1967-04-11

MADAME VANIER


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house, because I think it will be of interest to the house, that Madame Vanier is leaving Ottawa tomorrow to establish permanent residence in Montreal. I know I am speaking for all members when I say that during her years at Rideau Hall she won a place in the hearts of Canadians that was equalled only by that which had been gained by her distinguished husband our beloved Governor General. The words I have used to try to express our admiration, affection and respect for the late Governor General apply equally, I am sure, to Madame Vanier. She was one half of a perfect partnership in service to Canada.
The house may also be interested to know that this evening at 6 p.m. Madame Vanier is to be sworn in as a member of the Privy Council of Canada. She will be the first woman, apart from ministers of the crown, to occupy that honourable place.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the Prime Minister concerning the elevation of Madame Vanier to the Privy Council is something for which there will be general support. It is unusual, but it is entirely justified. Her grace, her charm, and above all the fact that she never lost sight of the people as a whole, or in other words her lack of stuffiness, gave to Rideau Hall a distinction by which the term of office of her late husband will always be remembered.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is significant that when members in all parts of this house and editorial writers across Canada were commenting on the passing of the late Governor General, almost without exception reference was made to the splendid contribution Madame Vanier had made during the years she and her husband had occupied Rideau Hall. I think therefore it is most fitting that this house should 23033-933J
pause in its deliberations to pay tribute to a very charming lady who brought to her position not only friendliness and kindliness, but also an intellectual capacity that enabled her to play an important role in the public life of Canada.
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated for having paid tribute to Madame Vanier by appointing her to the Privy Council. I am sure this gesture will be approved by Canadians in every walk of life. We think this honour well deserved and well earned. We wish Madame Vanier a long life, and we hope the gratitude of the Canadian people will always be for her an endearing memory.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for appointing Madame Georges Vanier to the Privy Council. This is welcome news. In addition to bringing to its meetings her usual charm which parliament and all Canadians have come to know, I am sure that Madame Vanier will make a worthy contribution to the Privy Council. I feel that the Canadian people as a whole will be happy to hear about that appointment which will give even more weight to the Privy Council of Canada.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to associate ourselves with the words of appreciation to Madame Vanier for the splendid contribution she has made to Canada, and to join in the expression of best wishes as she leaves to establish residence in Montreal.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) wants to return to the item "Presenting Reports"?


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Your Honour please. I was somewhat tardy in rising in my place when the order was called, and I apologize to the house.

Apiil 11, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
I have the honour to present the fifteenth report of the standing committee on transport and communications in English and in French, and with the consent of the house I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, if the house gives its consent I move:
That the fifteenth report of the standing committee on transport and communications presented this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with regret I have to call the attention of the house to the passing an hour or so ago in Montreal of the recently elected prime minister of Jamaica. Sir Donald Sangster had been ill for some weeks in Montreal, and in spite of all the efforts of a great Canadian medical institution they were unable to save the life of this fine and noble man. He had served his country over the years with great distinction and devotion. He was the servant not only of Jamaica but of the commonwealth. My own feeling of regret is increased by the knowledge that I have lost one who was a good, personal friend.
I am sure the house will join me in expressing sympathy to the relatives of Sir Donald Sangster and to the people of Jamaica in the loss of their distinguished prime minister.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the enunciation regarding Canadian citizenship made by the Secretary of State last evening in the city of Montreal represents government policy. She is reported to have said:
Citizenship, she said, should not be a status automatically accorded anyone bom in Canada but should be obtainable only by a process of application, swearing in and the issuing of a citizenship certificate.
I ask the Prime Minister whether such a retrograde step is in the contemplation of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State to find out if in fact she used the words attributed to her in that report.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and draw to his attention a report concerning a Canadian hospital showing that a number of abortions have been performed to protect the physical and mental health of the mothers involved. Considering there is reason to believe that such actions are contrary to the Criminal Code, I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government, as announced previously, to bring in legislation fairly soon clarifying the Criminal Code in this respect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already said to the house that consideration is being given to the introduction at as early a date as possible of legislation dealing with matters of this kind, including that matter referred to by my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that matters of this kind are becoming acute problems which may lead to legal difficulties, can the Prime Minister not give us any assurance that such legislation will very likely be introduced before July 1?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of what is happening in the House of Commons at present with regard to progress of legislation on the order paper, I cannot give that assurance, but I should like to think that it can be done before July 1.


Mr. Knowles:: It could be introduced. [Translation]



EXPO '67 PROVISION FOR ATTENDANCE OF PEOPLE ON LOW INCOMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Is he seeking a formula to enable the destitute to visit the 1967 World Fair?
April 11, 1967


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better speak to the hon. member about this question; I am not quite sure what he has in mind.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Registrar General. Can the minister tell the house when he will introduce the proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Act dealing with fraudulent bankruptcies?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the three man committee charged with the study of the revision of that act to accelerate that study. I hope to have a report from them some time toward the end of the year. It is a very complicated subject. In the meantime we shall continue to improve and strengthen the enforcement and administration of the Bankruptcy Act.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister is aware, I suppose, of the reaction of Canadian farmers who find the dairy policy for 1967 clearly inadequate.
As milk producers are faced with financial problems, could the minister inform us whether on March 21 when he met the representatives of the farmers of the province of Quebec, he should not have been accompanied by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) instead of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand)?


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


Roland Godin: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether consideration is being given to initiating a study of grain handling and transportation problems, with a view to improving the methods being used?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, transportation does not come within the ambit of my department. The question of handling comes in some instances under my department and in others under the Department of Trade and Commerce. The whole matter is continuously under review. Considerable improvements were made during the past year, particularly in the port of Vancouver, and the government will continue to take all possible steps to improve the situation.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE INQUIRY AS TO ACTION PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the other day I inquired of the Prime Minister whether he had replied to Mr. Justice Landreville's request for an opportunity to appear before the house. Second, I asked the Prime Minister whether the government intends to introduce a motion for the impeachment of Mr. Justice Landreville during the present session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The procedure to be adopted in respect to this matter, including the request of Mr. Justice Landreville to be heard before the bar of the house, is still under consideration. As soon as a decision is reached as to the best procedure to be followed I will be glad to make an announcement to the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the rumour that Mr. Justice Landreville was discriminated against because he is a French Canadian, is the Prime Minister considering the possibility of giving him an opportunity, not only as a French

April 11. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian but simply as a Canadian, to defend himself before the highest authority in the country, the federal parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating substantially the same question as that put by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the large number of complaints which I am sure all members of this house have been receiving from the farmers of Canada concerning the inconvenience, the added bookkeeping and the red tape that is necessary when hiring part time or transient help, has the minister conferred with his responsible colleagues in the cabinet to see what can be done to implement exemptions, thus making it easier for farmers to hire part time or transient help?


John James Greene: This question is under active consideration. I take it the hon. member is referring in particular to the requirement for the registration of transient workers for unemployment insurance. We are taking up this matter with the commission, and if procedures can be evolved which will be less burdensome to the farmers, we hope they can be put into operation by the commission.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have in mind the obligation imposed on farmers to secure, first of all, the social security numbers of those they hire, then to pay part of the Canada Pension Plan contributions and then the unemployment insurance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ARDA-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT RESPECTING MANITOBA INTERLAKE REGION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Siefanson (Selkirk):: I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Has the agreement for the comprehensive program to be undertaken under ARDA and FRED in the interlake area of Manitoba been signed by the federal and Manitoba governments? If it has not already

been signed, when will the signing of this agreement take place?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: It has not yet been signed, Mr. Speaker. I expect that some time in the month of May there will be a ceremony in the interlake area to mark the signature of this agreement by the two governments.



ACTION FOLLOWING REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. In October of 1966 a committee on election expenses made a report which contained a considerable number of suggestions for legislative changes. I think this matter was referred to the committee on privileges and elections, and the Prime Minister expressed his desire that legislation should be brought in before the next election.
My question is, would the Prime Minister discuss with the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections the urgency of having early hearings by the committee on this important subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to do this, Mr. Speaker. Of course we have lots of time before the next election to deal with it.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
TROIS-RIVrfcRES, QUE.-HOLIDAY ARRANGEMENTS TO PERMIT EXPO VISITS
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Has the minister received in the last few days requests from the Postal Workers' Union in the Trois-Rivieres area asking him to authorize that their holiday schedule be drawn up in such a way as to allow them to visit Expo '67 more regularly? If so, has his department reached a decision to that effect?


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


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, ten o'clock.
April 11, 19G7


Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase the question I asked a while ago and explain to you why I think it is urgent. For administrative reasons and for the purposes of the union an answer will have to be given to those unions within a few hours.
Therefore, I direct again my question to the hon. Postmaster General. Did he receive any requests concerning holiday schedules, with a view to encouraging visits to Expo by postal workers' unions in my area and did his department reach a decision to this effect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the urgency of the question, but I do not believe it is of national interest and, therefore, I hesitate to allow the hon. member to ask it. It might be easier to permit the minister to answer.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that following the representations forwarded to me by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, discussions took place between the director of the Quebec district, the Trois-Rivieres postmaster and the leaders of the union of postal employees in Trois-Rivieres and they finally came to an agreement, whereby four or five times during the summer months, extended week ends will be granted to the employees so that they may all visit Expo.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to answer a question which was put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) with regard to our winter works program.
The hon. member asked if our department intended to extend the deadline for that program.
My answer, unfortunately, must be no. The purpose of that program is to fight recurrent unemployment during a certain period of the year and if we extended it for one reason or another, the very purpose of the program would be altered.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Is it not the opinion of the hon. minister that forced unemployment is equivalent to real unemployment? And, under the circumstances, the area represented by the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Bonaventure is suffering from extraordinary unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is argumentative and not a proper question.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesi):: As a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister able to answer the question I asked him the other day?


Jean Marchand: If you consider this question in order, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to answer it.


Mr. J. Russell Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the answer given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, is the latter aware of the problems resulting from the hard winter experienced in the Gaspe peninsula this year? The people would be glad to perform such work until June 1.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the winter has been hard not only in the Gaspe peninsula but in several other areas of the country as well.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the Minister of Transport. Has the minister anything to report to the house about the disposition of the government elevator at Quebec city?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. Any announcement in this regard will be made by the Minister of Transport, if one is to be made.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a supplementary question, has the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development been informed of the wire from the Cooperative Federal de Quebec asking that a decision be delayed until they have been consulted?


John James Greene: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

April 11, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



RETRAINING OF WORKERS LAID OFF BECAUSE OF AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I wish to congratulate him on his elevation in the seating arrangement of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: I am sure he will now be more readily accessible to give advice to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the statement he recently made in the house that there were not sufficient facilities for the purpose of training laid off workers in the city of Oshawa, has the minister been in touch with the provincial government of Ontario and has he worked out an agreement whereby additional facilities will be provided?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his congratulations. We keep in permanent touch with the Ontario department of labour, but I do not have readily available a report on our discussions. There is no question of signing a new agreement with the Ontario department of labour or education, but I can inquire and give a more complete answer some other day.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenfeuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, but in her absence I should like to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Was the interview of a Cuban leader in Miami, Florida, on the national network last night, in which he warned people to keep away from Expo '67, the C.B.C.'s contribution to the success of Expo?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is not acceptable.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as it now seems evident that each Canadian taxpayer will have to pay an additional $5 to take care of Expo, will he consider charging an additional 5 cents per head to be used to 
pay the salaries of seal hunters, thereby eliminating this cruel practice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask the minister whether he would agree to appear before the standing committee on fisheries to give a report on his recent visit to the Soviet union if a suitable order could be arranged for the committee to meet at an early date for that purpose.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: This would be a decision for the consideration of the standing committee on fisheries after discussion probably with myself.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask the minister under what formula or process did the department arrive at the decision that retired Cape Breton miners were receiving pensions?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the method of dealing with pensions by private companies is a matter for those companies. We have not taken any particular action. The same policy is in effect now with regard to these pensions as that which has been in effect in respect of all the pension increases made up to the present time.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the minister misunderstood my first question. I asked him by what process or formula the department decided that the retired miners in Cape Breton were actually receiving pensions as such.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the department made any decision with regard to a determination that a particular class of income was considered as pension. If my hon. friend has any particular
April 11, 1967



cases in mind I would be glad to investigate them to ensure that the retired miners in Cape Breton are properly and fairly treated under the act which has been passed by parliament.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is it the
intention of the crown corporation, which is being set up, to protect the $75 a month the miners originally received from the company-not by way of a pension but, as I told the minister when his legislation was going through, by way of a gratuity and nothing else. He has sent out instructions in respect of the gratuity.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot anticipate what action will be taken by the crown corporation in this regard, but I do recall that I did address a communication to the president of the Dominion Coal Corporation requesting that consideration be given to this particular matter. I will review the correspondence again and advise my hon. friend about the situation.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he consider changing the dairy policy to extend the federal subsidy to excess milk produced by the fluid milk producers?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, all these questions were, of course, very carefully considered. With respect to the question of fluid milk producers who come under provincial quota it was deemed preferable, in order not to have mixed jurisdiction in this area, that jurisdiction over the manufacturing milk producers and the support of the manufacturing milk producers, which is clearly a federal responsibility in accord with the agreement reached with the provinces last year, be left with the federal department, and that jurisdiction over the fluid milk distributors, who are under provincial quota in all provinces or provincial authority, be left to the provinces on any question of product support.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware, as I am sure he is, that many of us are receiving telegrams to the effect that if some drastic action is not
Inquiries of the Ministry taken soon there will be considerable unemployment in the fluid milk industry.


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



BUTTER-CONSIDERATION OF RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In order to promote the consumption of butter rather than margarine, will the minister consider the possibility of restoring the subsidy on the consumption of butter?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not just sure what the hon. member has in mind. The policy was changed last year. Previously the subsidies were paid to the farmers by the creameries with the creameries being reimbursed. Since last year the subsidies have been paid to cream shippers or whole milk producers directly by the federal government. This policy has been retained this year on a higher base, having been increased from 85 cents to $1.21.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have a supplementary question. Perhaps I could also provide the minister with some information. There was a time when-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could provide this information during a private conversation with the minister. He should not do so at this time.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he indicate whether the highly lauded promise regarding a school milk program is about to be launched?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question can not be asked at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO BASIS FOR FLUID MILK SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether the decision to discontinue the federal subsidy on surplus fluid milk was taken on a unilateral basis, or in conjunction with submissions of
14766

April 11, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry farm and dairy organizations and provincial governments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.



POTATOES-REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN SURPLUS DIVERSION PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture regarding the serious situation still facing thousands of potato growers in eastern Canada. When will he be in a position to announce an improvement in the surplus diversion program which the legislatures of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have declared inadequate.


John James Greene: The question of a program for the province of Prince Edward Island, with which I am sure the hon. member is concerned, is not concerning the adequacy of the federal legislation but rather is a question of the preparation of a provincial program to make use of the federal legislation. I am pleased to instruct the hon. member that we are in touch with government members and officials of the province of Prince Edward Island, and I think have achieved a program which meets with their approval.



INQUIRY AS TO HEADQUARTERS OF LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, based on the announcement he made in this house yesterday. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether the location of the headquarters of this Canadian livestock feed agency has been determined yet as between Ottawa and Montreal.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The headquarters will be in Montreal.



ASSISTANCE TO GOLD MINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The minister said, not long ago, that if mine officials want to hire competent workers, they will have to increase the salaries paid to miners.
Now, in order to achieve this goal, would the minister favour higher subsidies to the gold mines in order to enable them to pay higher salaries to their employees?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to send a copy of my speech to the hon. member for Villeneuve. He will note that I did not speak of "salaries", but merely of living conditions.
With regard to the assistance to gold mines, the act will no longer apply by the end of the present year, and I am sure parliament will have to decide whether it should be extended.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the minister intend to suggest that the subsidies to gold mines be increased?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the policy will be announced in due course.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When will the minister be in a position to inform the house concerning the present government policy with regard to a trans-Canada power grid?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, Mr. Speaker, this policy has not changed. The Canadian government is interested in the construction and extension of that power grid. The hon. member knows very well that construction of hydroelectric facilities essentially comes under provincial jurisdiction. We endeavour, however, to protect the national interest in these matters.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On two or three occasions I have asked him when we might expect legislation which would amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the rates

April 11, 1967

of benefit under that act and also to raise the ceiling under which contributions are made. Can he say whether we are any closer to the introduction of this legislation than we were the last time I asked him?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, at the time this question was last asked I do not think reference was made to raising the ceiling. In this area, I would think that is something which would be done by order in council rather than by legislation. In respect of the other part of the question, good progress has been made in preparing the draft legislation to be laid before this house. The progress is encouraging. I stated in answer to the hon. member the last time or so that this question was put that I was doubtful whether it could be done during this particular session of the house, but that, if not, I hoped that it would be high on the priority list for the next session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this session has lasted longer than the minister anticipated, could this not now be brought before the house during this session?


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the price of milk is to go up by 2 cents per quart within a month, what plans has the Prime Minister or the government to protect the nutrition standards of individuals and families on low incomes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion the question as asked should not be posed on orders of the day.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact a change Will take place as of April 1 in respect of
23033-934J
Inquiries oj the Ministry trades training, would the minister issue ol have his officials issue a press release or a statement of some sort advising those, particularly in Nova Scotia, who desire trades training what steps they should take?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to publicize the new program so everyone will know those things to which they are entitled.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with housing. In view of the continuing and deepening housing crisis in Canada and the Prime Minister's reply to me last week to the effect that the government is considering new initiatives in an attempt to cope with this problem, has any decision been made and can the minister tell the house what the new initiatives will be?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my first impression in respect of the hon. member's question is that he is not very well informed. While admittedly there is a housing crisis, I wish to make it clear that it is not an increasing one. Marked progress -encouraging progress-has been made in the house building program of late, and I think it is reasonably safe for me to assure hon. members that this year we will have the largest spring housing start program in the history of Canada.


Reid Scott: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the houses which are being built under the National Housing Act are to a large degree totally beyond the competence of most Canadians to obtain-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he has to ask a question.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, we must be allowed some preface to our questions in order to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nature of the interruptions from across the way I will start again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have to start again, even though there may have been interruptions. I am sure

April 11. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister heard the prefacing remarks as well as I did.


Reid Scott: Your hearing is very-good, Mr. Speaker. I felt that because of all the interruptions from across the way the minister might not have heard the question. In view of what I have said, does the government intend to adopt any housing initiatives in order to take care of the 70 per cent or 75 per cent of Canadians who cannot afford to purchase homes under the N.H.A.?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly accept that premise and so cannot answer the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether his department's estimates show that the number of house completions this year will be fewer than last year?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, starts should be up by
20,000	or more.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar supplementary question relating to the question I directed last week to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the department consider bringing forward legislation or an amendment to the V.L.A. in order to allow veterans in the country to build on a city or town lot rather than a half acre, as is now required?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been considered on a number of occasions, but no decision has been made to change the act.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question. Since the minister's department has informed veterans across the country that a further change is contemplated, and in view of increasing pressures, does the minister consider that now is the time to make that change? I remind him that several changes have been made in the last few years.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to answer a question which includes such an erroneous premise.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has just indicated that I made an erroneous statement. I intend to support that statement later by a letter from the minister's own department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have already heard four or five supplementary questions. I suggest that we should go to another subject and return to this one in perhaps a few minutes.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the almost daily evidence that the recommendations of the Carter commission have created a climate of great doubt and uncertainty in the minds of those interested in the further development of our resource industry, can we expect a statement from the minister at an early date to give some reassurance to those engaged in this development?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on several occasions the government will make an extensive study of this report before it reaches any decision or makes any statements about its policies.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO PROBABLE DATE OF PRESENTATION On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can give the house and the country an indication of when we may expect the budget for 19671968.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have a date in mind but I do not know whether the progress in the house is such that it would be safe for me to make any prediction at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to introduce the budget during this session, or during the next session of parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope this session will end very soon. It is my expectation to introduce the budget at the next session.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
MONTREAL-POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT OF BILL OF RIGHTS BY MUNICIPAL BY-LAW On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
April 11, 1967

In view of the fact that a number of prosecutions have been undertaken in the city of Montreal under a municipal by-law which apparently forbids the employees of an establishment from talking with customers, is the minister in a position to tell us whether the officers of his department are making an exhaustive study of the present legislation to determine whether there is an offence from the federal viewpoint under the Canadian Bill of Rights?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere knows that the Canadian Bill of Rights applies only in federal fields. The act itself provides that the officials of the Department of Justice must review the acts to make sure that they do not go against the Bill of Rights itself.


Auguste Choquette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for whom candidates for the bench now have great respect. Is the minister thinking of calling a federal-provincial conference to encourage the provinces to elaborate their own Bill of Rights?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that the central government can suggest to the provinces what kind of legislation they should have, but I am convinced that the hon. member's suggestion is so good that it will be heard in various provinces.



REPORTED INFILTRATION INTO CANADA OF INTERNATIONAL MAFIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, last week I directed to the Solicitor General a question dealing with a series of reports that members of the international gangster organization known as the mafia were infiltrating Canada. I think he indicated at that time that he was going to investigate the matter and make a further statement. Has he done so, and has he anything to report on this very serious matter?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite recall answering in the vein suggested by the hon. member. I pointed out, in answer to a question put by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, that there was continuous liaison and co-operation between the law enforcement agencies in Canada and the United States where a watchful eye is being kept on this situation.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



HALIFAX-REQUEST OF DOCKYARD COUNCIL RESPECTING PAY RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he is now in receipt of a rather lengthy telegram from local 273 of the Canadian Labour Congress, the men at H.M.C. Dockyard in Halifax. If so, can he indicate to the house what has been his reply to the telegram?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to check, Mr. Speaker. I believe I received that telegram yesterday, but I would like to check.



REPORTED NATO APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Ten o'clock.\n[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)"]
Mr.   Ed. Scbreyer@Springfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When he indicated to the house last week during the defence debate that the restructuring of the Canadian armed forces met with the general approbation of the NATO military planning committee, was he speaking on the basis of documentation or was he expressing an impression that he had?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question about a matter which is now before a committee.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we do not like to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs ignored throughout the question period. Can he tell us what progress he is making in connection with his four point plan for peace in Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. friend read the evidence given before the external affairs committee this morning.
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I should like to amplify the answer I gave the right hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday regarding the stamp which will be issued by my department on the occasion of the royal visit this summer. The Queen's head which will be reproduced on the stamp will not be surmounted by a crown.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said just now that the crown would be abolished.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that at all.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That is what we heard on this side. Yesterday, following the answer I gave the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, he slipped in a statement, as he sometimes does during the question period, that he thought we were abolishing the Queen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the minister state his question of privilege?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that this is not the first time the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has tried to imply that this party wishes to establish a republic.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much that that is a question of privilege. I do not think it is.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: It is not the first time that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the minister has a question of privilege.


Desmond Morton Code: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister insisting that he has a question of privilege?


Desmond Morton Code: I would just like to explain, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to be unfair to the minister, but may I point out that he has already indicated what he has in mind. His suggestion is that comments
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)
made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition imply a position taken by the government. I really do not see how that can be construed as a question of privilege.


Desmond Morton Code: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday "I thought you were abolishing the Queen", I thought he was addressing the statement to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask for the minister's co-operation in this regard. I think I am in a position to say, having heard the preface to the subject he wanted to raise as a question of privilege, that there is really no question of privilege but rather a point of debate which the minister might want to take up at a more appropriate time.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer- Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole to consider Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was under consideration.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last night I was making a plea that the government modify its position with regard to the pressure it is placing on the house for a fast passage of Bill C-243. I pointed out that there existed across this country serious uncertainty as to what was involved in this legislation. I also pointed out that those all across this country who oppose this legislation or parts of it and who wish it to be modified depend on the opposition to press home their arguments and make the points which they wish to be made before this committee.
Speaking of uncertainty, we have to go back to the issuance of the white paper on defence which outlined the government's intention with regard to the reorganization of our Canadian armed forces. I think it is right
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
to assume that the government obtained the best advice they could at that time. They called in the military experts of this nation, questioned them and discussed the matter with them. On the basis of the information obtained they drew up the white paper. However, it has not been made clear even yet just what is intended to be the ultimate effect of the proposals published in that white paper.
Let us consider the two words, integration and unification. I am depending heavily for my argument on the testimony given before the standing committee of the house by Air Chief Marshal Miller. I know that Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony has been freely quoted and I can well understand that. Of all the professional military witnesses called before the standing committee, the experience of Air Chief Marshal Miller probably qualified him as the best witness called.
For those who are not familiar with his career, if there are any here, Air Chief Marshal Miller served from 1931 to 1955 in the R.C.A.F. He was a professional soldier. I think it is agreed by everyone that he was a professional soldier of the highest type, one of whom all Canadians can be proud. He was one of many such who were called before the standing committee. From 1955 to 1960 Air Chief Marshal Miller served as deputy minister of the Department of National Defence. If there is any place where any man can acquire more valuable experience than in the post of deputy minister of the department, I cannot imagine it. From 1960 to 1964 Air Chief Marshal Miller served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, as long as that body existed. When the joint chiefs of staff were abolished and responsibility was turned over to a single chief of staff as part of the integration program, Air Chief Marshal Miller was given that responsible position. He served as chief of staff from 1964 until 1966 when he retired.
There was no evidence produced to indicate that relations between Air Chief Marshal Miller and the government or the minister were anything but most cordial and most cooperative. Air Chief Marshal Miller defined integration as a force having a single defence staff, a single planning staff and a single budget procedure.
The program of integration, in contrast to unification, is widely supported. I think we can say it has been unanimously accepted by all of the officers and specialists in the defence department. Air Chief Marshal Miller defined unification as a single force having a
National Defence Act Amendment single rank structure, a single administrative chain of command, a common uniform and a force wherein the trades and ranks would be called by common names. Air Chief Marshal Miller stated, as recorded on page 2326 of the committee evidence, that when the program began unification and integration were interchangeably used. These words were accepted as having approximately the same meaning. It was only when the program got well along that a differentiation was made between the meaning of these two words.
As Air Chief Marshal Miller pointed out in his definition, integration called for a single defence staff, one commander and one chief of staff rather than the three members of the joint chiefs of staff including the chairman. Instead of having three chains of command as we formerly had, there was to be one chain of command, one single administrative chain. There was to be a single planning staff, that is, you would have a commander of planning and one staff serving the three branches of the armed forces. In addition, there would be a single budget procedure. The budget for all our Canadian armed forces would be handled through one organization, one budget planning board. Now, this is acceptable to practically everyone.
Later a proposal was made that unification should take place. Unification has boiled down to the abolition of the three branches of the service, the army, navy and air force, through reorganization into one force under one commander, having a common uniform and with the trades and ranks called by common names. It was at this point that very serious opposition arose across this country. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that instead of diminishing this opposition is increasing. I plead with the government and I plead with the minister to take note of this fact. There is no reason, at least no evidence has been submitted by the experts in the field, why the government cannot stop now, having accomplished a very substantial measure of integration quite apart from what is now called unification.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Let the government stop now and subject the present state of integration to a substantial trial period. It can be tried out for whatever time iis required, six months or a year. Some of the experts suggested from three to five years, and some even longer than that. The present state of integration should be thoroughly proved, I suggest, before we go on with what is now known as unification.
14772	COMMONS DEBATES	April 11, 1967
National Dejence Act Amendment
As for the advantages and disadvantages of stopping now or proceeding further, again I should like to quote from Air Chief Marshal Miller's evidence because as I have already indicated X do not think there could be any more valuable evidence. From the standpoint of experience and qualifications the Air Chief Marshal was more adequately fitted to provide information than anybody else. The testimony he gave did not stand out by itself. The testimony he gave-he was one of the last witnesses to be called by the committee-substantiated evidence which had been repeated by witness after witness among that talented array of military specialists whom the committee invited to appear before them.
We do not need to stop on this side of the water for evidence in this regard, because in the Montreal Gazette for Saturday last, April 8, Admiral Mountbatten was drawn into the controversy. He did not want to be drawn into the controversy and there was no inclination on his part to interfere in Canadian political affairs, but he sent a clarifying statement from London after he had been advised by Richard H. Gaunt, a retired Canadian naval officer, that he was being represented in Canada as an all-out supporter of unification. Admiral Mountbatten made his position clear, and if we want the evidence of a disinterested specialist, surely his evidence would qualify as such.
As reported in this issue of the Montreal Gazette, Admiral Mountbatten stated:
"Few people still oppose the integration of arrangements for pay, food, clothing, furniture, equipment, etc., since this must be a more economical way of providing them," he said in his statement...
Admiral Mountbatten pointed out, however, that in the British reorganization, great care had been taken to preserve morale and service tradition.
One of the chief complaints of the opposition at this time is that the government has not paid sufficient attention to the wishes of the personnel in the armed forces. Then the article continues with this direct quotation from Admiral Mountbatten:
"It has been accepted that to achieve this"-
I assume he means integration.
-"the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service," he said. "The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary".
The Montreal Gazette felt so strongly about the matter that this morning's issue carried an editorial on the question. Part of it reads as follows:
Lord Mountbatten, too, is an advocate of unified command and integration of services ...

But integration and unification are two quite different things. Both men-
There the article is referring to Admiral Mountbatten and Air Chief Marshal Miller.
-come down strongly against haste in creating a single service with a single uniform.
Lord Mountbatten confirmed there was some talk of unifying the services in Britain, but it was turned down as "undesirable, unnecessary and"-
I am sure the minister will not like the last word.
-"ludicrous."
"No compensating advantages could be seen in attempting to impose so unpopular a change," he said.
Air Marshal Miller, speaking on the advantages and disadvantages of unification, said:
"I said I did not see a monetary return for unification, nor do I see any significant military effectiveness. I said I saw some unanswered questions associated with unification that perhaps should be spelled out before you could really get out and sell it to people."
These are honest doubts, honestly expressed. And they are grounds for caution in adopting in Canada a policy that can bring no monetary return, and which might be unnecessary, if not ludicrous.
There is evidence, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that there may be disadvantages. As reported at page 2297 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, Air Chief Marshal Miller was asked this question:
Do you, yourself, see any financial advantage accruing from the proposed scheme of unification?
Again, there they are talking about unification as opposed to integration. Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
There are no significant financial advantages whatsoever as far as I can see.
He was then asked this question:
Do you see any military advantages flowing from it?
He replied:
Again, there are no significant military advantages.
So there are no financial advantages and there are no significant military advantages. If the best expert in the field makes statements of this kind, Mr. Chairman, surely the government should pay some attention to them.
Again he was asked:
Do you see any military disadvantages coming out of it?
Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
The disruption is an unknown factor, and one which I have always rated rather highly.
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I do not know whether the word "highly" is a good word here. It might be interpreted as meaning that perhaps there is something commendable about this possible disruption, though quite evidently Air Chief Marshal Miller did not mean anything of the sort. He indicated that the disruption which might result from unification is an unknown factor and one which he had always rated rather highly or of great importance. He went on to say:
I did not want to have anything occur that would cause disruption in the services. I felt a lot of careful planning was necessary, and that probably time to educate people was required before the next step of unification was taken.
There we have the advice of the leading expert in the field, a man who has served long and faithfully in our armed forces, a man better qualified than anybody else to speak.
I felt a lot of careful planning was necessary, and that probably time to educate people was required before the next step of unification was taken.
That theme was repeated a number of times by other witnesses. I will not repeat their evidence because there is not enough time. Parts of their evidence have been quoted freely and widely.
I suggest to the government and the minister that a case has not been made out to show why we should not stop this process of unification, if one can call it that, at the present stage of integration. It has not been shown that it would be unwise to stop the process. Air Chief Marshal Miller and many other witnesses said that we should thoroughly test the process of integration for a period of years before taking the drastic step of wiping out our three services and combining them, with one uniform and a common rank structure. There is evidence to show that the prospect of unification is upsetting the morale of the troops and is disturbing people from one end of the country to the other. I suggest to the government that if there is no sound reason for not stopping the integration process now and testing it thoroughly before going on, the government should stop it and allow us to get on with the other business of the country.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I begin what I hope will be my brief remarks with a sincere thank you to my friends on both sides of the house who sent their good wishes while I was in hospital recently and who welcomed me back to the house so kindly. To be personal
National Defence Act Amendment for a moment, my condition turned out to be a temporary one at this time. I found from speaking to other members that a great many of us in this chamber have had a similar experience. I do thank you all and I hope that other members, if or when their turn comes -and I hope and pray it will not-will have as happy an outcome as mine was.
While I was away some remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops appeared in one form or another in the press. I again wish to express my thanks to my hon. friends on both sides of the house who in this instance took up the cudgels on my behalf. I do appreciate it but I would like to go on to say that, having read a few days ago in the Victoria Times a further interview with the hon. member for Kamloops, I wish to clear the air right away and say that I accept without any reservation whatsoever his explanation of what it was he had in mind in the first instance. Part of the basis for the hon. member's remarks was that I was worried about unification. "Concerned" might better have described my feelings for, of course, I am concerned about unification. Aren't we all? That is what we are here for today; this is our job at this moment.
Unification is a big thing for Canada. When parliament entrusted the defence committee with the study of the bill on unification and its implications, surely it then became our task to hear evidence, to work on the bill and if possible to make it a better bill. That is what committees are for and that is what we did. We all became concerned about the bill.
While I am on my feet and in a thanking mood, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to use this opportunity to thank the very patient members of the defence committee who laboured with me as their chairman for most of the past 12 months. In particular I want to thank the steering committee which included, of course, the hon. member for Edmonton West, the vice chairman of the committee, and the hon. member for Vancouver East who always had a fair contribution to make to our committee's deliberations.
Let me say a word or two before I go on about the witnesses who appeared before our committee. I, of course, heard all those who appeared before my sudden departure and I think I have read all that was said by those who appeared subsequently. I know you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that we are indeed a favoured land when our nation can command the services of such men. I am not pretending that I agreed with all that was said but,
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment without exception, the witnesses had something valuable to contribute and they put forward their case with a sincerity that no one could doubt and with a dignity we can all envy.
I will not speak at length about the deliberations of the committee, the number of witnesses, the pages of evidence or even about the number of words as ascertained by some keen mathematical mind, which have been spoken on the subject. I will, however, describe to the house what I think are some far-reaching implications of this debate. Since last July and particularly in recent weeks thousands of words and endless repetition have been the order of the day on the precise definition of unification and what it means, and I think this has constituted a good part of the problem which we members and the public have faced. There is, of course, no such word as unification in the dictionary in a military sense, and I am sure in my own mind the Minister of National Defence will never again coin a new word to describe such a far-reaching and, if I may add my own view, such a far-seeing operation as that which is now before us in this bill. Since the word has no definitive military meaning we have been left to our own devices to interpret it in our own way.
My personal definition or view, which incidentally is the same today as when I started considering the matter many months ago, is that when we speak of unification we are talking about taking integration as far as it is practical to go. I understand my own definition, which is hardly surprising, but what is far more important, the people I talk to can also understand it and see more clearly what it is we are trying to do. From here on in my speech, then, I shall refer to what is before us as the integration-unification bill or process.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think it is of the greatest importance when speaking on this matter to emphasize the following point, that the planning for integration-unification will be done by the men in the armed forces themselves. The minister has said so, and that, of course, is how it should be. It is the servicemen who will be affected by it so it is only right that they themselves should be the ones to draw the route to be travelled toward the general objective which will be given to them by parliament, I hope very shortly. Furthermore, regardless of what has been said here by both proponents and opponents of the plan, the very fact that the planning will be done by

those who will both execute the plan and live with it is a guarantee, at least to me, that they will have a very large measure of control over the speed of execution of the plan. In addition, it is a guarantee to me that the plan in its final form will be a good one, coming as it will from men of such experience, ability and good sense as those who appeared as service witnesses before the committee.
The minister has not denied that in its final form the integration-unification plan may look a lot different from what it does now. He has told us he takes no immutable stand on the details, and there are few hard and fast details in the bill itself. One of the opponents of the bill, referring to the lack of planning, likened it to a man proceeding down a road in a dense fog, going from lamp post to lamp post. I have no argument with that. I find it a good simile. It all depends, of course, on whether you know where you are going and whether or not you start out on the right road. I believe we are on the right road and that we do know our objective, and I can imagine no better way of proceeding along this ill-defined thoroughfare than by taking easy steps from one recognizable point to the next. Is this not precisely what the service planners have been telling us they are doing, and in the bill before us is the government not asking for permission to continue this orderly planning progression toward the integration-unification objective?
In a task of this magnitude, particularly when it involves entering areas hitherto unexplored, areas where hidden dangers may well lurk, there will unquestionably be changes of route and method. But what of that? Does this mean that the task is one which should not be attempted at all simply because we do not know all the answers in advance? Must we Canadians really be, as Marshall McLuhan has described us-he is not an air marshal and, indeed, has nothing to do with anyone's armed forces - must we Canadians really be "mildewed with caution" as he said we are? I do not think so. We have been accused of destroying things which should be preserved. That is not our objective. We are not setting out to destroy anything.


Mr. Churchill:: Only the army, the navy and the air force.


David Walter Groos: We are, however, trying to build something new and in the process of
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
building some things, some good things, I admit, have to be changed. Take the uniform. Much has been said about it but, no matter what has been said, service uniforms are not being completely removed. To emphasize the permanency of the integration-unification arrangements and the interpendence of those who serve in the new organizations it is proposed, however, that on many occasions all officers and men should wear what is basically the same uniform. What is wrong with that? It makes sense to me. I could certainly live with that arrangement. It means a change, but that is how things go. We see this sort of thing happening in all fields of life, so an explanation or apology is scarcely needed from me. It is a fact of life, and we have to keep up with the pace of life if we are to survive.
I believe this bill before us, this imaginative bill is one good example that Canadians are not always, to quote McLuhan again, "looking into the rear-view mirror and defending the status quo, which is outmoded the moment it happens." If in the process of opposing the bill we carry our objections beyond the realm of fact into the lush, tempting fields of speculation and fancy, it could well be a disaster for us all. For example, were the armed forces of Canada to become demoralized by protracted debate and ridicule lightly heaped upon this new idea by this house, we would all suffer.
Those responsible for a debate of that sort would have to be ready to shoulder a heavy responsibility. Can they be as sure of themselves in their objections as they claim in this house to be? I doubt it very, very much. Hon. members and others need no reminder from me that in the armed forces of Canada we are dealing with a group of volunteers who traditionally and rightly shun the limelight, who do the peoples' bidding without question and who voluntarily forgo, because of their love of Queen, country and adventure, a great many of the democratic safeguards which we civilians prize and about which we so endlessly boast. There would be no such freedom if there were no such armed forces in the free world. In return these men ask very little, but what they demand is sensible direction and at least some understanding by public and parliament alike of what their problems are. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that this house is in the process of creating, if it has not already partly created, a problem of morale in the armed forces which requires active consideration by all of us as members of parliament.
National Defence Act Amendment


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Walter Groos: I would prefer to deal with questions at the conclusion of my brief remarks. A goodly portion of the comment in the House of Commons, in the press and outside the house has somewhat naturally been concentrated on the negative aspects of integration-unification. It could hardly be otherwise. But there comes a time when such comments have side effects far greater than were ever perhaps intended. If you keep telling a person he is sick, sooner or later he starts believing it. If this were to happen in our armed services, we would all be in trouble and every member in this house would share the blame.
Various hon. members on the opposite side have painted a dismal picture of the morale situation today within the Canadian armed forces and in particular in the Royal Canadian Navy on the east coast. I can only say that this does not fit in with the impressions I get from across the country and the position as I see it from the point of view of the R.C.N. on the west coast. Of course, there always were two navies in the Royal Canadian Navy-the east coast navy and the west coast navy. And I am quite sure that if things on the east coast are as bad as they are being painted by the hon. member for Halifax, then subject to the Minister of National Defence making a few new arrangements with NATO, which should not be too hard to do, the west coast navy will cheerfully take over some of the Halifax or east coast obligations and show once again in a spirit of friendly competition, the spirit which so often exists in this house, that anything they can do in Halifax we can do better in Esquimalt. In fact I think there really is a need within the R.C.N. for a readjustment in the division of the strength of the navy between the east and the west coast of Canada. Surely present events across the ocean in China and in other countries bordering the Pacific rim are convincing evidence enough to warrant such a change, and I ask the minister to give it his serious consideration.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In recent years the east coast navy has not, to my knowledge, been up to full strength. For years and years it has had to borrow sometimes reluctant sailors from the west coast navy. This is no reflection on any admiral, least of all on Admiral O'Brien, now maritime commander in Halifax, who must know that for many years he has had my
April 11. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment admiration and respect. He has, among other things, a tough problem with bad weather and lots of snow, which makes the west coast look pretty attractive to some sailors.
So much has been said about changes in uniform and so forth that I feel I must make some further comment and, if hon. members will permit me, I would like to say that within my own experience naval officers in particular over the years have been overly conservative in matters of changes of dress. For example, ask any old sailor what happened when in 1941, I think it was, we were issued with the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal with its little silver maple leaf to denote Canadian volunteers on overseas service. Many of us just did not wear it because it was different and other navies did not have one. This is true.
Ask old sailors about the time we were directed to wear "Canada" flashes on the shoulders of our uniforms to denote what country we were from. Once again there was great hostility to this, and for many months many officers just did not make the change.
What about the red maple leaf painted on the funnels of R.C.N. ships, an idea that spread like wildfire throughout Canadian ships abroad once someone thought of it? We were ordered to take it off, and on my ship -incidentally this was overseas so I do not know who was responsible for ordering it to be taken off-we went through a period of finding that it had been painted anonymously on the funnel by night and being obliged officially to paint it out by day. What a farcical situation that was. I remind hon. members that it was not until the war was over that this distinctive emblem was permitted to become official, and of course it has remained official until the present day and will not be changed under this bill.
Again, you should have heard the uproar in some quarters when, as a result of representation by the sailors, the navy's traditional tot of rum was allowed to be issued mixed with a cola drink instead of water. What a catastrophe that was going to be. Nelson wouldn't have liked it. As a matter of fact I think he would have liked it because he was a very progressive admiral.
I will not try to describe the feeling in some quarters when it was discovered that zippers were to be incorporated into the naval uniform, and would you believe that diagonal serge cloth for sailors' uniforms would cause any heartburn in anyone? Well, it did and many is the old sailor who will recall he was

ordered to dispose of his "tiddley" uniform because he had had it made ashore of light weight comfortable diagonal woven serge. It wasn't quite regulation then but it is regulation now.
If hon. members are not too tired of these matters I can go on. We even put a zipper on the sailor's jumper. But here it turned out we were making progress. When we dared to put zippers on the sailors' jumpers the Royal Navy copied us, but it was not until they did so that suspicion of this innovation completely disappeared in some quarters of the R.C.N.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


David Walter Groos: I would rather wait until I have finished.


Malcolm MacInnis: I was
under the impression the hon. member was a commodore. It appears he was a tailor.


David Walter Groos: For a moment I would like to talk about the rift which has undoubtedly and quite understandably been caused by the integration-unification process and all that it entails or, rightly or wrongly, appears to entail in the minds of its supporters and detractors. This, as we have seen, covers a whole heap of territory, as you, Mr. Chairman, might say in more grammatical terms. The rift extends beyond the service and well into civilian life. It is there and it bodes ill for the future of the armed forces if something is not done about it and done fairly quickly. I place the blame for a great deal of this on a quite unbelievable lack of understanding as to what it is we are trying to do. Even today I hear people, who should and in fact do know better, talking as if we were trying to turn over servicemen into all-purpose fighting paragons. Soldiers in kilts, climbing the rigging of ships-what utter nonsense! It is sad, but it is perhaps indicative of the lengths to which otherwise normal, rational people go when they are confronted with highly charged emotional matters in which they are very much personally involved. I do not blame them unduly.
Speaking personally, before we had the facts and were dealing with wild rumours I found some difficulty myself in being impartial and unbiased. But this is not the case today. Apart from pointing out that the vast majority of these rumours subsequently turned out to be quite false, I should also say that there was much about the old organization and the old way of doing things which we are now trying to change with which I
April 11, 1967

also disagreed and disagreed even more strongly. On balance I think I can say that from the start I have been in favour of the idea behind integration and unification, and now that integration-unification is with us I want to see it work in the best possible way.
How can we overcome the rift about which I speak and how can we best go about it after this bill in its final form is passed, as I believe it shortly will be? It may be of interest to some hon. members to know that in other countries' armed services in modern times there have been other emotional cataclysms and even deeper-seated rifts than in our own, but the unbeatable combination of good will and intelligence has healed the wounds. I cannot believe that we lack in Canada, particularly among those who are affected and are interested in integration-unification, either intelligence or good will. So I think we are going to come out of this situation in good shape all right.
Since the service which seems to have been zeroed in on, if I may use that expression, is the navy, I would draw the attention of hon. members to a situation which developed in the Royal Navy of Great Britain not long before world war I when Great Britain's far-flung empire covered so much of the globe and the Royal Navy was quite realistically called "Britain's sure shield" and was very largely responsible not only for defending the empire against all comers and all combinations of comers but also for policing the farthest corners of the empire's interests.
The schism in this case developed over a difference of opinion between two senior admirals, Fisher and Beresford, both very popular and both men of ideas and integrity. Fisher was the more senior of the two and he became the first sea lord of the British Admiralty. He was a reformer, and I think it is fair to say that in the light of history it can be seen that the great majority of his reforms have stood the test of time and, had they not been put into effect, the British Royal Navy would not have been as well prepared as it was when in 1914 and again in 1939 it was called into action. Many of the innovations Lord Fisher introduced, and he produced quite a few, are still with us today. Fisher had his supporters. Beresford, on the other hand, had his.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I will not go into the details, although there are many books in the parliamentary library which cover this subject. Those who are fond of history and who seek literary diversion

National Defence Act Amendment could do worse than spend an hour or two following the course of this dispute. I am sure they will be struck by the quite astounding similarity between the development of recent events in Canada and those engendered by the Fisher-Beresford dispute. Many of the points put forward by both sides were equally contrived. Many of their fears turned out to be just as groundless and many of their methods were quite as farcical as some we have witnessed. I will stop there in the interest of time.
I am interested in bringing to the attention of the committee the aftermath of the controversy in Britain, the rift and the damage to naval and military discipline because, believe it or not, the dispute was still being talked about in the British navy when I arrived on the scene some 25 or 30 years later. In my opinion we can make no better start to mend this rift of ours than by getting on with our job of dealing with the clause by clause study of the bill and voting on it. Let us remove the heavy, deadly pall of uncertainty which now hangs over the armed forces. Let the servicemen know for certain where they are going. At least let parliament set the objective and let the armed forces get on with their job of planning their own route and timetable in order to get there.
To the members of this house I have this to say: In a venture as imaginative and far reaching as this I am glad to have a part. I happen to be playing my part today in the House of Commons, but with this sort of challenge I feel so strongly about this bill and what it will do for Canada that I would return willingly tomorrow to the navy, if they would have me, at my old or any lesser rank -I am not fussy. You can see from the amount of weight I am losing that I am getting ready to fit into some of my old uniforms. I am not just saying this, I mean it, and I know there are others who feel the same way. I mention this only to point out that there are many ex-servicemen who are as anxious as I to see this all-Canadian venture succeed and who are anxious to give Canada another "first" in the military field and another mark of prestige in international circles.
All hon. members now have a hand in this important measure. In speaking to hon. members opposite I should like to say that this is a better and more practical bill today than it was when it went to the committee, not that there were any changes made in the committee while I was there but rather changes made later by the members and by my
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment successor as chairman. There may possibly be other improvements still to be made. How can we tell unless we get into the clause by clause discussion?
The opposition undoubtedly has a duty to perform and as everyone knows I have never questioned that. But I am questioning it now. There is considerable, though as I have said perhaps unintentional, danger if we persist with this debate much longer. I think it can rightly be claimed that the opposition has played the game and has put up a fair fight with tangible and valuable results, but the time has come when we must get on with our task as parliamentarians and our job of making a decision. It may be difficult but we cannot delay it forever. The government has the responsibility and is prepared both to assume its responsibility and stand by the consequences. There are other consequences to be borne in throwing up a roadblock and stalemating this debate and for these the opposition has to judge its own responsibility.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) but I must advise him that the time allowed for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: There seems to be unanimous consent that the hon. member may proceed.


David Walter Groos: I thank hon. gentlemen. I promise I will not be more than a minute longer. I invite the official opposition and other members opposite to consider the details of this bill. From what I have seen and heard the present members of the armed forces are ready and, what is more, from what we have seen, ready and able to get on with the job when parliament gives its consent. Let us give them a chance and let us do it without further rancour or further delay. Once parliament has made its decision let us also again close ranks as we have traditionally closed ranks within the defence committee and give our servicemen our wholehearted and undivided support. They deserve it. I will have more to say, Mr. Chairman, when we are discussing the clauses in the bill later. I hope it will be soon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we are
glad to see the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) back in his place. He suggested he is ready to join the navy again and has regained the sylph-like form appropriate to the uniform he wore with distinction. May I say that
[Mr. Groos.)
if the rank of admiral is still available he may be sure that after his speech today the Minister of National Defence will place him in that category.
There is one statement he made with which I am rather in agreement. I wonder whether he really meant it when he said, "Remove the heavy, deadly pall which hangs over the armed forces". That is exactly the position in every part of Canada. He expressed the view parliament is taking too long in committee. I can only take the figures handed to me. Yesterday there was some change; but as of Friday the number of Liberal members who had participated once or twice-and I count each separately-was 15, the number of Progressive Conservatives 18, the number of N.D.P., four, and Social Credit, one. Yesterday the number of Conservatives increased.
In listening to speeches about parliament I find the argument strangely reminiscent of 1957 about which the present Minister of Justice-a message has been sent to him that I am going to make some references to him as the philosopher of Liberalism-referred to in an article. In 1963 he wrote an article which appeared in Cite Libre in which he said:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I remember the Liberals of 1957. They were cynics who felt they enjoyed a personal claim to power and they came within a hair's breadth of putting parliament in bondage. One would have thought that six years in opposition would have had on those Liberals an effect somewhat akin to purgatory. Unfortunately the events of the last few months prove that this is not so.
We are faced with the same idea. In spite of the "honeyed" words of one hon. gentleman, we know what the government has in mind. They brought in a flag by closure and they intend to pass this legislation by the same means. That is their objective. The speech made by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) today had all the earmarks of having been inspired from above.


David Walter Groos: That is not so.


John George Diefenbaker: The government is preparing once more to trample on the rights of parliament. The hon. gentleman said one other thing when he described this legislation. He said it was like blind men at night with lamp posts in the way but still travelling forward. No better analogy could be made in respect of this legislation.
I have read all of the evidence and all of the speeches and I summarize my views in a few lines. There is no basis for unification
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
from the view point of effectiveness, economy, defence commitments to NATO and NORAD, or on any other ground. Parliament is trying to get the facts but today it is very apparent what is happening, even though the minister and the Prime Minister have hidden behind a veil of silence. Our armed forces are going to be reduced to a major contribution to an international police force and Canada's defence is going to be almost completely dependent on Washington. That is my summary of the situation. Parliament is here to clear up this matter.
The hon. gentleman did raise the curtain a little when he mentioned that something new was being brought in. Within the last few hours the executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence underlined the following to a number of journalists.
The bill on unification of the armed forces raises a problem as to whether Canada will have a British mini-navy, a British mini-army and a British mini-air force.
He then goes on to say after other words that this point has never been discussed in the House of Commons. That is exactly what we have been saying. The purpose of this legislation is to bring about an extended separation from all those things that are part of our traditions.
Already 450 green uniforms have been ordered. Yesterday the minister explained the purpose of that order as being experimental. That is not what was indicated to the manufacturer. He was advised that these uniforms were to be ready so that when Expo opens we will be able to show de Gaulle and all the rest that we do not wear the kind of uniforms that were mistaken in 1956, as the Prime Minister once said, for British uniforms. This matter has not been discussed in the house, suggests the director of policy for the Department of National Defence. Why should the press receive from the lips of this gentleman a policy that has not yet been discussed in parliament? One hears parliament condemned. This has been going on for years. Let me read a quotation from the London Times.
The standing of the House of Commons In the country, it is said, has never been so low. The commons is criticized for its futility, for having lost effective control of the executive, for being a closed club intent on its own rituals and out of touch with the mass of the nation, for the partisan behaviour of its members, for the rudeness to each other of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
National Defence Act Amendment
That is the type of criticism mouthed in this country. The article then states that parliament has a place.
In the first place, parliament still educates the nation.
It cannot educate the nation unless what is said here receives at least a modicum of coverage in the press and other media. Parliament is subject to condemnation to a great degree because of the failure to discharge their responsibility of those who should be disseminating what is taking place here. I have often heard all we need is a group of men who have never been in parliament and they will come up with the inspiration and forward-looking policies we need. The writer of this article states:
A parliamentary statesman only emerges after long years of trial and winnowing in the "face to face" encounters of speech and action which constitute the essence of parliamentary life.
That is what we are doing. We are arguing a case but the government is hiding behind generalities. The Montreal Star, which seldom has anything good to say about the opposition or the Conservative party, carried this statement the other day:
The government deserves the pounding it is getting on unification.
The article states that various ministers are arrogant and adamant. I do not have to identify them. The looks on their faces reveal their admission into that group. The article then states:
We have become used to this from Mr. Hellyer, but now Mr. Martin has chosen to get in on the act.
I am sorry to have to add the next words:
He did not help.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
When will the guillotine fall? A number of members have spoken, including an independent member from Quebec whose independence is defined only by the description. The other day he said that nothing is to be gained from continuing the debate. The government knows that many hon. members to my left will line up in support. I listened to the defiant words of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), a moment ago when he said this government is prepared to stand or fall on this issue. The government never makes such statements unless it is sure to stand.
Defence is a tremendously serious matter in this nation. The increase in expenditure has mounted to an extent which few could have contemplated in the days of Beresford and Fisher to which he referred. When the hon.
April 11, 1967


An hon. Member:: "Hellyerlujah."


John George Diefenbaker: The other day when the Prime Minister made his uncertain speech in Calgary he said that having read the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller he found it interesting. He gave everybody to understand that he was going to back down. However, the next day he said, "I will not back down."
The financial report of the Department of National Defence did not agree with the report of the Auditor General. The Auditor General was right. The minister had to apologize to Lieutenant General Fleury and he had to apologize to Rear Admiral Landymore. This government does not back down, it backs up, or fails to back up that which it has charged. We have never had a true picture.
The minister sits in his place day after day waiting for information from above, failing to give parliament the facts. We had to wait until his executive assistant leaked information to the press yesterday. In December he made a speech which appeared in Hansard with annotations and adornments. The people of Canada have paid for 45,000 copies of the speech.
It is a serious thing when in the matter of defence which is at all times difficult, those with expert knowledge are swept aside. That does not mean that the military authority should dominate the civil authority. Nothing of the kind. The civil authority must be maintained. No one has ever taken a stand to the contrary that I am aware of in the last 35 or 40 years. Everyone except the one who occupies the highest position in defence in this country today-I am told he has political ambitions-says that unification is not going to work out. But this does not matter; they go through with it regardless of the consequences.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I will read the list: Admiral Brock, General Foulkes-do not say these gentlemen are
April 11, 1967

Tories because Foulkes almost became a Liberal Candidate. He was anointed in Victoria.


An hon. Member:: What about Brock?


John George Diefenbaker: I am talking now about Foulkes. It I am going too fast for the hon. gentleman, I apologize. Foulkes had been promised the nomination by the leader of the Liberal party and he turned up at the convention in Victoria.


Mr. Foy:: I understand that you almost became a Liberal candidate at one time.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the first time I ever heard the hon. member speak, and I want to hear him now. If I have done nothing else, I have at least been able to hear the voice of the hon. member for Lambton West. I thank him for making it possible now to identify him.
I return to a reading of this list: Lieutenant General Robert Moncel; Air Vice Marshal Hendrick; Air Marshal Clare L. Annis; Lieutenant General Fleury; Admiral Rayner; Air Marshal Curtis; Lieutenant General Guy Si-monds, who has been recognized in every military book on the second world war as one of the greatest tacticians this country or any country ever had; Air Chief Marshal Miller, and everyone knows his reputation is outstanding. I have already mentioned Admiral Landymore. These gentlemen have proven their dedication. In my opinion, the most irresponsible part of the whole affair has been the campaign of denigration launched against those who dared to express an opinion contrary to that held by those in authority. As Shakespeare said, they exercise "a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he is most assured".
Has Lord Mountbatten any reason to express his views, except to clarify the falsification of those views spread from the Department of National Defence? This man has been one of the greatest, if not the greatest, exponent of combined operations. They thought that they could misinterpret his view and the C.B.C. helped. The C.B.C. used an interview given by Mountbatten last fall and then misinterpreted it.
Has Mountbatten any partisan feeling in this matter? I am going to read two or three excerpts from his statement. I do not want to repeat, but they tell the story. If he had not been such an authority they would not have been using his name. They thought what he
National Defence Act Amendment said favoured them. He was asked by Commander Groos of Victoria for an explanation of his views on integration and unification of the British forces. Lord Mountbatten's statement ends this way:
In the British reorganization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale and those traditions which help to maintain this in the services and fighting units. It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary.
There was some talk of taking the uniform and ranks of one service and imposing this on the others but the idea of a man in say army uniform with an army title arriving at a foreign port in command of a warship was generally felt to be so ludicrous that it was not pursued.
They don't back down but they have started to back up. They will now permit members of the various services to wear their uniforms when off duty, if I understand the latest incongruous rule issued by the department.
They say we should not debate this matter, Mr. Chairman. There has never been any authorization from the Canadian people on the question of unification. It never came up in the election campaign. The Minister of National Defence was asked about it in Halifax on October 3 and stated that no decision had been made. According to a Canadian Press dispatch, he backed up his promise by stating to a press conference on Sunday night, October 3, that soldiers will always be soldiers, sailors will always be sailors and airmen will always be airmen. No wonder the Montreal Gazette today in an editorial entitled, "Even Ludicrous", points out this fact:
And they are grounds for caution in adopting in Canada a policy that can bring no monetary return, and which might be unnecessary, if not ludicrous.
I am always here if it is possible, but the other day I was not privileged to be in the house when the Secretary of State for External Affairs decided that he would take part in the debate-Paul helping Paul. I read his speech very carefully. It was a hedged defence of unification. He is not often this way; he is generally direct. However, the other day a tinge of uncertainty found its way into his remarks as recorded on page 14562 of Hansard:
I want to say now unreservedly that all of us in this house have every reason-
Then, there is an alteration in course.
-even though all of us might not agree with his views, to have confidence in the capacity of the Minister of National Defence-
April 11. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He repeated the objectives of defence policy. He had our defence forces spread all over the world as thin as margarine on a cracker. He had them going here, there and everywhere. He said we were going to support collective measures, we were going to participate in international organizations and support policies arising therefrom, and were going to protect and look after the surveillance of our territory, our air space and coastal waters.
When he uttered those words, Mr. Chairman, he must have known that these ideas were not practical in any way but were simply generalities. With the few people in our armed forces, how are we going to protect our northern areas, our vast empire of the north? We are now going to become the world prof-ferers of forces provided with international duties, a proposition that has been turned down by the United Nations. We are going to say to countries: Do not ask and you shall receive.
What is Canada's policy, Mr. Chairman? Where do we stand on NATO? A general observation was made on this question, but it had a qualification that would have done honour to Mackenzie King. There are some today who say that we should not be in NATO any more, that as a result of the detente of the last year and a half a new relationship has been established with the U.S.S.R. The only reason for that is that the U.S.S.R. is more frightened of Communist China than of us. Communist China stands as a tremendous threat over the U.S.S.R. in Asia. If Mao Tse-tung wins, the division will continue. If Mao Tse-tung loses, those in charge of Communist China will desire once more to combine their ideology with that of the U.S.S.R. We cannot allow the bulwark of our freedom in NATO to be swept aside by anticipated peaceful relations. That is an ephemeral premise. If ever Communist China once again lines up with the U.S.S.R., there will be a return to that system of consistent probing to find our weaknesses by the U.S.S.R.
What is our image abroad? When I sat on the other side of the house those who today occupy the treasury benches said: "When we take over, all will be well". They were in error. Events show they were not justified in saying this. The Prime Minister of Canada went to Washington and was allowed to cool his heels while the president talked on the telephone. He might as well have been in the doghouse.

What about France, Mr. Chairman? If ever a country owed much to Canada it is France. The blood of Canada was poured out in sacrifice in the first war. More Canadians were killed in action than were killed in the United States forces. We were, of course, involved in the war much longer. My classmates went down at Vimy, 19 of them in the ranks. There was no representative of France in any senior position at the recent ceremony. A brigadier general turned up. Surely there must be some reason for this loss of face by Canada in France.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs arrived in Paris in 1963 there was no one to greet him. The French have a meticulous regard for protocol. The Secretary of State for External Affairs arrived on an important mission to take up certain matters with the French foreign minister and had to ride into town on the hurricane deck of a baggage truck. Only one possessing the dignity of the hon. gentleman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I intervene simply to point out to my right hon. friend that the difference between his going to Paris and my going to Paris is that I was allowed in.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not follow that observation. When I went to France I was received by General de Gaulle with the full honours accorded a leader of a foreign nation. I am not saying this in any desire to ridicule, but I do say it is wrong that a man occupying the high and dignified position of minister of foreign affairs should be so treated in that way. Mussolini did not ride into Rome in such fashion.
What is the attitude of the United States toward Canada? There has been a disregard for the greatness of this nation and its contribution. All over the world we are engaged in a spending spree in external affairs. I look, for example, at the costs of Canadian embassies. In France the cost since 1962-63 has gone up from $834,870 to $1,396,000. In the United States it has gone up from $698,800 to $1,252,000. The answer is that you cannot spend your way into the hearts of other nations unless you deliver the goods.
Why did General de Gaulle take this attitude, Mr. Chairman? When he received Premier Lesage I do not know how many guns were fired. I do not know how many guns will be fired when he greets Premier Johnson, but when Canadians as a nation turned up at Vimy nobody from France was there.
April 11, 1967

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Prud'homme:: The French people were
there.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody turned up except those poor, humble people French in heart who knew what the sacrifices had meant.
In all seriousness I asked the other day whether this situation would come about. The Prime Minister answered that the plans had not yet been completed. This simply means that this government has lost for Canada in a period of four years an international prestige that she has enjoyed through the years. Are we going to rebuild that by offering to supply Canadian forces for the United Nations. The United Nations last December brushed that suggestion aside. That was the greatest setback that Canada has ever suffered at the United Nations.
Can you place your trust in this government on the matter of defence policy in view of their record on nuclear weapons? I have the quotations when the present minister and those associated with him rose in their places to say we should not have nuclear warheads on the Bomarc, we should not permit our division in Europe to be armed with nuclear weapons. When the minister said that, was he sincere? Were those his true sentiments? That is what the Prime Minister said. Then in the twinkling of an eye something happened. In January, 1963, following a pilgrimage to Washington by one or two who are now ministers, the policy of the Liberal party suddenly changed. Was that not strange? There was the arrival of an emissary from Washington, one who had been President Kennedy's organizing genius. Some of the ministers opposite have knowledge of this fact. There were funds galore for the Liberal party in 1963.


An hon. Member:: That is unworthy.


John George Diefenbaker: One wonders what portion of the funds came from the United States. One wonders whether the C.I.A. was straightening out Canada because we dared to stand on our own feet.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. It was a very strange situation, sir. The United States ambassador stuck his nose in. On January 30, 1963, Washington issued a statement that was an obvious interference in the coming Canadian election.
I have wondered about this. Where are we to obtain the truth? We shall obtain it from the lips of one who sits today in the Privy
National Defence Act Amendment Council of Canada-I told him in advance I would refer to him-a man, as I said the other day, of high integrity, the Minister of Justice. He told the story and I shall read a few portions of it. If anybody wants more I shall be glad to read on. I refer to an article by the present Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I join in the applause. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not be applauding in a moment when they hear what was said. They have not read the article. I want to hear them applaud later. The article begins with the words, "Lester B. Pearson-the unfrocked priest of peace". He says that the policy turnover did not come before the Liberal party before it was announced. I have the words here. I can quote the entire article if necessary. This is what was said:
I am not at the moment concerned-
This is the minister.
-with the merits of Liberal party nuclear policy. I am only concerned with the anti-democratic reflexes of the spineless Liberal herd.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Monleilh:: No applause comes from the other side.


John George Diefenbaker: On page 10 it is said that the leader of the Liberal party changed the policy, in the course of a speech in York-Scarborough on January 12, 1963. Then the article goes on to say:
Thus the same man who denounced the NORAD commitments and refused to be bound by them ... found himself two months later bound by an unexpected sense of honour-
All I can say is that the hon. member for York-Humber may yet qualify for membership in the Privy Council.


Michael Starr: Say a few more things, Ralph.


John George Diefenbaker: The fact that the present Minister of Justice said these things is of interest. He also asked what the reason was for the change.
The answer is not much of a mystery.
On page 15 we have the reason:
Whence came then the scruples of Mr. Pearson related to the Bomarcs? .. . The answer is not much of a mystery. Mr. Pearson's scruples were a matter of conscience-perhaps even subconscience-and obviously American.
This is very interesting. I made statements as to what happened in 1963 when the Minister of National Defence discarded everything he previously stood for. He had told us
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment about the only policy that could be good for Canada. He ditched that in a matter of hours in January, 1963. Why? Perhaps the minister could answer that now. What does the writer, now the Minister of Justice, say about where "conscience leads to dishonour"?
It was obvious for some time that the United States did not appreciate Mr. Diefenbaker. From the start he had proposed to revamp the Commonwealth and to loosen the ties with the United States. Commercially he proposed to swing to the United Kingdom 15 per cent of our external trade.
He named the O'Leary Commission ... he selected an external affairs minister (Mr. Green) who seemed more interested in peace than in pleasing the Americans. He-
Diefenbaker.
*-was selling wheat to China and dealing with Cuba ... That was enough for American public opinion to hope for a Liberal victory last June 18. They were misled. Worse was to come. American opinion learned with stupefaction last October-
That is October, 1962.
-that the Soviets were placing in Cuba missile installations-
He wrote that we did not act fast enough on October 22 to please those in Washington.
Kennedy's hipsters could not tolerate this. At the very moment when the wind of freedom was blowing among NATO partners, especially France, was the time to make an example of those who would be independent by an exemplary chastisement.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have not heard much applause from over there lately. I was to be chastised in an exemplary way for attempting to stand up for Canada. That is what the present Minister of Justice said.
There was an easy victim chosen. The word was given: "Diefenbaker must go".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They always applaud that, Mr. Chairman. But in 1963, when they were allied with the United States administration-let hon. members opposite wait until I have finished because then there will not be so much applause. The Minister of Justice went on to say:
I am not being dramatic. Do you think that General Norstad, former NATO supreme commander, came to Ottawa on January 3 only as a simple tourist, when he accused the government of Canada of not living up to its engagements? Do you believe that it was only accidental that Mr. Pearson in his speech of January 12 based himself on the authority of General Norstad?
Do you believe it was by inadvertence that the state department on January 30 issued a communique strengthening the position of Mr. Pearson and boorishly treating Mr. Diefenbaker as a liar?

Do you think it was only by chance that this statement gave the opposition leader abundant arguments with which he stuffed his speech in parliament on January 31?
Was it just simple coincidence that these events ended with the downfall of the government on February 5?
I go on from there:
Why should anyone think that the United States would act differently in the case of Canada than they did in the case of Guatemala where reasons of state demand it and conditions permit it? The reasons were there.
Then the writer explained the situation in some well chosen words:
On the other hand, Mr. Pearson was there, ready to step in. He was respected. He had worked for peace in the United Nations. The financial interests knew he was surrounded by a group who could re-establish economic order without reverting to extreme measures.
I am still quoting. I dislike quoting extensively except when necessary in order to place the record before hon. members.
What greater temptation, and what could be easier for the Americans than to add the last straw which would overthrow a government whose position had been shaky ever since the elections?
That is the election of 1962.
The circumstances were such that the blow must come from the Pentagon and required that the Prime Minister betray the program of his party along with the principle with which he had consistently identified himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: If I said that, it would be heresy. The paths of criticism lead up to the Privy Council. I have not heard much applause from over there lately.
The bagmen promised that funds would be forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: These are not my words. These are the words of one who knew. He said:
Power beckoned to Mr. Pearson; he had nothing to lose except his honour. He lost it. And his whole party lost it, too.
Talk about a testament. Everything I have ever suggested during the campaign of 1963 has been proven. A little later-I have many more of these pages because this is a long article; it takes a long time to deal with it-we find the heading: "From Clownishness to Liberal Philosophy".
The series of farcical situations which arose following the apostasy of Mr. Pearson on January 12, 1963, found at last its justification in the position of Mr. Walter Gordon.
April 11. 1967


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The article goes on to tell us about the hon. member tor Davenport, now President of the Privy Council. I am not going into that. I have dealt with him on other occasions. The writer went on to say:
The political philosophy of the Liberal party is simplicity itself. "Say anything, think anything you like, but put us in power because we are best fitted to govern". If Canadians cannot agree on a flag, very well, we will give them two. (Pickersgill).
It is an astonishing article. There are several more pages of this. If anybody wants to read the whole thing I would be very glad to let him have it. The writer sums up:
The party is opposed to nuclear arms, but the leader says it is necessary to be in favour of them (Pearson); everyone will remain free to be against them (Pickersgill) although, in his heart, no one will be (the Young Liberals). Then again, all this does not really concern us (Lacoste). The ordinary Canadian has only to put his trust in the Liberal Party (Gordon). The leaders are always right (Choquette), and my husband has not changed his views-
That last statement was made by a certain lady. Oh, it is all here and it is summed up in these words:
What idiots they all are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The best show I have heard in this house for years.


An hon. Member:: A very weak answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I will hurry on and refer
to a later page. He goes on to say:
I must keenly regret the defeat of a government of Canada in parliament-
This was the government I had the honour to lead.
-on a question and following a strategy drawn up by the Americans.
It is all right for Pearson and the Liberals to shout "Ready, aye ready" when the word came from across the border from the militarists and the fund raisers.
I suspected that many times. Bagmen. It would almost qualify some of these people for the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He sums up the whole thing in these memorable words:
But I would have liked, at least for appearances sake that a few Canadian M.P's would have had

National Defence Act Amendment the reflexes of a Herridge, or a Cameron, the old socialist.
Then it mentions doing the White House's "dirty work". There is much more I could quote from this article. There is an inexhaustible supply.
What does morality say about those who buy votes with principles betrayed?
He is speaking of those who sit opposite.
To corrupt spirits by reducing politics to a system utterly denuded of principles seems to me far more serious than having handed out a few presents to the electorate. Are there no electors among the people for whom courage, sincerity and public spirit maintain some attraction?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There are some, Mr. Chairman. I have simply outlined one set of circumstances. I am asking this question of the government of Canada. There they sit, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, who stood against us and said we were wrong, that the only policy for Canada was to have no nuclear weapons under any circumstances both here and overseas. The reason is now revealed why principles for which they stood were jettisoned. On the basis of what has been revealed by the Minister of Justice regarding these ministers-and there are others sitting over there who were here about that time-I think the Canadian people have the right to ask why they are hell bent to push this legislation through in time for Expo. The reason is that the minister threatened last July, according to the Canadian Press, that if he did not get it through he was going to resign. He wants to be at Expo with his 400 green apparelled men. "The Duke of York marched up the hill and then marched down again."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition began his speech this afternoon by saying that as a result of unification it would be the policy of the government to develop a United Nations peace keeping force only.


John George Diefenbaker: Not only.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This has been categorically denied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This has been categorically denied by me.
April 11. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion Soulh):: So
what?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And yet the Leader of the Opposition repeats the lie-


John George Diefenbaker: You should never talk about lies.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -as his followers have on numerous occasions during the course of this debate. The answer, Mr. Chairman, does not rely just on the word of ministers of the crown, although that should be good enough for the right hon. gentleman. It is in the facts, in the facts about a $1J billion five year reequipment program for the Canadian Armed Forces which includes armoured personnel carriers, not just for the brigade overseas but for the Canadian army stationed in Canada as well; armoured reconnaissance vehicles, again not just for the brigade overseas and training scales at home, as was the policy of the right hon. gentleman when he was prime minister, when he was developing-as I may say later in the debate-a force which only had a capability for United Nations peacekeeping activities and when this was the official policy of the Department of National Defence, armoured reconnaissance vehicles not just for the brigade overseas and training scales at home but for the whole Canadian army; acquisition of self-propelled howitzers, 155 mm., for the brigade group in Europe and for the heavy brigade in Gagetown; anti-tank missiles and anti-tank guns; helicopter equipped destroyers in order to increase even further the anti-submarine capability of our navy and its ability to contribute to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the anti-submarine role; the purchase of two additional operational support ships in order to increase by an order of magnitude the ability of ships to stay on station in anti-submarine operations and to make a real contribution to the anti-submarine role, as well as to provide the Canadian Armed Forces with a back-up capability to transport troops and equipment if required; ASROC missiles for our ships, fighter bombers for our mobile force, air trucks to carry our troops and equipment.
I ask the right hon. gentleman, is this the equipment list that one would buy for a peacekeeping force only? It is not. It is the list of equipment required to give the Canadian Armed Forces the flexibility that they require to enable them to do all of the tasks set out in the white paper and reenumerated in my second reading speech earlier in this debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You talked about a peace restoring force. That is a punitive force which would require those arms.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I said in my second reading speech, Mr. Chairman, our force is a force for the 1970's, a force which can contribute to NATO and to NORAD as well as to United Nations operations or to any other demand placed on it by the government of Canada in the national interests of this country. Even Air Chief Marshal Miller dealt with this myth in his testimony before the defence committee and I am surprised, therefore, in view of the reliance that the right hon. gentleman places on his testimony, that he should repeat this afternoon in this committee the misstatement of fact which has been repeated over and over and over again by his supporters for weeks and months during the course of this debate.
Another charge which he made this afternoon was that defence expenditures were increasing. Well, of course this is true in current dollars, Mr. Chairman, but as the right hon. gentleman knows, and if I recall correctly, the defence estimate for the last full year of his government was $1.63 billion. Translated into terms of present dollars on the basis of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics index for governmental expenditures, that is the present equivalent of a budget of $2 billion. I think that the right hon. gentleman should try to give the people the facts in this regard and not try to confuse them by mixing up in his mind current and constant dollars.
Then he made an allegation which I could only interpret as being a slur on the chief of the defence staff, General Allard, making some vague suggestion that he had political ambitions. This is a contemptible slur on a distinguished soldier, but it is understandable from a man who conducted witch hunt after witch hunt after senior military officers in the defence department at -the time he was prime minister of this country, when there was an aura of fear pervading the senior military establishment because of the then prime minister's well known fear of military men.
General Allard is a distinguished Canadian soldier. He is a distinguished son of this country who has played his part in war and in peace and who was the first Canadian to command a British division. I think the right hon. gentleman should do him the courtesy of a gallant gentleman and not cast slurs on his integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
April 11, 1967


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Minister of
Justice tell the truth?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tell us about Admiral
Landymore.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then there was the suggestion that the unification of the armed forces was not an issue in the last election and therefore the Canadian people had no way of judging whether or not they were in support of this measure. It was a plank in the last Liberal party platform and certainly the men and women of the armed forces knew it was part of the Liberal platform, as was stated so eloquently in the testimony given before the defence committee by a number of recently retired senior officers.


Mr. McIntosh:: Air Chief Marshal Miller did not know, your chief of staff.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The most incredible part of the speech by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon to this committee throughout the whole time he took-I do not know how long it was but it seemed like a long while-was that he did not give one cogent reason why this bill should not be proceeded with. He did not give one cogent argument contrary to the principle of unification. He did not in any way address himself to the principle of the bill but sought rather to indulge himself in some sort of electoral nostalgia. Then he cast aspersions on the motive for unification, the reason for it. The reason is to increase the military effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is to give the absolute maximum in military effectiveness for the Canadian tax dollars which are being spent. It is to refine and design a military force with the maximum of flexibility and capability to carry out its tasks in the decades which lie ahead. This is the reason for the military reorganization.
However, even in the reorganization, Mr. Chairman, there is an element of Canadianization. I do not think this should be objected to by the right hon. gentleman. This will be part of the consequences of reorganization because in so far as military organization is concerned Canada will be leading the world and will be out in front of all other nations.
Again this afternoon the right hon. gentleman made a very serious charge. He said I had failed to give parliament the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.

National Defence Act Amendment


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But he did not go on to give one single example of the facts I have failed to give to the house. Where is his sense of British justice?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Where is his regard for the
bill of rights?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time the British have come into it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is he so completely unmindful of the principles which he preaches in the bill of rights and from the platform that he would make a charge of that kind in this house and then not give even one suggestion of what he might have had in mind? It was a most extraordinary intervention. I was surprised most of all, however, by his new found love for senior military officers. This is a characteristic which I have never ascribed to him. I have never ascribed it to him because of his record when he was prime minister and because of his many public pronouncements, as well as some of the things he said this afternoon in his speech.
I think that it might be advisable to go back and review some of the relationship which existed between the military and the civil authorities in order to put it into perspective. I should like to start with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow.


John George Diefenbaker: That was recommended by the defence chiefs.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The right hon. gentleman has just stated that it was recommended by the defence staff. Is that correct?


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on January 1, 1959, in his home at 24 Sussex Street he told Mr. Charles Templeton that he, the prime minister, was going to cancel the Avro Arrow notwithstanding the pressure by the military and by industry.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, so far as Mr. Templeton is concerned his veracity needs no assistance, but I should like to read the evidence of General Foulkes given before the special committee on defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am rising on a question of privilege and will not be howled down. I
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment wish to read from the evidence given before the special committee on defence on October 22, 1963.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is rising on a question of privilege and should be given the opportunity to state his question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: This evidence was given by General Foulkes. He said:
That is the story of the Arrow, but the chiefs of staff came to the conclusion that it did not make military sense to purchase aircraft at a cost of $8 million each when we could maintain aircraft with similar performance from the end of an American production line at something about $2 million.
There is the record.


Mr. Crouse:: Apologize.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thought the right hon. gentleman might take that point of view so I spent most of the morning reading the record. This was about three weeks after he advised Mr. Templeton that he had made a decision. Then the chiefs of staff took a decision in respect of it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is an unequivocal falsehood.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He was not going to be pushed around by the industrial military complex. He was going to show who was running Canada and he was going to cancel the Avro Arrow regardless. Those are the facts. The decision was subsequently confirmed by the chiefs of staff, as the right hon. gentleman has suggested. If I may say so, the whole Avro Arrow episode showed the lack of a unified approach in respect of defence matters and a lack of adequate priorities in respect of defence requirements.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. St. Laurent-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. gentleman should not get emotional. This is precisely one of the reasons the defence reorganization was recommended to the House of Commons, so that there could be a unity of approach, a unity of strategy and an adequate set of priorities in order to reduce the likelihood of this type of problem recurring in the years ahead. It was quite right that the government should make a decision at that time. The government had the responsibility to make a decision. Nobody is denying to the right hon.

gentleman the right to have taken the decision in the manner he did. I think, however, it should be pointed out that regardless of the merits of the decision, whether it was right or wrong, at that time the biggest brain drain this country possibly ever has seen started. It was much greater than anything that has happened in so far as the military is concerned because of the unification of the armed forces. The two are not in the same order of magnitude. Because of this great brain drain our country lost some of the most highly skilled engineers and designers this country has ever developed. I am sure that nothing will persuade them to come back as long as there is any prospect of the right hon. gentleman ever becoming prime minister again.
The second example I should like to give is the choice of the airplane for the strike role; I am referring to the CF-104. Here again, Mr. Chairman, there is a very unusual sequence of events. The choice that was made of the CF-104 was a government decision. It is true that eventually the chiefs of staff made a recommendation, but only after they had been directed to do so by the government of the right hon. gentleman and only after they had already said that this was not the best airplane to carry out the role and was in fact not suitable to carry out the role. I do not know who made the decision-I do not know whether it was made by the right hon. gentleman himself or by the late Senator Brunt, but someone made the decision and it was promulgated.
Even more important, however, was the role for which this airplane was acquired. The air force reversed itself in respect to its opposition to the CF-104 three days after the airplane was approved because it was afraid of rocking the boat in respect of the role that had been accepted by the government for the air division in Europe. The strike role was the military choice. It was accepted by the government of the right hon. gentleman. It was not a role which was assigned to the military by the government-quite the opposite-and it led subsequently to a very silly situation which has been referred to already this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In an article written by the late Major General W. H. S. Macklin he said:
Having made the strange blunder of ordering, at a price of hundreds of millions, a whole series of weapons needing nuclear warheads or rockets for effect, the cabinet refuses to arm them accordingly. They swallowed the nuclear camel and then
April 11, 1967

choked on its tail, and this has made them look uncertain, and even stupid.
That was a decision made by the government of the right hon. gentleman, and it did in fact lead to a situation which has been the subject of debate ever since.
The government of that day spent hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment and training for a strike role accepted by the government, the consequences of which it really could not have fully understood. Later the same government refused to acquire the atomic weapons necessary to make the role effective. At that time the consequences were quite different.
The right hon. gentleman asked me earlier why I had changed my position. Let me tell him again that I did so because Canada had accepted a commitment, through the government of the right hon. gentleman, and had told our allies we would fulfil this role. The government purchased the equipment with which to fulfil that role and when the time came to make a decision to acquire the nuclear weapons to make it effective it refused to act.
One of the other charges he made this afternoon was that we were letting NATO down and that there must be some reason for France's attitude toward Canada at this time. This represents an incredible lapse of memory on the part of the man who was the prime minister and who authorized the defence department to spend probably $1 billion for nuclear equipment and training and then welshed on our obligation by refusing to arm these weapons, thereby embarrassing our forces for the first time in Canada's role in NATO.
I do not think the full consequences of this act are completely understood by the right hon. gentleman. The Royal Canadian Air Force now has available to it in Europe an explosive power comparable to several thousand times that used at Hiroshima. This is the consequence of a role undertaken by the previous government without comprehending the advice given to it by its military chiefs.
The right hon. gentleman suggested this afternoon that this was the result of a decision arrived at in Washington. This was not a decision made in Washington. The recommendation that Canada adopt a strike role was made in our own defence department. It was decided on here by the military, submitted to the government, and approved by the government of the day without comprehending the 23033-935
National Defence Act Amendment consequences. It was also supported by the minister of national defence of that day.
My point is this: Was there any analysis by the civil authorities of this recommendation and was there any analysis by the civil authorities of the consequences of engaging in this role? Was there any independent analysis by civil authorities in the defence department or elsewhere in the government of the relative contribution that Canada could make to our allies by accepting this role as against some other role for the Canadian armed forces?
In my submission there was no independent civil analysis. I submit there should have been such an analysis before accepting this advice, with its consequences of staggering proportions, and rubberstamping it. There should have been an independent analysis of the consequences of placing Canada in a position of accepting a role without really considering any of the options available to us as a nation. This was done by an acquiescing government without the will or the facilities to exercise an independent judgment in respect of a matter of this tremendous magnitude. The government just went blindly along.
One important consequence of that action has been the determination the associate minister and I have had since we assumed reponsibility for this office to make sure that there was a much greater exercise of civil authority than had been the case under the previous government which was responsible for accepting the strike role on behalf of Canada.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to ask the minister whether he thinks an independent civil judgment would have warned us against taking this particular role and whether he now has obtained an independent civil analysis which indicates that we should terminate this particular role?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that is a perfectly valid question. The answer to the first part is yes, in my opinion. I think an independent analysis would have brought to light the options and might have indicated at that time that the over-all stockpile of strategic power
14790	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment available to the west or the alliance was adequate to deter and that under those circumstances the weakness of the west related to conventional forces. It might have indicated that we could have made a greater contribution by developing our conventional forces at that time.
We are now in a position of having the equipment and the trained forces and other resources necessary to carry out the role. This complicates the situation. We are not in the same position we were in before the role was accepted. The white paper suggests that we should reduce this role as the aircraft are attrited. I think this is a valid policy at this time. I am not the least bit convinced that if we were doing this over again a good analysis might not have shown a more appropriate military way for Canada to spend her funds to augment the total capability of the alliance, strengthening the alliance as a whole.
Let me give two contemporary examples of the situation in the United States between the civil and military authorities. On the basis of a newspaper article written by Mr. Joseph Kraft, which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, it is alleged that there is a difference of opinion in the United States in respect of the bombing of North Viet Nam. According to this article:
One side, led by Secretary of Defence McNamara, is sceptical, to put It mildly, about the value of the bombing. In their view, bombing the north has not achieved any progress in its political objective-which is to weaken the resolve of the Hanoi government to keep up the war. That assessment is apparently borne out by recent C.I.A. evaluations.
Later on the article states:
On the other side, there are the advocates of the bombing, led by the joint chiefs of staff-[DOT]
Would the right hon. gentleman accept the military advice, which I presume is unanimous, of the chiefs of staff, or would he accept the advice of his civil authorities and his minister in respect of the political and military effectiveness of the operation? The point is that the government has not only the right but the absolute responsibility to exercise independent judgment after reviewing all the military plans and proposals and after hearing all the evidence and the points of view. The government must then take a final decision and accept the responsibility for that decision.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
My final illustration in this field is anti-ballistic missiles. Here again there is a very
[Mr. Hellyer.j
DEBATES	April 11. 1967
strong difference of opinion between the military and civil authorities. Mr. McNamara believes that the installation of an anti-ballistic missile system might not provide the protection that is suggested by his military chiefs of staff. I should like to quote from evidence he gave to Congress which I think puts his point of view better than I could. It reads as follows:
It is the virtual certainty that the Soviets will act to maintain their deterrent which casts such grave doubts on the advisability of our deploying the NIKE-X system for the protection of our cities against the kind of heavy, sophisticated missile attack they could launch in the 1970's. In all probability, all we would accomplish would be to increase greatly both their defence expenditures and ours without any gain in real security to either side.
This is not the point of view of the military chiefs of staff. Their point of view is that the Soviets might not increase their offensive capability, that they might not want to divert the resources necessary in order to maintain an adequate deterrent. But I think the McNamara philosophy is straightforward, that if we on the western side depend for our security on the nuclear stalemate, on having sufficient offensive power to penetrate Soviet defences and to be able to inflict unacceptable damage on them at any time even after the first strike, then they will have the same philosophy that they on their side will want to maintain sufficient offensive capability to enable them to inflict unacceptable damage on the west, in spite of our defences in order to deter attack, and to be able to perform this even after a first strike, which of course we would never undertake. But again the point is this: Do military authorities in their submissions have the right to have their proposals accepted without proper scrutiny by the civil authorities, or do the government of the day and the responsible secretary of state or minister have the responsibility to investigate and satisfy themselves, or itself in the case of the government, that the proposal is in the best interest of the nation or the alliance?


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Will the minister permit a question? I think this is a very interesting point but I have not been able to appreciate the significance of Mr. Kraft's article in the Ottawa Citizen from which the minister quoted stating that the secretary of defence is against bombing Hanoi and the recommendation of the United States joint chiefs of staff. Who wins in this difference of opinion?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it is obvious in that case that there are also others in that government who believe that the bombing should
April 11, 1967

continue and this is supported by the chiefs of staff.
In so far as the anti-ballistic missile dispute is concerned, it is not yet resolved. As the hon. gentleman knows, there are discussions going on between the United States and the U.S.S.R. in the hope that some agreement can be reached, and I for one certainly hope and pray that this will be the case. I do not think there is too much optimism, but at the same time it is by far the most sensible thing to be done because the consequences are almost unbelievable. I would like to talk about them for a minute.
The cost to the United States of introducing a heavy anti-ballistic missile system is estimated now at $20 billion. Those who are familiar with defence expenditures and the tendency for these expenditures to escalate believe that the cost would reach at least $40 billion by the time the system is made effective. An equal expenditure of perhaps $40 billion would be required in western Europe, and assuming that the Soviets introduce a system of equal complexity and sophistication when they have the technical know-how to do so-and there is no reason to believe they could not develop it because they have been doing research for many years-their cost would be comparable.
The Depuiy Chairman: I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: It seems that there is unanimous consent for the minister to continue his speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I appreciate the co-operation of the committee. The over-all cost of installing this system could be as high as $120 billion. In other words, it would represent the commencement of the greatest arms race in the history of the world. But this is not the end of it. In addition to the cost of deploying the anti-ballistic system there is the cost of the additional offensive capability on each side necessary to penetrate the defences on the other side in order to continue the atomic stalemate and to provide the measure of assurance of destruction which deters each side from using the offensive capability.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the minister another question on the very point he is now discussing? Is it not true that, in addition to the expenditures he has mentioned, to render an 23033-9351

National Defence Act Amendment anti-ballistic missile system truly effective there would have to be a system of shelters to deal with fall-out, and that this would be not only an added expense but would require a good deal of regimentation of people to get them to use the shelters when required?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is true, but the cost is not great in comparison to the total cost involved for the anti-ballistic missile system.
The anti-ballistic missile question raises a number of considerations. First of all it raises a very serious moral question. I think we have to examine in the western world the advisability of spending anything like this sum of money on a defensive system which, as Mr. McNamara suggests, might not prove to be successful in doing anything other than maintaining the status quo. I think we have to look at the situation in the world and consider alternatives so far as the expenditure of sums of this magnitude is concerned. We have to look at it also from a strategic viewpoint. If the ultimate goal is to win the war of ideas, then I think we have to consider very carefully the possibility of diverting a large proportion of this expenditure to more useful purposes which would have a greater impact on the people of the world, and particularly those people who are uncommitted, to show them we are sincere in our intentions.
Again I ask my right hon. friend, would he accept what is obviously a unanimous suggestion of the United States joint chiefs of staff without the independent appraisal that has been given to it? I am sure he would not. I Would not suggest for a moment that he would, and if he did I think he would be very unwise. It would, without question, be endorsing an escalation of the arms race, and I am sure he would be most reluctant to do that. Would he endorse the fantastic expenditures without a careful and independent analysis of the alternatives? I hope he would not, although judging from the position that he and his party have taken in this debate I would not want to put them to the test. Incidentally, the antiballistic missile system is an army system. As you know, the aerospace defences of this continent under the NORAD command are predominantly air force. I do not think I need to elaborate at any length on the problems that could conceivably arise in reconciling these two facts.
One must listen to all points of view and then decide.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what we are asking the minister to do.
14792	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of course the chiefs of staff were predominantly opposed to the unification of the armed forces. Chiefs of staff all over the world are opposed to the unification of the armed forces. Chiefs of staff all over the world and those who have decided in their minds that they are going to become chiefs of staff are opposed to the unification of the armed forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is the only one in the world who is right.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They can be wonderful people. They can be dedicated public servants. They may have served their country with distinction and gallantry. They may be masters of the military art. But when they become chiefs of staff they take on an additional role. Then they become heads of service. Then they become party chiefs. Then they have responsibilities over and beyond those responsibilities they have had throughout their careers. They then carry in themselves the vested interests of their whole service, of its traditions, of its rank structure and everything for which it stands, including its fair share of appointments and of military expenditures. It is not unnatural then that men who have been chiefs of staff are-I should not say unanimous because there are some exceptions among chiefs of staff-in majority opposed to unification.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Which ones are in favour?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are some.


John George Diefenbaker: Who?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am going to come to that in a minute. There are some people who are in favour. I think the general statement I have made is a fair one. Once a person becomes head of a service he has a responsibility to that service which in his opinion supersedes his previous freedom of action.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What authority have you for saying that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it is quite natural then that they should take this point of view. In addition, I believe if you were to select anyone in the whole world you could not find anyone who would be more biased in respect of military unification than a chief of staff, for the reasons I have given.
I must say I am surprised when I hear some of the endorsements of integration. I am all

DEBATES	April 11. 1967
the more surprised when I hear some endorsement of integration coming from people who, when we started this scheme in 1964, were just as opposed to integration as they appear to be to unification now.


John George Diefenbaker: Who are they?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have been trying to avoid personalities, Mr. Chairman, and it is very difficult for me to do.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: This is just more of your confusion.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is the
minister implying in his remarks that integration commenced in 1964?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No. If the hon. member will read my second reading speech he will find it is a historical process which has been going on for 20 years. I can say in fairness, I think, that integration prior to 1964 had not been very great and most of the integration has taken place since 1964.
I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in one of our service papers written by a serviceman in respect of two points which have been raised. If I had more time I would quote from it at length. The two points I should like to make in particular are in respect of the pacing or timing of the unification process and, second, the question of integration versus unification. The editorial is entitled, "Let's Get On With It", and appeared in Voxair:
The integration process began two years ago, and that, to the rank and file, seems a long time. The reason is that few things appear to have changed at the operator and unit level. This is easy to understand, since the process was designed to work down from the top, and only recently some results of these changes have been noticeable in the field.
Later we find this:
More difficult to comprehend is the opinion, often expressed in the recent controversy, that the integration process is too fast. This opinion implies a comparison, and one can only wonder what it is compared to, since this is the first time any nation is integrating and unifying its forces.
Most proponents of the "too fast" idea appear to be those who were against integration in the first place and who believed that integration and unification would not become a reality. When it now appears that it will, the natural reaction for anyone resisting change must be to attempt to delay the change.
I must underline that, Mr. Chairman, because this is exactly what my experience has
April 11. 1967	COMMONS
been. Those who now say "too fast" are in some cases those who have never really endorsed the idea of integration at all and in some cases were adamantly opposed to it. Later on the author of this editorial writes:
As we stated above, integration appears slow to those in the field. This should make a good argument for speeding up the process as much as possible. Any change of the magnitude of the one undertaken is difficult and sometimes painful, but the quicker we complete the change the less painful it is going to be. If, on the other hand, the phase of change is allowed to go on ad infinitum we can be certain that morale will be adversely affected.
This view, Mr. Chairman, is not that of the associate minister or myself or the chiefs of staff now serving but that of one of the servicemen, and it is the view of many who have expressed opinions to me in respect of this matter.


Mr. Fane:: Will the minister allow a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Frank John William Fane: Will the minister give us the name of the person who wrote that editorial?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will send the hon. member a copy of the editorial and that will give it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Put it on Hansard. I think you should put the name on the record since you are reading the article.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will send it to my hon. friend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Identify the article.


John George Diefenbaker: Put the name on the record.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have no objection, but this point was raised yesterday by me and my hon. friend took exactly the opposite point of view then when he said it was not necessary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was in respect of tabling a document.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will send a copy to my hon. friend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The argument yesterday was in respect of tabling a document which is done in the house when the Speaker is in the chair, not in committee. The minister is once again giving false information.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.
National Defence Act Amendment


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said nothing about this yesterday except in respect of the tabling process. What we are asking for now is the identification of a document from which the minister has read. We are entitled to the name of the author as well as the journal in which the article appeared.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will try to provide it to my hon. friend. In any event, I accept responsibility for it in order to get it on the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order again-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is not a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot flout the rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is flouting the rules. When members quote from documents they give the name of the author. The minister is asked now to give the name of the author. Of what is he afraid? Whether or not he is afraid, this cannot be done under the rules of the house, refusing to give the name of the author of a document from which he is quoting. If it is an editorial from one of the newspapers which are daily circulated, that is a different matter.


John George Diefenbaker: This looks like self-serving evidence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: So far as we are concerned, we should know the author.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will try to get the name of the author. The only reason I cannot give it at once is that it is signed with the initials O.F. There is a list of the editorial staff and the publication is Voxair. It is published in Winnipeg and represents the views of a great many Winnipegers so far as this subject is concerned, so I recommend it to the hon. member.
Military opinion in respect of this question is obviously divided. The majority of the senior officers are in favour of what we are doing, but not all. The choice of witnesses before the committee meant that the point of view expressed would inevitably be contrary to the proposal to unify the armed forces. The scales were loaded in advance. The views of all the retired service officers who appeared were known in advance. I could have told my hon. friend almost precisely what they would say before listening to their evidence.
As I said earlier, these witnesses fell into the category of people who had held high,
14794	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment responsible positions and who felt that all the interests of the services that they had served so well were vested in them. I feel that in many cases they still feel that way. I know they do as a result of talking to them. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, there are other views as well. I should like to read the views expressed by two ordinary people, and I think they express very well some of the things I should like to say to the committee.
The first article I should like to read is entitled, "Thankful Hellyer Is "Jet Age", Not Nostalgic For Cavalry Stables". The article reads in part:
The stubborn opposition to the unification of the armed services by older generals and admirals is not surprising to many of us who served in both world wars.
In his memoirs the British writer on military matters, B. H. Liddell Hart, gives statistics which prove that between the two world wars, the general staff spent more money for hay and oats than on gasoline and oil. They still believed that the cavalry divisions were more important than developing armoured divisions.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
He states: "It was disturbing to find that-after six months in office, and a war crisis so obviously near-Gort (Lord Gort, chief of staff, 1937-39) was still concerned with the reactions of military conservatism, and so anxious to avoid offence by moving faster than the older generals would tolerate".
Liddell Hart gives credit to Hore-Belisha, a war minister before 1939, for modernizing the army more in nine months preceding the world war II than had been done in all the years since world war I.
Let us not forget what two civilians, Lord Haldane and Hore-Belisha, did to shake the complacency and conservatism of the old generals who believed in fighting a new war with the methods of the previous one.
Let us the thankful that we have a jet-age defence minister in Paul Hellyer and not a world war I general who has nostalgia for the Ross rifle and the odour of the cavalry stables.
That was signed by Henry C. Hall of Richmond Hill.
I have another letter from a retired officer. The newspaper heading to the letter is "Unification Means Better Morale, Leadership- Brigadier", and the letter reads as follows:
What I find disturbing about the current discussions regarding unification of the armed forces is that there seems to be little, if any, reference to the basic principles involved.
The bitter arguments revolve around uniforms, ancient history and personal emotions.
Broadly speaking, the advantages of unification can be summed up as unity of purpose and, secondly, cohesiveness.
Unity of purpose from top to bottom, has growing significance with the development of modern and changing weapons and conditions. It

DEBATES	April 11, 1967
has special relevance to the modern problem of "limited war"- the form of war (other than "peace-keeping") which is likely to involve Canada.
Cohesiveness ensures maximum effort in the direction of the desired "purpose". It includes such factors as the power to implement decisions in a comprehensive manner; ability to concentrate effort; flexibility; improved communications; effective economy in use of manpower and equipment, etc.
The commonest objections to unification are the anticipated difficulties in connection with expansion of part or all of the armed forces (if needed); ability, or lack of it, to co-operate with allies; morale.
For all major expansion the problems of unified and separate forces would be largely the same. This, therefore, is not a valid objection, as the scales tip somewhat in favour of unification.
Co-operation with allies, always difficult, seems to present no greater difficulties one way or the other.
Morale is the most important single thing in war. Many things go to make up morale but the one overwhelmingly important single factor is leadership.
It is significant that Napoleon's armies in their hey-day had a high level of morale, and it was because of leadership, not because they looked back into the distant past for inspiration and not because they wore old-style uniforms.
We must look to the future. Already we have Hovercraft which travel over land and water riding on a cushion of air; rocket harness for individual propulsion of foot soldiers over obstacles; reconnaissance "scopes" that see targets in the darkness; improved management and control techniques.
All these things call for modernization of the armed forces set-up. Canada with its small armed forces is in an ideal position to do this.
That is signed by Guy S. N. Gostling, Brigadier retired, of Niagara-on-the-Lake.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What has it got to do with
unification?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It has a lot to do with unification. They are the principles which are required to build a single service and to make it cohesive and effective, and I commend them to my hon. friend.
As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, military opinion is by no means unanimous, but these two letters to which I have just referred and read into the record are indicative of dozens, perhaps hundreds, that I have received.
I might add that there are other high ranking officers who have spoken in favour of unification. For example, there is General Churchill-Mann who has spoken in favour, as well as General Keefler of Montreal. The other day an excellent article by General Worthington appeared in the paper and I commend it to my hon. friends.
April 11, 1967	COMMONS


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not think it was excellent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then my hon. friend might reread it because it has a moral in it which is worth thinking about.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It was also based on false premises.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are many retired senior officers who believe in unification of the armed forces. Perhaps it is regrettable that we did not have the opportunity to call more of these officers to give evidence in order to give some balance to the testimony instead of just calling recently retired officers, many of whom, on their own statement, retired because they were no longer in accord with the policy of unification of the armed forces.
Ministers of national defence are, by law, responsible for the armed forces. I believe I have to listen to all of the advice that is available. That is essential and fundamental. But having listened to it and evaluated it and analysed it, it is then the responsibility of the minister to make a decision and to recommend that decision to the government. Then, of course, he must persuade the government that his is the correct decision.
In the case of integration-unification, the chiefs of staff were heard when Bill C-90 was first presented. When the white paper was presented, believe me, Mr. Chairman, some strong views were expressed on the whole proposal. I had to be able to convince the government that the point of view being put forward in the white paper was the right point of view. That was my responsibility and I was able to do that. I am still able to do it.
Later, Mr. Chairman, when this Bill C-243, was presented to the government, the chiefs of staff endorsed what was being proposed and they have fully participated in the preparation of the bill right from its earliest stages. The bill was drafted with the complete cooperation of the senior military officers and commanders in the field who were part of the process. They participated in the drafting of my second reading speech. I think it is fair to say that more senior military and civil authorities in the defence department participated more fully in the preparation of my second reading speech than in any other speech given in this country by a defence minister since we have had defence forces in Canada.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?
National Defence Act Amendment


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to know from the minister whether he agrees with one of his members who said that integration and unification are the same thing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have given my hon. friend a definition in the committee and I do not wish to repeat it now. If he wants me to make another speech later on I will do so.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I did not ask for a definition. Yes or no, are they the same thing or not?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is part of the same cycle. If I may use a physical analogy, you could say that conception and childbirth were separate but that they are all part of the same natural phenomenon. Once you start integration and proceed to the extent that we have and to the extent we intend to proceed, Mr. Chairman, you lead to unification. I think the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), summed it up very beautifully this afternoon when he said that unification is carrying integration as far as is practicable. In other words, it is carrying it to its logical end of a single service. I think that is undeniable logic and I commend it to my hon. friend.
My last point, Mr. Chairman, is this. Having listened to all of the points of view which have been expressed, I think it is incumbent on members and ministers to make up their minds on this matter. We have to use our own God-given intelligence to take a decision instead of simply relying on evidence of people in favour or the evidence of people not in favour. Of course that evidence is relevant, but when the crunch comes we have to use our own intelligence and, believe me, Mr. Chairman, this is all I have done and it is what the associate minister has done.
Speaking of the associate minister, Mr. Chairman, I regret more than I can say the attack that was made upon him in the press the other night by Charles Lynch, and I hope that Charles will have the decency to apologize to him in the way he apologized to the late Governor General. One does not have to have served during the war with high rank. One does not have to be a genius. One does not have to be a professor. All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that we use our own God-given intelligence and examine all of the changes in technology which have taken place during the last 20 years. Looking at all the changes and evolutions in the world about us, I have come to the conclusion that this is a good measure. I strongly support this bill; I think it is right
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment for the armed forces of Canada. I believe it is good for Canada, and it is good for our servicemen. Once it has been implemented I am sure they will find that it works effectively and that they can be part of it and proud of it. It is a policy that builds on the past but looks to the future rather than to the past.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I believe that Bill C-243 will come to be regarded as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation to have been passed in the history of Canada. We shall all be proud of it. I ask that the committee be allowed to conclude its deliberations and let the government accept its responsibility, let the Department of National Defence get on with the job.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the hon. member rising?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I want to take part in this debate, merely to follow up the minister.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Vil-leneuve.
TTranslation1


David Réal Caouette: 
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes left before the dinner adjournment I would like to refer to the strange statements made by the Minister of National Defence and to the strange witnesses he called upon to support arguments that he advanced. He introduced the name of Charles Templeton. This amazes me because only a few years ago this same Charles Templeton wished a recession on the people of Canada in order to bring the Liberal party back to power. This is the kind of witness the minister depends upon to support his arguments, a man who, on national television, wished a recession on the Canadian people in the interests of the Liberal party. To me this is the most amazing thing that could happen in this chamber at this time. In addition, the minister harked back to the argument about the Arrow aircraft. It is amazing that he has re-introduced that argument.
I will call it seven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and repeat this later.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Before suspending the sitting perhaps the committee would permit me to read the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment. They are as follows: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) Public Works-Port McNeill, B.C.; the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Grills), Agriculture; the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), Agriculture.
23033-936J
April 11. 1987

National Defence Act Amendment Pursuant to an order of the house made on Thursday, April 6, this sitting is suspended for one hour. The committee will resume its work at eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Rinfret: When the committee rose this evening at seven o'clock clause 2 was under consideration.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, we all realize that in the lobby there is something much more attractive going on. I, along with other members of the house, would like to have the privilege of watching it. However, business of the house must go on.
At two minutes to seven o'clock I was drawing attention to the obvious weakness of the Minister of National Defence, who found it necessary to bring in the name of Mr. Charles Templeton in support of an argument he was putting forward. What I was saying at that time bears repeating. Charles Templeton is a former Liberal candidate who, along with some of his supporters, had envisaged himself as a potential leader of the Liberal party. His political ambitions died the minute he appeared on television and told the country that he wished upon the people of Canada a recession in order to bring about a return of the Liberal government in Canada. Goodbye Mr. Templeton. This is the kind of man the Minister of National Defence now calls in to support his arguments.
The minister put forward some other strange arguments this afternoon. He specifically referred to the cancellation of production of the Arrow. He has put himself on record as to why at that time he considered this to be one of the worst disasters in Canadian history. Why did he consider it to be a disaster? He said it was disastrous because an air speed record could be established for Canada by the Arrow. He apparently was not concerned about the capability of the Arrow in a defence role.
The minister knows full well that the production of the Arrow was the subject of a decision on the part of the St. Laurent government prior to the election of that year, a decision which was not followed because of the pending election. Let me refer to the
[The Chairman.]
evidence of General Foulkes, another prospective Liberal candidate who did not make good in that regard. In 1963 when testifying before the defence committee, General Foulkes had this to say:
This proposal was looked at by the St. Laurent government in the last few months and they decided at that time, with the election on their hands that this was one of the first things they would have to get at when they came back because it could not be carried on within the present appropriation.
That general in the army, a prospective Liberal candidate, told the committee that the St. Laurent government had already made a decision to cancel the Arrow. I do not know why the minister continues to revive these arguments, but it should be brought to his attention that they in fact contradict what he has been trying to shove down the throat of the Canadian electorate. General Foulkes then went on to say this:
That is the story of the Arrow, but the chiefs of staff came to the conclusion that it did not make military sense to purchase aircraft at a cost of $8 million each when we could maintain aircraft with similar performance from the end of an American production line at something about $2 million. Furthermore, we could not see from where the funds were coming to finish the production of the Arrow.
This afternoon the minister suggested that the cancellation of the Arrow was a disaster because Canada did not establish an air speed record. The minister took strong objection in this regard. I suggest if the truth of the matter were known he objected strongly to this cancellation because of some economic situation in the city of Toronto. Had he admitted that as being his reason for objecting, I should give him full credit. Every member of parliament should make every possible representation to see that the economy of his own area is looked after.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The minister said this afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition and members on this side of the house were repeating lies. That is the very thing the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development accused me of the other day when I was honest enough to say that I was interested in the financial welfare of my constituents. I do not mind admitting that I will take every opportunity in this house of making representations which will improve the welfare of the people in my part of the country.
Earlier in his remarks this afternoon the minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of repeating lies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
April 11, 1967	COMMONS


Malcolm MacInnis: That drew some applause from the Liberal side, but not a denial from the minister. If we are repeating lies, it has been confirmed that we are not originating them. Whose lies are we repeating? A good portion of what the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon was direct quotation from the present Minister of Justice. Was the hon. member then repeating lies?
Who originated the lies that we are supposed to be repeating? Were they originated by the present Minister of Justice or by former serving officers such as Miller, Moncel, Landymore, Brooks, or Foulkes? Are those the people the minister had in mind? Is the minister or any member of the Liberal party prepared to get up and say that those gentlemen were lying? Apparently no one is prepared to make such a statement and therefore we can assume that we were not repeating lies when we quoted the arguments of those gentlemen.
The minister took it upon himself to single out a certain pressman. Is the minister prepared to identify the members of the press gallery whose lies we are repeating? Apparently he is not, so we may take it that he is not prepared to back up anything he said this afternoon. He simply voiced a bunch of words and now does not have the intestinal fortitude to support what he said only two hours ago.
The minister saw fit to single out a distinguished member of the press gallery and said he hoped he would have the honour or the gumption to make an apology. All I can say is that the minister in singling out this particular individual, as he has done on other occasions, has done a most cowardly thing, knowing full well the man to whom he referred has no comeback.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are you kidding?


Malcolm MacInnis: He
asked him to apologize.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Have you read his column?


Malcolm MacInnis: At least that gentleman, when he found he was in error, was big enough to retract his statement, but apparently the minister is not big enough to retract anything. He made certain statements this afternoon which he is apparently not willing to support at this time. Will the minister get up and accuse the present Minister of Justice of lying when he wrote the words quoted this afternoon? Will the minister get up and accuse the former serving officers who have been quoted of originating these lies? What
National Defence Act Amendment the minister did this afternoon is exactly what he accused the Leader of the Opposition of doing.
Let me bring this whole thing a little closer to home. In quoting what took place in this house on March 3 hon. members have referred to a statement made by the chairman of the defence committee. In this regard I accuse the minister of deliberately supporting that lie told in this house. On March 3 the chairman of that committee caused a procedural argument in the house when he said that the committee had voted on a certain issue. The record indicates what happened but when I called upon the minister to get up and support that statement he failed to do so. By his failure to deny what we suggested happened, the minister has supported that lie. The fact that the statement was a lie can be proved by Hansard, or the records of that committee.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The lie appears in the evidence which is contained in Hansard and in the committee's record. The chairman of the defence committee lied to the house when the question of privilege was brought up, and the minister approved it. Now he accuses members on this side of repeating lies, and yet he cannot support that statement. I can and do support the statement that he has stood by in the house and allowed members of his party to lie on his behalf.
Recently we heard the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra say that he had the honour of leading the defence committee. I say he did not lead it with honour. This afternoon we heard from the hon. member from Victoria (B.C.), who chaired the committee during the first half of its meetings. We all know he had a distinguished war record. He has done honour to this country and has served this country well. Despite the fact that we are well aware of his record and of his rank, his speech sounded to me more like a speech made by a tailor than by a commodore. He spoke on matters which had nothing whatsoever to do with the unification bill.
I have not had a chance, nor has any other member of the house, to review the remarks made by the former chairman of the defence committee, but I do recall his saying something about looking in the rear view mirror and looking back on the outmoded defence methods. My understanding of his statement is that he must have been referring to the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and all the allied countries as being outmoded, because they follow the tradition
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment of three services rather than the supposedly pathfinding unification bill which the minister is trying to put across.
The minister said that we are going to lead the way. The government has at every opportunity called upon every distinguished serviceman known to them to speak in support of the unification bill. However, despite the fact that the members on the Liberal side of the house have used the cowardly approach by referring to Lord Mountbatten as a supporter of unification, the fact is that Lord Mountbatten certainly does not support the concept of unification as the minister sees it. Not only does he not support it, he ridicules it. Lord Mountbatten, whom the government has tried to use as a witness on its behalf, has ridiculed the approach which is now being used by the minister.
Several speakers on the other side of the house, including the Minister of Transport, have advanced arguments on behalf of civilian control. I say that there is no need for argument on that basis. As was pointed out this afternoon, we know of no one who has gone on record as opposing civilian control. These remarks were made the other day by the Minister of Transport and they were also made on this side of the house. I agree with them; civilian control is important. As far as the Canadian forces are concerned, civilian control is exercised by the parliament of Canada, and the decision made here must be carried out.
I did not have the opportunity to hear General Allard's evidence before the defence committee.


Rémi Paul: That is too bad.


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish the hon. member for Saint-Denis would cease interjecting. If his interjections were to appear on the record we would have to print a separate volume of Hansard, but we would not have even one page for what he says when on his feet. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a good idea if you asked him to rise when he wishes to say something.


Rémi Paul: I said it is too bad the hon. member did not hear General Allard's evidence.


Malcolm MacInnis: I congratulate the hon. member for standing up at last.
To return to General Allard and the fact that when he appeared before the defence committee I did not have the opportunity of hearing him, let me mention that I do not

know him. There is no doubt that he has served Canada well and has a distinguished war record. However, let me come back to what the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport and many hon. members on this side have referred to, namely civilian control. Since the control of the services is exercised by the House of Commons I feel that I can rightfully stand up and criticize what General Allard may do outside of his particular line of duty. I do so, despite What the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have said, namely that General Allard can speak anywhere on any subject and at any time without clearing his speeches with the minister. If the minister were to look into the rules and regulations he would discover that such is not the case. The Secretary of State for External Affairs can say as often as he wishes that he will not inhibit freedom of speech in this country, but let me hark back to what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay West, namely that the serving personnel in our armed forces or any visiting forces are not free to say what they like. The hon. member referred to the German officer who was to speak in Winnipeg, but then found out that what he wished to say was not in accordance with the rules and therefore he was not permitted to do it.
The minister should have learned his lesson from that. He is also aware of the fact that not only does General Allard have to clear his speeches with him, but he has to obtain the minister's permission before making them. How can the minister stand up in the house and say that he has so much confidence in General Allard that he will allow him to make any statements he may wish to make at any time? This is ridiculous. Since civilian control of the armed services is ultimately exercised by parliament, I maintain that we as members of the house are entitled to tell General Allard that according to the rules and regulations, and despite what the minister says, he is not permitted to make statements outside the house about any matters that are being discussed in the house.


Rémi Paul: It is too bad the hon. member could not have heard General Allard's evidence.


Donald MacInnis: Why
does the hon. member not go out and watch the hockey game? He has his neck away out, whether he knows it or not. It is just because I do not want to embarrass somebody on the minister's staff that the hon. member got
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
away with it the other night. I would suggest to the hon. member that he behave himself because, whether or not he thinks it is funny,
I can place him, the minister and some members of the minister's staff, in a very embarrassing position. When it comes to dealing with the minister I have no scruples, but I have sympathy for some members of the minister's staff. So I would advise the hon. member to behave himself, because it is not too late for me to do something about it.
To get back to what I was saying-


Rémi Paul: You are lost.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have had occasion to stand in the house and hear this type of interjection and interruptions. They do not bother me; in fact they keep me going. The hon. member is making a mistake if he thinks he is getting away with it. As I said once before with regard to the actions of the Liberal party, any time that the snake pit becomes active again I am prepared to wait it out. They do not bother me a bit. If the hon. member would stand up on his feet, something he seldom does, except on the bidding of the minister, I would appreciate hearing what he has to say.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In speaking today the minister has revived some old arguments. He is going to lead Canada and the world in the reformation of their defence forces. He is doing this by overlooking a solemn promise made by him and by the Prime Minister. One would have thought looking back a couple of years, that the first thing any Liberal defence minister would do on assuming office would be to carry out the solemn promises made to the effect that the Liberals were going to renegotiate Canada out of the nuclear agreement. This matter was mentioned this afternoon and brought clearly to the minister's attention. This is another broken promise. Then again, who but these Liberals could call breaking promises the successful operation of a government? There have been broken promises all the way down the line.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal directly with the minister and his unification bill. I return to the old argument that the minister has no confidence whatever in this bill. Again I say that if he had confidence in the bill, as he maintains he has, he would follow a different course. This afternoon he made an odd statement when he said that most of the senior officers were in favour of unification, but that some were against. Did he conduct a referendum? Did he get around
National Defence Act Amendment to all the officers in order to arrive at this opinion? Unless he did, how can he say that these officers support it?
If the minister has the confidence he says he has in this unification bill, why can he not do what was done during wartime when all the serving personnel in the Canadian forces were reattested? This was done during a war.
I think 1 quoted figures the other night which indicated that, of all those serving in the forces at that time, only five officers and 532 men refused to be reattested to go overseas. This is a time of peace, yet the minister and his supporters in the government have said that to reattest the men today would bring about chaos. Well, you cannot have it two ways. If it is going to bring about chaos, then you do not have confidence in this measure. The only chaos that could result would be the retirement from the service of those people who no longer wish to serve in a unified force. There would be chaos for those members of the army, navy and air force who had an opportunity to volunteer to go into this force and who supported the minister. This is the chaos to which reference was made. Either you are going to show confidence in the unification bill or you are going to reattest the men. The minister has not got the intestinal fortitude to test the servicemen on this bill.
The minister can dictate to the people of Canada through the press because he can get a favourable press. However he does not dare give the serving personnel of this country a privilege which belongs to them during war, when they have an opportunity to volunteer. The men came back from Europe and there was a war going on in the Pacific. Nobody had to go to the Pacific unless he specifically signed his name to a document indicating that he volunteered for service there. There was no compulsion whatever. However, today in a time of peace, when unification is under consideration, this minister is forcing down the throats of serving personnel of this country the obligation to serve with a unified force. This is compulsion. As I said before, during the committee hearings when members had an opportunity to vote on an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that would give all our serving personnel an opportunity to volunteer for the unified force, members of the Liberal party, no doubt on instructions of the minister, said no. The minister has refused our serving personnel an opportunity voluntarily to join the unified force. In other words, I say it again,
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Mr. Minister, you have brought about conscription in this country because every person serving in our army, navy and air force from now until his retirement time is serving under compulsion.
Of course, the minister will stand up and say this is a ridiculous argument, that serving personnel can get out on six months notice. My argument is that this opportunity should be given to each and every person in the service. They should be given an opportunity to belong to that service voluntarily. There should be no compulsion whatever. The Canadian government did not use compulsion during the war, but we have it now. This adds up to one thing, a dictatorial approach. We have ample examples of the minister's dictatorial attitude day in and day out in the House of Commons when members of his party stand up and read from prepared texts containing that which the minister wants them to put across. The fear is always present that if a member expresses an individual thought something will be said that will not be in agreement with the minister's approach.


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


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that after listening to the hon. member for Cape Breton South the minister is going to be very pleased to hear that I have developed a sort of grudging admiration for him following his speech this afternoon. I want to emphasize, of course, that it is a sort of grudging admiration. Whenever one excels in something one gets a sort of grudging admiration. Since the minister has relied throughout this debate on the tried and true system of the big lie developed by Adolph Hitler, and since he is so adept in the practice of this system, I developed a sort of grudging admiration for the amount of skill he brought to bear in using the system.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should allow that slur to go unchallenged. I am going to tell my hon. friend that if he ever says that outside the House of Commons I will have him prove it before a court of law.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is certainly a great advance for the minister. He is the only cabinet minister, perhaps the only member who ever sat in a legislative body such as this, who was charged before the house with an offence which would certainly have barred him from sitting in the cabinet, or perhaps might have been regarded by the

house as an offence which would have rendered him unfit to hold a seat in this house. This statement comes from the minister who sits there now, who still sits there, under the charge I brought against him in this house. He, by his own voice, refused unanimous consent to the only method by which he could clear his name. This is the first time this has ever happened in British parliamentary history in any legislative body such as ours. Certainly, this is an indication the minister has climbed the ladder of honour to quite a degree since he in such cowardly fashion turned down the only way he could clear his name. Certainly, I am pleased to see that apparently he has now some regard for his name and reputation.
However, in case the minister is interested, tomorrow I will be speaking in Manitoba. I will be back here on Thursday and I will repeat that I would be glad to meet the minister in a court of law. I assure the minister, in case he is unaware, that courts of law outside this house are not as tolerant as the house. If a person is charged with tampering with the evidence of a witness, he doss not have a right to avoid a trial in a court of law no matter how much he may scream and try to avoid that trial he so richly deserves.
However, I was going to be kind to the minister. I had thought, since the only thing for which we can praise him is excellence in one regard, that is his ability as a salesman of the super lie, that certainly he did that which is most essential for one who wants to sell the big lie, and that is to give the appearance of utmost honesty and indignation that anyone should lie-
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I fear that I must interrupt the hon. member at this point in order to suggest that perhaps some of the phraseology he is using now is outside the limits of parliamentary language.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, the technique of the big he is what I will accuse the minister of excelling in. This is a sales technique that is known, and I do not think ft has ever been found unparliamentary. I might point out that I did not hear any complaint from the Chair when the minister had the effrontery to suggest to my leader this afternoon that he was repeating in this house this lie argument; so I thought I might very well make this my theme.
This paragon of virtue went on to repeat this lie, as though it was a terrible crime that no one should hear about. He then said that
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
my leader was casting aspersions on officers, but no one has cast more aspersions than has this minister of defence.
I would suggest that the epitome of hypocrisy on the part of the minister is for him to suggest that this appears horrible to him. All I was doing in complimenting him upon putting himself in the position of one who is bound to be the leader in this particular technique of selling the big lie, was suggesting that the minister was pretending he was a paragon of virtue. He carried this technique off very well. In fact, I detected genuine indignation in his voice when he talked about repeating the lie. He was not indignant because the lie was repeated; he was indignant because he understood that he was the only one in the house who had a stranglehold on that technique.
He proceeded to give us a perfect example of this, Mr. Chairman. He repeated a technique which he has encouraged the backbenchers in his own party to use in this chamber, namely the reading of newspaper editorials and other misleading documents which suggest that those who are opposed to unification belong in the horse and buggy age.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I do not mind that from the Liberal benches, Mr. Chairman. The minister of defence was also indignant at the remarks of my leader, suggesting that some reflection was being cast upon gallant gentlemen. The minister suggested that what my leader said could only be taken as a reflection on gallant gentlemen who have worked hard for integration and believed in it, who went as far as they could and then had to quit because they believed that the further step of unification would destroy what they had worked so hard and so long to achieve.
In the suggestion of the minister that those who were against his views belong in the horse and buggy age and are against progress, we see a great example of the technique of the big lie, and in two ways. First of all, we see his attempt to say that people like Mon-cel, Miller, Dyer, and so on, belong in the horse and buggy age, even though they may have been responsible for whatever savings and improvements the minister has been able to bring about.
Second, we have what I can only call the epitome of hypocrisy in the suggestion that what the Leader of the Opposition said could be taken as a reflection on gallant gentlemen. How much more striking example can we see
National Defence Act Amendment of complete reliance on the big lie, Mr. Chairman? You clothe yourself in the garments of honesty, integrity and righteousness and then repeat things which are untrue, that would be said only by one who believes in the philosophy that the bigger the lie and the bolder you tell it, the more likely it will be believed. That is exactly what the minister is doing.
I should like to give a few more concrete examples of this, with some evidence to back them up. We have for instance the big lie so often told on the other side, that those who are opposed to unification are against progress; that they are opposed to defence planning to enable us to figure out where we are going, when previously there has been too much muddle headed thinking. Now for the first time, according to the minister, we are going to plan things properly: We will now get all the advice we need, we will know where we are going and will all pull together. This is what the minister calls the new spirit of progress.
Let me give some examples of how much planning there was in unification. The minister, who is so ready to suggest that some aspersions might be cast upon the honour of honourable gentlemen serving in our forces, proceeds to give the most all round condemnation of the chiefs of staff I have ever heard, with arguments which are not honest in support of that condemnation. Although the minister did not give us any names he suggested to us that in 1964 there were many who were opposed to the entire idea of integration. He is now surprised to find how many of them agree with it. We are supposed to believe that there has been a wholesale conversion, or something. He very conveniently omits to indicate how we can check these names, but of course we know that it is a figment of his imagination.
The minister then proceeds to quote the opinions of some anonymous servicemen, after having assured us that those who had risen to the highest positions in the military affairs of this country should be ignored because they belong in the horse and buggy age. These anonymous authors quoted by some unidentified newspaper say we should speed up the process and get on with the job. This is all to support the biggest lie of all which the minister has spread in this house, and on which both he and the Liberal government must rely today, namely that integration-unification is one package; that the great benefits of integration that we have been told about cannot be realized unless and until we
April 11. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment complete unification. When this grandiose scheme is completed we will then start to derive the benefits.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Having mentioned a few things with regard to which I thought some evidence should be placed on the record, I should like to mention one other matter before I turn to the evidence given before the committee. I listened very attentively while the minister told us that in 1964 it was his responsibility to sell the cabinet on the feasibility, the practicability and the advisability of unification as defined in his white paper. He stated he did that, and it was still his responsibility to do it. I wonder what the minister told the cabinet that was not revealed to the chiefs of staff? I wonder what he said. When the white paper came out in 1964. The evidence before the defence committee was clear that nobody in a position of responsibility appearing before the committee knew of or understood what the minister tried to call unification. This ought to be a clear warning to the cabinet that it has been sold a bill of goods. If what was proposed was clear to the minister, it was not clear to anybody else. It was not clear that back in 1964 the minister was considering the implementation of unification. Following that reasoning it is obvious that the bill of goods the minister sold the cabinet in 1964 is not the bill of goods he is trying to sell to the country today.
Volume 19 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the national defence committee contains evidence of Admiral Brock, the first man whose head the minister cut off. I wish to read several excerpts from that evidence. The minister this afternoon had the effrontery to say that there was no evidence to support what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition had said, when the right hon. gentleman said he had read every word of evidence, and that he had come to his conclusions on weighing that evidence. It is time to place some of the evidence on record here. The newspapers have not published it all and obviously many government members have not comprehended it or have not paid attention to it.
On page 975 of volume 19, about one third of the way down the page, we find this:


Gordon Minto Churchill: You took the same conclusion from the white paper, then, that I did. The concluding remarks of the white paper, which I think should be quoted, are:
"In this paper no attempt has been made to set down hard and fast rules for future policy and development.

... The paper is a charter, a guide, not a detailed and final blueprint. The policy outlined in it is not immutable. It can be altered or adapted to meet the requirements of changing circumstances, national and international."
It is clear from those words that if the minister succeeded in selling his policy to the cabinet, he was given a blank cheque. After all, at that time the minister was the fairhaired boy. The machinations taking place in the defence department were not known to the public, though I expect some of his colleagues had their suspicions.
The evidence continues:
Did you conclude from that that there was no finality in 1964 with regard to proposals being put forward?
Rear Admiral Brock: I could not have come to any other conclusion, inasmuch as I had heard- from his own lips-assurances from the minister that his programs would be cautiously proceeded with and implemented.
That is not what happened. Senior officers found suddenly that they had to leave, because they could not agree with the minister's sudden decision to implement unification. Admiral Brock had had the minister's assurances, we know how much those are worth.
The committee heard the evidence of Admiral Brock. Members can draw their own conclusions about the minister's suggestions that he was trying to bring in a system where planning was paramount, where the services would be together, and where everybody would know where he was going. That was the plan for the 1970's. Unfortunately the rest of us are not clear about the meaning of this measure, and the minister has not explained it.
I wish to quote further from the evidence of Admiral Brock, the chief of maritime command, one of the senior officers in the entire Canadian Armed Forces. Certainly no one has had a more distinguished record of service. Though the minister may have slighted people, though he may have lectured them as he did this afternoon, he cannot cast aspersions on Admiral Brock's veracity.
At page 977 is the following:


Mr. Lambert:: Remember, the chief of maritime command is speaking:
-and so far as I am aware, no such plan existed. In fact, it is my understanding-and it was the understanding of most of us, that the minister meant seriously what he said-that he was going to work his way through this, that nothing was inflexible and the plan would be developed as we went along.
I expect that most members in the house recall the minister's saying that the big distinction he brought to his department was that for the first time in Canada's history the admirals or generals, and others of similar rank, would know where they were going. There was to be sound planning for the future. Unfortunately we have evidence from witnesses that no senior officer knew of any plan in the minister's mind at that time.
Then, to continue the quotation from the evidence:


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nothing had been disclosed to you with regard to a single unified defence force?
Rear Admiral Brock: Certainly not.
This is referring to July of 1964, when the minister had referred to integration and unification as one package.
It continues:


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The reason I raise this is that such great reliance is placed upon the fact that at some point in the white paper there is one phrase that integration is the first step towards a single unified defence force, and that this was notice to all concerned, and what we are seeing today was apparent to everyone. What I am asking is: Was it apparent, or was it even disclosed in any degree at all to the senior commanders of the forces?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The answer was:
Rear Admiral Brock: No, not that I am aware of, and of course it would be quite unreasonable to expect 140,000 sailors, soldiers and airmen to read the white paper, even if they could have gained anything from this.
I myself asked him some questions on this point. In the course of his argument the minister has placed straight reliance on the contention that unification and integration were part of one big plan. The reason the minister wishes to tie them together is that there is much evidence before the committee that the services will benefit from integration, but none that they will benefit from unification. There is plenty of evidence that unification would be harmful, and my hon. friend from Calgary North has listed at least six different reasons why this would be the case. The reason the minister is trying to sell this big lie that integration and unification are all one package is that unless he can succeed in tying them together there is nothing which could be
National Defence Act Amendment said in favour of the present bill, since unification is something which all the evidence condemns.
All the benefits talked about by the serving officers called by the minister are benefits resulting from integration. There is not one shred of evidence that unification will bring any benefits. I intend to quote from the record to show how unfounded the minister's argument is in this regard. Let me read from volume 19 at page 984, where I was questioning Rear Admiral Brock:
Perhaps I will put it more directly. You were in a position that with anything as startling as the unification proposal that the minister now puts forward-anything so far reaching-in your experience in a responsible command position did you feature such an innovation being brought in without a great deal of long distance planning with the best advice of all the senior personnel?
This is what the minister has just been talking about. He told us he had to do some real planning-get the best advice together and come up with a real plan. The question is based on exactly what the minister said he had been doing. Here is the reply:
Rear Admiral Brock: Well, Mr. Nugent, really there was not anything startling about it because anyone who has been involved in the military field has thought about these things. We know that the very same sort of proposition has been advocated by crackpots in other countries and discarded and, as far as we were aware, within military circles, it was thought to be just not on; Canada could not go this way.
The evidence continues:


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Let us suppose that it had been taken seriously, that the minister was going to implement it and that you had known about it: how much planning then would have been required, do you think, between the conception of the idea and the formulation of that policy by the minister and the advice given by responsible officials as to how long it would be before you would be in a position to complete the plans to start to implement it?
Rear Admiral Brock: I cannot give you a specific answer to this. This partly depends upon the stability of the government, for one thing. During my last period in Ottawa as assistant chief of the naval staff and vice chief, I served five ministers of national defence, and everybody wanted a radical review of defence policies.
This minister tells us he is the only one who has decided to get off the horse's back and drive forward. The answer continues:
It seems to me before we can decide how long it would take to formulate in detail the practical application of a new way of things we much have some consistency in the general national approach and outlook. The military establishment, interrelated with the Department of External Affairs, must be sure of their course and it takes a good many years to make a change as great as this.
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
I will skip two lines, an exchange between the chairman and myself, and continue:


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Then would unification, as the minister suggested bringing it in, be brought in in a responsible way without a plan and are you aware that there ever was a plan?
Rear Admiral Brock: I am aware that there was not a plan. There was not a plan that was made known to the then responsible senior military advisers.
I will pause there. I hate to rub it in. It is only the minister's speech this afternoon and his bragging about his planning innovations which prompted me to read this again into the record. Admiral Brock is surely one of the officers who must have known. There are others who knew, and I intend to deal with what they had to say.


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am sure I will have sufficient information to enable me to make another speech or two.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am encouraged to say a few more words on this bill because of the intervention by certain people of some importance on the other side of the house. The chairman of the defence committee, the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.), spoke earlier, and the Minister of Transport intervened on Friday. Once the Minister of Transport enters a debate like this one, it is wide open for anyone to speak because I do not know of any person on the government side who knows less about this particular matter than does the Minister of Transport. Then there was the intervention on Wednesday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a contribution which deserves some attention. Today we heard from the Minister of National Defence.
I think it is important that in a debate there should be an exchange of opinions. This is what debate is. Arguments are put forward by one side or the other. Whether or not opinions are changed in the course of these discussions is an open question. But I do know that a great many members of the House of Commons, to say nothing of the public, have learned much more about the unification bill than they knew before.
We have heard people announcing that a great many meetings of the defence committee were held and that a number of witnesses were heard, and that in these circumstances all that remains is for the issue to be decided here by a vote. I submit to you, sir, that all

members of parliament should have an opportunity to find out what happened in the committee. Not every member of parliament has the time to read the voluminous reports which are prepared by committees, and sometimes a member will benefit by hearing a summary of what has transpired in a committee. I do that here, and have for many years. I do not serve on all the committees but I like to hear from members who serve on committees. I listen to their reports to the house, just what they amount to, and then if I am in doubt about some matter I refer to the detailed committee proceedings. This goes on all the time.
I found a great deal of interest not so long ago in hearing the debate on the transportation bill, one of the most important bills to come before the House of Commons in recent years. The committee on transportation had an enormous number of meetings. It heard expert evidence. We have been encouraged in the present debate to pay no attention to expert evidence. The committee on transportation had a different view. It called in experts and listened to them very carefully. Then the bill came before the house, having been amended to quite an extent in the committee, and was later amended in the house.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
That debate was very interesting. A great deal of information was put in front of us, to such an extent that I found it was possible for me to participate in the debate, which I did, and the Minister of Transport will recall that it was on my initiative he got tripped up over the clause on the Crowsnest Pass rates and suffered what he later termed a humiliation-and it was, because he was very careless.
I give that as an example of what should be done following the meetings of committees. A committee brings back a report to the house. The members sitting in at committee hearings have an obligation to give a report to the House of Commons in order that other members who have not participated in the committee hearings may get a summary of what was done there. Then you have the other aspect of it, that there are members of the House of Commons who, for one reason or another, do not serve on committees in which they are interested but who have a great deal of knowledge of the subject matter before those committees, and those members should have the opportunity to debate the issues in the House of Commons. That is precisely the course of this debate. We have spent several
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
days on it, but not any more than are required, because of the nature of the subject and its importance.
An opportunity has been presented for members of the defence committee to state the case in the House of Commons, and there is an opportunity for other members who were not on that committee to express their views on this vital matter. Over and above that, each member of the House of Commons hopes that somebody somewhere in the general public will hear something about his views and perhaps be influenced by them.
I also think that in this particular matter of defence we have an obligation to speak on behalf of those people who cannot be heard, who have not the privilege of making their voices heard. That applies to all the people within the services, because under their regulations they do not have the privilege of making public speeches.
There is a widespread discontent within the services, and those of us who are aware of that think we are duty bound to bring it to the attention of the government and to the attention of the people of Canada. If not, you hear only one side. You hear only from the minister, telling the public that everything is fine within the services. Those of us on this side of the chamber know perfectly well that that is not the case. We have had too much information given to us, in one way or another, to show that there is massive discontent within the services and that it has been occasioned by the action of the government.
In the defence committee we drew attention to the very large number of officers who left the services prior to their normal retirement. Many of those people left the services because they were told by the minister that they either had to go along with his proposal or get out. A great number of junior officers left the services early because of what they saw going on-uncertainty in the Department of National Defence, too many respected senior officers fired out of hand, and great doubt as to the future in the services.
During the course of the committee hearings I had occasion to discuss with one of the witnesses the number of personnel who had passed through national defence headquarters. I think that in the space of two years 3,000 officers had passed through national defence headquarters: I call it Grand Central Station. A great number of those officers left the services entirely; others were shifted back and forth. I do not know of any business that could operate efficiently with such a large
National Defence Act Amendment personnel turnover; and yet under the minister that is what was going on at national defence headquarters.
It is no wonder that General Fleury said he could not stand it any longer. He did not know from one day to the next what officers were going to be working with him at headquarters. That is the type of chaos created by the minister. It is quite proper that this should be brought to the attention of members of the house and to the attention of the public.
The trouble stems from the erratic behavior of the minister and his impetuosity to get this particular bill passed at the present time. I think he selected this as his centennial project. He had to think of something, and last summer he decided this would be his centennial project and he would end up in 1967 with a newly designed defence force, a unified force. Otherwise I cannot see any reason for the haste, because all the advice that was given to him was to the contrary.
The senior officers, even those still serving, have said, "Give us more time to work out the aspects of integration. We need more time to straighten out materiel command," which takes in the supply end of it. They have said "We need more time on Training Command." and there is the greatest doubt in the world as to whether Training Command is going to work, and work effectively.
The minister brushes all this aside as inconsequential. The people actually working at the job do not find it inconsequential at all; they find it a very difficult task. They are worried about the consequences, and if an emergency comes upon us this year, I have the gravest doubts as to whether the present organization could effectively meet that emergency. I think the minister would be forced back to the older system of three services.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the chairman of the defence committee in its later stages, who operated moderately effectively after we had given him instruction as to how to conduct committee hearings, reported to the house yesterday with regard to this bill and made what I consider to be the most astonishing statement I have heard with regard to it. At page 14714 of yesterday's Hansard you find these immortal words of his:
Only one thing of any real importance remained to be done and that was to give the new single force which we had created in 1964 a name. Bill C-243 asks us to do that. No clause in Bill C-243. other than clause 2 before the committee now, is of any real significance. I say that because clause 2 gives the force a new name.
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Not content with a ridiculous statement like that, he repeated it about seven minutes later. That comes from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who acted as chairman of that committee. It comes from the man who reported to the house that there had been 55 meetings and 38 witnesses heard. He said that the only purpose of the bill was to give the forces a new name. Well, if his words are accurate, there has been a terrible waste of time here in parliament and in committee. But of course his words are absolutely inaccurate.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Far from just giving the forces a new name, the bill destroys the three services, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, and substitutes another force for those three. Clause 2 of the bill to which he referred does that by amending the present act, striking out those names, and making one service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
A little further on this same clause provides for the creation of a special force. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra did not mention that but I intend to mention it. Further on in the bill-and we will be coming to this later on-clause 6 provides for the compulsory transfer of the people now in the navy, army and air force into the single service, the Canadian Armed Forces.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one can readily realize the absolutely erroneous impression given by the chairman of that committee to the house when he spoke yesterday and said that it was just a simple little matter of changing the name. That is not so at all. On this side of the house we have said that we should retain the three services, work away at the integrated side of it, and see whether we can make a success of it. In 1964 I had doubts concerning that and opposed the legislation right down to third reading, just as I am opposing this. I still have in my mind a big question mark with regard to integration itself.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are consistent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I can be shown that it can be successful in respect of the integration of the supply forces and so on, then I am prepared to accept integration. I believe, however, that it is wrong to have just one chief of staff. I do not intend to repeat the argument I used in 1964, but I believe, now when integration has not been effected, it is foolish to go ahead with unification.
The bill of course does more than just change a name. It wipes out the three services and makes one service. We have been told that everybody in that one service will be-although not called sailors, soldiers and airmen-working quite a bit either at sea, on the land or in the air. We have been told there will be no transfer of people from one area to another. This is not accurate, because this clause 2 with which we are dealing, modifies section 17 of the original act. I will read the words:
In an emergency, or if considered desirable in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence entered into by Canada, the governor in council may establish and authorize the maintenance of a component of the Canadian forces, referred to in this Act as the special force . . .
If this is passed the power will be given to the department and to the minister to create a special force. In that special force may be placed any person, officer or man, from the unified force. It does not state that those who have had their training at sea, in the air or on the land will not be required to serve elsewhere than in the area in which they received their training; it does not say that at all. It says that a special force may be created and in that force will be placed officers and men of the regular force. There is no protection here at all. There is nothing which states that a man who has been trained only for land operations will not have to serve at sea, or vice-versa. Yet, we have been told that none of this will happen.
As I say, right there in this bill is the evidence that it will be possible for the minister and his staff to do this. When the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said that all this bill did was to change the name he omitted to draw the attention of the house to clause 6 to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred so effectively.
Why did the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the chairman of the committee, not frankly tell the members of this house that in clause 6 a compulsory feature had been introduced which borders on conscription. This is a feature which will affect very seriously the officers and men now serving in the three separate services, because once this bill has passed the house and the Senate and has been proclaimed, it will become the law. On its becoming law some of the officers and men who now are in the Royal Canadian Navy will cease to be in the Royal Canadian Navy and will become members of the defence force,
(Mr. Churchill.]
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
and the officers and men who now are in the Royal Canadian Air Force will cease to be in that branch of the service and will become members of the defence force. The same will be true of the army. They will not have a choice. We brought this up during the committee hearings. We argued with the minister about this. We asked him whether he was going to give the men now in the present services a choice as to whether or not they would go into this newly styled single force, and he said no. He says no to almost everything.
I pointed out the experience we had in September of 1939. I appreciate the fact that I am not supposed to refer to any of the wars which have taken place in the past, but I will take the chance again. On September 1, 1939, when we were enlisting men in the Fort Garry Horse we signed them on into the Canadian field force. They were enlisted and attested into that force-the Canadian field force. In two or three days word came from Ottawa that a new title had been selected. That new title was the Canadian Active Service Force. It was necessary to reattest those men into that force.
Then, somewhat later, word was sent to us that under the Canadian Active Service Force there was no compulsion to serve outside the boundaries of Canada. Therefore it was necessary to take a third step. The officers and men were asked whether they wished to serve abroad. It was necessary again for them to indicate their desire by signing their signature. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South has pointed out, that was done in wartime and quite conceivably the cabinet of that period could have said, "Well, we have organized the Canadian field force and since we want to change the name to the Canadian Active Service Force, we will do it by order in council and that will be that, and all those who have enlisted to date will be automatically in the Canadian Active Service Force". Even in wartime, the government used its common sense and said that the men, having been attested into the Canadian field force, with that name being changed, would have the opportunity of saying whether or not they wanted to be in the Canadian Active Service Force. The government of that day did not say everyone in the Canadian Active Service Force must serve anywhere in the world. That government gave the officers and men a chance to make their own decision.
National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I hope it never happens, but if this bill becomes law and is proclaimed I hope the minister will give the officers and men of the three services an opportunity to say whether or not they want to serve in this new force and, if they do not want to serve in it, let them be retired or honourably discharged without any reduction in the pension to which they may be entitled at that time. These officers and men are all volunteers and this is how they should be treated. When we discussed this in the committee, the minister rejected the idea. That is another example of the typical, arrogant and domineering attitude of this Liberal government.
Let me indicate why this is important. The men presently serving in the three services made a decision when they enlisted in those three services. Some men went to the recruiting officers and said they wanted to serve in the army, while others said they wanted to serve at sea with the navy, or perhaps with the air force. Many of them have made a deliberate choice in this regard. Some people do not like the ocean and are not very comfortable at sea. I happen to be one of those. Some people do not want to fly and would much prefer to serve on land in a particular unit of the land forces. Very often the men in the army will make a specific choice. Perhaps they do not wish to be in the armoured corps because it means they will be shut up in a tank. Perhaps they suffer from claustrophobia. Thousands of people during the second world war had no use at all for the armoured corps from the standpoint of serving in it, because they did not want to be shut up in a tank, where they could burn to death if it was hit by a shell. Similarly some people in the navy do not want to serve in submarines.
All these people should be given a choice. But that is not the plan for this 1967 centennial arrangement. The officers and men will have no choice, but will be compulsorily placed in this new force. As I pointed out, if a special force is formed in an emergency, these men may be transferred at will from one branch to another.
In answer to the suggestion by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, that there was only one major change in this bill, I pointed out three. These changes involved the wiping out of the three services-the navy, army and air force; the creation, if necessary, of a special force to which anyone may be posted as the staff or minister sees fit, and the
April 11, 1987

National Defence Act Amendment automatic and compulsory conscription of these men from the navy, army and air force into one defence force. That gives you some idea as to why there is opposition to this bill.
The minister has given no indication of a willingness to yield on any aspect of this bill. In this respect he differs from the Minister of Forestry, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Minister of Transport. I do not have any less admiration in this regard for those men, but I do know from their work in this house that they have modified bills at the request of the opposition, or when it became apparent that they were running into too much difficulty.
Perhaps I have said enough in respect of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I should not have spent so much time dealing with his remarks, because really they are not deserving of any attention at all. I intend to pass over the references I was going to make regarding the Minister of Transport, and I shall do so with one exception. That minister interrupted the hon. member for Calgary North as reported at page 14658 of Hansard, when he said this:


Mr. Pickersgill:: I listened attentively to the extracts the hon. gentleman has just read to us, and they were news to me.
The hon. gentleman from Calgary North had been reading extracts from the testimony of Admiral Rayner. The minister was so ignorant of the committee proceedings he felt these extracts were new to him. It has been our impression that the greater portion of the committee proceedings are unfamiliar to members of the cabinet, and that the Minister of Transport is not the only ignorant person on the treasury benches. Apparently he had not heard the testimony of Admiral Rayner before. I suppose the same is true of all other members of the cabinet except the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Defence. That is another reason it is essential to have a debate here in the House of Commons, in order to draw attention to those committee proceedings. I could say a great deal more about the Minister of Transport, but most of it would not be very complimentary.
Let me now refer to certain remarks of the minister for external affairs who entered the debate on Wednesday, April 5.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: My words of wisdom regarding the minister for external affairs are to be lost, Mr. Chairman.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, on Friday evening last I drew the minister's attention to a very serious situation which has developed in one aspect of the maritime command in Halifax. I express my apologies to the minister if I became a little emotional and got carried away. Perhaps he will stop reading so I can make an apology to him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am listening very carefully.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can you do that and read at the same time?


An hon. Member:: It is not hard to follow you.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is not hard to follow my remarks, but I am being sincere. I wish to express my apologies if indeed I was a little perturbed and disturbed with the loss of 100 jobs and the effect this has had on the families of those affected. This is of great concern to me. The minister has given his assurance that base consolidation, and plans leading to it, would not have an undue economic impact on the area. The other night he was reading, as he is now, and I lost my temper. I think the people of Halifax are deserving, and incompetent as I may be to express their views and opinions, I think they deserve at least to be heard. As I said the other night they deserve some kind of a reply. My words, which were possibly spoken in anger, were nevertheless very sincere and born of the desire not to see the Halifax area unduly affected by what, in the words of senior serving officers and indeed the minister himself, may be described as a natural sequence to the evolution of unification and integration.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Indeed if we are to follow this through to its logical conclusion, that is to say the saving of money, the conversion of this money into better and more sophisticated equipment, then it would be logical to look at base consolidation. I have indicated on a number of occasions in the house, as have more senior members of this party, the extent to which Halifax, Dartmouth and the municipality of Halifax depend upon defence expenditures. There is no need for me to repeat that.
I simply want to bring forward one or two points in the few minutes available to me tonight. I will mention again to the minister that we have not as yet had any explanation
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
of why the government has taken the second major step leading to the total removal of civilian employees at Shearwater. What is the government's intention? What is its plan? I will remind the minister that confederation was founded in no small way in the Atlantic provinces. The dollars and cents that led to its proper development were extracted from the maritime economy. This was quite true for many years following confederation, not to mention the years leading up to it. We are entitled to frankness. We are mature enough to accept rational decisions which the government might make. We are aware of the fact that it does represent the majority opinion in Canada.
We are prepared to accept the fact that possibly the minister might be right. All we ask from him is his honest evaluation of the studies which have been made, to date, with regard to base consolidation. We would like to hear from him whether or not he is going to close Shearwater, or whether he is simply asking quietly that civilians be removed so that when base consolidation comes to bear on that naval establishment he will be able to turn to the people in the area and say, "I am sorry, but there are no civilian employees involved; all we are doing is transferring the military establishment." Will he tell us, for example, whether it is his intention to close Cornwallis, transfer the training establishment to Shearwater and remove the flying training establishment from there to Greenwood? Will he tell us whether or not these moves are being considered? Much is at stake.
I raise this matter again with some degree of trepidation because, as I said at the outset of my remarks, I was somewhat flustered and concerned when I discussed it on Friday. I made some remarks in the heat of anger which I would not have made otherwise. However, today I received a telegram from Mr. A. Wesson, president of the largest union at Fairey Aviation, which reads as follows:
Situation unchanged. Notice given today to terminate employment of 60 more employees. Letter following.
I am concerned about that. I said before and I will repeat again that I am very concerned about the dialogue that we have established in connection with this bill. Like other hon. members in the house I believe quite sincerely that we have not got around to talking about what we should be talking about. Today I asked the Prime Minister whether he was in receipt of a telegram
National Defence Act Amendment signed by Mr. D. A. Bona, president of local 273 of the Canadian Labour Congress setting forth very real concern regarding wage rates. Why should he not be concerned? This concerns 700 or 800 members in his union, many of whom are paid different wage rates. What lies at the root of all this is the total inability of the government and the minister to clarify not only the effects of integration and unification upon the service personnel but the effect on those civilians in Halifax and Dartmouth who are affected by integration and unification.
I am making these remarks because they are indeed important. I think Mr. Bona's telegram is important enough to be read into the record because it voices a concern. It is a reaction to a vacuum left by the minister- and I am sorry the associate minister is away. I am very pleased, however, that he has gone to participate in the events at Vimy; as a young Canadian I have great appreciation for that. I am not unmindful of it, nor do I think are other young Canadians of my age. However, I am sorry he is not here. I am sorry the President of the Treasury Board is not in the house. Indeed it is discouraging to note that only three members of the cabinet are here.


John Napier Turner: How about your side?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am pleased to see the
minister has now included our group among the government treasury benches.


John Napier Turner: How about your side?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sorry; I apologize to the minister. I think everybody is watching the hockey game. There are probably as many out in your lobby as there are in ours, so I apologize. I am sorry a minister on the treasury bench is not available because I think it is pertinent to read the contents of this telegram into the record. The telegram indicates the concern that exists because of a lack of adequate information, a lack of a basic plan and a lack of basic organization in connection with integration and unification.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This telegram is addressed to me, but it is a copy of a night letter sent to the Prime Minister and reads as follows:
In the past four months we have attempted to have the Department of National Defence our employer recognize the need to give fair play and simple justice to employees in federal local union 273 C.L.C. To date we have received sympathy and the reply wait until collective bargaining. The employees in ship repair at H.M.C. Dockyard have
April 11, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment received projected increases of 21 cents over and above the seven shipyards formula by an agreement signed January 31/67-
I do not need to explain that to the minister, he knows what it is.
-yet the department continues to refuse to even consider projecting any increases for labourers, motor transport in CFB Halifax and yard craft and auxiliary vessel employees. Certification and collective bargaining could be delayed indefinitely in reference to our members in the case of yard craft and auxiliary vessels. These employees have one of the lowest wage rates and fringe benefits systems of government employees. Labourers in this area have poor labour rates with the area rate 31 cents below the ship repair labour rate. Motor transport drivers receive 16 cents below the ship repair labour rate. We were informed that we would not be hurt by integration and this has been reaffirmed on subsequent occasions yet employees that were under the ship repair wage rate and those employees that after years of discussion finally reached a better wage rate have lost not only their purchasing power but the opportunity to continue to progress to a better standard of living by leaving the area rate. We appeal to you, sir, to rectify this grave injustice and consider the possibility of interim increases until the employees are able to bargain for themselves.
I think the telegram speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman. This was a direct threat to the real effect of unification and integration. There are 300 people in Canada who can tie up-indeed, there are 32 people in Canada who can tie up our entire maritime defence. This group of approximately 30 people can, under the guidance of local 273 of the Canadian Labour Congress, do this.
There is something else which has concerned me very deeply, and it has to do with some references made by the minister in the committee. I believe he had the unmitigated gall to cast some aspersions on the British defence posture. I refer to statements recorded on page 524 of the committee evidence, at which time Air Marshal Sharp had made some comments on the advances in science and their effects on modern weapons. It was suggested these advances could cut across the roles of the three services. It might be possible that an officer might make a recommendation to buy a piece of equipment which would enhance and maintain the status quo of his service but which would not be in the best interest of the country, if one looked at the total picture.
The witness had been questioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and the Minister of National Defence interjected:
X will give you an example-
Here, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about an argument put forth by the Minister of Na-
[Mr. Forrestall.l
tional Defence that unification is not only desirable but is absolutely necessary.
-and I do so with some trepidation because it involves another country. I think the recent difference in opinion between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force with respect to who was going to acquire tactical aircraft for the future, was conducted in a manner in which both services put service interest ahead of the national interest. Now, that is my opinion, and you can disagree with it if you wish.
I not only disagree with it completely, but I question the minister's responsibility in making a statement about the United Kingdom at this particular level. Indeed, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre replied to that statement in this way:
I certainly disagree with the Minister of National Defence for Canada criticizing something that has happened in Great Britain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it is one of the best classic examples of the reason why the single service concept is inevitable, as well as being a good solution militarily and economically.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a shocking statement coming from a minister of the crown.
Then, the chairman of the defence committee indicated his reaction by saying:
What is so shocking about it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Implying that the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy had a conflict of interest with regard to loyalty to their country.
These statements referred to difficulties in the United Kingdom and were dealt with in some depth by the one man in the United Kingdom who should know, Christopher Mayhew, the recently retired minister of national defence in the United Kingdom. Since it is getting close to ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote briefly from appendix II, page 171, the resignation statement of Mr. Christopher Mayhew as it appeared in the Journals of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom:
The rigid fixing of a budget in advance placed a heavy strain on inter-service relations-not that inter-service rivalry was on anything like the scale that public opinion has been led to believe: It should be placed to the credit of the admiralty board that from the beginning to the end of the defence review it stoutly maintained that if we were to remain east of Suez we should need F. Ill A's for the job as well as the carriers.
Our Minister of National Defence has indicated that the difficulties in the United Kingdom were really the result of interservice rivalry brought about because the services were not unified or integrated. Christopher Mayhew says the difficulties were brought about primarily because of the rigid fixing of a budget in advance.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.
April 11. 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.

Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that the Minister of Public Works is not here tonight because as Minister of Transport he visited the general area about which I want to raise this question. However, I am sure that the parliamentary secretary to the minister, to whom I have recently supplied a map of this area, will learn something from it and add his influence to what I hope will result from the question I am going to raise.
On April 5 I asked the Minister of Public Works whether he would endeavour to prevail upon his colleagues in the cabinet to provide a supplementary estimate for the construction of a breakwater at Port McNeill on Vancouver Island, I should say that this is the first occasion I have raised a question under this order involving proposed construction under the public works department, and I hope that the fact that I am doing so will serve to lend weight to the importance I attach to this matter.
I may say that it was with a great deal of regret that I had to advise the people of this area that this item was not in the estimates which were tabled for the current fiscal year. I was therefore not too surprised to find the lead headline in the next issue of the North Island Gazette, which is published in the neighbouring community of Alert Bay, read "Port McNeill Erupts!" The article went on to say:
Village council was thrown into turmoil at its meeting last week when it learned that the community's long-expected breakwater was not included in this year's estimates of the federal public works department.
I may say that their anticipation that such would be the case was based, in part at least, on a letter addressed to me by the Minister of Public Works, a copy of which I furnished the council, under date of June 9, 1966, in which the minister said, in part:
-it is proposed to consider an item in the 1967-68 estimates for the construction of a boat harbour at Port McNeill-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
While I tried to make it clear to them that that statement meant nothing more nor less than what it said, that there was in existence, of course, the Treasury Board process of examination of proposed estimates, nevertheless I had indicated that I felt reasonably optimistic that this item would be included in the construction program for this year and that it would in fact go forward. I also indicated that until the estimates were actually tabled this was the most definite statement that we could expect on this subject. Their disappointment is, in my view, not at all over-rated.
I should explain, Mr. Speaker, that this community on northern Vancouver Island has recently become an incorporated municipality, as have some other places on the north island. I recognize that here in Ottawa it is perhaps a little difficult to keep up with the very rapid expansion which has taken place on the northern part of Vancouver Island. I should point out that the federal government took over in 1964 a wharf which had been constructed by the owners of a logging camp, and it is really from this date that the rapid development of Port McNeill as a community with shopping centres, banks, a modern hotel, and so on and so forth, has taken place. It has now become the centre for the new regional high school for the school district of north Vancouver Island.
I am sure the minister is aware that the Prime Minister and all of the members from the province of British Columbia as well as the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of my own party have received representations from that area since the item failed to appear in the estimates. Wires were sent from the village of Port McNeill, from the Port McNeill and district chamber of commerce, from the school district, district No. 85, which represents a large consolidated school district covering the entire northern section of Vancouver Island, and also from the Port McNeill Women's Hospital Auxiliary. I should point out that the only hospital in the district at Alert Bay is dependent on water transportation from Port McNeill.
I also point out that there has now been established a regional level of government for north Vancouver Island known as the regional district of Mount Waddington. This body represents the entire northern area of Vancouver Island's incorporated and unincorporated communities. Its members say unanimously that the immediate construction of this breakwater is essential to the continuance of development of ordinary life in these parts of Vancouver Island. The local member

14816	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the legislative assembly who also happens to be the minister concerned with municipal affairs in British Columbia, has agreed that this is true.
One of the best letters to be sent to the Prime Minister and to be made available to me is from a local minister of the United Church of Canada who says:
It is important for you to understand that this is not simply a pressure campaign based on the theory that "the squeaking wheel gets the grease." On the contrary, the need for a breakwater for Port McNeill is urgent and the many letters you have received from this community should be interpreted in this light.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a small matter. Ten or 12,000 people on the north end of Vancouver Island are concerned vitally with this facility as is evident from the many representations.
In 1871, when British Columbia entered confederation, its population was 36,247, all but 9,000 of whom were Indians. If 36,000 people were considered important enough to warrant the building of a railway to the Pacific coast, surely the 10,000 or 12,000 people on northern Vancouver Island warrant some consideration at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the disappointment of the people of the Port McNeill area that this project was not included in the Department of Public Works estimates for the fiscal year 1967-68. My own impression is that much of what the hon. member has said is correct. I myself first heard about the requirements at Port McNeill last summer, when I was visited by a very persuasive man, a Mr. Joseph J. Cvetkovich, who talked with me about the situation there. He recounted his great difficulties in landing at Port McNeill in a small aircraft during a storm.
There is general agreement that the project would be helpful to the fishing fleet in the district and that an additional benefit to flow from it would be that it would provide a protected harbour for the movement of persons and goods. The Minister of Public Works is fully aware of the need. Certainly the consideration promised in his letter of June 9, 1966, was given. In fact, I believe the Minister of Public Works might have succeeded in having the work undertaken in the present fiscal year had a little more money been available.
DEBATES	April 11, 1967
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I assure the hon. member that the Minister of Public Works continues to be keenly interested in this project and that he is a very persistent man. The hon. member and the people of the Port McNeill area may derive some consolation from the fact that the minister will continue to focus attention on this project. I feel confident that eventually the Minister of Public Works will succeed in having this work carried through.



AGRICULTURE-REMOVAL OF SUPPORT PRICE FOR MANUFACTURING MILK

Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: My reason for taking part in this debate tonight is to ask the minister or his parliamentary secretary why the support was removed from the surplus milk shipped by fluid milk shippers of this country.
First, I would suggest we consider who is affected. It is the producer of fluid milk, who has put more effort and more investment into his dairy operation than any other dairy farmer. I do not want to detract from the efforts made by other milk producers, but it is the dairy producer who has had to produce the highest quality and maintain a supply throughout the 12 months of the year. This means extra expense, extra investment and additional equipment.
No milk producer can produce an equal quantity throughout the year without having surplus milk at some periods. It would be impossible. So a producer finds himself with different quantities on hand. Some might be shipping 50 per cent to a fluid milk market; others, 75 per cent. In any case a considerable quantity goes to a manufacturing plant as what is called surplus milk. It is with respect to this portion of his production that the support he received last year has been withdrawn. I maintain that the fluid milk producer is being discriminated against, and this had led to further difficulties for the reason I have mentioned.
It is true the producer may get a premium price for the milk sold on the fluid milk market. But if 50 per cent of his production goes to a surplus market without benefit of a support price he finds himself in the unenviable position of having to produce milk during a 12 months period without adequate compensation, in the final analysis getting no more than the other person. So the fluid milk producer is questioning whether he ought to continue to ship his milk to a fluid milk market.

April 11, 1967	COMMONS
I read in this morning's paper that the price of milk in Ontario is increasing, and I am sure this increase will be followed in Quebec and in the other provinces of Canada. Why should this be so? It is because the fluid milk shipper is not getting support for his surplus. Other prices are advancing, so he is asking a higher price. It is suggested that the price of milk will advance by two cents a quart. I maintain this situation is brought about because of the insecurity of the fluid milk shipper. So this question affects the price of milk across the country, and as one involved in the dairy enterprise, I hate to see what is happening. I do not like to see the price of milk keep on advancing. I do not wish to see the price of anything keep on advancing. The cost of living is going up, and this is one more step.
I say there is no surplus. We have been importing butter, and that does not put us in a surplus position. I maintain that the minister and the government must take some action or further trouble will develop. My remarks are not intended to be critical. I hope what I am saying is constructive criticism. I also hope something will be done before it is too late, because already there have been threats to dump milk if the farmers do not get the proper price. I hope none of us see any milk dumped in Canada because I think that would be a sin. It would be something to be ashamed of in a starving world.
I do not like to say that the minister does not understand, but I am beginning to realize that he is not a farmer. He is a minister of agriculture learning as best he can. I would not like to say he does not care, because I think he does. I only hope he takes some action before it is too late. This thing has gone beyond the point of pushing it around in the House of Commons. It is time some action was taken.
Farmers across the country are getting older and older. I was talking to a cheese factory operator yesterday and he told me his production of cheese is down 25,000 pounds in the first quarter of this year, and he has no reason to think that this decrease will not continue throughout the year. As I say, our farmers are getting older, and they are getting tired of a seven day week operation.
As a result of my few remarks I hope the minister will give some consideration to this problem I have many documents on my desk which I can show him to establish that some farmers are shipping two thirds of their milk to a manufacturing plant, and the present situation is pretty difficult for them.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Hastings-South (Mr. Grills) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the minister and the house. I can assure him, as one who has produced fluid milk for an important market, that the government is quite conscious of the fact that there are additional costs attached to the production of fluid milk and that there is a difficulty in maintaining continuity of supply.
There is, however, an important feature, in that we must determine the jurisdiction under which each of these areas falls. In the first place, fluid milk is produced according to provincial requirements and regulations. It is hauled in vehicles that come under provincial jurisdiction, and provincial governments are generally regarded to have accepted, and they themselves have accepted, the responsibility for fluid milk.
On the other hand we feel that manufacturing milk, part of which goes into an export trade, is our responsibility, and it has been agreed that it is the responsibility of the federal government. I think probably the federal government has assumed its full responsibility in measuring up to a very satisfactory degree, but maybe not to the full aspirations of the producers of manufacturing milk.
I only want to mention three salient points in connection with the federal policy. The first of course is that these jurisdictions have been defined. Second, $120 million has been appropriated to the Canadian Dairy Commission to assist in the establishment of a satisfactory price for manufacturing milk f.o.b. factory, and I would like to say that this is based on a buying price for butter of 63 cents per pound, and 20 cents for powder. This means approximately $4.75 f.o.b. factory to the farmers, and this is considerably more than has prevailed in recent years and recent months.
While the policy is not all that might be desired, I regret on behalf of the minister that we are unable to meet the requirements of the hon. member for Hastings South in suggesting we should further support fluid milk prices. This is clearly the responsibility of the provincial governments.


Lee Elgy Grills: That does not answer the question.

April 11, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:20 p.m.) f Translation]



AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF NEW DAIRY POLICY

Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, last March 22, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) announced the dairy policy of the Canadian government to the effect that deficiency payments to milk producers would be raised to $1.21 per hundredweight, which would bring the price of milk to $4.75 f.o.b. factory. And the minister went on to say that there would be a 10-cent deduction per hundredweight for export costs.
As pointed out by one government member, it was really an increase but I suggest that increase was far below what was asked the day before by the thousand delegates who came to Ottawa from all parts of the province of Quebec to make their grievances known to their members of parliament and to appeal to the cabinet.
At the time, various regional associations of dairy producers were heard through their president, but the man who explained the farm problems more fully was without question Mr. Lionel Saurel, president of C.F.U., who summarized the tragic situation in which the farmers find themselves.
He did an excellent job; the farmers were proud of their president and all hon. members present listened attentively.
Mr. Saurel did not use high-sounding words; he gave the facts.
Even the Minister of Agriculture was impressed by his sincerity, because while Mr. Saurel was talking he managed to say to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) who was sitting next to him; If he could be with us to convince the others.
Those words were repeated to the 1,000 farmers by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development when he was asked to speak to them.
At some other point during the meeting, the minister spoke to them again, this time without being invited to do so. He told them not to worry any more, that although he himself, a city dweller, did not know much about the situation, the government had many experts who already were aware of it.
It was after meeting one of those experts that I decided certains facts should be pointed out. The said expert seemed confined to 1963, at which time the Conservatives made way for the Liberals.
This person told me that milk was then sold at $2.66, while today the price is $4.65.

Mr. Speaker, if experts can amuse themselves by making comparisons, I shall do the same. I should like to remind the parliamentary secretary to the hon. minister that in 1950, milk was sold at only $2 per hundredweight, but at that time, I repeat, a tractor cost $1,200 or $1,500. Now, to buy a tractor we have to pay $4,500 to $5,000. But let it go, as far as the tractor is concerned, since one only buys every ten years. However, in the case of meal and fertilizers which farmers buy seven months a year to feed their cattle, the price difference is still the same.
For example, today, for barley, oats and corn, the farmer pays $3.75, whereas he only paid $1.25 per hundredweight in 1950.
The farmer now pays $4 or $4.25 per hundredweight for bran and shorts which are just by-products of wheat, while in 1950 he paid only $1.25 or $1.35.
Knowing that the hon. minister is about to revise his policy, I hope that the 300 per cent increases on machinery and meal will be taken into account.
When the minister strongly hopes that Mr. Saurel will be at his side to convince the others whom does he have in mind? Who are those cabinet members opposed to the new dairy policy?
Personally, I thought that inadequate funds explained the inadequacy of the dairy policy. I am reassured in reading the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 43 of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs sitting on Monday, February 6, 1967, on page 3000.
This involves the Minister of Finance and Receiver General who was replying to a question by a member and I take the liberty of quoting the question and answer. The member asked:
Mr. Sharp-Do you feel that at present in Canada the money supply is sufficient?


Mitchell William Sharp: Shall I put it this way? I believe that during the term that I have been in office the money supply has been sometimes more than adequate for the purpose.
The member asked:
I would just like to ask the minister to repeat his last answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not been concerned about a deficiency of money and credit. I may be concerned about that in the future but during my year or so in office I have not been concerned about that problem.
In view of the fact that finance could not influence the Minister of Agriculture in his dairy policy could the minister or the parliamentary secretary to the minister (Mr. Beer)
April 11, 1967	COMMONS
give, for the guidance of all farmers, the names of the cabinet members who hindered him in his work?
Since the minister has already expressed the wish of having at his side the president of the Catholic Farmers Union, in order to work up intrigues, could we know who are the others he was thinking about in a moment of sincerity?
It is essential that presidents and representatives of farmers unions or organizations apply to the right person if their intrigues are to be effective, and I hope that the freedom of action then given back to the Minister of Agriculture will enable him to review his dairy policy, while taking into account the price of tractors, and of feed grain. Since the indemnities of ministers and of house members have tripled, in all fairness, the price of milk should be increased to $6 per hundredweight, but the farmers are not asking that much. They are asking for $5. By accepting $5 per hundredweight, they are making a $1 gift to society, to consumers, whereas if the government adds $1 to the $4 granted last year, it is merely a payment on account of what it owes the farmers.


Mr, Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I regret first of all that I am unable to reply in the other official language, but I wish to thank the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) for his important question. Let me assure him that no one could be more sympathetic to the cost-price squeeze in which the farmer finds himself than the minister or I, personally. Probably all of these factors were taken into consideration by the minister when he insisted on an additional amount of money to support the dairy program. We must recognize that the amount of money allocated to the dairy support program has been increased by 33 J per cent for 1967-68 over that for 1966-67. I am sure the hon. member would be the first person to agree that this is a substantial step forward.
I regret of course that the $1.21 of federal money in respect of every 100 pounds of manufacturing milk is not sufficient to meet the need. It was the feeling of the minister that this increase represented a responsible step forward at this particular time, and all that the government and the minister saw fit to work into the program for this particular year. I am not aware that there will be any immediate review, but certainly as time progresses the policy will be reconsidered.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.29 pan.

Wednesday, April 12, 1967