.
All the while that these two matters were being attended to, preparations were in hand for the writing of a long range defence plan for Canada. Study groups were set up which included representatives of the navy, army, air force, the deputy minister's staff and the Defence Research Board. These studies covered a wide range of activities such as the military history of this country, the changes that had taken place in weapons technology over a period of ten years, an appraisal of the likely changes in technology in the coming ten years from that time, a look at the political situation in the world and a guess as to what might develop amongst the nations of the world in the decades to come. Finally, there was an appreciation of the strategic situation as it then existed in the world.
It is difficult to make political forecasts because no one has a crystal ball which is infallible. At the same time one has to make
assumptions in order to base plans on them. These assumptions were ultimately stated in the white paper as it was published in 1964.
Cardinal to the plan as set out in the white paper was the strategic situation as it existed at that time. On this question there was no difference of opinion whatsoever. The unanimous decision by the chiefs of staff and all the staff members who considered it was that in the world today the least likely kind of was is an all out thermonuclear war. At the other end of the spectrum, the most likely kind of war is a continuation of small wars, riots, insurrections, the overthrow of civil government, namely, the kind of conflict that has been going on almost continuously throughout history and certainly continuously during the 20 years since world war II.
Each side in the cold war, the United States and the U.S.S.R., has sufficient thermonuclear striking power that even after one side had commenced a sneak attack the other would be able to retaliate, from hardened and dispersed bases, with sufficient power to wipe out the agressor's industrialized areas. Therefore this kind of attack would be irrational. There is no conceivable political goal which would justify a conflagration on that scale, a conflagration which would result in casualties ranging from 150 million to 300 million people in the first 24 hours, depending on the circumstances prevailing at the time.
From a rational standpoint, therefore, this kind of conflagration is the least likely during the ten year period. That is not to say it could not happen as a result of madness or miscalculation, but it is not likely to happen and certainly not from a rational standpoint. Steps have been taken to reduce the chance of miscalculation. A hot wire has been established between Washington and Moscow in order to check out at the highest decision making level the intentions of one toward the other in the event an incident happens over which there is some uncertainty as to what the intention of the other party really is.
The only other caveat which I think should be registered in respect of this strategic appraisal is that it is only true as long as the strategic balance remains, as long as the thermonuclear stalemate continues. This implies, of course, that we retain on the western side an effective deterrent which would make it inadvisable for the Soviet union ever to undertake an adventure of this sort.
The other end of the scale, however, is the almost certainty that there may be times

April 3. 1967	COMMONS
when some political objective might be considered somewhere in the world as of sufficient importance to use force of arms. This is clearly what is going on in the world today. Our problem in Canada was to devise and develop a defence policy sufficiently broad and with sufficient flexibility that our forces could contribute to the deterrence of a major war at one end of the scale and through to these peace keeping activities at the other end of the scale or assist in putting out a small conflagration before it escalated into all-out thermonuclear war.
This is not easy because it requires a wide range of equipment and a wide range of training. At the same time, it is possible and we are achieving it. We are achieving it with considerable success and intend to continue to achieve it in the years ahead. Our troops in Europe are committed at the high end of the scale. They are there as a contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and as a part of the integrated force in peacetime. Militarily, they are very effective. Politically, they are very important. It is an indication on the part of our country that we stand with our allies to deter aggression on the part of any possible enemy.
At the same time there have been demands on our forces to contribute to peace keeping and other activities. There is a real possibility that this will continue in the years ahead. It is difficult to determine in advance precisely what the requirement will be. We have participated in every United Nations operations so far, but there have been no two that have been the same. Each one has been different. The problem then was to devise a policy and to design a forces structure sufficiently flexible to enable us to continue to do what we have been doing, make our contribution to the NATO forces in Europe and on the high seas and increase the capability of our forces to participate in any action anywhere in the world which might be in the interests of Canada in so far as putting out, containing or controlling incidents which under other circumstances might escalate into something more serious.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This was the basis, then, of the policy as laid out in the white paper. There were two significant changes, I think, that really should be mentioned. They are associated with the two words, flexibility and mobility. First of all we reversed the policy of 1959, that the Canadian army in so far as new equipment was concerned would only be equipped to
National Defence Act Amendment training scale for the three quarters of the army in Canada and to full equipment for the brigade group overseas. I know that my hon. friend from Calgary North has questioned this, but I have the policy before me. It was established in 1959. The formal decision was taken and it applied to over-all equipment purchases. Therefore the policy then in effect, which meant that only one quarter of the Canadian army would be equipped and available to fight overseas, was reversed.
The second most significant change was the decision to increase strategic mobility, in other words, to provide more aeroplanes and ships to transport our troops more quickly to meet any commitment either in Europe or any other part of the world. These were the two fundamentals from the policy side.
If I may, I should like to discuss now the organization side, the means by which this increased capability could be achieved. At the time I was given the responsibility as Minister of National Defence two impressions were made on my mind during the early months. One of them was that the six methods of direct reporting to the minister were too many and that there was insufficient coordination of plans. The three chiefs of staff, the chairman of the chiefs of staff, the chairman of the Defence Research Board and the deputy minister all had direct access. Programs could be brought to the minister directly by any of the chiefs of staff, and they often were. In a number of cases there was not the kind of co-ordination that is necessary in my opinion to get the most cohesive military force and the best balance between the forces of our country.
There was no over-all strategic plan applied to the three services. Each service was planning independently of the other services. There was no over-all co-ordination of the equipment programs in the sense that priorities were established on a hard basis to fulfil national objectives. Often programs were put forward by a single service directly to the minister, and often these were approved. These required such a proportion of the total funds available that subsequent programs needed to fit a higher policy could not be brought into the over-all financial picture.
It seemed necessary, therefore, that two changes had to be accomplished. One was an over-all strategic unity in planning, a unity of purpose with the services working together for clearly understood goals. Second, once having decided what these plans were and
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment what the goals should be, there was then to be a military appreciation of the various priorities for equipment programs.
At that time, if hon. members will recall, the department operated on the committee system. The senior of these committees, apart from the defence council, was the chiefs of staff committee. It could co-ordinate and it brought about much co-ordination. At the same time it was not necessary for the service chiefs to have all their programs approved by the chiefs of staff from the standpoint of priorities vis-a-vis other programs. Also there was, I think, a tendency for the chiefs of staff to support each other's programs as a sort of quid pro quo for support, particularly when there was no real pinch on funds. We had the situation, therefore, where often the programs approved were not in my opinion the ones which were most important for Canada to give us the best balance of military capabilities to carry out the assigned tasks of our armed forces.
Below the chiefs of staff committee there
were 200 or 300 other committees with members from the three services and from the civil side and also from the Defence Resarch Board. They considered a wide variety of subject matters but they had no executive responsibilities. Often it took them weeks or months to reach a decision. Often their decisions were delayed or influenced by single service needs. Once a decision was reached there was no guarantee that it would be put into effect by the three services because each service had the power of veto. The organization, therefore, seemed to leave something to be desired.
The Glassco commission came to the same conclusion. It reported that the amount of money being spent on overhead was too great, that the number of personnel in the headquarters establishments vis-a-vis the fighting machine was too great, that there was a great deal of duplication and triplication among the services and that a better organization was possible.
In considering the situation as we found it, as well as the Glassco commission report, we looked at the alternatives available to us. The one recommended by the Glassco commission was what we call the fourth force theory. It was in effect that those elements which are common to two or more of the services would be transferred to the authority of the chairman of the chiefs of staff. This was an appealing suggestion because it had been talked about and tried, I think, in other

areas by other military forces. It has some drawbacks, however, which we thought were conclusive.
First, if you gave the chairman of the chiefs of staff executive authority to impose decisions in respect of the support services for the three fighting services you would reduce the chiefs of the three fighting services to mere rubberstamps. If, on the other hand, you did not give this executive authority you would have a continuation of the committee system with all its frustrations, delays and inefficiencies, with perhaps the addition of one extra person to each committee and the consequent increase in cost and inefficiency which would undoubtedly result from that.
Our conclusion, was that based on the experience in the United States, the initial efforts at integration which had taken place here in so far as the doctors and the padres were concerned, and from all information that we could gather from other military forces, the fourth force theory was not the right choice. It was inefficient, cumbersome and probably very expensive.
To meet the cardinal criticism that there was and has been a great deal of duplication and triplication we had to look for another solution. The solution we recommended to the House of Commons and the Canadian people at that time is one which was fundamental. It was the creation of a single military force as an alternative to three or four separate military forces.
We proposed that this would be accomplished in three steps: First, the integration of our headquarters staff in Ottawa on a functional basis; second, a re-evaluation of our field command structure and, third, the formation of a single force. Legislation was introduced in the House of Commons authorizing the first two of these steps. It authorized the integration of the headquarters organization and the reconfiguration of the field command structure.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We began on August 1, 1964 to reorganize the headquarters when the three chiefs of staff and the chairman, chiefs of staff committee, were replaced by a single chief of defence staff. The balance of the headquarters was organized on strictly functional lines, to wit, a vice-chief of defence staff, as is now the case, with executive authority under the chief of the defence staff for all the operations, naval, air and land, for planning of operations, for the operational requirements of all these
April 3, 1967	COMMONS
forces and for the intelligence necessary as a basis for these plans or operations; a chief of personnel, responsible for the men and women of the navy, the army and the air force, responsible for individual training in all these forces including trade training and pilot training to wing standard; a chief of technical services responsible for the procurement of the hardware required by our armed forces, for the depots in which equipment is stockpiled, for the distribution of that equipment to the users, and for its maintenance in an acceptable state of repair and, finally, a comptroller general responsible for the accounting of the navy, the army and the air force and for the allocation of manpower to all of the requirements.
In the process of designing the headquarters organization the staff soon found they could not complete the design until they knew what the field formations would look like and what the command structure would be. The second stage was therefore accelerated. I should like to underline this. The second stage was accelerated because in practice we found there was such a close relationship between the first and the second stages that we had to know what the second would look like before we could complete the first. Therefore, several months before the date originally scheduled stage two was designed by the military staffs, presented to the defence council for concurrence, approved, and subsequently implemented many months earlier than we had thought at the beginning of the reorganization.
A year ago April 1 the bases were integrated as part of the over-all command structure reorganization. One of the primary purposes of the integration-unification cycle-as I have indicated earlier, these purposes cannot really be separated when we go as far as we are going and intend to go-was an increase in the effectiveness of money being spent. I should like to give five or six examples in specific areas which can be isolated to show that savings are and have been possible.
Previously we had five intelligence organizations in this country. We were interested in the experience in the United States where they had brought together their sources of strategic intelligence but left tactical intelligence to the services. Their reorganization did not result in any economy of manpower. Our reorganization has meant the formation of one intelligence agency to replace five. It has involved a reduction in personnel of 30 per cent and the result has been
National Defence Act Amendment better service than we have ever had from our intelligence organization in recent years This is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of the director general of intelligence as well.
Second, let us consider the field of construction engineering. These are the men who build the runways for our air force the dry-docks for our ships, the hangars for our airplanes, the buildings which house the men and women of the armed forces. There are, of course, specialities within this field but there is also a great deal of common knowledge which cuts right across previous service lines. Here a new organization was set up and it was possible to reduce the number of personnel required at headquarters by 44 per cent and the number of personnel involved in the national organization by 30 per cent. The latest report I have received is that the service being provided is excellent. In a number of individual cases I have been told that the service exceeds that provided previously. In theory this can be expected in some areas because there is a greater pool of engineering knowledge available to be applied to specific tasks which arise.
My third example concerns recruiting. When I first came to the House of Commons almost 18 years ago I can remember discussion about the possibility of integrating the recruiting system in Canada. The idea was talked about repeatedly down through the years but never implemented. Last year it was implemented with a reduction in personnel of 33 per cent. For the first time recruiting centres were not just co-located, as some had been previously, but integrated and given authority to enroll men and officers in the navy, the army and the air force. Notwithstanding the problems which inevitably arise in the first year, and a reduction of 33 per cent in personnel, we were able to recruit more people in 1966 than in the previous year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How many did you lose?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The next example I should like to give is that of the information services. This is one which was singled out by the Glassco commission, if I recall correctly. This was one of the most dramatic cases and the reduction in personnel amounted to 60 per cent with a consequential saving to the Canadian taxpayers of more than a million dollars in this limited area alone.
North NORAD region and Air Defence Command are being amalgamated and here again the expected reduction in personnel-it
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment has not yet been fully achieved but it is forecast for achievement some time next year-is 30 per cent. The Canadian defence liaison staff in Washington was fully integrated with a reduction of 34 per cent in personnel. The Canadian defence liaison staff in London was integrated with a reduction of 44 per cent in personnel.
My next example relates to our communications system.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before giving consent I should like to ask the minister a question. Does he intend to deal with the question of unification and the establishment of a single service? Everything he has said so far has dealt with integration; it has nothing whatever to do with unification. This is another instance of misleading the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I appreciate the indulgence of the committee and if the hon. gentleman does give me permission to continue I will undertake to deal with that matter as soon as I have finished my introductory remarks.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to allow the minister extra time in which to complete his statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I assume we will be granted suitable time in which to reply.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank members of the committee. It had long been suggested that a single long-line communications system for our armed forces would be more efficient and would save some money. That was undertaken in the 1950's and it fell flat on its face. It failed, and the reason it failed was that the three services could not agree even after agreeing that they should agree. Each service thought that its system was best. They were not willing to make the necessary compromises and to seek out the best system or a better one, and they were not willing to fund in a manner which would make the development of a new system possible. The experiment, therefore, did not succeed.
We have developed a new long-line communications system for the Canadian Armed

Forces which will result in savings of 18 per cent. This new system is already working very satisfactorily. But more important than either the savings which have taken and are taking place, or the modest improvement in efficiency which I think we can claim, is the fact that it is enabling us to have studies made by the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific telecommunications system which will allow us to take a quantum jump in communications once the report has been made and has been acted upon. Our experts are convinced that very great inprovements are possible in this area. As a result of the single system which has been put into effect those improvements are now almost certain and require only the funding necessary for the new capital equipment once the plan has been presented and approved.
With respect to our cataloguing system I do not think it is any secret to members of the committee that the services have had separate cataloguing systems in the past. Air Marshal Annis, who appeared before the committee, used to say to me, "You know, we stored washers and shims under five different categories, five part numbers for the same thing." There were many cases where one service declared equipment surplus at the same time that another service was acquiring the same kind of equipment through the Department of Defence Production for use by that service. One of the first things to be undertaken was a new combined cataloguing system. The peak load which resulted from this combination was considerably greater than the previous load on the people involved, but the ultimate saving in personnel once the new system is complete will be 26 per cent.
These are just examples, Mr. Chairman, to show that where duplication and triplication can be eliminated savings are made, to show that the basic conclusion of the Glassco commission was a valid one, and to show also that acting upon that conclusion will be of considerable benefit to the Canadian people and to the armed forces who will get greater value for the money being spent.
One of the stated intentions of the savings that could be made was to use those savings for new equipment for the armed forces. No one regrets more than I do that last year we were not able to increase the amount of money being spent. This was partly due to technical considerations. We did not spend all of the money that was voted for equipment.
April 3. 1967	COMMONS
There was a certain amount of program slippage. I think this is inevitable, but at the same time we want to use the money which is made available to us by parliament for the acquisition of equipment so that the armed forces can carry out their tasks in the manner in which we would like to see them carried out, and so that they will have the equipment they need to do the job. I hope there will be a very substantial improvement in the coming fiscal year, 1967-68, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, that no improvement would have been possible with anything like the present defence expenditure without the savings that have been made by the elimination of duplication and triplication, particularly in headquarters and in those areas that I have set out this afternoon.


Mr, Churchill:: And of 23,000 personnel.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think my hon. friend will appreciate that a reduction in personnel had to be made in order to make a diversion of funds for the acquisition of equipment, and that, of course, was one of the objects of the exercise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Unmanned ships and understrength battalions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This money is being spent for a wide variety of equipment which will give our forces balance and make them all more effective in the jobs they have been assigned. This program is well known and I will just skip over it briefly now by mentioning once again some of the more significant items.
The new support ships being acquired for the navy are really based on the model of The Provider which was undertaken by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Calgary North, when he was minister. Certain technical improvements are possible as a result of that experience but I think the significant thing is the increase in effectiveness of our naval force as the result of the acquisition of these three ships, and I include the one that was started then.
I have used this example a number of times and I would like to repeat it. In a study the navy did they showed that without any support ships it was only possible to maintain three destroyer escorts on station a thousand miles off Halifax on a continuous basis. With one support ship it was possible to maintain ten ships on station continuously and with two support ships it was possible to maintain the whole fleet on station continuously, or certainly for an elongated period in the event
National Defence Act Amendment of crisis. This is a very effective use of funds. It is an excellent example of cost effectiveness as applied to military procurement.
Four new destroyer escorts are planned and the lead items have already been contracted for. This will probably be the most effective anti-submarine system anywhere in the world, certainly that this country has ever developed, using all of the expertise and all of the knowledge which is available to us on the basis of our past experience.
One of the most significant improvements of these weapons systems over previous destroyer escorts is the introduction of the use of helicopters with a range and speed which make it possible for them to go out and survey the ocean territory by the use of listening devices which are dropped into the water, thus increasing many times over the amount of ocean area which can be surveyed for submarines.
The weapons system of a ship with an improved sonar, a variable depth sonar, which as hon. gentlemen know is a Canadian development, and the use of one or two helicopters flown from the deck, which add very greatly to the over-all effectiveness of the weapons system, has a very great capability both in surveying the ocean territory and, if necessary, in destroying submarines once they have been isolated.
Earlier this afternoon before this committee began its discussions a question was raised about the tactical airplanes that are being acquired. These tactical airplanes are for close support for our ground forces but they will do in that role all of the tasks which one would expect of them, in other words, surveillance, interdiction and close ground support. It is gratifying that the Dutch government and Dutch air force have chosen the same airplane for the Royal Dutch Air Force. It is gratifying also that these airplanes will be built in Canada based on the Canadian configuration which is a very marked improvement over the earlier configuration of this airplane.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We have placed orders for self-propelled howitzers. This, I think, is the last remaining significant equipment necessary to bring our brigade group in Europe up to full operational potential. Sufficient of these howitzers are being acquired to equip the second heavy brigade which will be stationed at Camp Gagetown and which is being used as a rotational back-up for the one in Europe. The
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment M-113 armed personnel carrier is being acquired in quantity both for the brigade group overseas and in Canada. This is one of the most significant improvements in our over-all range of equipment and one which has provided to our infantry the armoured protection they have badly needed for so long.
The process of integration and unification is well on its way in bringing together first at headquarters on a functional basis members of the navy, army and air force to administer the total force in unity. In a sense then our headquarters is unified. It is unified in the sense of being a single management of the navy, army and air force. This is where the problem of semantics between these words crops in. It is unified but with members of three separate legal entities, the navy, army and air force.
Our command structure is integrated or unified. Again one could use either word. These commands include, in the units assigned to them, elements of more than one service. In their directional staffs are included members of more than one service all working together toward a common goal. Maritime command is perhaps the best example. Maritime command has assigned to it ships of the Royal Canadian Navy, airplanes of the Royal Canadian Navy, helicopters and of course the long range airplanes of the Royal Canadian Air Force, all under a single integrated, unified command and all with the same missions-anti-submarine, search and rescue, as well as a secondary transport requirement. It is interesting to note that each one of these missions involves more than one of the traditional elements. Anti-submarine operations are sea operations; helicopters are flown from ships. Then there are submarines, land-based airplanes and airplanes flown from the carriers all in the same role. Search and rescue is sea and air. Transport is sea and air. In almost every instance there is a combination of elements. The old clear division between land, sea and air no longer applies.
This kind of organization, which in my opinion is very effective and will increase in effectiveness throughout the next four year period at a steady pace, leads inevitably to a single service. Air Chief Marshal Miller in his testimony before the committee underlined this. He rejected the idea of separate heads of service. As soon as one rejects the concept of separate heads of service one is talking about a single service. Regardless of what you call it you are talking about unified management.

The plan for a single unified management was developed and approved by many of the officers who gave testimony before the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member mind waiting until I have concluded these remarks?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point of order. If the minister is going to give us his impression of what a witness said in the defence committee, I do not think the house should accept that. Let us have the exact page reference for the statement made by the witness. I suggest that the minister is not doing this now with regard to Air Chief Marshal Miller when he creates the impression that Air Chief Marshal Miller has said something or other. We should have the exact page reference now that we have the information before us in the evidence of the committee. That is my point of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is completely misrepresenting the evidence given by Air Chief Marshal Miller.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the evidence given by Air Chief Marshal Miller is in the record. I do not think I am doing any injustice to it in my statement. The organization at headquarters and commands is effectively unified. In other words, all commanders report through the same chain of command to the same head of service. I think, therefore, that logic would lead one to the inevitable conclusion that the end objective is exactly as stated in the white paper at the time the cycle was begun, that is, that integration of the headquarters was the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
The advantages which would result from the passage of this bill have been stated. Perhaps, however, I should go over them again today. The first is identification. All these people working together in the headquarters and in the unified commands will be identified with the force as a whole. There are some very serious disadvantages in doing it the other way. If people are in unified staff organizations as representatives of different services, the service representation becomes the significant factor in the choice of personnel. It becomes a matter of the ratio of personnel between one service and another, the balance of people by colour. From my
April 3, 1967

own experience I believe the continuation of this system would be detrimental to the force and to the people in it.
I should like to commend to members of the committee the evidence given by the Judge Advocate General who has operated an integrated branch longer than anyone else in this country. In his evidence he pointed out the difficulties which arise in operating an integrated branch with representatives of three separate services.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the legal branch only.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the legal branch. May I say that from my own experience the same problem arises in every other integrated branch. Even in respect of recent senior promotions the problem of service representation was one which had to be taken into consideration. Certainly there are some jobs which must be filled by experts from a particular specialty. There are many more which should be filled by the best qualified staff officers available, and it should not be of significance from which branch they come. Until we have a single service in identity and identification we will always have tugging and pulling for additional representation from one service in competition with other services.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The other side of this coin relates, of course, to career opportunity. The more staff jobs that are opened up to qualified people from all specialties the more opportunity there will be for employment for gifted people who want to progress, who are well motivated and have the necessary qualifications. Therefore there will be broader employment opportunities and consequently greater chances for the kind of person who should be advanced and should have greater responsibility in an integrated force of this kind.
Next let me refer to adaptibility of change, and this is related to the other two. When roles and missions change, and this will be of interest to my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party, it will be much easier to meet government requirements with a single force. Let me stop at this point and assure hon. members that there is no intention to change roles and missions at this moment beyond what has been publicly stated. This can be clearly set out, but I am stating to my hon. friends in the N.D.P.-heaven forbid that they should ever form a government -that it would be much easier to change these 23033-913

National Defence Act Amendment roles and missions within a single service than it would be with three separate services. I have put some examples on the record earlier as to why this would be the case and I do not think it necessary to repeat them this afternoon. However, it certainly would be easier to change these roles if the question regarding rank structure on a single service basis was not allowed to play too important a part in the political considerations within a department when decisions are being made, and I use that word in its narrow sense.
My comments now relate to the demands of modern warfare and these are related to changes in roles and missions. It is very difficult to foresee what future requirements will be. At the moment there is no intention for Canada to develop a space force although as hon. gentlemen may or may not know, we have some people who have been acquainting themselves for some period of time with the problems involved in space travel. If any future government decided it was in Canada's interest to develop a space capability, a single service would lend itself more readily to the formation of units and organizations to carry out that particular mission than would otherwise be possible. I can assure hon. members that with three separate services there would be an interservice battle as to whose mission this was going to be. With a single service this would not make any difference because the best qualified people would be eligible to change list and participate in the development of a new role of that kind. Those are some of the considerations.
Perhaps I could briefly deal now with some of the myths that have been raised. One relates to the question of the uniform, and I believe this has been effectively answered. I think this is one of the less important areas for consideration if one looks at it in perspective over a long period of time. Of course this is one area in which there is a great deal of emotion involved. That is inevitable. At the same time it should be clearly understood that what one might refer to as an "instant uniform" is impossible. We have made preparations for user trials this year of a limited quantity of uniforms. These uniforms will be worn by a number of members of the armed forces to ascertain how they stand the wear and tear of military life and whether they are generally acceptable. If subsequently they are considered acceptable or acceptable with some modifications that will be the time to make a decision to provide them to the services. Once that has been done the whole
14438	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment program will require a cycle of perhaps four or five years.
The suggestion has often been made that we have some secret arrangement to change our roles and missions in order to provide for peace keeping only. I think this myth has also been satisfactorily answered. The white paper stated that the best way to perform peace keeping roles was to extract from fully equipped and trained operational forces those elements required to meet the existing circumstances. That was the policy expressed in the white paper and it is the policy today. It has been re-examined by our staffs at least twice since the white paper was written and it has been found to be still valid. Forces designed for peace keeping only have a very narrow capability. Forces designed, equipped and trained for what one might call conventional fighting have a very wide range of capabilities from conventional war participation right down to peace keeping activities.
The suggestion that Canada cannot meet its commitments is not true. Again evidence has been provided the committee which indicates specifically that we can meet our commitments to NATO, NORAD and the United Nations and that we have been keeping our commitments and are now keeping our commitments. Whatever our commitments are in the future we will be able to continue to meet them on behalf of this country. Certainly, so far as most of our commitments are concerned, they are being carried out as effectively and in most cases more effectively than has been the case previously.
Let me now deal with the hybrid myth. The suggestion is made that the men of the new single service will be expected to do all jobs and will have to be Jacks-of-all trades. That is absolute nonsense. The men in the combat arms will still specialize in exacly the same way they have in the past. In the support services, I submit there will be wider areas of employment available to the men and women because the work they will perform will not be limited to a single environment. They will perform this work in various environments and therefore this will increase the avenues of opportunity. This will increase the opportunities for our servicemen to serve their country in a wider sphere.
The suggestion has been made that we will have to resort to compulsory service to maintain this kind of force. I think this is absolute nonsense. Many things attract people to service in the armed forces including the desire to serve their country, the desire to learn a
[Mr. Hellyer.l
DEBATES	April 3, 1967
trade, the desire to travel overseas, and to make friendships which last throughout their whole lives. There is a wide variety of motivation. We are gratified by the number of people who want to join the armed forces and we are sure that once this bill is passed and the public controversy surrounding it dies down there will be an increase in the number of young people waiting to join the armed forces. The latest statistics show that recruiting this year is appreciably higher than for last year and the year before during the same period.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat some of the admonitions expressed to the committee by members of the serving staff. Earlier I indicated to the committee that we accelerated stage two because we found we could not complete stage one until we knew what the command structure was going to be like. We are now in precisely the same situation in so far as the future is concerned. We must know what the personnel structure will be and we have to know whether the men and women of the armed forces will be managed in three personnel streams or one. This is fundamental to future planning. There are many questions which cannot be answered or resolved by any amount of staff work until the answer to that fundamental question is known. The request of the serving staffs, the people who are charged with the responsibility of getting on with the plans of reorganization, is that parliament now indicate its intention.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The passage of this bill does not mean instant unification. The passage of this bill is a statement of the intention that the ultimate goal is a single service and all the men and women in the forces will be managed in a single personnel stream. This must be known in order that the kind of detailed staff planning required can proceed on an orderly basis. This was first stated in the white paper and reiterated before the committee. It is part of the total cycle. It is not being done in haste, not overnight, but over eight or nine years in total. The first two stages in the first three years were authorized by a previous act of parliament. It is true that much of the continuation of the integration process could be completed without this bill. It is true that many more benefits could still be obtained from the integration process minus legislation to create a single service. It is equally true, and I want to make this point as forcefully as I can, that there are some problems which
April 3, 1967
cannot be solved, there are some questions which cannot be answered, until we know the intention of parliament in respect of this bill and whether or not the ultimate goal is a single service.
We have here an over-all cycle of eight years, each stage planned by the military after authority had been given to do the planning. Headquarters were designed by the military following the passage of Bill C-90. The command structure was designed by the military and approved in accordance with our constitutional practices by the minister and his staff in conjunction with the headquarters that were required in order to complete the whole and give meaning to the whole.
Once again there is the desire now on the part of the people involved to know the intent of the parliament of Canada so that they can plan toward the ultimate goal, know what it is and get on with the job. As was stated before the committee, some preliminary planning can be done but much cannot be done until this bill is passed and the will of parliament is known. I would therefore request and urge members of this committee to give serious consideration to all the points of view that have been put forward and to all the steps that have been taken, and then consider the steps that remain to be taken.
I hope that hon. members will then come to the conclusion that authority should be given now to the military to plan for the balance of the cycle, because that is what this bill is for, that is what this bill will provide, namely, the clear indication of the Anal goal and the authority to prepare the Queen's Regulations and Orders and all the other things that are necessary in order to take full advantage of the miracle, as Lieutenant General Moncel described it, and the tremendous progress that has been made, to bring it to full fruition and get on with the job in the most orderly and efficient manner.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wrong for me to begin my remarks without expressing on behalf of the members of this house a warm welcome to you after your illness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We expect that you will be with us until the end of this parliament, at least-I will not go any further-but in any case I assure you that we are happy to welcome you back today.
14439
National Defence Act Amendment [English]
The minister has made the best possible case to this house to buy a pig in a poke. He has asked us to give the Department of National Defence, himself, the associate minister and their officers carte blanche to organize something. They are not too sure how it is going to go over a period of years. The minister is forgetting that in coming to this house to seek permission to make this most fundamental change he must prove his case. It is not up to the opposition and those who do not like unification to prove their case. I wish the minister had spent 50 minutes speaking on unification and 10 minutes on integration rather than the reverse. The onus is not on those who do not believe in the values of unification as demonstrated, and poorly demonstrated, I may say, by the minister and those who testified before the committee with regard to unification or the single service concept, to prove their case.
I do not for one moment dispute that many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee were able to indicate the values of an integration of command and an integration of functions. That is all we have had from the minister this afternoon, namely, a repetition, a rehash of a number of things that he said in 1964 when he was advocating Bill C-90, in December when he was talking on the resolution stage of Bill C-243, and again on second reading. This was the cardinal theme and it was so apparent in the testimony of so many of the serving officers. Everything dealt with integration. It was pointed out to us that these were the advantages of integration. But when they came to the question of unification the situation was different. They said, "we believe that," "we feel that," "we think that," and anything that was demonstrable, such as declining enrolment and an obvious and regrettable decline in morale, was brushed aside. A sort of airy-fairy optimism was breathed and in so far as these questions were concerned it was said, "Well, this might be changed."
Those are preliminary remarks, Mr. Chairman. Today in my objection to the Chair to proceeding with this bill I wanted to make sure of establishing a principle. It was not that I was not ready to debate this question, nor that my colleagues were not ready to do so. It was a question of establishing the principle that the government in making its case must come before this house w:th the complete case. That was not done. We have seen this nonsense of a technical compliance by having

April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment the pages run around as we started to discuss the bill and distribute No. 37 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee containing, not in one group, the amendments that were being proposed by the government to the bill they had before the house amending the National Defence Act. So we now have a bill which amends a bill which amends a bill. What a way to run an operation. This is what I complain about now; this is what X complained about the other day in respect of the hon. member for Lapointe.

But, had I spoken in French, I suppose that I would have been granted what I am asking today and that the debate would have been postponed until tomorrow. I find this an unacceptable principle. In fact, it was unacceptable the other day. And hon. members opposite supported the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) when he asked for parts of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of committees. But today, no, that is not necessary. Why? Is there any difference, whether it is the hon. member for Lapointe or a member on this side of the house who asks for all the minutes of proceedings and evidence before we come to a decision? None at all. Other items are on the order paper. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) is most eager to have his bills examined. But no, it is rank obstinacy to want to take this bill now because, whether it is examined tomorrow or the day after, it may not be implemented fully before nine years, according to the minister. Why be so eager then and so impatient to proceed today with the debate on this bill?
I therefore point out now that this is a question of principle. I wish to stress that point this afternoon as I will tomorrow and in the future. I hope that when they develop the committee system, hon. members will observe established principles.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I also want to take exception to the attributing to some of my colleagues and myself of rather ulterior motives in our opposition to this bill, and attributed by a man who should know better and who should keep his mouth shut. I refer to the chief of the defence staff. There is as much right in the chief of the defence staff to say what he has about the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Winnipeg
[Mr. Lambert.)
South Centre and perhaps myself as there is in me to say of him that he is a great advocate of unification because it helps his career. You would say, Mr. Chairman, that that statement might be unfair. It is just as unfair for the chief of the defence staff to say what he has. The sooner he keeps his mouth shut on matters of this kind, the better it will be, and I will say that to him directly if I get the opportunity.
I was rather amused by a headline which appeared in one of the morning papers to the effect that there might be more heat than light during this debate. There was a long critique about how the committee proceeded. Some people who do not attend committee meetings very frequently have a lot to say about what goes on at such meetings. They really are unaware of some of the difficulties of the mechanics of the matter. At such committees hon. members from all parties in the house have a right to ask questions and they do, and there must inevitably be some repetition. Then there is repetition, of course, by various witnesses.
However, some of these people to whom I refer have perhaps not experienced a trial which tries to establish the truth where from a great deal of evidence you try to come to a consensus, to a point where you can form a judgment. Once these people to whom I refer have made up their minds, anything to the contrary becomes in their view rather more heat than light. After all, those who hold a contrary view are not enlightened in their mind.
As I say, hon. members on all sides participated in the proceedings of the committee. Certainly government members participated and did so because, as I said before, they are putting their case for a change before parliament and the country. They must put forward their case. Let them analyse the evidence, Mr. Chairman. Let them discuss the evidence given by four branch heads out of five who say no to unification today. Some of them directly and outrightly oppose it; others said, "Do not do it now." Other senior officers whose capabilities, abilities and military knowledge far surpass ours, including those of the minister, tell us, Mr. Chairman, that we are going down the wrong route.
There is a good reason why this whole question got off on the wrong foot. It got off on the wrong foot last June when we were starting to discuss the question of integration and the progress that had been made, and
April 3, 1967	COMMONS
unification. Some of us on the committee also wanted to make some comments and ask some questions on the basis of the evidence that was then before the committee. But no, Mr. Chairman, back to the house came the estimates without comment. We then had that performance of last fall when, arising out of the mid-summer crisis with all the firings and resignations, there was a steadfast refusal to discuss the matter, to send it back to the committee so as to find out why it had all happened.
I have been a member of this committee since 1963 and, having sat on defence committees or defence estimates committees previously, I thought that we had a very fine committee in 1963-64. The report which was then presented was of assistance to the government. A non-partisan co-operation among members of the committee was established. People got to know about military affairs, and this state of affairs continued until last year.
The ill-considered action of June, 1966 caused this committee to adopt a partisan division. The same thing has happened on this question of unification. Having insisted upon a vote on second reading in this house when the principle was accepted, the government members might as well have gone off to the Caribbean for all they cared because they were not going to change their minds. They are committed by their vote in this house. And, may I say, so are the members of the opposition.
That is the nonsense of the situation, Mr. Chairman. The man responsible for it is the minister who insisted that this bill be accepted in principle before any witnesses were heard. It would have been so much easier and so much better for the future of the defence committee if the bill had been discussed prior to its acceptance on second reading.
May I say to the committee that the government members went through some education in military matters during the committee hearings. At times they were left a little short in numbers as the platoon went back and forth. Some members who presumably were asked to vote on the clauses of this bill had sat on the committee for less than two weeks and had not heard a fifth of the evidence. They did not have available to them the transcripts of the evidence but they voted right down the line.
Was this an intelligent vote? I cannot accept it as such, not on the basis of the evidence that was put before the committee by bona fide witnesses, men who were reluctant
National Dejence Act Amendment to come before the committee but wished to assist the house in arriving at what they felt was the right decision for our armed services. Those men have a great deal of heart and feeling for our armed services; yet they have seen the question handled in this perfunctory and preordained fashion. I think that this action that was shown was a great disservice done to our armed forces.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It was obvious this afternoon that there has been a great deal of confusion between the terms integration and unification. Sometimes they have been deliberately confused while at other times the confusion has arisen as a result of sheer ignorance. I must say I was surprised when I read the minister's comments about the press and the way they handled the unification debate and the testimony before the committee. I am not sure that the government would necessarily appreciate what he had to say about the press. Perhaps some of his colleagues will have other comments to make.
In any event, I read an article in this morning's Globe and Mail in which it was stated that the minister told the Young Liberals that the controversy over unification became inevitable once power groups, retired officers and service organizations, took public positions on the issue. That is the first item with which I want to deal. Is the minister the only one who is entitled to take issue on this question of unification? Why should not retired officers, who know far more about it than he does, as well as service organizations and the public, take part in the discussion of this issue? I suppose members opposite who take a view different from that of the minister will become power groups.
The article reads in part:
He said some of these views were the resuit of genuine concern over the problems, while others were fostered by special interests.
Let him spell out these special interests or does he too share the opinion of the chief of staff that those of us who do not share his view in this regard have ulterior motives? Our concern about the armed services is just as sound, just as bona fide as that of the minister. He has no monopoly on this concern. These ulterior motives that are inferred at will contribute nothing to the advancement of the debate in this house.
The minister had something to say about editorial writers, and particularly an editorial that appeared in last Saturday's Globe and
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Mail to the effect that a clause in the unification bill to delay implementation might help win parliamentary approval. This has been recommended by a lot of men including some now in the service. The chief of the general staff did say that a delay would hurt morale and so on but did not say precisely how this would come about. In any event, here is the comment about the editorial writer:
He said the editorial writer obviously had not read the full transcript of evidence before the Commons defence committee-
This would be true because it was not available.
-and listed several books that the writer had also apparently not read.
If they were the books the minister referred to in his appearance before the committee when there was some judicious picking out of certain passages, then perhaps it was just as well the man had not read them. If the minister had continued quoting from the books he would have found his face very red because the case was not supportable.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The way you chose your witnesses.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister made a remark about choosing witnesses. If the minister's representatives on the committee had been prepared to call witnesses, we of the opposition were prepared to take all of those witnesses they wished to put forward.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: As many as they wanted?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As many and as often.


Mr. Laniel:: So the bill would not come back to the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, no, nothing of the sort, because the committee had been told it would be able to hear all the witnesses that it desired to hear. However, there was a desire on the part of government members to close off everything. The hon. member started out on the committee but then went off on some other course and was not there. Perhaps he has not read all the transcript, so the remarks of the hon. member for Chateauguay-


Gérald Laniel: For Beauharnois.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, for Beauharnois; je
m'excuse-indicate he had better read the transcript of the remarks of some of his colleagues.
In any event, let us go on to see what the minister said about the editorial writer. He

might say the same thing about the writers in the Globe and Mail. He said that the editorial writer obviously had not read the full transcript of the evidence before the defence committee and then listed several books which the writer had apparently not read. Then the article continues:
"I'm not even sure he's read my second reading speech," Mr. Hellyer said.
Well, I am not sure that reading the second reading speech would help anybody. However, I question whether the minister is on strong ground when he says this:
He added that it was a mistake for the public to assume that editorials are based on a wide fund of knowledge and depth of understanding.
I do not share all the views of these editorial writers but I find they are not writers for elementary school children and their knowledge is great. In any event, I want to deal with some of the remarks the minister made this afternoon. I am not going to indulge in an exchange of views with regard to integration. I think the first 50 minutes of the minister's speech were quite irrelevant to this debate. The point is, what are the advantages? Are there demonstrable advantages, are there preponderant advantages for unification, the single force concept? Are the men better fighting men? Do we get more for our defence dollar?
We have heard a great deal in terms of man management. Unfortunately, this program is man management mad. One point has been forgotten which General Moncel was able to emphasize. He said that after all our defence forces exist to fight. This is the real raison d'etre for a defence force, that ultimately it may have to fight. We do not want that but if they are not trained for it, if they are not geared for it, then there has been no purpose in setting up a defence force. So I am suggesting to the members of the committee that the man management concept has gone wild, that there is a peacetime philosophy that has gone abroad and that what has suffered has been the fundamental purpose of having a big proportion of our forces available and trained to fight. The operational men have special considerations.
The members of the services are not of two categories. The people in the supply and administration fields are not a different category of member of the armed services from those who are in the field units. There is an exchange to avail ourselves of the skills of those in the administration and supply fields. We can also take men who are perhaps a little
April 3, 19G7
older and who have had experience. This is also a good place to train men, younger men even, and bring them forward where administration is required. In operational units horizontal promotion is as good as vertical promotion. This is what I feel is wrong; this is where my big objection to unification lies.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
What is the demonstrable effect, and it must be demonstrable, excepting the integrated command, the functional command and the functional organization, of taking a sailor, an airman and a soldier and putting them in the same uniform, in the same rank structure and calling them the same thing? What particular advantage is there in that? After all, as the minister has said there are to be air, sea and land elements. Those men will be specialists, each in his own field. Of course we will not have hybrids, notwithstanding the example of stewards. One should hear the report about stewards from the army going on board ship and how good they are when they return. If that is the start, I must say it is a wonderful one. But we shall not get these hybrids; otherwise men will spend their time training for jobs and never put their training into effect.
If you have a sailor, an airman or a soldier in an integrated command why will he be better because he happens to wear the same uniform as the chap alongside him? Those who have had the privilege of serving in units in battle conditions know that there is something more than meets the eye that calls to a man. There are all sorts of little intangibles that you refer to and appeal to whether in the field of battle, in a ship at sea or in the air. It is not the man managing with computers who will bring that out in the fighting man. What matters is what you will do to the fighting man's heart and how you will get him to do just a little better under such conditions.
Why is there this change for the sake of change at this time? It is not needed for integration. Gracious me, it will take three years to get the supply services going full tilt, and that is on the best advice the forces have. We are told that the Judge Advocate General's branch is a good example. With all due apology to the gentlemen occupying the chief positions in that branch, and I know and respect them, their branch is unrepresentative of the armed services. One might call them civil lawyers in uniform. Theirs is the one section of armed services where normal retirement ages do not apply. In fact, again apologizing to the hon. gentlemen occupying
National Defence Act Amendment those positions, that branch could easily be handled by civilians.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no question of rank or uniform. Perhaps the branch ought to be run by civilians. But that does not establish the argument that by asking a number of personnel in the Judge Advocate General's branch to be civilians we are asking the whole of the armed services to put on civilian suits or put on one suit. Not at all. The Judge Advocate General's branch is one particular type of administrative service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I thank hon. members for this opportunity. I hope I shall not abuse it.
We heard the minister speak about broader career and employment opportunities. Why should this be? Because a man is called a major instead of a lieutenant commander or squadron leader, why will he have wider career opportunities? If his uniform is light blue or dark blue or khaki rather than a uniform approved by user trials-and I will not pick any particular type of uniform-why will he be a better man? Why will he have a broader employment opportunity? This applies, once you reach a certain rank, to staff promotions and staff learning. But there are other areas in which it does not work as well. Surely those could be ironed out. But why do you need to put a man in the same uniform as all other men and into the same rank structure?
I shall have a great deal more to say when we get to the appropriate clause about the question of command and rank structure, and some of the difficulties in some of the regulations. Let me say here that there is a great potential for trouble ahead. Does anyone in his sane moments think that if a commander of a ship has decided to take the rank of lieutenant colonel that any officer junior to him will insist on his particular naval rank? Let us to practical. It will be all or nothing.
A great deal was made by my hon. friend from Greenwood that this measure would give us a force that will be more adaptable to change and will have a quicker response. The quicker response is merely a question of integrated command. The minister said there could be a quicker change of role and so

April 3, 1987

National Defence Act Amendment forth. All right. I think the minister will have to agree that perhaps he is changing the role of the aircraft he is buying for the air force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This comes from a statement attributed to the chief of the defence staff. Somebody is wrong because there is a grave contradiction on this point, or a grave mis-reporting. I do not know how far this matter goes but here again we want clarification.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Why should there be in a single force, if its role is to be peace keeping, a greater adaptability to differing roles? Peace keeping, if that is to be the role of the force, is not in high odour among world councils today. Is this to be training for operations in the temperate zone? Is it to be for the jungle or for the desert? Is it to be for the Arctic? Remember, the uniform which is talked about is not the fighting uniform. Those will be diverse. The tank men will still wear dungarees; the sailors will still need dungarees at times. They will not be working in those uniforms about which we have heard. Let no one think that the only uniform the soldier will wear in the field or on peace keeping operations will be his "camouflage" clothes. Has the minister never heard of week end leave or time off from duty? Has he never heard of getting out of fighting or working clothes? I have heard a great deal of nonsense, men talking about the kind of shorts they wore in the field during the war, the unconventional clothes they wore fighting. I will tell you this, Mr. Chairman. As soon as they stopped that they went back to their regimental uniforms of which they were inordinately proud.
Ceremonial dress? How long will that last? Will sailors go walking ashore in a green uniform looking like Air Canada pilots? If that is what hon. members opposite think they can do, all right. But I wish they would consult some sailors and see what they think about it.
Surely the hon. member for Greenwood must envisage a further difficulty in his desire that our forces should work on a really cooperative basis with the forces of the rest of the world in peace keeping operations-the difference between the structure of our forces and that of the forces with which we would be working. Our Canadian organization is to be so distinguished, so different from that of others, and yet we are to work with British, French, Italians, Norwegians, Swedes. The call is for co-operation. But we intend to be


the one country that is in step; everyone else will be out of step.
How is co-operation achieved? By integration. By working with equals, with people who know your type of job and who tend to think as you do. But we intend to set ourselves apart, to make ourselves really distinguished on this basis though we know that no one else is giving serious thought to unification.
Let us not confuse unification with integration. A number of countries are examining the possibilities of integration and action has been taken by some of them to a certain extent. But there they have cried halt, with none of this nonsense about one uniform, one rank, one serviceman.
We shall get an opportunity to examine the testimony of individuals whose opinions must be highly respected when we consider the question of unification. All the testimony of General Lilley for instance, has to do with integration and amounts to an explanation of an integrated supply service which is partly in blueprint form. It is still on a three-services basis. If the temperature of international relations were to increase somewhat and if we had to push the accelerator forward two or three notches we would be in trouble. The same applies to the training command. We would be in trouble.
The foundations of integration must be completed and tested, and what is found wanting must be changed. Anyone who listened to the comments of Air Chief Marshal Miller would agree they amounted simply to this: why introduce the dislocation of unification in addition to the problems already brought about by integration? What is the rush? This is apart altogether from an acceptance of the principle of unification.
I will close these remarks hoping that there will be full participation in this debate by members of the defence committee in all quarters of the house. This is too important a subject for hon. members to sit mutely by instead of analysing these proposals like intelligent men, as they are. I want to hear both sides of the question; there may be something I have missed. I also want members opposite to note those proposals to which experienced men have said no.
No country has faced such a situation as we have faced since June of last year in which so many senior officers, men appointed by the present minister under the new plan of reorganization, have chosen to fight or to place
April 3, 1967

their heads on the chopping block. There is something very wrong when this happens.
We find the chief of the defence staff saying "halt". The vice-chief said "I am leaving". The chief of personnel said "I am leaving". The comptroller general said "I am leaving". The director of technical services, who retired a couple of months earlier, came to us and said "I was sick with frustration". What does this leave the house to consider? That they were all wrong? I have not spoken about those below who left the services and in whose case the doors clanged somewhat more loudly. The minister must think long about his actions with regard to those men.
It is said of Mr. McNamara that he ignores his military advisers. It has been strongly suggested that the present minister has patterned himself after Mr. McNamara. The difficulty with the minister is that he will have few military advisers left or will have none if this continues.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, what we in Canada need in the field of defence is a clear defence policy. In all the mass of words spoken by the minister and his aides on the subject of unification there has been a complete failure to clarify or justify our defence roles, a failure to say what the future of the armed services is to be, what purposes they are to serve, what sort of hostilities we expect to be involved in. We have continued to put the cart of organization before the horse. We are presented with a cart; we are not told what sort of horse we are to have, what direction it is to go, and what sort of load it is to carry. We are bogged down in discussing organization, and organization without a clearcut statement of the contemplated future and roles of our armed forces is a waste of time and totally illogical.
On second reading of this bill the hon. member for Vancouver East and myself made clear what we thought were the basic and, indeed, vitally important questions underlying the issue of unification and involved, in our view, with the whole future of our armed services. In our view, as we expressed it then, unification would make sense only if we made a radical review of our defence commitments and decided to concentrate on a mobile intervention force. It was our considered conviction that this course ought in fact to be taken, that we should concentrate on such a role, that it would enable us to take an effective part in peace keeping and peace enforcing, and that it would do much more than that.
National Defence Act Amendment
The opponents of unification have tried to present the alternative of carrying on our present roles, or the alternative of doing nothing but peace keeping. This is not what we envisage would be the purposes of a unified mobile intervention force. True, it would be available for peace keeping and peace enforcing, and we put the highest possible value on that. Of all the contributions that can be made by Canada to the security of the world there is none higher in our estimation than the importance of having available peace keeping or peace enforcing units ready to act for the United Nations, but it is a total error that such a mobile intervention force as we think should be the major defence effort of Canada would be confined to that.
Such a force would be available in the unlikely event of some invasion on the soil of Canada. It would be available quickly to deal with it. Now, this is a most unlikely occurrence in any event as, Mr. Chairman, we are part of the North American continent and share this continent with the most powerful nation that the world has ever known, armed with colossal destructive power, but if there should be some invasion of Canadian soil then a mobile intervention force that could get to the scene quickly would be the most effective type to have available.
It would also enable us to contribute, if we saw fit to do so for political or other reasons, to a mobile reserve for NATO. It is not a choice, as is sometimes said, between getting out of NATO and continuing to do what we are doing at the present time. The choice is whether we will continue to make useless contributions that make no sense and are obsolete or whether we are prepared to look toward a contribution of a mobile force that is needed and would be available if we decided to continue in NATO, or indeed in any other military alliance.
We believe that the present roles carried out by the Canadian armed services are no longer useful or needed. A great many of them are militarily useless. What are we doing in NATO? As hon. members well know, we contribute an army division, part of a massive tactical nuclear means of response to a full scale Russian attack on western Europe. There is no more improbable contingency in the judgment of any informed or sensible person than that such an attack would take place. If it did take place we have been told by no less a person than U.S. Secretary of
14446
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Defence McNamara that there is a massive superiority of tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of the Americans and their allies. Our contribution to that particular form of defence is militarily completely useless.
We also believe that our air division in Europe is vulnerable and therefore useless. Worse than that, in times of tension it is positively provocative because at present our air division sits on the plains of western Germany with Russian missiles trained on them and in the event of any grave tension in Europe, although such an occurrence does not seem likely at the present time, the incentive toward early destruction of these air forces would be a possible provocation to an action that would tend to escalate rapidly into a full scale nuclear war.
We say that these particular contributions are no longer appropriate to Canada. They are not needed. I defy the minister, or any representative of the minister, to pronounce a single useful purpose that is being served by these particular forces. It is suggested that perhaps they perform a political service, and I want to deal with that a little later.
I come now to another commitment we have made, the commitment to the air defences of North America. I propose to refer to evidence in the defence committee where distinguished military men have stated that in their opinion this is an obsolete form of defence. In the age of missiles an attack by manned bombers on North America is so improbable that you have to assume complete insanity on the part of some enemy, and of course the only enemy in this field would be the U.S.S.R. There is not the slightest sign that such a threat is a real one and, Mr. Chairman, we should not be continuing a form of organization which prevents us from doing the things that are vitally essential where our major contribution can be made to the security of the world.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the defence committee considered Bill C-243 after second reading. I hope the Minister of National Defence and the government now realize the foolishness of the decision to require the examination of this highly technical subject by the committee after rather than before second reading. What happened? Positions were solidified. Every representative on that committee showed a complete inflexibility of view.
It would be less than frank for me to say what I was looking for as the evidence was given to the committee were matters that

would justify the stand we have seen fit to take in the House of Commons on second reading. I would say of the government members on the committee that not a single question or intervention they made seemed to have any other purpose but wholesale support of the bill and nothing but the bill. At the same time the official opposition made their views very clear, and instead of having a calm, objective examination of the merits of the bill we had a continuation in the defence committee of a political wrangle and a strengthening of political opinions.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I hope we will not do that again. It was said that for some sort of practical reason it was inevitable that we had to have second reading first. I say it was a mistake that the sort of matters which the minister and other witnesses brought before the committee could not have been brought before the committee in a totally different atmosphere, in an atmosphere where we had not been committed to a particular stand before we had an opportunity to examine the situation in detail. Therefore, instead of having a consensus we were forced into a situation in which all members of the committee were taking sides one way or another, without being able to withdraw from the entrenched positions which had been taken on second reading.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we did receive a very great deal of evidence. In my view we received a great deal of useful and worth while evidence. However, as I see it, that evidence has established the point I am trying to make to the committee now; it has made the point abundantly clear. None of those who were opposed to unification-including representatives of TRIO, the group which has opposed unification on behalf of many retired officers of the service-denied that unification would be an appropriate form of organization if we were to confine our role to that of a single mobile intervention force.
Yet the whole weight of the evidence established that, so long as we continue to have, for example, an army brigade isolated from other services and an air division operating solely as an air division, then the disturbance created by a new form of organization certainly is not worth while. This point was made with greater clarity by General Moncel than by any other witness who appeared before the committee. I should like to refer to some of his evidence. General Moncel I believe is well known to members of this house. He is a very distinguished officer who had a
April 3, 1967

great deal of responsibility at top level for the working out of policy in this field. I should like to deal first with what he had to say about the roles. At page 1323 I put the following question to him:
May I put it to you this way: As I understand it, it is your view that unification of the services makes no sense as long as we continue with the roles that we have at the present time.
Mr. Moncel replied: "That is right". The evidence continues:


Francis Andrew Brewin: For example, if I may draw you out with a few examples, if you have an army brigade group in Europe as it is now integration is meaningless or, indeed, harmful, because it creates disturbance in that it does not make any useful contribution to what we are doing in our brigade group now?


Mr.   Moncel@: Not "integration".


Francis Andrew Brewin: I meant to say "unification". I am sorry.


Mr.   Moncel@: Yes. Who are you going to unify it with?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Precisely: and is not the same true of the air division?


Mr.   Moncel@: Precisely.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I suppose one could go through some of the other roles. The anti-submarine role of the navy-how are you going to integrate that when it is basically a naval role?


Mr.   Moncel@: That is right. I just do not know the answer to it. This is why I fault it here.


Francis Andrew Brewin: But I understand you also to say that if for various reasons, partly political and partly military, you decide that it is necessary to concentrate on this sort of intervention force then unification begins to make some sense?


Mr.   Moncel@: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Therefore, the real choice that we have to make, as a nation, and that we are responsible for making in Parliament, in the matter of making sense out of unification, is whether we are going to continue the roles that we have or concentrate on this mobile intervention force?


Mr.   Moncel@: Yes.
I went on to deal with the question of his own view, that it would be a risk to switch to a single force. Then at page 1324 we find the following:


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I go back to this question of the different roles? Would you agree, General Moncel-in fact, I think you already have-that this-
That is the choice of roles.
-is partly a political consideration.


Mr.   Moncel@: Entirely a political consideration.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, this reveals the essence of the matter which is facing the house today. General Moncel put his finger on precisely the real issue. However much it may be obscured by the discussion of unification, the real issue is that unification makes 23033-9145

National Defence Act Amendment sense if the concentration is to be on a single mobile force which will be available for peacekeeping and other activities, but if the present roles are to be continued then it does not make sense.
We do not find fault with the government because we oppose unification; we do not oppose it. We think unification is a forward looking and wise policy. However, we believe it is a forward looking and wise policy only if the logical base for it is established, namely the roles which are appropriate to Canada's position in the mid 1960's and 1970's, and not those roles which may have been appropriate in the late 1940's or 1950's. This is precisely the point which has been ignored by the minister. In ignoring it, in my opinion, he destroys the real basis upon which he could appeal to the country and to the members of the armed services themselves and obtain their wholehearted support for unification.
General Moncel said something else which I think the minister prefers to brush aside as easily as he can. General Moncel said-and I am paraphrasing his evidence but I believe I am doing so accurately-that if we were to build up a truly mobile force an added expense would be involved. I should like to read from the evidence at page 1322:


Francis Andrew Brewin: General Moncel. I wanted to ask you to elaborate a little on the White Paper. I think you said that It had two major defects, as you saw It, and I wonder If I understood at least one of them, correctly. The White Paper contemplated the maintenance of the existing commitments that Canada was involved In, or, the existing roles-I think that is a better word than "commitments". "Commitments" implies that you have agreed to do it indefinitely; a "role" is something that you are doing. Now, as I understand it, the White Paper proposed the maintenance of a series of existing commitments-the brigade, the air division, the anti-submarine forces, the air defence, and so on; and it proposed continuing those without any apparent change and certainly with no early, or definite change. It also proposed, as I understand it, the creation of a mobile force, this intervention force, or whatever you want to call it.
Do I correctly understand you to say that if we are going to do all of these things this would involve a budget in excess of two billion dollars a year?


Mr.   Moncel@: Yes, sir.


Francis Andrew Brewin: So that if you are going to accept a ceiling on the budget of, say, what we have now, which is approximately $1.5 billion, something has to give?


Mr.   Moncel@: Precisely.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: You have to make a choice on whether you are going to expand your mobile role or cut out some of the other roles. Is that correct?


Mr.   Moncel@: Yes. This is the alternative.
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
I asked the minister about this and he went into all sorts of evasions about time phases. He said it depended on how many helicopters we have and he actually said that they had not computed the cost of developing a mobile defence force. .He said he did not know what the cost would be, but that it would depend on various contingencies. It was my expectation that with his organizational mind and his computers, he would have worked out precisely what this new concentration would cost. The vice chairman of the defence staff, Air Marshal Sharp, made it perfectly clear that the whole new concept into which unification is supposed to fit is a concentration on this mobile role. In spite of that, we are told the cost has not been worked out.
Sometimes in this field, we have to repeat ourselves to get a point across, and although this is a repetition I should like to say to the minister that is will not be possible to build up an effective mobile force and at the same time maintain all the existing roles efficiently keeping within a budget ceiling of something like $1.5 billion. So the minister must make a choice. So far he has failed to do so, and this vitiates the whole defence policy for which he and this government stand.
I do not think when we are debating unification I should partake in an elaborate examination of each of the different roles involved or explain how and why they are inadequate, but I should like to call the attention of this committee to a statement made by General Allard, the present chief of our general staff. This is a striking statement. He was being questioned about an article written by John Gellner which appeared in the Globe and Mail magazine on February 4, 1967. This article is in reference to Canada's defence and Mr. Gellner, dealing first of all with the plan for a mobile intervention force, said this:
According to plan, within three years Canada will have a fully mobile intervention force of 15,000, equipped with the best modern weapons. This represents considerable power, especially when it can be applied quickly, and in a preventive role.
I take it Mr. Gellner was not writing from a figment of the imagination when he said there was a plan for an intervention force of 15,000 which would be fully mobile. Such a force is bound to cost money. Mr. Gellner goes on to deal with our existing commitments to NATO, and he says:
It should be realized, and undoubtedly it is realized in Ottawa, that militarily the value of the Canadian contribution is minimal. It was contracted at a time when NATO planning was based on the assumption that a war in Central Europe could be

a limited nuclear war and that the enemy could thus be deterred by the weapons of limited nuclear war. This theory could never have withstood serious examination; by now nobody in a responsible position inside or outside of NATO really believes in its validity.
Yet for a variety of reasons, mostly political, it still determines NATO's deployment. This means Canada now has 126, and will have 108, CF-104 Starfighters standing unprotected on huge air bases (within range of Soviet nuclear missiles no doubt zeroed-in on them) and a brigade group prepared to manoeuvre on a nuclear battlefield, supported by a battery of short-range (15 miles or so) nuclear Honest John rockets designed to act much like ordinary artillery pieces (except for their incomparably greater power).
All this is of no use, as it presumes to deter a kind of war the Soviets have repeatedly declared they have no intention of fighting, and the French have said they will not allow to be fought in central Europe.
Mr. Gellner goes on in this article to deal with another aspect of this matter, that is our air defence. I will not read this all, but he does write the following:
This has to be borne in mind when one stands rather puzzled on one of our two Bomarc surface-to-air missile bases and sees 28 of these weapons standing virtually unprotected yards apart on a single pad, ready to repel a bomber attack. If attack ever came, the whole Bomarc complex would probably be taken out in the enemy's first surprise strike.
With a little foresight, the Bomarcs could have been recognized for the military absurdities they were when installed in 1961. Yet we took them, had to take them, simply because our two Bomarc bases formed a link in a chain of similar U.S. installations.
It is about time we stood on our own feet in respect of defence and thought out for ourselves what was useful for Canada, rather than getting ourselves involved in what Mr. Gellner here describes as military absurdities. The government says it is forward looking, but when it comes to action it continues the inertia so typical of it, doing exactly what was done in the 1950's, with practically no change.
On March 15 the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when discussing our commitments to NATO, said this to a committee of the other place:
The specific form of our contribution is under continuing review and has, in fact, changed significantly over the years. One example will, I think, suffice to illustrate my point. In the middle fifties, Canada provided twelve squadrons of F-86 interceptor aircraft to NATO. These were replaced in the early sixties by eight squadrons of F-104 aircraft, six squadrons of which had a strike role and two a reconnaissance role. This year, as a result of attrition, we are reducing the number of squadrons of strike aircraft from eight to six. At some time in the 1970's, all the F-104 aircraft
April 3, 1967
will be "phased out". At the appropriate time in the future, the government will have to decide what position to take on a "follow-on" aircraft.
In other words, the Secretary of State for External Affairs says that at some time in the 1970's we will proceed to consider whether we will replace something that Mr. Gellner has indicated is in his view a military absurdity.
Perhaps what Mr. Gellner has said as a writer is not important to this country, but I should like to indicate that the view expressed in this article has been adopted by General Allard, the chief of general staff. He gave evidence to the defence committee, and I should like to refer to what he said in answer to the hon. member for Simcoe North as reported at page 1830 of the proceedings of that committee.
The hon. member for Simcoe North read the comments I have just read from Mr. Gellner's article, as to the value of Canadian contributions, and then added:
I want an opportunity to talk about it.


Mr. Allard:: I could answer you right awav Mr. Smith.


Mr. Smith:: All right, fine.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: The answer to this is that this is a political question, and the political direction that I will get will certainly serve to generate the necessary plans. As far as Mr. Gellner's article is concerned, I do not-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Edmonton West I shall try not to abuse the generosity of the committee. I was reading the passage from the proceedings of the committee where the hon. member for Simcoe North put Mr. Gellner's article to Mr. Allard, who said:
As far as Mr. Gellner's article is concerned, I do not disagree with it.
So we have the chief of our general staff saying that he agrees with an article, and indeed it makes admirable common sense, in which it is made abundantly clear that the military contribution we are making to Europe at the present time makes no sense militarily. I ask, what sense does it make
National Defence Act Amendment politically? It has been said to me by some experts that we are buying some sort of influence, that by making a contribution that does not make sense we are somehow or other pleasing our allies. The sort of domino theory put forward is that if we were to withdraw this useless brick, upon which nobody depends, it would bring down the edifice. I am not running down the troops themselves, because they are first-rate and efficient, but it is suggested that if we withdraw from this useless role the whole edifice will come tumbling down. This is absolute nonsense. It is an insult to our allies, and I suggest it is an insult to our troops to say to them, "We want you to continue doing something that does not make good military sense at the present time." How can you build morale upon an argument of that sort?
My time has elapsed, Mr. Chairman, and I do not wish to trespass upon the generosity of the committee. In conclusion I would say to the minister that even at this late date it is time to use some imagination; it is time to make something in the nature of a stirring appeal to the people of Canada. Only a truly Canadian defence policy can obtain the support for which the minister asks in relation to his plans for unification. Only if it is seen that Canada is prepared to make a maximum contribution to peace and security will the minister receive the support for the policy he is putting forward. It is not good enough to carry on with this sort of inertia and repetition of our role. Politically a new phase has developed in Europe, yet we are carrying on the same immobile policies of the past.
Canada's defence policy should be directed to the future and not to the past. We are spending vast sums of money in this area. We are asking for the lives and devotion of many highly competent and dedicated men and women. They should be put behind a unified force; we accept that. But this unified force should play a modern, up to date role fitted into the needs of Canada to contribute to the security of the world in the 1960's and 1970's. As far as this party is concerned, we shall continue to urge that we do not worry just about machinery and organization, as though we were a group of organization men and nothing more, and we shall try to arouse the imagination and enthusiasm of the peopto of Canada for a contribution that makes sense at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seven o'clock.

April 3, 1967




[Stage Direction]
National Defence Act Amendment [Translation]
Mr, Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I think I might as well call it seven o'clock and begin my remarks later. I therefore call it seven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I do not know what is the wish of the Committee, but there is no order of the house to suspend the sitting at seven o'clock.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you will rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again later this day, and an order of the house could be made to resume at eight o'clock, if this is agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. J. B. Slewari (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon):
That the sitting of the house today be suspended from 7 o'clock p.m. to 8 o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), transport-request for restoration of service on Kettle Valley Railway; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), immigration-reported discrimination in admission of immigrants from Poland; the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis), historic sites and monuments- Louisbourg fortress-return to work of men laid off.
Perhaps the house would agree, before suspending the sitting, to return to consideration in committee of the bill before it a few moments ago.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The sitting is suspended from now until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Depuiy Chairman: When the committee rose at seven o'clock, it was considering clause 2.
Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, before getting into the subject matter of the brief remarks I propose to make, may I be allowed to express our pleasure at your return to the house after your stay in the hospital. We earnestly hope your health will continue to improve so that you may as in the past have the patience to listen to us.
This afternoon we have heard military experts such as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) as well as the brilliant lawyer who spoke for the New Democratic Party.
Tonight I should like to speak for the businessmen, the owners of small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I admit at the outset that I am no expert in military matters; that is why I shall only make general remarks and give a brief summary of our military organization as seen by a civilian.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This afternoon the minister expressed his views on the military reform. He spoke as the soldier he is; he defended his position well; he spoke as a businessman would have done to protect his interests; as a labour leader would have pleaded the cause of his union. Now, I admire the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and I always did, because he is strong willed, and when he has made up his mind, I think he has thoroughly thought out his decision before announcing it to the house.
April 3, 1967	COMMONS
I feel the defence committee performed some fine work, and I congratulate its members for having earnestly looked into the Canadian military question and especially for having suggested amendments and improvements which the entire population expects from the government.
I happened to read this morning an article by Clement Brown about unification. He had this to say about our discussions which started today:
There is first, by order of importance, the armed forces unification bill, already read a second time and recommended, in spite of the Conservative opposition, without amendment by the parliamentary committee. That bill could give rise to a long debate since the Conservatives are against unification. All the more so since Prime Minister Pearson himself implied that he wants to consider the advisability of proceeding without delay with unification, when the most distinguished witnesses to appear before the parliamentary committee have advised the government to make haste slowly.
In my opinion, the main purpose of Bill No. C-243 is above all to unify the three armed services. I feel that such unification is not only advisable but essential. I fail to see why in the military field as in all other fields, expenditures should not be reduced as much as possible.
Therefore, I am rising this evening in order to express the views of our group concerning the unification of the three armed services, because we consider primarily the savings to be made. According to military technicians, it would also be beneficial to the unity of the army itself on the economic level, which would necessarily reduce administrative costs.
I heard this afternoon the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) talk about the uniform. In my opinion, that matter is of minor importance. Whether the soldier is given a blue, green or gray uniform, it does not change anything to the effect of the bayonet or the cannon, it is simply a matter of fashion. If experts in military fashion are needed, they should be consulted. But when some hon. members talked about the new uniform or said that an effort was made to impose the same uniform to the three services, that was, in my opinion, a very weak argument and I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Edmonton West-a man whom I admire also-object to that bill on that score.
It seems to me that most soldiers I talked to in my area are looking forward to a single command, to unification. I am therefore mildly surprised that the Conservatives, as a whole, should so oppose the bill.
National Defence Act Amendment
All kinds of excuses will be given for holding up the business of the house, such as the one we heard this afternoon, namely that all the committee reports had not been tabled. Mention was made of the delay in tabling the minutes and proceedings of the committee entrusted with the study of the bank bill. I suspect the same thing is going to happen again because the last reports were distributed to us at the beginning of the sitting. I got the last reports on arriving at my office, and at that, not in the final version but merely copies of the transcript.
Well, this is a procedure which I have not ceased to deplore in the five years I have been here. I deplored it even under other governments and it should not be resorted to in order to delay a discussion by putting forward such a worthless argument, as if it were a major reason to adjourn a debate that is so important and so urgent that-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question?


Mr. Gaulhierr  Certainly.Mr. Lambert@: Is it not a fact that, in the case of the Deposit Insurance Act, the reports of the proceedings were late and that the debate on the bill dealing with the Bank of Canada Act was delayed for four days because the French translation was not finished? I think that perhaps you will agree with me in this regard.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I agree that the reports took four days to reach us and that consideration of these documents was delayed until they were printed. But the debate began when the last report was received. That is what I mean. The same happened today: discussion was begun when the last report reached our office. In the other instance, we had to wait four days because about 12 French reports were missing. Let me speak as I did at the beginning, as a simple civilian. As civilians, we notice mainly the military budget. I said earlier that we were expecting a reduction in the expenditures, but when we look at the military budget, we notice that this year, in spite of all the minister's predictions, it is yet much higher than last year.
I do not know whether this is due to the fact that the country's expenditures are higher or whether the cost of updating our armaments have increased but everybody, the people in general find that a military budget of about $2 billion for a small country of 20
14452	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment million people is just outrageous. We had hoped that the budget would be reduced by at least one third, but it is not the case and I want to point out to the minister that we are a little disappointed in that respect.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
That situation may be due to the purchase of airplanes, mainly those we use for military training. I know that in my area, for instance, there is a centre where all day long they play with those small toys worth a million dollars apiece. When you replace 140 of those toys because they are a little worn out, at a cost of $140 million, we can imagine that the military budget is going to go up as the minister mentioned. I would not repeat that word, had the minister not used it but he spoke about waste in the Department of the National Defence. I think that we suspected it for a long time. In his statement, the minister said that there had been some waste, and I am confident that he will try and stop such waste so as to save in that respect.
What we really need, in brief, is an army to protect this country, not an army of which two or three battalions could fight abroad, for foreign interests. We do think and the people in general feel that we need an army in order to protect this country.
Canadian citizens are ready to pay for their own aircraft, but what they do not accept today is the fact that, after 20 or 22 years, namely since the last war, they still have to pay the costs of training and the travelling and living allowances of Canadian soldiers stationed in Europe and all other countries. In fact, they are wondering what a poor little country of 20 million people like Canada is doing there.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest it would be preferable to direct our dollars and our energy toward peace production rather than try to thrust peace upon people by force of arms. I believe that if we earmarked 50 per cent of the military budget for production, in order to give food to people in starving countries, we would be doing something useful.
Now, we cannot all be of the same opinion and, as I said a while ago, a soldier speaks like a soldier, a civilian like a civilian. That is why I admire the minister who defended his own cause in this house and defended it well. This does not prevent us from having our own opinion and from wishing that we may, some day, think more about feeding

DEBATES	April 3, 1967
the people, for the sake of peace, instead of thrusting peace upon them, by force of arms.
I wish that day to be the nearest possible, I wish that the minister would think about organizing the army so as to provide protection for this country itself and that he would earmark the difference of millions of dollars to feed the people of this country first of all and then have them benefit other countries that are in need.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, my first remarks at this stage of proceedings on Bill C-243 are to commend the standing committee on national defence for the great deal of work they did in examining in detail, with the benefit of expert witnesses, the provisions laid out in the bill. I do not pretend to be familiar with all provisions in the bill, as it is now or before it was amended, because this was a specialized study undertaken by a number of competent members in this house. While it is obvious that there is not full agreement among members, it seems to me that they have performed a useful service to parliament and to Canada by making their examination.
I rise tonight to express some opinions respecting Canada's role in international affairs politically and militarily. We in this party have long advocated that there ought to be far closer liaison between the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs. I do not suggest that the ministers or supporting staffs of these departments do not co-operate. I do suggest, however, that the policies of the two departments ought to be more co-ordinated than in the past.
If we are to talk intelligently about Bill C-243, which is designed to bring about a new structure for our armed forces, we ought first to discuss what the purpose and role of those armed forces will be. In this day and age I suggest that that purpose is completely tied to our foreign policy. I suggest, as has been said before, that Canada through obligation or choice, whichever term one wishes to use, occupies a unique position in world international relations. As the minister said a few moments ago, there is so much military power in the hands of the super powers that it is not likely either one will deliberately embark on a war calling on both sides to use all the power they have. As a result I think that Canada ought to use its resources in manpower and material in some way to keep the peace of the world. I had not intended saying
April 3, 19S7
this, but perhaps in the context of my argument I ought to say that I am not particularly interested in Canada's strength as a military power. I am, however, interested in Canada's capacity to assist in keeping world peace.
If we agree that Canada's major role in international politics is to have available men and equipment to be used anywhere in the world to extinguish small wars or disputes, we must examine our armed forces to see if they have the capabilities to perform those functions.
There is good reason for our role in the world today. Canada's troops are accepted by other nations for this purpose. For example in many parts of the world the troops of the U.S.S.R., the United States, France or Britain would not be accepted. I do not think United States troops would be accepted in some Asiatic or African countries. I doubt if those countries would accept Soviet Union troops. Were those troops to come in, the countries concerned would be apprehensive. They would be afraid that there would be an extension of Soviet power and influence, were the troops of that powerful country allowed to come in. Also in the middle east, the far east and other places in the world United States troops and military equipment would not be acceptable. The outstanding example of that might be Viet Nam, although I shall not discuss that now.
I suggest that the troops of the United Kingdom and France, former colonial powers, would not be accepted in countries that were colonized by Britain and France in times gone by. I have attended international meetings from time to time, some in the United Nations and some in our own parliamentary associations. If there is one thing that is obvious, it is that these new countries, these developing countries which were formerly colonies of Britain or France simply will not accept troops in their territories for any purpose. They do not want them. There is an obsession in many of these countries to rid themselves of all traces of former influence so that they can concentrate on governing themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that at this stage the forces of former occupying powers would not be allowed back if border disputes broke out between any of those nations. So I think Canada ought to accept this role. I recognize we have done so in a number of areas, even though we were perhaps not well prepared from a military point of view to fulfil this function.
National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Another reason for my thinking that Canada is well suited to this task is that among the smaller nations of the world-and I am thinking in terms of population-there is not one which is in a better position, because of the extent of its material resources, to support a peace keeping force.
This is an important consideration since we know that if the major powers, the major contributors to the United Nations, fail to agree on whether a peace keeping force should be sent, it is the practice for those who do not agree to withhold financial contributions in respect to such a force. This happened in the case of the Congo, to mention one example. I am thinking of circumstances where the security council has authorized a peace keeping force to begin operations, but where the assessment levied in connection with the force has been withheld. The need therefore is for a nation which is willing to provide a service of this kind, and whose material resources are sufficient to support such a force. The presence of the peace keeping force in Cyprus is an example of a service of this kind, and there are other examples. If there is wrangling in the United Nations about whether a force should be sent or not, great damage might be done while these arguments or discussions were going on, and the situation might deteriorate to the point at which no useful purpose would be served by sending in a small peace keeping force such as Canada can provide.
Having agreed that Canada ought to accept a peace keeping role and having drawn attention to Canada's unique position in being able to assume a role of this kind in international affairs, I come to the next logical step, namely how to design our armed forces in such a way as to make the greatest possible contribution to this concept. I said I do not pretend to be an expert on military matters. It might be possible using separate armed services to provide the forces and the equipment required. I am not sure. I know that these forces have been provided on several occasions in the past, though I suspect not without difficulty. It seems to me that acceptance of the concept which I and other hon. members have outlined is a quite different matter from devising the best possible means of carrying it out.
My hon. friend from Fraser Valley has pointed out, as reported on page 12423 of Hansard of January 30, that we in this party

April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment have long taken the position that certain adjustments should be made within our armed forces. His words on that occasion were:
We ought to redesign Canada's defence strategy and military forces to eliminate useless expenditures on forms of defence obsolete in the light of modern circumstances.
This is even more important. We should, he said-
-concentrate on establishing powerful, well-equipped. highly mobile forces strategically deployed and capable of immediate airborne transport to any area of Canada.
This was contained in a policy statement we issued several years ago. Having regard to the passage of time, I think the last part of that statement should now read-"capable of immediate airborne transport to any area of the world." So this concept is not new. It is not something we have very recently discovered. The bill before us represents in some respects the culmination of this idea; we are reaching the point at which action is to be taken in a direction we advocated a long time ago. It seems to me that for the purpose of fulfilling a role as a peace keeper in the world, a unified and integrated force would be more effective than three separate forces.
Nevertheless, I believe we should move rather slowly in the field of unification and integration. Sometimes I am puzzled about the interpretation of those two words as they are defined by various hon. members. If integration has already been achieved, and if all this bill will do is provide for unification, I am afraid I do not follow the argument. However this may be, it seems there is some reason and logic in having a single service under a single command if we are to provide the kind of force I have tried to describe. In the initial stages, at least, there has to be a higher degree of co-ordination between the services than we have now. Earlier this afternoon the minister suggested there were some deficiencies in co-ordination among the three forces we have at the present time. It is understandable that this should be so, whether or not one is intimately familiar with the organization of the armed forces.
So we agree to the concept of Canada's new role in international affairs, and we can find some measure of agreement upon integration, and even unification, up to a point. But I suggest to the minister that for the sake of morale we should not lose some of the very useful parts within our forces, and that we should go a little bit slowly in trying to set up 
a completely new structure. There are traditions in the Canadian forces that are proud and glorious, and rightly so. We should move very slowly, to make sure that no attempt, or apparent attempt is made to destroy these traditions or take away from the proud history of Canada's armed forces.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I am not suggesting to the minister that he is deliberately setting out to destroy such traditions, but accusations have been made that he is. If we move slowly, as I have suggested, and as my colleague from Fraser Valley suggested several weeks ago, we can make sure of providing a clear concept in the minds of all the men in the armed forces as to where we are going, and our purpose can then be achieved without too much pain.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the minister and to the government house leader that public debate, and debate in the House of Commons on integration and unification of tht armed forces have gone on just about long enough. I do not believe that anything useful is going to come, from here on out. The defence committee accepted a lot of amendments to the bill. No doubt representations were made to the minister and the department about other amendments.
I know there are those in this house and in other places who are hard and fast in their opposition to the provisions of the reprinted bill, but I believe we reach a point, and I think we have reached it, where nothing further of great usefulness can come out of extending the debate. I suggest to the minister that he get together with the house leader, look at the provisions of provisional standing order 15-A, and invoke some of them if this debate evolves into what appears to be developing, namely some kind of filibuster, the wasting of time to achieve certain things.
In my opinion the provisions of standing order 15-A are not too severe. Subsection 2 states:
During routine proceedings a minister of the crown may propose that the question of allocation of time for any item of business, unless otherwise provided for, be referred to the business committee, and upon such proposal being made that question shall stand referred to the committee.
Although I was not in Ottawa at the time, I have heard that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre supported that there ought to be some discussion at least with respect to limitation of time on this debate, if there are members ot the house who are determined that it is going to become an interminable debate.
April 3, 1967


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we get into trouble.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, before we get into too much trouble, because it would be very difficult to limit debate after the house deteriorated, if that is the right word, into an ugly mood so far as the bill is concerned.
Subsection 3 of the standing order states:
The business committee shall report back to the house on or before the third sitting day following such reference.
The minister can decide for himself how long he wants to wait before using this standing order. Maybe he thinks the bill will pass in one or two days. I would be willing to wait about three days, but after that time I suggest that he take it upon himself to move a motion referring the matter to the business committee. The rule provides that the committee is required to report back to the house within three days. But the committee might sit for only an hour before it became completely obvious its members could not agree, or it could sit for the full three days.
Subsections 5 and 6 of the standing order provide that in the event the business committee cannot agree, the minister may move for limitation of time. Subsection 7 states however, that-
-no motion made by a minister trader sections 5 and 6 of this standing order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time less than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill.
I would suggest to the minister that he be careful not to impose the absolute minimum of time specified in the standing order. Even if he finds out from whoever is on the business committee from the Conservative party that they are not going to agree to anything-and that has happened before, you know-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are being very sanctimonious.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -he does not have to impose the absolute minimum of time in the standing order.
There are some 48 pages in the bill and I suggest the minister should not give the *Conservatives cause for the old cry that closure is being imposed by imposing the absolute minimum under standing order 15-A. What I seriously suggest to the minister is that if it becomes apparent that there is not going to be any agreement by the business [DOT]committee, then we should have about three [DOT]or four days for the committee stage. I think
National Defence Act Amendment one day is enough for third reading, but we probably need more than two days in committee on something as important as this.
I hope the debate is not going to go on, and on, and on. It has gone on for a long time already and it can only get more acrimonious as the days go by. If there has not already been opportunity for all members who want to make representations with respect to the bill, then we should continue for a few more days, but I believe we have reached the stage where almost everything new that could be said about the bill has been said, and debate will be a little repetitious from now on.
I suggest we could continue for another three or perhaps four days before the minister imposes the provisions of standing order 15-A, and while the matter is before the business committee we could discuss some other item of business. But when the matter returns from the business committee I suggest another four or five days debate would be enough. Let us not have the House of Commons and the whole country bogged down because there are one or two, or half a dozen of our members unwilling to accept the majority decision of the house.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, sir.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the hon. member's suggestion of closure is adopted by the government-and he often acts as a spokesman for the government-what percentage of time in that limited period would be given to his party of four and a half members? I think one member of his party is sort of leaving them now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I have to
straighten the hon. member's thinking out again, as I have often had to do. First of all, I am never the spokesman for the government. In case the hon. member was not sure about that-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Should I have used the word stooge?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member said I am often the spokesman for the government, and I am telling him I have never been appointed spokesman for the government. He then described as closure the procedure that I suggested. Closure does not come under standing order 15-A, which provides for allocation of time.

April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Closure of debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre knows very well that, if there are a number of clauses, closure is a situation in which a minister of the crown moves every day that the question be put at the end of that sitting day. I think that is the way it works. I never was in the house when closure was used. There has been some type of stigma attached to it since 1956. I do not have the mental block in respect of closure some people have, because I believe closure has its place, if the majority of this house is being frustrated day after day and week after week by a very small minority. Although this conduct is confined to a large party, I believe it is only a small minority in that party which intends to hold up the proceedings. I believe there is a proper use of some form of allocation of time so that the majority still can run this country. I think we in this party would be willing to accept our fair share of the amount of time allotted under the use of provisional standing order 15-A.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. MacXnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that we would hear from a number of the Liberal members who were members of the national defence committee. It would appear, however, that possibly the officials of the minister's department have not finished writing their speeches for them, as was the case during the committee hearings. As has been suggested, possibly closure already has been applied to the Liberal members who were present during the hearings of the national defence committee.
At the beginning I should like to point out that I joined the committee on national defence in the very late stages of its deliberations. I was in attendance, however, long enough to realize that the Liberal members who served on this committee were there for the express purpose of feeding to the different witnesses whatever questions the officials of the department wished fed to them. This was a disgraceful performance on their part. With the exception of a few members who had enough on the ball to ask their own questions, the Liberal members were depending on the officials who sat behind them during the committee hearings to feed them questions to which answers were desired.

This afternoon we heard a very weak argument by the minister in respect of the unification bill. For 50 minutes he spoke about equipment and many matters other than the unification bill itself. At no time, other than in the last few closing remarks, did he concentrate in any way on the bill before us. He stood up and misled the house with the suggestion that because of integration or unification of certain operations in the services there had been a saving of 30 to 40 per cent. He used these percentage figures to indicate that there has been a terrific saving. If there is a staff in Washington or London, 30 per cent of that staff would mean the saving of only one person on that particular staff. Therefore his percentage figures will not mean a thing.
I should like to ask the minister to stand up in this house at the proper time and indicate that the percentages which he gave as savings are accurate. I should like him to say whether 30 per cent of a particular group, or 40 per cent of another group, were actually struck off strength or merely transferred to another branch of the service. Is the minister implying that simply by the reduction of a certain staff by these large percentages a saving has been accomplished? It is my understanding of the services that if a man is no longer required in his job he probably is transferred somewhere else.
The saving the minister implies is nonsense, unless the percentages to which he refers apply to people who actually are struck off strength. If he can give us this assurance, I will accept his statement that there is a saving. I suggest, however, that that is not the case. All we need do is look at the estimates for the Department of National Defence. It is nonsense and hogwash for the minister to tell the Canadian people that tremendous savings have been effected in the Department of National Defence.
I might refer back to the minister's propaganda team which sat in the gallery and fed propaganda to him. I say again that the saving the minister has implied is a lot of nonsense. In another place I would call it what it is, bluntly, but the rules do not permit me to do so. As appears at page 1582 of the evidence of the committee the minister wrapped up the summary by saying:
Finally, may I say that in recommending the changes consequent on this Bill I do not wish to reflect in any way, on individual members of the Armed Forces. They are wonderful people and I am proud of my association with them. I have stated repeatedly, and I mean it with all my
April 3, 1967

heart, that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are without peer anywhere in this world. They have served Canada well, in war and peace, and they deserve the deepest gratitude of the Canadian people.
Immediately afterward the minister went out and accused a loyal serving officer of the Royal Canadian Navy of being disloyal over an 18 month period. The minister should read his final words when he appeared before the committee when he said "I mean this with all my heart". It is strange that the minister then would go out and accuse a man, such as Admiral Landymore who has displayed loyalty and performed service to his country, of being disloyal over an 18 month period. This is the approach the minister takes. I might say that his remarks were about as far removed from the truth as they could be.
During the question period in the committee the same Minister of National Defence said that Admiral Landymore was fired for 18 months consistent disloyalty to the policies of the people he was paid to serve. Of course the press reports indicated that the minister made an apology in this regard. Having made the apology he then makes another statement which withdraws the apology he had made. In the first place the apology was not one which should have been publicized in the way it was, because the minister did not emphatically withdraw the charges he had made. Having accused Admiral Landymore of disloyalty over an 18 month period the minister, having been placed in a position where he found it necessary to make an apology, if he were any kind of a man, would have resigned his position instead of attempting to lord it over the serving officers in this country.
Not too long ago, after a briefing of the highest order by admirals and other members of the upper echelon of the NATO command, the minister released information which was classified. This is the type of man who speaks of loyalty and disloyalty. Hon. members on the other side are laughing so I shall repeat what I said: The minister should be behind bars. More drastic action might have been taken in other countries under similar circumstances, yet the minister merely stands and talks about disloyalty among serving officers in this country.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
How does he back up his charges of disloyalty? During the committee hearings when he was asked about his charges of disloyalty against Admiral Landymore the minister said
National Defence Act Amendment this, as recorded at page 1624 of the committee proceedings:
I do not think that he had any right to call that kind of a meeting. I do not think he had any right to demand personal loyalty from his officers, and now that you have raised the question I want to make this statement. I have never asked a military officer his politics, his religion, or for his personal loyalty. Yet Admiral Landymore in giving testimony before this committee said that he had extracted a promise from his officers.
The hon. member for Halifax then asked the minister the following question:


J. Michael Forrestall: What type of a promise?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The promise was not to resign.
Because a serving officer asked his men not to resign from their commissions in the navy, the minister accused him of being disloyal over a period of 18 months. As recorded at page 1623 of the committee proceedings, the minister said that Admiral Landymore was fired because of 18 months of consistent disloyalty. The minister stated, as recorded at page 1623:
Yes, I think I could. I would say that following a meeting of commanders in Ottawa, as I recall, on November 19, 1964, Admiral Landymore fully understood what we had in mind. We planned to develop in this country a single service concept and that he was unalterably opposed to it at that stage and that he went back to Halifax to do everything he possibly could to prepare for an ultimate confrontation on the issue.
In reference to what the minister said regarding Admiral Landymore's understanding of the plans for the development of a single force in 1964, let me point out that the former chief of staff, Air Marshal Miller, indicated to the committee at that time there was no discussion about unification whatsoever. He indicated that there was no complete understanding of unification. He had only been retired for six months. How can the minister truthfully accuse Admiral Landymore of taking the action he took with a full understanding of what was to take place as far back as 1964?
The minister was asked why disciplinary action had not been taken against Admiral Landymore. I suggest that the hon. member who just spoke should read some of these answers in order to understand why we should not be limited in our time of debate, but given as much time as hon. members require. Let me remind the committee that the minister and the Prime Minister promised that ample opportunity would be provided for the discussion of this bill. In spite of that promise the Liberal majority on the committee rushed the conclusion of the committee's
April 3. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment sittings, even though it had been indicated that the members wished other witnesses to be heard. Surely this government will not propose closure on this matter in the lace of that promise. This committee of the whole house is entitled to all the time it requires to delve into the matter of unification. I accept the Prime Minister's promise and I expect he will live up to it, regardless of what the Minister of National Defence may wish to do. His obligation means nothing. I have not depended on his words or promises for a long time, and in this instance I put my trust in the Prime Minister's promise that we will have an ample opportunity to examine every angle of this proposal for unification.
In answer to questions as to why disciplinary action was not taken against Admiral Landymore the minister said this:
No. I said If the issue involved had been anything less serious or less comprehensive than the single service concept and he displayed the disloyalty which he did throughout that period, then I would have had to insist that he be court-martialled.
If I have ever heard a ridiculous statement, that surely is it. The minister implied that if the matter was less serious he would have taken more serious action. Where is the logic in that approach? Since the matter was apparently extremely serious he did nothing about it.
I am afraid I can see no logic in that approach. If someone can point out its logic, then I must have a complete misconception of law and justice. Why should a less serious charge for similar action in respect of a less serious subject demand more serious action by the minister? That is an idiotic approach; yet, so is the minister. This is the same type of logic he has shown throughout. The minister has consistently refused to face up to the facts and pay attention to the advice of his senior advisors.
Without further reference to the minister's answers, I should like him to consider again his remarks relating to the incompatibility of Admiral Landymore and his second-in-command. As I recall the situation, the minister said on several occasions that these two officers were incompatible. He was asked where he obtained this information and he indicated that the information came through official channels. Air Marshal Miller was asked to give his understanding of what official channels might mean. He replied that the commanding officer would necessarily initiate communications through official channels.

In view of what Air Marshal Miller said, the reference by the minister to his information coming through official channels must be ridiculous, because this information must have come from Admiral Landymore. It is not the custom in the services of this country for subordinate officers to bypass their commanding officers when sending in reports. The commanding officer is always aware of what passes through official channels. In spite of this the minister has told us that he heard certain things about Admiral Landymore through official channels. Again I suggest to the minister that this is a lot of nonsense.
It is also interesting to note that the minister in referring to his source of information indicated that he spoke to junior officers. When asked where and when, he replied that he had met these people on many different occasions. The implication was that he could have met them at a cocktail party or something like that. I say to the minister that if he discussed anything in respect of this particular matter with a junior officer anywhere, whether it was at a meeting, a cocktail party, in his home or somewhere else, he was inviting that officer to break the written rule that is laid down which forbids any officer in the services to discuss political matters. Therefore the minister has been contributing to junior officers in the Canadian forces breaking the rules. Of course, what can we expect? What would the minister know about rules?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I understand that the minister is so determined to bring about unification that he is prepared to put his seat on the line on this question. Not everybody in the minister's party supports him. I would remind him that cocktail parties are held around here at which people drop the odd word. Some fellows get pretty loose in the lip at these cocktail parties. The minister should check this out, because he has not the support in his own party that he thinks he has. Perhaps on an occasion such as this somebody overheard the minister threaten to resign his seat and impose another calamity on this government, as though it had not suffered enough calamities already, unless the party saw fit to back him completely on the question of unification.
Having read the evidence of the recently retired chief of staff, according to the press reports the Prime Minister said he thought this matter required further looking into. The press immediately indicated that there would probably be some kind of saw-off in respect of unification. But apparently the minister
April 3, 1967

went back to the Prime Minister and made another threat, so the Prime Minister, having said he had read Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony and having indicated that it deserved looking into, has now said he is once again in full support of the minister. The support of the minister has been on and off.
What interests me is that the testimony given to the defence committee by Air Chief Marshal Miller became available to this committee only today. So the Prime Minister was perhaps referring to the coverage given this matter by the press. If that is the case, I suggest that the Prime Minister should read carefully Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony, and if he made a decision on the basis of press reports, having read this testimony I am sure the Prime Minister, in all fairness to the people of this country and the men and officers serving in the forces, will demand a second look at the unification bill.
In the committee an amendment was moved that before the unified force came into being members of the army, navy and air force, the services which are to disappear when unification becomes effective, be reattested and that each and every individual serving in the forces be given the choice as to whether he was to become a member of the Canadian forces. The Judge Advocate General gave evidence before the committee that this is just a matter of paper, and is not necessary. I say to the minister that it is not just a matter of paper. It always was the practice, but that practice is being discontinued; whether legally, I do not know. However, it would not be difficult to produce for the minister evidence to the effect that men who during the war served in more than one service were discharged from that service before entering another. Having been discharged from that service, anybody who served in two of the services during the war obtained two discharge certificates. I do not know whether this is just a matter of paper, but the evidence given before the committee is something that I will not accept. I can produce for the minister discharges obtained by individuals which show service in the army and in one of the other services. In other words, it is not just a matter of paper, and before a man is signed into one service he must be discharged from the other.
Therefore why should it not follow that if you are going to wipe out the army, navy and air force, the men serving in those forces should be given the choice of entering the
National Defence Act Amendment unified force? It is said that this is not necessary, but there are a number of precedents in this country which indicate that it is necessary. During a national emergency, a time of war, no man in the services was required to do other than that for which he signed up. I would refer to the "Official History of the Canadian Army", which is recommended reading for the Minister of National Defence, who might learn something from it. I would point out that in the writing of this volume the author was given full access to relevant official documents in the possession of the Department of National Defence. On page 43 is set out the first precedent. This was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but it bears repeating because I believe that if you wish to get anything across to this minister you have to keep pounding and pounding and pounding, and even then I doubt whether it will sink in because he has a stubborn attitude, for his own political reasons.
The minister has never denied that he threatened to resign if his party did not back the unification bill. I referred to that matter 10 or 15 minutes ago, and I remember a former Speaker ruling an hon. member out of order for not taking up a question of privilege within seven or ten seconds. I raised this matter 10 or 15 minutes ago, but the minister has never denied that he threatened to resign if his unification bill was not passed. He cannot deny it now on a question of privilege, because the time allowed for this has expired. I would ask the minister to pay particular attention to these words which appear at page 43 of the book to which I have referred:
"Government decided to place militia on active service in Canada (mobile force). Although all submissions to council were ready and all plans made, we were horrified to hear-"
I repeat that.
-we -were horrified to hear the cabinet decided at the last minute to change the name of the mobile force from "Canadian Field Force" to "Canadian Active Service Force". The result being many changes, torn up stencils, and $65,000 worth of mobilization forms almost useless. Very hectic day-but we managed to get the general order 135/1939 issued and in the mail to all districts.
Here is a clear-cut precedent established during the time of an emergency, wartime, when it was required to re-attest all servicemen just because the cabinet at the last minute changed the name of the force. They were not abolishing any force; they were just changing the name of the force from Canadian Field Force to Canadian Active
April 3/ 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Service Force. For the minister's benefit I read the following passage:
General order No. 135 announced that the governor in council had "authorized the organization of a Canadian Active Service Force" and had "named as Corps of the Active Militia" and "placed on active service in Canada" certain specified units. The accompanying schedules listed nearly 300 individual units and formation headquarters, including the headquarters of "1st Corps C.A.S.F.", the whole of the 1st and 2nd Divisions, C.A.S.F., and quotas of corps, army and lines of communication troops. In addition, this order incorporated in the C.A.S.F. the units and details of the non-permanent active militia which had been called out under general order No. 124 to guard vulnerable points and man coast defences. Some additions were now made to the original list. The N.P.A.M. soldiers on duty were attested into the C.A.S.F., except for those not wishing to enlist, who were released in due course.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This again is another well established precedent indicating that when the original list was changed the N.P.A.M. men were reattested into the C.A.S.F., except those who did not wish to enlist. They were released in due course.
The precedents are many, Mr. Chairman, and I do not have time to review them all. However, I will again draw the minister's attention to page 63 of the "Official History of the Canadian Army", where the following statement appears:
The decision to send a force overseas involved changing the basis on which men had so far been enlisted into the Active Service Force.
So the decision to send these men overseas required this change to be made. I continue:
The Minister of National Defence had explained to the House of Commons on September 11 that under the Militia Act (Section 68) no man could be required to serve in the field continuously for a longer period than one year, unless he had volunteered to serve for a longer period or "for the war". He suggested that if a decision were made to use part of the Active Service Force overseas the men might be "re-enlisted for overseas service".
I call to the minister's attention that at this time this country was at war. These men were in the active service of Canada, but before they were sent overseas they were going to be re-enlisted.
The statement issued on 19 September confirmed that this would be done, the men of both divisions being re-attested on a basis of volunteering for service in Canada or elsewhere for the duration of the war. Orders were shortly sent out that the whole of the Active Service Force was to be reattested in this way."
And so it goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. During the war active service personnel were reattested to be sent overseas. This minister,

along with his supporters in committee who do not understand the matter, voted against giving the men of our services today the opportunity to be reattested. In other words, they were given no choice whether they want to belong to the unified force or whether they want their discharge. The members of that committee voted against giving our armed services a privilege that this country saw fit to give them even during time of war. They are denying this to our servicemen.
What, in effect, did these members do in denying our forces this privilege, Mr. Chairman? I would draw this matter especially to the attention of the members from Quebec. They voted for conscription-because that is what it is, in effect. There is no voluntary aspect to this unified force unless the men are given the opportunity to be reattested and voluntarily become members of it. Unless this is done, the minister, with the support of the members of that committee, is conscripting every serving man in this country today into this unified force and denying him the right to make his choice.


An hon. Member:: Hogwash.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Maurice Rinfret: I regret there is not unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue his speech.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege I realize I do not have consent but I would draw to the attention of the Minister of National Defence, who this aftertoon spoke for 60 minutes, that the understanding of hon. members was that we would be given the same opportunity. But I can wait. I can come back at him.


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the standing committee on national defence one of the things that has shocked, amazed and disturbed me is the superficial nature of the press reporting of the committee hearings. The testimony of many witnesses was only partially reported, usually just the sensational and negative portions of their evidence being
April 3, 1967	COMMONS
given. Other witnesses were not reported at all.
It is therefore with a great deal of pleasure and admiration that this morning I was able to read in the April 3 edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail a first class, and in depth, job of reporting by Mr. Anthony Westell. Mr. Westell, rather than simply accepting the highly sensationalized and one-sided versions from the wire service coverage of the hearings, obviously took the trouble to read the evidence in depth. Because of the professionalism and clarity of his article, and because it represents an independent and not always favourable point of view, I intend to record a considerable portion of this article on the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could the hon. member permit a question at this point? It has to do with Mr. Westell's article. How did Mr. Westell get access to the reports of the committee hearings, which reached the members only today at noon?


Robert Knight Andras: I quote:
The transcript of evidence taken by the Commons committee on defence, when it was studying the bill to unify the three fighting services, runs to more than 2,000 printed pages, or close to a million words. Searching through the record for the truth about unification is rather worse than reading the verbatim evidence in a hard-fought criminal trial to form an opinion on guilt or innocence.
At a trial at least some of the witnesses are disinterested and impartial; before the defence committee, all the evidence was, in fact, advocacy of a particular point of view, and much of it was impassioned. The admirals, generals and air marshals who appeared were all experts, and for each opinion expressed there was a contradiction of equal authority, but no other evidence.
Mr. Westell goes on:
In these circumstances, the debate-or rather, the trial of unification-is likely to produce far more heat than light, far more confusion than clarification. The jury, which is the public, will hear many speeches intended to sway its emotions, but few which will inform its opinion. All the facts and opinions are already on the record in the transcript of the committee proceedings.
As a background to the debate in the Commons, this is an attempt to isolate and analyze some of the main trends of thought and argument that appeared before the committee. To illustrate the difficulty, and the caution with which judgment must be approached, consider a few quotations:
Rear Admiral Jeffry Brock, fired as Maritime Commander by Defence Minister Paul Hellyer in 1964 and since living in retirement: "Our navy now, and its anti-submarine capability, is greatly diminished from what it was 2J years ago."
National Defence Act Amendment
Commodore H. A. Porter, director-general, Maritime Forces, presenting a brief prepared in consultation with the naval staff and present commander of Maritime Forces: "I think from the anti-submarine point of view we are more effective today than we have ever been."
Then Rear Admiral Landymore is cited. His opinion is:
"Unification has very little, if any, merit. It is change for the sake of change. It is unnecessary and expensive. It is oriented politically and not militarily."
On the other hand, the next paragraph states:
Rear Admiral C. J. Dillon, 36 years in the R.C.N., a supply officer who was Deputy Comptroller-General when he retired last year, recalled to undertake a special study for the Defence Staff, and a student of military history: "I think when all the froth is blown off the beer and we get over this period of adjustment these people are embarking on, I suppose I could say my only regret is that I am too old to participate any further ... I have often said to people when they have talked about unification, ''You ought to belong to my church". I happen to be an adherent of the Church of Rome and it is going through some very traumatic experiences these days. They are probably akin in some ways to what is over the horizon for the services. I think we can rise above this ... I certainly will shed a tear for the Royal Canadian Navy, but I think we live in a world where we must adjust to change ... I think it is all going to work out all right."
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Lt. Gen. R. W. Moncel, vice-chief of the defence forces until he retired last year after becoming convinced that unification was going too far too fast: ". .. First, to translate the white paper (of 1964) into the force that it called for required, by all my calculations, a force of 150,000 at a budget of $2 million, accruing at 5 per cent. I could never do for less than that, what the white paper said could be done."
Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller, chief of defence staff until he retired last year, questioned about General Moncel's statement: ''I do not know where he got those figures; they do not ring any bells with me, and I think they are on the high side for our present commitments ... I do not see any real difficulty in our meeting our commitments up until now."
Air Chief Marshal Miller, at the close of his evidence: ''...I am in favour of integration as we have it now, as it is developing. I am not closing the book at all on some future unification, but because of the need to get the integration machinery oiled up and working, I would not want a disruptive influence such as unification at this time to be thrown into the machinery."
General J. V. Allard, chief of the defence staff, commander of the Canadian brigade in Korea, a commander of a British division, an amateur yachtsman and a qualified pilot: "I would like to make it clear, therefore, that in making my presentation before you, I do so as the man responsible for carrying out the policy of the government through the Minister of National Defence, for ensuring that the defence forces we have today
April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment are organized, equipped and trained and possess the morale to accept any task they have or are likely to be given ...
I feel absolutely confident that this task can be carried out best by the reorganization of the forces as set out in Bill C-243 (the unification bill)".
These are merely a few examples of the contradiction and confusion of evidence before the committee. Critics of unification disagreed on the grounds for opposition. Exponents of the new policy supported it for different reasons.
Most of the critics were officers who had left the services, fired by Mr. Hellyer because they opposed his policies or retired voluntarily because they felt the reorganization of the forces was being pushed too fast. Most of the defenders of unification were serving officers.
There was a tendency in the committee to downgrade the testimony of the serving officers on the grounds that they were not free agents. It was argued that they had to support the government line because they knew Mr. Hellyer would axe them if they criticized. The ex officers, on the other hand, were held up as free agents speaking the unvarnished truth.
This seems unfair. The ex officers were out of the services, in the main, precisely because they opposed unification, and that was the point of view they expressed to the committee. The serving officers remained in the forces and had risen to the top jobs because they supported unification and their evidence was based on that belief. But both sides spoke from a background of distinguished military service and experience, and those who heard General Allard, for example, give his opinion would find it very hard to believe that he would perjure himself to please his minister, any more than Admiral Landymore would tell lies to embarrass Mr. Hellyer. It is easier and fairer to both sides to ascribe their conflicts to honest difference of opinion.
That does not help in making a judgment on which side is right. But some issues seemed to emerge as the main differences as the hearings proceeded.
There was comparatively little opposition to unification in theory or principle. The argument was over practice.
Many of the critics took the position that unification would make sense if Canada were going to concentrate upon development of a mobile peacekeeping force, but would be impossible, or worse, if the intention was to maintain international commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe and to the United States in the North American Air Defence Command.
Their argument, very simply, appeared to be that the army in Europe operates within the integrated NATO command, that the R.C.A.F. in Europe is part of a larger international force, that the R.C.A.F. co-operates with the U.S. Air Force in the defence of this continent, and the R.C.N. operates as part of the NATO anti-submarine defence. These forces do specialized jobs in their own environment in co-operation with the forces of other countries, and cannot, in good sense, be unified.
If, however, the Canadian forces were to be regrouped to operate independently, as a mobile peacekeeping force to police trouble spots or put out brush fire wars, unification would make sense. The R.C.A.F. would transport the troops and provide close support on the battlefield, and the R.C.N.

would run, in effect, a shipping line to carry the heavy equipment. All three services would be operating together to one end.
For example, General Moncel: "In the light of the commitments that are undertaken and which indeed are spelled for us in the white paper, a unified force has no place. Now, if you want to change the commitment to a commitment-I could write one for you if you want-which would call for a unified force, then unification per se is obviously a good thing..."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. As a result of my experience in the house, I submit it is not open to members to read at length, word for word, from newspaper articles. I have been following the hon. member for Port Arthur for several minutes and he has been quoting verbatim almost a whole column of this morning's Globe and Mail article on the question of unification. An hon. member may make reference to a newspaper article, but certainly not put it on the record of the house in extenso. The hon. member must be in a position to speak for himself, notwithstanding the qualifications of the man who may have written the newspaper article or the work he has put into it. Certainly, let us have the member's own views but not newspaper articles.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think I would have to agree that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West is well taken. It is not improper for a member to read from newspaper articles to support an argument that he is presenting to the house. However, up to this point the hon. member's speech has consisted almost entirely of the newspaper article. I hope the hon. member will conclude his remarks on that particular aspect as soon as possible and get along with his remarks on clause 2 of the bill.


Robert Knight Andras: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, I stated at the beginning that I was going to quote at great length from the article written by Mr. Westell. I feel it is absolutely pertinent to the debate, and I have a purpose at which I will arrive in concluding my speech. Unless there is a distinct ruling otherwise, I would ask your indulgence and continue to quote these very useful comments made by Mr. Westell. He goes on to report, for example, that General Moncel-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must again interrupt the hon. member and advise him that it is not improper for him to read a newspaper article to support his own argument. However, I believe it is improper for him to read a newspaper article which, up to
April 3. 1967

this point, has formed his speech in totality. I hope the hon. member will co-operate and make his own remarks on clause 2 of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps Your Honour
would permit me to raise a point of order which may possibly have been overlooked. I believe there have been rulings from the Chair on a number of occasions that any hon. member may quote from any source at all as long as he is willing to make the source his own and say that the views he is putting forward are the views he has adopted as his own. If one looks at the references he will find many to support this view. It is perhaps more frank to do this honestly and openly and admit who wrote the article than to deliver a speech in this house, the authorship of which is not so apparent.


Michael Starr: They are all over on the other side.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I would refer Your Honour as well to citation 144 on page 124 of Beauchesne which reads:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, for the reason that, "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention.
Now, Mr. Chairman, so far, the hon. member for Port Arthur, as has been pointed out, has said almost nothing, but has read from a report appearing in one of the morning newspapers which is readily available to every member of this house if he wishes to read it. I suggest the point is well taken. Just referring to the article without taking the responsibility for the remarks being quoted is improper on two counts. First, hon. members should not refer extensively to newspaper reports and, second, they are not supposed to read their speeches. I am interested in the hon. member's thoughts, not in the ideas of some newspaper reporter.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I refer to the contribution by the Minister of Transport. He said, as I understand it, that it is all right to read from the newspaper article if the hon. member adopts that article. How can he adopt the article when it contains a variety of views expressed by other people, some of which are clearly inconsistent with each other.

National Defence Act Amendment
I have listened carefully to what the hon. member has read. In my view it is an excellent article but I would prefer to read it myself rather than hearing the hon. member read it in the house. In any event, it is impossible for the hon. member to make those views his own. As I have said, a great many of the views are ones that I would adopt, but they are inconsistent with other views in the article. How the hon. member can adopt this article as his own I fail to understand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I ought to say something, as the hon. member has challenged me directly. I read the article this morning, and I thought it was an excellent and judicious article containing many apt quotations. One could take those quotations, as Mr. Westell did, from the proceedings of the committee. If they were taken from the committee proceedings no one in the house would argue that it was improper to quote them. The mere fact that they were reprinted in the Globe and Mail does not make them any less quotations expressed during the committee proceedings. The hon. member does not need to accept those views, but interlarded with the quotations are the very sensible judgments of Mr. Westell, with which in the main I found it hard to disagree since they contain so much common sense, and which seem to lead obviously, and almost inevitably to a conclusion which may be distasteful to some hon. members. I did not find them distasteful, and obviously the hon. member for Port Arthur does not find them distasteful.
If he feels that Mr. Westell was able to put in convenient language the sentiments that he feels, it surely should not be wrong for him to be permitted to express them. At least he is honest enough to say who had produced them.
I can well remember a distinguished member of this house, the late Mackenzie King, quoting at great length from a speech of Winston Churchill without attribution until it was all over. Then he made a complete and frank confession. Mr. King was always frank.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He revealed his source and nobody took exception to that.
I remember an occasion, when I was on the other side of the house, when I took up a sheet of paper to read column after column because, as I said, I wanted to be quite sure that my views on that occasion were put accurately. During the course of that reading Mr. Donald Fleming, who was sitting here,
14464	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment interrupted me to say: "Nonsense. The hon. member is talking nonsense." Then I revealed that I had been quoting from something Mr. Donald Fleming has said three or four years before. Nobody said that was contrary to the rules. I suggest, in the spirit of the debates in this house, the hon. member for Port Arthur is following hallowed traditions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are talking about parliamentary speeches.


Gerald William Baldwin: What the Minister of Transport said may be true, but I would think that the article the hon. member for Port Arthur is quoting from does comment on proceedings which took place in a committee of this house, and as such the hon. member clearly infringed the rules. A committee of the house is part of the house. Citation 157 (5) of Beauchesne's fourth edition says this:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the House and referring-
I emphasize "referring":
-to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
When the hon. member quotes from a newspaper article which refers to proceedings in a committee of the house and the hon. member seeks to use that in debate, I submit he clearly infringes this very definite rule.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I think the committee has spent sufficient time on the point of order. I shall refer to the ruling made in the first instance. There is nothing wrong with a member's using an article from a newspaper to support an argument he is making. Perhaps this is a good time to suggest that the hon. member for Port Arthur be allowed to proceed with his remarks.


Robert Knight Andras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I started by saying that one of the things that shocked me during the deliberations of the committee on national defence was the superficial reporting undertaken by the press. In quoting, as I said quite frankly at the beginning, at great length from the article by Mr. Westell, I was illustrating the difference between superficial and good reporting. Almost everything that Mr. Westell has said is pertinent to this matter, and will add weight to the deliberations of the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us have some quotations from the superficial reports.


Robert Knight Andras: I am sure we will have those later from the other side of the house.

DEBATES	April 3, 1967
For example, General Moncel said this:
In the light of the commitments that are undertaken and which indeed are spelled for us in the White Paper, a unified force has no place. Now if you want to change the commitment to a commitment-I could write one for you if you want- which would call for a unified force, then unification per se is obviously a good thing-
Mr. Westell went on to say that this was the position which the New Democratic Party took from the beginning of the hearings, and it is the position from which they emerged at the end.


Mr. Nasserden:: On a point of order, the hon. member who has the floor is deliberately breaking one of the rules of the house found in paragraph 6 of citation 157 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. In part that says the following:
The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the House, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others ... Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order.
It is clear that the hon. member is contravening the rules of this house.


An hon. Member:: Why not table the newspaper?


Robert Knight Andras: This was the position which the New Democratic Party took-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I have already stated to the committee and to the hon. member the view the Chair takes with respect to the reading at length from a newspaper article. I invite the hon. member for Port Arthur to now proceed to his own remarks on clause 2 of Bill C-243.


Michael Starr: He should resume his seat. He has no ideas of his own.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Robert Knight Andras: One of the difficulties is that there is so much of this article with which I thoroughly agree that I would most certainly have not strayed far from it had I used it as a basis for my remarks. If I may, I will continue to quote extracts and quote from the committee reports which are pertinent to the point I was making. One of them is the contradictions in the evidence given by many of the retired officers who appeared before us. On this question of commitments, which the New Democratic Party found to be of such
April 3, 1967

great importance to them during the committee deliberations, the article says:
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Commitments to NATO are not immutable and are, even now, in the process of changing. And there is no clear line to be drawn between forces committed to NATO and those designated for peacekeeping, or restoring peace where limited war has broken out. Finally, there is no agreement among the critics of unification that a unified force would not be useful to NATO.
As Air Chief Marshal Miller said: "I do not think there is any unanimity as to whether a unified force was a good contribution to NATO.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can the hon. member give us a page reference? On a point of order, the hon. member said he intended to give quotations from the evidence. Will he not give the page reference so that we can follow what he is reading in the evidence and see whether his statements are accurate?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think I have time to do the detailed homework for the hon. gentleman.
The air chief marshal was saying he did not think there was any unanimity as to whether a unified force was a good contribution to NATO. Asked if a peace keeping force was compatible with commitment to NATO


An hon. Member:: Who asked that question?


Robert Knight Andras: Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
"Yes, exactly. It can be made up from elements of forces we need for NATO ... I do not see that unification will add or subtract from our ability in any way in this."
The committee spent a lot of its time arguing about commitments, but the picture never did emerge very clearly. Admiral Landymore, for one, was convinced that unification implied a secret intention by Mr. Hellyer to withdraw from international alliances. Mr. Hellyer insisted that the policy remains exactly as stated in the White Paper of 1964-to maintain existing commitments and, in addition, to build up capability for peacekeeping.
The article says, on this point:
Asked whether Canada had intimated to its allies its intention to vary the commitment of the air division, (in Europe) Mr. Hellyer replied: "The modest reduction that is taking place this year has already been agreed. In so far as the future is concerned, we will have to indicate this to NATO, if my memory serves me correctly, in December of this year .. . We are not required to reveal our intention or to discuss our future plans and commitments except at that time... I think that during the course of the year, we will have to decide what to do for the following five-year period ..."
Considerations of foreign policy, obviously enough, influence Mr. Hellyer's position. While the defence committee was meeting, External
National Defence Act Amendment
Affairs Minister Paul Martin told the Senate foreign affairs committee that Canada cannot unilaterally withdraw forces from NATO without seriously endangering the stability of the alliance. But Mr. Martin did not rule out a change in the military commitment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order. The hon. member who now has the floor is deliberately and flagrantly disobeying your instruction and your ruling. He is continuing to read word for word from this newspaper article during the last two or three minutes, in spite of the fact that you have warned him he was not to do so. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to see that your ruling is observed.


Robert Knight Andras: I should like to continue to make my point as to the contrast between the evidence given by the various witnesses, and if in doing so my remarks coincide very closely with this newspaper article in the Globe and Mail of April 3, it is a close coincidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Knight Andras: I continue to paraphrase the article.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is the hon. member reading or not reading excerpts from the article by Mr. Westell in the Globe and Mail?


Robert Knight Andras: I am attempting to paraphrase it, Mr. Chairman, and to use quotations from the deliberations of the committee in establishing the contrast between the evidence given by the various witnesses.
The Secretary of State pointed out that air portable forces stationed in Canada are already committed to the defence of NATO's northern flank in Norway. Since he spoke, another mobile force in Canada has been committed to the NATO southern flank in time of war. It appears clear from all the evidence, but is nowhere officially stated, that the Canadian intention is to allow the R.C.A.F. nuclear attack force to run down until it passes out of existence in the 70's, but to replace it as a contribution to NATO with mobile ground forces carried by new transport aircraft supported by the new CF-5 ground attack naval plane, and backed by naval transport. This would be a unified force committed to NATO. It would also be the peace keeping or peace restoring force able to operate under UN command.
As several witnesses made clear, the double commitment of this force rests on the calculated gamble that Canada will not be asked to undertake peace keeping missions at the same time as it is called upon by NATO for
14466	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion action in Europe. The argument appears to be that if a major war breaks out in Europe, no one will worry about keeping the peace elsewhere; second, that as major war is unlikely as long as NATO keeps up its guard, Canadian forces may as well be usefully employed on peace missions.
There is thus no clear line to be drawn between commitment to NATO and peacekeeping. The roles overlap, and the assumption of peace keeping responsibility does not necessarily involve withdrawing from NATO, or even a significant weakening of Canada's military contribution. The commitment argument, therefore, is not decisive, or even very enlightening, in resolving the dispute over unification.


Michael Starr: You have lost your authority, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I will have to ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and, in the time which remains to him, to proceed with his own remarks on clause 2.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to establish that one of the important factors in the deliberations of the defence committee or, for that matter, in any other committee of the house is a dependence upon the formation of public opinion by objective, hard working reporting in depth. I think the article from which I have been quoting reflects these qualities. Since I am prevented from quoting it completely I commend it to every member of this house, particularly to those who did not have the opportunity to sit on the defence committee. It is an admirable condensation and an excellent summary of the issue before us.
I believe the press has a responsibility to report fully and objectively. It is possible that the debate upon which we are now engaged will be prolonged and impassioned, and in order that the public may judge the issue on its merits I hope the standard of reporting matches that from which I have just quoted. If so, it will have done a great service to the public. This article contains, in my opinion, a very rational approach to the subject before us. It weighs the issues rather than the personalities and I believe we in the house for the balance of this debate might well adopt the objective thinking embodied in this article by Mr. Westell.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.

DEBATES	April 3, 1967
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on March 17 last, as recorded at page 14117 of Hansard, I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to transport a question to the Minister of Transport which is of national significance .. . Has the minister received a resolution approved by the annual meeting of the Kootenay-Boundary Chambers of Commerce calling for the restoration of passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway from Vancouver to Medicine Hat? If so, what consideration has been given to these representations which are supported by 150,000 people of all parties in British Columbia?
Whereupon Mr. Speaker said:
This question of national significance should be placed on the order paper.
I fully understand that Mr. Speaker could not be expected to appreciate fully that this matter was of urgent and great concern to these 150,000 people in southeastern British Columbia. It has been of great concern to many organizations and the people I have mentioned for over five years because of the possibility of loss of this service from 1962 on, -and in that connection I hope I keep in line with the rules, even though I wish to quote from a press release by a man known as H. W. Herridge, parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party and member for Kootenay West. This is the press release:



THE ABANDONMENT OF RAILWAY SERVICES MUST STOP

[Stage Direction]
The government of Canada gave the Canadian Pacific Railway millions of acres of land and billions of dollars worth of natural resources in exchange for the building of a railroad. It seems that the C.P.R. has now forgotten all about these fabulous grants it received for providing services to the public. The C.P.R. continues to enjoy and profit from full possession of land and resources granted long ago but insists that all present services must be directly related to present profits derived from these services. Hardly a week goes by without the C.P.R. doing its best to fire an agent, discontinue passenger service or abandon a branch line.
Will this practice be carried on until the C.P.R. tries to abandon the transcontinental railway line while remaining in full possession of the right of way?
April 3, 1967
[Stage Direction]
The C.P.R.'s current proposal to abandon passenger service on the Kettle Valley Railway will be vehemently opposed. It is bad enough already that the C.P.R., which is the majority stockholder In the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, should operate the Kettle Valley line basically for the convenience of its subsidiary. It will be far worse if the interests of the people of the Kootenays be ignored entirely. Should railway passenger service be abandoned, people will no longer be able to reach several areas. Alternative modes of passenger transportation just do not exist.
The Board of Transport Commissioners should refuse to authorize any further removal of agents, curtailment of services or abandonment of branch lines until a complete and co-ordinated national transportation policy has been worked out.
This, and this alone, can ensure efficiency for the railways, justice for their workers, convenience for our people, and progress for our communities.
I might say that later on all the municipalities between Lethbridge and Penticton protested the abandonment of this passenger service, all the chambers of commerce, all the unions in the area, the Canadian Legion branches, women's institutes, in fact everybody who could be mobilized to organize the protest before the Board of Transport Commissioners when it held hearings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, quite recently this matter arose again as the result of my bringing the question to the attention of the Minister of Transort during the debate on the transportation bill, and I received a letter from Mr. Guy Constable, of Creston, a very prominent Liberal in Kootenay East, who thoroughly endorsed my efforts. At the KootenayBoundary Chambers of Commerce meeting on March 10 he presented the following resolution:
Whereas passenger train service on what is known as Crowsnest-Kettle Valley Railway was discontinued in 1964 by reason of the ruling of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada under section 314(1) of the Railway Act, It having been represented by the Canadian Pacific Railway that the train service was uneconomic, and
Whereas under Bill No. C-231 passed by parliament January 24th 1967 being legislation to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada and to amend the Railway Act it is declared in clause No. 1 that an economic and efficient transportation service is essential to the well-being and growth of Canada, and
Whereas by the discontinuance of passenger train service as aforementioned 150,000 people in southeastern British Columbia are deprived of service over this railway which runs from Vancouver to Medicine Hat, and alternative means of transportation are inadequate and unreliable and hazardous, especially during the winter months, and
Whereas the railway company has failed to develop and promote passenger train service, has been subsidized by grants of varying nature and by accounting methods separating freight and passenger receipts has represented to the Board of
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Transport Commissioners that passenger service is operated at a loss.
Now therefore be it resolved that representations be made to the Minister of Transport requiring the Canadian Pacific Railway to re-establish daily passenger train service between Vancouver and Medicine Hat via Crowsnest-Kettle Valley Railway with day coach and cafe sleeper car service, or in the alternative that the Canadian National Railways be granted running rights over this rail route.
This was the subject of a very interesting discussion at the annual meeting of the Kootenay-Boundary Chambers of Commerce. Later on I find the following in the Trail Times of March 10 ,1967:
Unanimous approval was given Monday to a resolution calling for restoration of the Dayliner service from Vancouver to Medicine Hat, Alta.
The resolution was the first approved at the annual meeting of Kootenay-Boundary Chambers of Commerce.
I am quoting briefly from this newspaper report.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Constable said he had been in contact with Kootenay West M.P. Bert Herridge who had encouraged reinstatement of the service.
Mr. Herridge quoted the Minister of Transport as saying, "It is a very interesting suggestion and well worth consideration by the organizations concerned."
I could go on at great length about this, but I do urge the minister to give consideration to the wishes of the people in this area, and to a reconsideration of the Board of Transport Commissioners ruling which denied passenger service since 1964, so that we will be able to enjoy the passenger service which the people in this area are looking forward to in the future.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in replying on this subject I regret that I have to substitute for my parliamentary secretary, because this subject is one which would be a little closer to him geographically than it is to me. I do not regret, however, that I do not have the despotic powers which I am sure the hon. member really does not believe I have, but which he suggests I might have-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the cabinet not have the power?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway or even the Canadian National Railways to institute a passenger service. I think the hon. gentleman has used this forum, as is very proper, to voice a grievance of his constituents. I will be glad to draw a
14468	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion copy of Hansard with these interesting newspaper quotations from several other important sources as well as himself to the attention of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I will also draw them to the attention of the Board of Transport Commissioners and in both cases suggest that they give them the kind of serious consideration the hon. gentleman requests.



IMMIGRATION-REPORTED DISCRIMINATION IN ADMISSION OF IMMIGRANTS FROM POLAND

Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) regarding a Polish applicant who wishes to remain in Canada, having arrived here on a visitor's visa. At that time Mr. Speaker ruled that the question should be discussed at another time. I presume he meant on the adjournment debate as it is called. The adjournment debate allows but seven minutes discussion on the part of the person asking the question and three minutes of reply on behalf of the cabinet.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I am raising this question in respect of an individual by the name of Joseph Gruszka. I knew that if I were to ask a member of the cabinet to explain the phrase "non-discriminatory selection policy" which appears in the white paper on Canadian immigration policy 1966 at page 38 no one would be able to explain the three words "non-discriminatory selection policy" since "non-discriminatory" cancels out "selection" and "selection" cancels out "non-discriminatory. :So a policy of non-discriminatory selection when boiled down means no policy at all. I do not mind there being an immigration policy, for this country, but I do object to people referring to it in praiseworthy terms when it does not justify the adjectives applied to it. We have discrimination in this proposed immigration policy just as we had in the past. In view of that fact, it is beyond my comprehension why we should be given a white paper that says there is no discrimination.
We in this country have been wringing our hands in sorrow because of the statement we have a brain drain to other countries throughout the world. I have said on more than one occasion I do not believe the brain drain is operating against Canada, because we are attracting more brains to Canada than are leaving because of the attractions of other *countries.

DEBATES	April 3, 1967
In the case of Joseph Gruszka we are picking the brains of Poland and evidently telling Poland that having picked its brains we do not want the children of the sixth member of the family although we have accepted five members of that family already. Let me advise the house that there is a family by the name of Kawa living right across the street from me in the city of Toronto. There are five members of this family, two brothers and three sisters. Three of them are Canadian citizens, the other two not having lived in Canada long enough to qualify for Canadian citizenship. I understand they intend to apply the moment they have met residence requirements.
A sixth member of the Kawa family remained in Poland. Unfortunately he passed away in Poland, leaving a married daughter, the wife of Joseph Gruszka. He came to Canada last fall to visit his five uncles and aunts, whom we gladly accepted into this country. We show our non-discriminatory selection process by selecting these five members of the Kawa family to live in this country but when the son-in-law of the sixth member of that family, the man who died in Poland, endeavours to join his five uncles and aunts, he is told to get out of the country, and get out fast.
Not only was Mr. Gruszka instructed by the immigration office in Toronto to leave Canada, but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) wrote a letter dated February 28 stating that Mr. Gruszka does not meet our requirements. It is very odd to me that five members of the Kawa family, now living in Toronto, met the immigration requirements, yet this sixth member is told that he cannot meet the requirements. We certainly picked the brains of Poland to the benefit of Canada in this regard and I hope we will stop wringing our hands about the unfair treatment we are receiving as a result of people from Canada emigrating to other countries. We are going out of our way to encourage the best people from other lands to come to Canada. Why do we say to the children of the sixth member of this Kawa family that they are not fit to be with us?
The recent white paper on immigration was flashed before the Liberal party by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and we were supposed to cheer and support it in every way. Apparently these white papers come down from heaven. This white paper includes several references to restrictions, selections, and non-discrimination. However, in
April 3, 1967	COMMONS
the letter dated February 28 from the minister to myself he states in the first page:
If nothing were done, the whole process of preselection of suitable and desirable immigrants would be disrupted.
How can we have pre-selection with nondiscrimination as stated at page 38 of the white paper on immigration, which I have in my hand? Rather than ordering these people out of the country and stating that we have no discrimination, let us be fair and say that if the five uncles and aunts are acceptable, the children of the sixth member of the family are equally acceptable. I outlined in another place the kind of people who live on the street where I live. I have a vice president of an insurance company living alongside of me. We also have living on our street the general manager and vice president of a Canadian branch of an American concern. Next to him lives the owner of one of the biggest tea houses in Canada. Next to him lives a Canadian who owns two or three hotels and next to him lives the widow of the president of one of the great express companies of Canada, and next door lives a doctor. Right across the road from us live these Kawa immigrants.
Does that look as though Mr. Kawa could not look after his nephew, aged 28, who is over here; because if he can afford to move into the territory I have just named, he must be doing all right in this country of his adoption. This white paper talks about the fine people that we are bringing into Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, of course when the white paper claims that these non-discriminatory selection criteria are used it is in effect stating that the selection criteria being used will be the same with respect to proposed immigrants from all countries. There have been selection criteria based on part 31 of the regulations which have favoured one country over another in bringing immigrants into this country, as the hon. member well knows. It is the hope under the white paper that this type of discrimination in the application of selection criteria will be removed; that is why the term "non-discriminatory selection criteria" is used in the white paper.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The term is contradictory.


John Carr Munro: It is not contradictory, if the hon. member would just listen to the explanation. It is based on the determination of the white paper to remove discrimination as between different countries, which has not been the situation heretofore.
Getting back to the question of Mr. Gruszka, he came to Canada as a visitor. I would advise the hon. member that my information is that his relatives indicated an interest in bringing him here as a visitor. He came here as a visitor, he was admitted in good faith as a visitor last November, and his wife and children are still in Poland. He then made application for landing, to stay here permanently, and it was refused. The minister has received representations, no doubt including those of the hon. member, and is giving consideration to them at the present time.



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

Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I had occasion to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) whether the government had changed their attitude in respect of the policy of the development of Fortress Louisbourg. First of all I wish to convey my thanks to the minister for making himself available at this late hour, taking upon himself the responsibility of dealing with this matter and not delegating it to an assistant. I have chosen to make my representation at this time mainly because in order to have arrived at what might have been considered a satisfactory or more detailed answer would have required a number of supplementary questions being asked in the house this afternoon, and that of course would not have been too desirable at that time.
With respect to the development of Fortress Louisbourg, I need not impress upon the minister, because he is well aware of it, that this is a very worth while and necessary project in Cape Breton at this time because of the very acute unemployment situation there. It would probably be well to review some of the developments in respect of this project. Again, I am only repeating something about which the minister is probably well aware. Some time ago there was an intended lay-off at Louisbourg, and when this was brought to the minister's attention he was 'kind enough to make arrangements which meant that the lay-off did not take place.
14470	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Last November, I think it was, a similar lay-off was proposed. At that time an indication, whether official or not, was given that no money was available under the winter works program. Therefore this lay-off was the result. We made representations to the minister which clearly indicated that the only change in the financing of the winter works program was the doing away with the $500 winter home building bonus. This was admitted by the minister of manpower and the Minister of Labour. This fact having been brought to the attention of the minister the proposed lay-off last November was cancelled.
The answer that I received to my question this afternoon was this. I asked whether there had been any change in attitude toward this development-I do not know whether I am using the exact wording but the import of the question was the same-and the minister replied that he was not aware of any policy change in respect of the development of Fortress Louisbourg. If there had been a policy change the minister, of course, would be the first to know, in that this project comes under his administration. I accept the answer he gave this afternoon, even with the rider "not that I am aware of".
In case I am wrong, I should now like to impress upon the minister the great need for this government to do whatever it can to maintain the present employment situation in Cape Breton. I should not ask the government to maintain it as it is; I mean at least to keep it from sliding further back. To maintain it would hardly be the appropriate phrase to use, because I should like to see the government make an effort very much to improve the situation.
An opportunity to improve the employment situation there is very much presented by this development. The minister is well aware of what it means to the tourist trade in the area, and I impress upon the minister the need to consider the welfare of the people who have been working there, some of whom were laid off the past Friday, after having worked the project four to five years.
If there has been no change in the government's plans for this development, I see no reason why men who have been employed on this project for this length of time should now be given notice that their jobs are no longer available and that their service is no longer required. I would once again ask the minister to review this situation. If he is able to take the same action that he took on two previous
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
DEBATES	April 3, 1967
occasions when lay-offs were proposed, I would thank him very much for it. I am also sure there would be expressions of appreciation from all the people involved in the layoff, which I understand affects more than 40 workers. I would ask the minister to give every consideration to maintaining their status on the Louisbourg project.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has dealt with this matter of the building of the Louisbourg Fortress. I think it is important that we go into a little bit of history.
This project was advised a number of years ago by the Rand commission which investigated the coal situation on the island at that time. They suggested that the surplus labour there should be used on something constructive, and it was suggested that we should rebuild old Fortress Louisbourg. It was thought at that time that we should probably expend as much as $12 million to make it a gigantic tourist attraction, which I think it will become. So far we have expended about $5.5 million.
The hon. member asked whether there have been any changes. There have been changes since I took over the department. When I came to my department I found that those men were being paid $1.09 an hour, and I said that in my view a man could not be employed in these days at $1.09 an hour and produce anything. Since that time we have increased the wages by more than 50 per cent, and today I think we are getting more work out of these men.
However, I have the responsibility of creating something there. I do not want people digging around the place interminably, for a generation. We want to raise something above the ground which will be an attraction to people. The building that has been completed is a very fine one. We have for two or three years been keeping men throughout the wintertime, endeavouring to work outside in a climate which I am sure my hon. friend will admit is not one which men would ordinarily encounter. This last year, in response to representations made by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), we once again took on 44 men. This was not an official winter works program, but it was a works program within our own department to keep these men occupied during the wintertime.
April 3, 1967	COMMONS
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that a number of these men would have been drawing social assistance if they were not going to work. Weather conditions there are such in the wintertime that not a great deal of work can be done. We have exhausted the money. We exhausted it on March 31, and we have laid off the 44 men. They have been told that when we get to work again in the summertime,-and it is the summertime when we can get the greatest return from the men, because it is easier to work then-they will be taken on again as rapidly as possible. These 44 men will be given first call, except the odd one to
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
whom we have indicated we are not going to be bound to take back.
There are a few of them we do not want back because we want work done there. We will be taking them back as soon as we can, probably in the month of May. The work is progressing fairly well. We are keeping relatively within our costs, but I want to have something produced. When completed, this will be an attraction for visitors, but until it is completed it is not going to be an attraction for visitors.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
14472

April 3, 1967



APPENDIX


Mr. Irvine: 1.	What is the present attitude of the government concerning the export of Canada's water resources to the United States?
2.	Does Canada have a defined program for the assessment of present and potential water resources and, if so, what is that program in detail?
3.	Has the government conducted studies to determine Canada's future water needs and the possibility of exportation of water to the United States and, if so (a) when and by whom (b) what were the terms of reference?
4.	Has the government received from the government of the United States any invitation to discuss generally the long-term question of water export?
5.	Does the government recognize a federal responsibility for conservation of water resources, and is there a national plan of conservation (conservation including control systems and pollution abatement measures)?
6.	Is the government holding, or has it held conferences with provincial governments in connection with water resources and, if so (a) when (b) what were the results of such conferences?
7.	What is the mechanism for acting upon recommendations of the international joint commission that apply to Canadian or partly Canadian water resources?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and External Affairs as follows:
1.	The present attitude of the government with respect to water export was discussed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the House of Commons June 28, 1966 (Hansard, page 6997). In brief he pointed out that the question has not arisen in any concrete form, because there is at present no buyer and no seller. For our internal water management needs and to obtain knowledge which may be used to advise on export questions which may arise in the future, the government of Canada has undertaken and is undertaking, directly and in co-operation with the provinces, a large number of programs designed to increase knowledge of the water resources of Canada and to determine alternative means of developing these resources to meet present and future requirements for all purposes in the different basins and regions of Canada. The government proposes to strengthen and accelerate these programs as rapidly as resources permit and necessary arrangements with the provinces concerned can be made.
As a result of existing survey, mapping, resource inventory, planning and research programs, there is now a considerable body of
information concerning the quantity, quality and potential for development of water resources in various river basins in Canada. Coverage is not adequate in many areas, however, and a systematic and rapid extension of resource inventory, comprehensive basin planning, water quality surveys, research and other programs is underway or proposed.
Information respecting existing water uses and future requirements for all purposes in the different basins and regions of Canada is, at present, quite inadequate for purposes of planning and policy formulation. This information is available for those basins in which joint federal-provincial planning studies have been undertaken and in certain other areas. Programs to develop a national inventory of water uses, to assess future water requirements, and, more generally, to study the growing economic implications of water development must be significantly and rapidly increased in co-operation with the provinces. Programs in these and related fields are under active consideration by government officials and discussions are being initiated with the provinces.
Investigation and studies undertaken through the above and other programs should enable the government of Canada and the provinces to determine the probable future requirements for water in the different basins and regions of Canada; the available supply of water to meet these requirements; and alternative plans and programs for development. These investigations will also indicate whether there is, or may be a surplus in any region available for export. The governments of Canada and of the provinces concerned will require this and other information to establish jointly a position on export if and when the government of the United States indicates that it might wish to consider the possible importation of water from Canada. This work is being undertaken by the newly established Water Sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, in co-operation with the provinces.
2.	Canada has a large program for the assessment of present and potential water resources. This program concerns measurement and assessment of the quantity, distribution and quality of waters throughout the country.
(i)	Streamflow Measurement:	The first
streamflow measurement in Canada by the federal government was made in 1894. An
April 3. 1967

organized program was initiated in 1908, has grown in size since and is being considerably expanded at the present time.
Approximately 2,300 streamflow and water level gauging stations are now maintained in Canada to provide records of water level and flow of many of the nation's lakes and rivers. Of this total some 2,000 are maintained by the federal government and 300 by the province of Quebec, which operates its own survey for this purpose.
The federal government plans to instal 200 additional gauging stations during fiscal year 1967-68 to increase its network coverage.
The capital cost of establishing gauging stations specifically requested by a province is shared by that province. The provinces also contribute to the operating costs of these stations. The federal government pays all of the costs for those stations it requires, and maintains the necessary national organization to implement the survey program. Other cooperating agencies share in the costs of the stations they request.
Surveys of suspended sediment are made of many rivers under observation that carry a significant concentration of solids and where the solids are likely to create problems in water management and use.
(ii)	Chemical Water Quality Network: A chemical water quality network is being established by the federal government throughout the country with provincial co-operation, and is expected to increase to about 250 stations during 1967. Chemical quality studies lead to assessment of the hardness, physical characteristics, colour, potability and methods of treatment for municipal and industrial use. During the past 20 years reconnaissance assessments have been made of the chemical water quality of many of Canada's river drainage basins. This program is now being intensified and extended.
(iii)	Groundwater: Studies of groundwater resources are being expanded through establishing a national observation well network in co-operation with the provinces. Assessment of the reserve in aquifers, the replen'shment or recharge of groundwater, the potential yield rates and an understanding of hydrogeological features are all included in this program.
(iv)	Glaciology: A glaciological program includes the measurement of mass balance, that is the increase or decrease of the reserves of glacial ice due to climatic variation. Five glaciers in British Columbia and Alberta, selected as indicative of various climatic conditions,
are under critical observation during the ten year period 1965-1974. Glaciers are a significant source of supply of water to certain-streams in the Western mountain region.
In addition to these largely federal programs considerable information on water resources is gathered continually by provinces.
3.	(a) See answer to Question 1 above re studies respecting export.
(b) No comprehensive nationwide studies have been conducted on Canada's future water needs. The government of Canada directly, and in co-operation with the provinces has conducted a number of studies which have included some assessment of future water requirements within certain river basins, these included-the Fraser river study, the Columbia river studies, the Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba study, and the Ottawa river engineering board study. Reports on these have been tabled in the House.
Other studies of smaller basins have been made on behalf of the International Joint Commission.
Some of the provinces maintain a continuing inventory of water use through the application of water licensing procedures, but an inventory for all Canada has not been maintained. The federal and Ontario governments, through a co-operative arrangement, are conducting studies of northern Ontario waters. One phase of these studies relates to present and possible future uses of these waters. The water resources branch publishes annually "Electric Power in Canada'' which contains an inventory of developed and known hydro power sites in Canada.
In addition the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is initiating discussions with provinces on the most efficient methods of conducting a comprehensive Canada water inventory of present use and future needs. An inventory of existing uses will be required before adequate consideration could be given to the determination of Canada's future water needs.
4.	There has been no request by the government of the United States to the government of Canada to discuss the export of water from Canada to the United States.
The question of export has arisen at this time mainly because of private initiatives in the United States and Canada. The NAWA-PA, Grand Canal and other suggested schemes diverting water to the United States are all private engineering concepts based on the, as yet, unestablished assumptions: that there is an economic demand for Canadian water in

April 3, 1967
the United States; that Canada has a surplus, over and above its own future requirements, with which it might supply this demand, or a part of it; and that it would be in Canada's national interest to export water to the United States.
5.	The primary responsibility for the administration and conservation of water resources within provincial boundaries in Canada lies with the provinces. Nevertheless, the federal government recognizes responsibilities for conservation and planning because of the interprovincial and international character of many water courses, because of its constitutional responsibility for certain water uses and the strong national interest in the wise development and use of water resources.
Federal responsibility in conservation is recognized through legislation which permits federal-provincial participation in water dvel-opment studies and research and in the construction of water development projects. This legislation includes the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, and the Atlantic Development Board Act. The federal government has also provided numerous water conservation reservoirs in connection with its responsibility for navigation.
In addition, federal representatives participate in the activities of a large number of international and federal-provincial boards which have been appointed from time to time to investigate and plan the development of various rivers. The national policy which has evolved provides for federal participation with the provinces in investigations to inventory water resources, to identify development possibilities, and to study the feasibility of water conservation works which would form part of an over-all development program. Studies of this type have been undertaken by the federal-provincial Fraser river board, lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba board, Ottawa river engineering board, Saint John river board, and the co-ordinating committee on northern Ontario water resources studies. On international waters or waters which cross the international boundary, the federal government conducts national studies and provides data and personnel for the engineering studies of the International Joint Commission.
To stimulate pollution abatement, the federal government provides financial assistance through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to municipalities for sewage treatment facilities. This is supplemented in
the Atlantic provinces by the program of the Atlantic development board. In addition, the tax relief offered to industry for accelerated depreciation of pollution abatement works provides a positive stimulus for pollution control. A number of federal departments and agencies, including Energy, Mines and Resources, National Health and Welfare, Fisheries, conduct research on water quality and pollution. Their work is being quickly expanded under the co-ordination of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. That department is also building a major research centre at Burlington, Hamilton harbour, for research into pollution and other water problems, particularly in the Great Lakes.
Clearly, a national plan must be built of many component federal, provincial and regional plans and programs encompassing all water uses. Such plans in Canada can be evolved only through continuing joint programs of the federal and provincial governments. We are proposing extension of comprehensive water development studies and the implementation of resultant programs under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as rapidly as financial and manpower resources and federal-provincial agreement will permit.
6.	Yes. There have been a continual series of conferences with provinces to negotiate such joint programs as the Saskatchewan-Nelson basin study; the Nelson river power study; the Northern Ontario water study; the Bay of Funday tidal power study; the Atlantic provinces water resources study; and many others.
At practically all meetings of the Canadian council of resource ministers since 1962, water matters have been discussed. More recently in the last year, the Canadian council of resource ministers has discussed the pollution conference, the water for peace conference and the proposed seminar on water to be sponsored by the Canadian council of resource ministers. Of course, ARDA, PFRA and other federal agencies concerned with certain aspects of water matters also hold such meetings. However, no formal federal-provincial water conferences with all ministers, both federal and provincial concerned, have been held.
7.	Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the I.J.C. exercises both semi-judicial and advisory functions. In the former capacity the commission, under Articles 3 and 4 of the treaty, passes on applications affecting the
April 3. 1967

level or flow of boundary waters or waters flowing across the boundary. In the latter capacity the commission, under Article 9, examines and reports on questions arising along the common frontier referred to it from time to time by the governments of Canada and the U.S. The commission reports to the Canadian and the U.S. governments upon the facts and circumstances of any question so referred, together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate. The
Canadian government considers the commission's report and discusses it with the authorities who would be involved in implementation of the recommendations in Canada. After studying the commission's report and recommendations, the Canadian and U.S. governments consult to reach agreement as to the action which should be taken on the recommendations. If the Canadian government accepts the recommendations it assumes responsibility for the necessary implementing action to be taken in Canada.

Tuesday, April 4, 1967