1967-02-02

Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Monimo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the first report of the special joint committee on Mr. Justice Landreville, in English and French.



SHIPPING


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the report of the court of inquiry into the capsizing of the Manseau 101 dredge on the river St. Lawrence, near the Quebec bridge, on September 30, 1966.

I regret, sir, that the English translation is not ready, but I hope it will be ready soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table the report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the government's growing apprehension over foreign ownership of Canadian companies, as revealed by the return to the cabinet of the hon. member for Davenport, the setting up of still another committee and the promise of the Prime Minister on television last night in respect of yet another white paper, is it the intention of the government to reject any future guide lines issued from Washington to firms operating in Canada?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, firms operating in Canada operate under Canadian law and consistent with any Canadian guide lines which might exist.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in very ringing terms suggested last night that foreign enterprise must be subject to Canadian law only and responsive to Canadian policy. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could not be a little firmer in his reply to the effect that they will not be subject to any future guide lines from Washington.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, how could you be firmer than say "under Canadian law only and consistent with Canadian policy"?


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to ask the Prime Minister a question with respect to the telecast he made to the Canadian people last night in which it appeared that the Prime Minister was trying to ride two horses moving in opposite directions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the Prime Minister about the statement to the effect that the objective of the government is to have Canadians own and control much more of our industry, and that for this purpose the government is going to pursue a policy of marshalling a greater measure of Canadian investment in Canadian industry. I would ask the Prime Minister whether th:s statement is a pious hope, or whether the government intends this year to introduce a legislative program to give effect to this pronouncement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend will not misunderstand me when I say that no one in this house knows more than he about riding two horses going in no direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The additional policies and proposals of the government with a view to increasing Canadian ownership of Canadian resources will be made known to the house in due course, and I hope there will be further progress made in this regard before the end of this year.


Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the legislative program which the government has in mind will have to await the report of the cabinet committee and the task force which has been set up, or has the government now a legislative program which it intends to present to the house this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are items in the program that have already been announced to the house that concern the subject raised by my hon. friend. I would hope that the task force in question will be able to produce a report and the government will be able to make that a government report in the form of a white paper in time to assist the government and the house in working out further steps in that direction.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he would object to including in the various private bills regarding insurance companies and the like which are currently before the house a provision for Canadian ownership similar to that contained in the Bank Act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is already covered in the Insurance Act in so far as federally incorporated companies are concerned.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising from answers he gave earlier about foreign ownership, particularly of insurance companies, under federal charter. I ask the question because I was bewildered by the previous answer. Is the right hon. gentleman saying to the house that there is now legislation limiting the foreign ownership of insurance companies under federal charter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is the information the insurance department gave me.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is in reference to Euzrem Rietzik. I will spell that name for the benefit of Hansard, because


I have seen it spelled in different ways. Has the minister any further information to give the house as to the whereabouts of this man, or is he still working on the case?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving us this additional version of the spelling of the name of the person in question. I can only say that this matter, as he knows, is now being investigated.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care to ask his officials whether they can ascertain if that is the name he took when he flew in from Montreal airport to Ottawa on August 3 last?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO TENDERS FOR SALE OF ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Can he tell us if tenders have been called for the sale or rental of grain elevators in the port of Quebec city?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been some publicity with a view to getting possible submissions under certain terms and conditions. I do not have any document at hand, but I think I could get it quite easily.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister inform the house whether he has received a telegram from the Catholic Farmers Union and other representatives of the farmers to the effect that this decision would be against their interests?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been no decision, so whether or not it conforms with their interests would be hard to determine. This is only a possibility, and I can assure the hon. gentleman, as I have assured the minister of agriculture of Quebec who sent me a telegram to which I replied this morning, that the interests of the consumers of domestic grain

in the Quebec region will be fully safeguarded if and when there is a lease or sale of this elevator, and it is by no means sure that this will ever take place.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. It is reported that Mr. John Doyle, now in debt to the Canadian government to the tune of almost $4 million, had an appeal board hearing last June, and that the department had not made a ruling on the case. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house if and when this ruling will be issued.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, an assessment was made by the Department of National Revenue in the case of Mr. Doyle. It was appealed to the income tax appeal board, which is independent of the Department of National Revenue, and it is up to this semi-judicial body to make its decision and then to report. We have no influence on the decisions of this body.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether they have reached a decision as yet?


Edgar John Benson: So far as I know the decision has not yet been rendered.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask whether he has received a letter, a copy of which was sent to the Prime Minister, from the mayor, the board of control and council of the city of Oshawa, expressing a direct and urgent appeal for action to be taken immediately by the setting up of a committee of the house to deal with the increasing number of lay-offs which are taking place as a result of arrangements made under the automobile pact. If so, what does the minister intend to reply to this letter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have received such a letter and acknowledged its receipt. I promised the mayor a rather more reasoned reply as soon as possible.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the growing uneasiness in Oshawa and St. Catharines, and in the automobile industry generally, will the government move immediately to re-examine the whole situation with regard to the automobile pact rather than wait for a review by governments some time in the future, so the cloud of uncertainty may be removed from the employment of automobile workers and those in associated industries?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate that there was to be a meeting, proposed by the union concerned, with government representatives to discuss this situation. I think it may be a little premature to anticipate this meeting and, if I may put it this way, to try and overlap affairs in the house.



GERALDTON, ONT.-LAY-OFFS RESULTING FROM CLOSING OF GOLD MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What steps is the minister taking to assist the 348 miners and other employees who have been laid off as a result of the closing of the MacLeod-Cockshutt gold mine at Geraldton, Ontario?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, workers laid off by the closing of this mine will have virtually no prospect of obtaining suitable employment in the Geraldton area. I have therefore designated the area under the manpower mobility regulations for a period of 12 months. This will permit unemployed workers to receive mobility grants in order to move to places of suitable employment.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Would the hon. minister inform the house whether a decision has been taken or will soon be taken concerning subsidies to gold mines?


Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this
decision concerns the Minister of Finance, but I may say that it is under consideration at the present time.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the situation referred to by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and in view of the remarks the minister made a few nights ago in Toronto when he stated the government was of the opinion the four months waiting period should be abolished, is the minister prepared to announce when this will be done?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I said this mobility program could be improved. The officials of the department are studying how we should improve it When a policy has been outlined and approved by the cabinet, I will be happy to inform the house.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which I am putting to him in an attempt to clarify the confusion which appears to exist at the present time as a result of correspondence between himself and the prime minister of Ontario on the question of confederation. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the people of Canada have a vested interest in any changes in confederation and in the constitution, and that these matters should be canvassed, debated and discussed with the greatest possible extent of public participation, and not left to be produced in secrecy by experts like an immaculate conception.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order, as it is argumentative.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the report that three medical
[Mr. Laprise.l
schools in Canada are about to lose their accreditation through lack of research facilities, will the minister take immediate steps to correct this situation and provide more funds for medical research for all medical schools in Canada, and particularly those three?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: There are very large sums appropriated byparliament for this purpose, and there will be other large sums in the estimates. I think this is a matter that should be discussed when the government's estimates are being considered.


William Dean Howe: Will this be in sufficient time to save the accreditation of these universities?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is supplementary to the question of the hon. member for Hamilton South. Considering the serious situation obtaining in three medical schools likely to lose their accreditation, will not the minister undertake to get in touch with the schools in question to see if emergency action may be taken to save their accreditation? As the minister knows, once accreditation is lost it is hard to recover.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know whether this falls within my purview, but I understand that these medical schools are constantly in touch with the federal government through the Medical Research Council. We understand fully their position. My colleagues or I will follow the matter up to make sure it is not the fault of this parliament that the things the hon. member speaks about may happen.


William Dean Howe: In a sense, Mr. Speaker, this is a correction to the question just asked. Four medical schools, not named, are involved. Perhaps this matter could be looked into by the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Royal): My
question is for the Prime Minister. Now that it has been announced the Vatican and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are exchanging ambassadors, will the government take whatever action is necessary to overcome whatever has prohibited such an exchange with this country?
Lester Bowles Pearson: I have really nothing to add on this matter since my answer to that question on May 19, 1964, as recorded at page 3341 of Hansard.


Mr. Brewin:: Could the Prime Minister just tell us in a sentence what the answer was on that date?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that the banks are making a charge for renewing the 3 per cent perpetual bonds, and if so has such a charge been authorized by his department?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman had the courtesy to send me a copy of this question in advance. I made a few inquiries just before coming into the house and ascertained that neither the government nor its fiscal agent, the Bank of Canada, has heard of a charge being made for issuing new coupons on the 3 per cent bonds. I will inquire to to see if that is true.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Will the minister inquire into such charges being made by one bank in the town of Strathroy?


Mitchell William Sharp: I certainly will.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Finance arising out of my previous question. Will he consider arranging to have the chartered banks compensated by the government for expenses incurred in renewing the 3 per cent perpetual bonds, so the banks may not take a dislike to me.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, 1 said in reply to the original question that neither my officials nor the Bank of Canada are aware of any charge being made. I promised I would investigate, and I will take the suggestion under consideration.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Justice. I apologize for not sending him notice, but I spent a long time on a long distance phone call to Vancouver. Can the minister inform the house what progress is being made by the supreme court with respect to consideration of the constitutional issue related to the continental shelf?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if this question should be asked at this time. It is a matter of very general import. I think the question should not be asked in this form, and it would be more appropriate for the minister to make a statement on motions.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
On February 2, 1966, the house, at my request, passed a notice of motion for the tabling of correspondence between the federal government, the Quebec government and the corporation of the Trois-Rivieres bridge.
Since that time I put three or four questions to the minister and he gave me interesting and encouraging answers.
So as to celebrate the first anniversary of this request, could the minister present me with a definite answer this afternoon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hope that on this occasion the bear will be able to see his shadow and that something can be done about it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the very general concern now being registered in Prince Edward Island I wonder if the minister could tell the house whether he has been in contact with the premier or government of Prince Edward Island in connection with the news which is being spread about the design of the Prince Edward Island causeway. Has the minister been in touch with the government?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker.
12558	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. In light of this uncertainty, is the minister making plans to contact the government of Prince Edward Island about this matter?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not clear as to the uncertainty about which the hon. member is speaking.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Patrick T. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his absence might I direct it to his parliamentary secretary, who might take it as notice or answer it.
Has the minister received a request from the Eastern Townships Historical Society that the balance or remaining portion of the house that his department did not order to be demolished-originally the home of Sir Alexander Galt, one of the Fathers of Confederation-be kept and restored as an historical site and monument? What are his intentions regarding the request, and will the minister accept the invitation of this society to visit the site before any decision is made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This would be a very good subject to discuss at ten o'clock.


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very important speech made in Ottawa two nights ago by Mr. Escott Reid, a retired outstanding Canadian diplomat, in which he urged a tripling of Canada's contribution to developing countries, would the Prime Minister indicate whether the government might bring appropriate legislation respecting this matter before parliament during this centennial year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our intentions for the current
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
DEBATES	February 2, 1967
year in this regard have already been made known and represent a considerable increase in external aid. A program has been worked out which I hope will make it possible, if parliament approves, for our foreign aid within a short period of time, two or three years, to reach 1 per cent of our national income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that Escott Reid's suggestion is that we aim at 3 per cent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did have the pleasure of reading Mr. Reid's speech.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister in relation to the subject of external aid. Is it the intention of the government to revise their present policies in connection with the admittance to Canada of students from foreign countries in order to see whether there is some better arrangement that can be made to help out these countries, or to find some method of returning these students once they have graduated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the arrangements are working out very well at present and are an important part of external aid; but if there are any improvements that can be made I know those responsible will be very glad to consider any suggestions.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has the government under consideration the allotment of further moneys to finance students from other countries who come to Canada to obtain their education?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend may not realize that at the present time, if my figures are accurate, there are about 2,800 foreign students in Canada under our external aid program. This is a pretty important part of our general allocation. I believe in addition to the 2,800 students there are 600 Canadian teachers in less developed countries.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Prime Minister that I was aware of that, but I was wondering whether the government was going to extend its assistance beyond this.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just announced that funds will be increased this year, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Langlois: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister answered the first part of my question when he mentioned there were 2,800 students in Canada, but I was wondering whether he could answer the latter part of my question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister based on the reply yesterday to my question regarding the activity of the Student Union for Peace Action. The Prime Minister replied that he did not know of any assistance the government was giving to this organization. He went on to say that certainly this is not an organization that should be assisted in this kind of activity. I ask, then, what was the purpose of a grant of $4,000 given to the Student Union for Peace Action through the Privy Council office last year, which appears on page 34-4 of the public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that assistance was not given for the purpose indicated by my friend's question yesterday and referred to by him today.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it has been announced that the Student Union for Peace Action will place advertisements in United States magazines outlining assistance available to United States draft dodgers here in Canada, will the Prime Minister assure the house that no part of the funds already granted to this organization by a government agency will be used to this end, and that no further public money will be granted to this body by the government or any crown agency?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will; and I agree that public funds should not be used for that purpose.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Mclniosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wish to ask

Inquiries of the Ministry both now for obvious reasons. The first one arises from the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister about the royal visit. I am informed that a number of world war I veterans alive today, who won medals for bravery, have never been properly decorated. The method of delivery of the decorations in some cases was through issue by the orderly room only if the unit was still in France. Would the minister take advantage of the royal visit and arrange for appropriate ceremonies so that Her Majesty or His Royal Highness might make presentations to the veterans concerned?
My second question concerns the fiftieth anniversary, next month, of the battle of Vimy Ridge. Will the minister as a gesture of gratitude to surviving Canadian veterans of that battle arrange a second visit to the battlefield for them in this anniversary year at government expense, as was done 50 years ago?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter raised in the first question. I have no knowledge of it at the moment, but I shall see if anything can be arranged. I could not give any kind of reply to the question at the moment, but I shall look into it.
In reply to the second question, while plans are not yet complete they are in the process of being completed. The intention is to have representatives of those who took part in the battle of Vimy Ridge 50 years ago attend. I doubt very much if it is possible to transport all survivors to this commemorative service at this time. Certainly there will be a representative group of Canadians and surviving veterans of Vimy Ridge in the official Canadian delegation to that ceremony.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the small number of survivors, after 50 years, would the minister not reconsider the word "representative" and give all veterans a chance to attend?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Certainly I shall reconsider, but I doubt if it can be changed. However, I shall have another look at the matter.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I wish to direct a meaningful question to the Minister


Inquiries of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that in the province of Saskatchewan some applicants have had to dispose of their homes and be out on the street before qualifying for assistance? Is this the intent of the Canada Assistance Plan or, for that matter, of any joint assistance plan in effect?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and preface it by a faltering exercise: "Merci pour le rapport a propos Manseau 101." I ask the minister if he has come to a conclusion about the appointment of a commission regarding the accident and subsequent fatality on the Nixon Berry, about which I asked him the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not reached a conclusion about that.



REPORTED PROTEST RESPECTING IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. According to recent reports from the office of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Finance has written to the government of Japan to protest against some foreign imports.
Is the Minister of Finance in a position to advise the house today about the nature of those protests and to say whether he has received an answer from the Japanese government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not written to the Japanese government recently on this or any other subject.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I should like to know if difficulties encountered by immigrants from France and England triggered the government's decision to send an emissary to those two countries, reporting directly to the Prime Minister on his findings.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker,
French immigration is an intricate problem and we want to have all the facts before a specific policy is established. While we want to be aware of objections and the situation prevailing in France, we also wish to be informed about them in Canada.
Investigations will be carried out in both places.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Prime Minister prompted by the action of the British government in the last few days in granting independence to six British West Indies islands. Will the government not produce and implement a program for the progressive transfer of executive responsibility to the Yukon legislative council, leading ultimately to provincial status?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, steps are being taken to that end.


Erik Nielsen: Could the Prime Minister indicate the nature of the steps which are being taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: I have a question to ask which is supplementary to the two questions I directed earlier to the Prime Minister. It arises out of his reply that steps are being taken for the transfer of executive responsibility to the Yukon legislative council. Since this would involve amendments to the Yukon Act, can the Prime Minister indicate when we will be

likely to see amendments to that act before this parliament in that connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to take notice of that question and discuss it with the minister, who is not here today.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question which I consider urgent and important, because it affects about 100 employees of the National Employment Service.
As the minister decided a year ago to reorganize and reclassify the employees of his department, and as nothing has been done yet to that effect and several employees consider themselves in an insecure position, can the minister tell us when he will undertake the final phase of reclassification in this department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has not decided to undertake the reclassification; that was decided several months before he was sworn in as minister. The classification has been done, analyses have been carried out and that has been applied nearly everywhere. We are now discussing grievances of individual employees.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has the minister received representations from many employees of the National Employment Service through an association, protesting against the delays of the reclassification procedures?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have received a number of complaints. In view of the number of employees concerned, those complaints are rather few. Now, discussions are taking place at all levels with those people to settle the problems which have arisen.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I do not have the information before me, but I will try to answer the hon. member at question time tomorrow.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the hon. member for Ottawa East in his capacity as co-chairman of the joint committee on the public service of Canada. Is the hon. member now in a position to announce when the special joint committee will meet to consider the question of the pensions of retired civil servants?


Mr. J. T. Richard (Otiawa East):: I am always happy to give advance notice of meetings to the hon. member here on the floor of the house. The public service committee, ever mindful of its obligations and duties to civil servants, will meet on Thursday next to consider the case of superannuated civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Is
the Prime Minister in a position to make a statement today concerning the request of the Quakers in connection with assistance for civilian victims of the war in Viet Nam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not have the information before me, but I will try to answer the hon. member at question time tomorrow.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada.
On the occasion of the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, would the government consider recommending to Her Majesty, as a gesture of royal magnanimity, to grant amnesty or parole to some prisoners, in particular certain students who are in jail at present as a result of separatist activities arising from the passionate feelings of youth rather than from criminal instincts?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: The question is in two parts. As far as parole is concerned, that is a matter entirely within the discretion of the National Parole Board. As to that part of the question which concerns the granting of amnesty, I will take it as notice.
12562	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment PILOTAGE



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether the report of the pilotage commission has been received and, if not, when he expects it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I shall have to give the same answer as I gave the last time this question was asked. I do not know when the report will be received, but I am very eager to get it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Before the house rose last evening I had been outlining some of the reasons for my support of the policy for the unification of the armed forces advanced by the Minister of National Defence. I suggested, too, that since defence policy is only a continuation of foreign policy, one of the reasons for so much confusion in this debate was the fact that the two committees at work in this area, the committee on foreign affairs and the committee on defence, have been separated whereas in reality they should have been one.
When I broke off at six o'clock, we were discussing the testimony of the generals who had taken part in the second world war, as evidenced by the voluminous memoirs they have written. There is a whole series of books on this subject: "Struggle for Europe" by Chester Wilmot; the memories of Douglas MacArthur, the diaries of Lord Allenbrook, the memoirs of Eisenhower, Bradley, Wavell, Lord Tedder and many others who have felt the need to put their deepest thoughts on paper. One theme runs through all these books; the need for unification of command to end inter-force conflict.
The question which always faced these people was how best to get the army, the navy and the air force to work together effectively.

DEBATES	February 2, 1967
It has always seemed to me, having read most of these memoirs, that General Eisenhower was a good general, not so much by reason of any military ability he may have possessed but because he could get other generals to work together in a concerted way. Under the terms of this bill the armed forces of Canada are to be unified. The conception of a unified command is a logical one. Indeed, as appears from the article which was read into the record the other night by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty), there is evidence of the beginning of this process in Canada under a former minister of defence, Mr. Brooke Claxton.
If we take this concept and apply it logically there is no reason to stop with the unification of command. It is sensible, logical and realistic to extend the process right down to the bottom as far as it can be applied effectively. There are a variety of tasks which are common to all the services. There is no need for three services to employ three people to carry out, separately, work which could be done better and more economically on the basis of unification. If a man is an administrator in one area it seems reasonable to assume that he can administer in another. There are great savings to be gained in personnel, in time and in money by embarking on such a program as is now proposed.
Then again, since all those who make up the armed forces are serving their country, there seems no real reason for retaining separate uniforms, a separate rank structure separate forces and all the rest of the conventional paraphernalia. This bill completely reorganizes the structure of the armed forces. It is designed to bring the armed forces into line with the conditions and needs of society today. It is unthinkable to me that we should organize our armed forces today in accordance with concepts which possibly were relevant in the days of the first world war.
The armed forces must represent to a large extent the organization of the society which brings them into being, which depends upon them for its safety and which uses them as its instrument in the conduct of foreign affairs.
This is a revolutionary measure. The bill before us brings the armed forces into the second half of the twentieth century, taking account of the weapon technology of 1967 and the 1970's. I believe it to be as revolutionary as some of the social service measures which have been brought down by this government during the past year. I think, for example, of the concept of the guaranteed annual income which will give us a new approach to social
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
security. So too I think this measure will revolutionize the organization of the armed forces.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Some criticism has been advanced to the effect that we are the only ones engaged in this type of program. 1 ask the question, why should we follow? Why should we not lead? It is probably true that we are the only ones doing this, but on the other hand our needs are quite different to the needs of other countries. It behooves us to be responsible enough to provide ourselves with the tools to do the job we want to do. It is not necessary for us to follow the military structure of the super powers. It is necessary for us to create a force which will do what we want it to do.
In this debate a variety of surprising things have taken place. One is the charge that unification has been suddenly thrust upon an unsuspecting and unprepared parliament. I cannot understand this argument. If we go back to the time this government first was elected, we will recall that a special defence committee was set up. That committee looked into this matter. Then there was a white paper. Goodness knows the defence committee sat often enough. It had 81 meetings, 2,300 pages of evidence were recorded, and a total of 103 witnesses appeared. The associate minister was in attendance at 63 meetings, and the m nister answered some 857 questions. This does not take into account the amount of time we have dealt with defence matters in the House of Commons.
It seems to me that those who make such a charge are doing themselves a disservice, because it indicates that they did not do their homework, that they did not read the documents and were not prepared to debate the issue with regard to integration and unification.
Had these members done their homework and had they known what they were talking about, then during the committee meetings they would have taken the opportunity to probe the minister and his officials in order to get to the bottom of it. Instead, this only came out after a series of admirals had resigned from the service; that is, after there had been a so-called admirals' revolt. When this was going on I received a letter from one of my constituents who had served in the navy. He told me that if this was the most effective way the admirals could fight, he was very thankful they had left the service.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Shame.
National Defence Act Amendment


Mr. Churchill:: Those men risked their lives for you.


John Mercer Reid: If hon. members wish to get to the meat of this bill, then I think we should complete this debate as quickly as possible and send the bill to the committee where witnessses could be summoned and all the facts could be gone into. The longer this bill languishes in this House of Commons, the longer we will have to wait before the investigation which hon. members opposite want can begin.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member take this opportunity to withdraw the slanderous statement he made with regard to the admirals, all of whom risked their lives in the service of their country. The hon. member has put a stain on their record which I do not think should remain. I think perhaps the hon. member would like to make a statement of clarification with regard to what he said a few moments ago.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from a letter I received from a constituent.


Eric Alfred Winkler: And accepting responsibility for it.


John Mercer Reid: I will be quite happy to withdraw those remarks. Perhaps it was unwise for me to make them.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You are learning.


John Mercer Reid: But in many cases their effectiveness in this area has not been what I would have liked it to be. However, I do withdraw the remarks. In any case, I hope we will soon have a vote on second reading so this bill can go to the committee to be properly investigated.
There has been a certain amount of energy directed toward the constitutional question which has amused me. It has been stated that the government should send the bill to the committee without having a vote on second reading on the principle of the matter. This seems to be completely at odds with the concept of responsible government. If the government is willing to accept the responsibility for bringing forth new legislation, and if the supporters of the government party are satisfied with it, then it seems to me the government is fulfilling its responsibility in bringing


National Defence Act Amendment a clear-cut program to the Canadian people. It appears to me that the only time the action of sending a matter to a committee for investigation would be warranted would be when the government had not made up its mind, when there was a great deal of dissention about the effectiveness of the matter, and when they were looking for additional information.
In the present circumstances, however, I think those who suggest that the measure should not be voted on before going to a committee are taking an irresponsible approach.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the hon. member suggesting that the Minister of Transport was irresponsible in sending the transportation bill to a committee of this house before the bill was given second reading?


John Mercer Reid: As I understand it, the Minister of Transport referred Bill C-120 in 1964 to the committee for direction. As I said in my remarks, this should be done only when the government feels there is a great deal of dissention and where there is no firm opinion on the government side of the house concerning the effectiveness of the bill.
The other matter on which I should like to comment is the personal attack on the minister. It seems to me that this has displaced a good deal of good, honest debate which might have taken place. The minister may or may not have a propaganda machine backing him up, but this has nothing to do with the subject matter of the bill. One could be in favour of the bill without having to like the minister, and one could like the minister without having to like his bill. It seems to me, however, that we should be devoting our attention to the subject matter and the principle of this bill instead of using the bill as a cloak for a personal attack.


An hon. Member:: Or for attacking admirals.


John Mercer Reid: It seems to me that some of the behaviour we have seen in this house and some of the attacks which have been made by hon. members opposite tend to prove the old adage that people become more aroused over trivialities than they do over serious fundamentals, and that the amount of response often is in inverse ratio to the profundity of the issue.
I should like to close by quoting an anecdote about Albert Einstein. Mr. Einstein was once asked why it was that mankind, having


been clever enough to achieve the grand scale release of nuclear energy, was apparently unable to avert its use in the destruction of mankind. "That's very simple," Einstein replied. "It's because politics is far more complicated than physics." We certainly have seen an illustration of that in the debate on this bill.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in a debate which is a bread and butter issue for my constituency as well as having the major ramifications of life and death.
First I must state my regret concerning the way in which the early part of this debate has progressed in this chamber. I think the minister brought no credit and probably demeaned himself by endorsing what really was a goon squad approach in allowing young and enthusiastic members of the Department of National Defence to engage in the debate while in the gallery of this house; not speaking out in the manner of rowdyism but exhibiting rowdyism none the less. If this is indicative of the mentality of the minister and those people, then I say they should all go; because past ministers of national defence and past military people in the Department of National Defence always were very careful to assert the civilian predominance over the military. This sort of approach, I presume derived from the truth squad of bygone days does not add to the minister's charm or reputation.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I also regret that a publication entitled "An Address On Canadian Forces Reorganization", which purports to be a speech of the minister in the House of Commons, has been tampered with somewhat in its publication. It does not reflect the proceedings that took place in the House of Commons on that particular day. For example, all references to Mr. Speaker have been removed and there are other forms of editing such as cutting out the interjections of other members. In this sense I say there has been some tampering with the record and an attempt to present a picture to service people which is not really accurate. When page five is compared with Hansard it is apparent that some seven changes have been made. I do not think the minister or whoever was responsible for this has done himself any credit by such an abuse of the use of the record of parliament.
One point has been made over and over again and I merely mention it briefly. I refer


to the failure of the minister and the government to develop policy on an all-party basis. In other words, there has been no effort to develop a policy which would reflect the contributions of all members of parliament rather than the views of the minister. This is regrettable but the point has been made on several occasions and I do not intend to belabour it.
Our main concern relates to the objectives of military policy. The last speaker, drawing on the inexhaustible information he acquired in his political science course at university, pointed out that military policy is really an extension of the diplomatic policy of any country. That is true. Military policy may be either of an aggressive nature or a defensive nature. It can be fairly said of Canada that our policies have always been of a defensive nature and in line with our diplomatic objectives as a middle power trying to bring about an easing of tensions in the world.
The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in his thoughtful address yesterday, which I very much appreciated listening to and reading today, pointed out that military policy is an attempt to create a mix of peace-keeping functions in living up to our international obligations and our obligations in regard to the defence of Canada. These are worthy aims but the question arises whether the minister, the associate minister and the government are carrying on a course of action which will be the most effective in achieving these aims or are perhaps giving more attention to one part of the mix and not enough to another. My own view is that as a result of the bill now before us we are not going to achieve the utmost in value for our defence dollar and that what is being done will not be in the best interests of this country.
The question we must ask ourselves is whether unification will satisfy Canada's needs. Unity at the top seems to be acceptable, and unity in respect of supply and support services is probably acceptable. During an earlier debate I said that I had seen supply and support groups, engineers, ordnance men and the like working in a common service battalion at Camp Gagetown a couple of years ago. I was impressed by the operation and by the fact they seemed to be happy working together. Perhaps there can be no quarrel about the concept of unification in respect of supply and support services, though the minister and his department will find that because of the great degree of
1256S
National Defence Act Amendment specialization required in the different services this may be rather difficult to achieve.
The most resistance in respect of unification occurs at the combat level. Surely it is the combat level, which of all levels, must have efficiency, with which we must concern ourselves. We cannot blind ourselves to the opinions which have been expressed by those who might be termed traditionalists. A great friend of the minister-I assume they are still friends-has been quoted from time to time. I refer to R. S. Malone, publisher of the Winnipeg Free Press. Let me read something that has not yet been placed on the record so far as I am aware. Mr. Malone is quoted in the Bulletin of the maritime command, December 1966 issue, as follows:
In my view two cardinal errors have been made in our integration program. Before examining these in detail, however, let me say something on the subject of esprit de corps. For those who have ever been on active service no explanation is necessary. Every commander in history, however, is on record as to the all important value of regimental pride and spirit-from Caesar's legions to Napoleon's old guard-or in England-The Rifle Brigade, the "Buffs", the Grenadier Guards, the Scots Guards, the "Fore and Afts" and all the other units of fame and tradition... in Canada in the past hundred years we have built similar reputations for such regiments as the Black Watch, the Queen's Own, The Van Doos, the Patricias, the 48th, The Little Black Devils, The Seaforths, and so on, right across the country. All of these units, as well as our famous naval and air units, have come to mean something very real in our national structure. Thousands of men have given their lives in building these deserved reputations.
Comparing the respective values of esprit de corps to actual numbers in battle Napoleon placed the comparison in the ratio of 4 to 1.
That is the opinion of a person who certainly should not be classified as a "Colonel Blimp". If the minister thinks he is of that type he certainly has not publicly said so in respect of his dear old friend, Brigadier Malone.
The Naval Officers Associations of Canada, in dealing with the same subject in a letter of October 3 to the chairman of the standing committee on national defence, made this point at page five of their presentation:
-we have been conducting a survey since the spring of this year with the following results:
Only 25.3 per cent have been "combat" types, but 95.1 per cent of these men wanted to be quickly recognized as "air crew" or "sea going" or "land fighters". A distinctive cap and arm insignia did not appear to be considered as a distinctive uniform by naval and air force men. About all that can be said for the results of the survey, and our other similar inquiries to date is that in view of the lack of availability of reliable data elsewhere, the results are interesting, and suggest that a properly complete survey might well be usefully informative to all concerned.


National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is also interesting in examining the traditional point of view to go to the Canadian Army Journal, volume 1, issue No. 12, of March, 1948, in which is contained a speech made by the minister of national defence of the day, the Hon. Brooke Claxton, in Kingston. In that speech he dealt with the point of a single service. Because the remarks are relatively short I will quote all his observations at that time. They are to be found at page 3 of that issue:
A single service? At this point it will become obvious that I have been proceeding on the assumption that we shall continue to have three services in Canada. But a very considerable body of people put iorward the case for a single service as one way of solving many difficulties. There is a good deal in this, and perhaps one day we shall come to it.
At present, however, the advantages of having a single service are not nearly as great as would at first appear. Tradition is important: pride in the service, pride in the uniform, are very real things. The tunctions of the three services differ from each other and produce consequent differences in training and operations. Since specialized training is required to run a ship, a wing or an armoured brigade, it is obvious that even if we had a single service we would have to call parts of it "the navai arm," "th<2 air arm," "the army arm," or "branch" or something else, and in the result we would be just about where we are today.
The minister and his party enjoy a certain advantage in this debate in that public reaction to the issue so tar has been relatively one of indifference. This does not, of course, excuse us from our obligation to express as forcefully as we can our feelings on the matter. What we are doing today will reflect either the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the government and this parliament when times of trouble come upon us. The point about the publ.c reaction though is perhaps one that is favourable to the minister in that not much of a desire to examine the topic has been manifested. Therefore the minister's plan does not come in for the critical type of analysis which I think it should be subjected to and which it certainly will receive here.
Scott Young in a delightful essay in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Tuesday, November 15 last, put it this way:
The lack of curiosity shown by most Liberals in *what the defence department will get for its money leads one to suspect that if a Liberal cabinet minister shot his grandmother at centre ice in Maple Leaf Gardens, the Conservatives and New Democrats would still have to filibuster in interim supply to get an inquiry started.
One of the members of the press gallery, Mr. Paul Akehurst, made a point a few days ago. I was listening to his remarks over CJCH
I Mr. McCleave.l
in Halifax. He was on an open-line program. In this instance he was in Ottawa but the broadcast was going to Halifax. Paul Akehurst said that the minister was enjoying a certain success with the public and with his own backbenchers because he was making decisions. Mr. Akehurst left aside any consideration whether the decisions being made were useful or sensible. He said the minister was filling a vacuum that existed in the Pearson government, that he at least was going out and doing something, and that this brought him a certain amount of public acclaim. Again I say there was no question raised whether or not these decisions were sensible, but the minister may want to take whatever comfort he can from Mr. Akehurst's remarks.
There are very proper questions that will have to be answered in the committee when the bill goes to it shortly. There are questions that raise serious doubts about the good effects of a unification policy and the competency of the Minister of National Defence to provide an effective defence policy for Canada. The proportion of naval officers and men serving at sea has been shrinking. At one time I believe that over 50 per cent of those in the navy were serving at sea but I understand that the figure is now under 50 per cent. Can this be said to be a successful defence policy?
There was the case of the short-term pilots who were let out, later creating a crisis in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Can this be said to be a successful defence policy? A dozen or more senior officers have either left with the golden handshake or have been booted out. These are men who have given distinguished service to Canada, whose views surely must have had a hand in the past in shaping defence policy and whose views, one would think, should be welcomed now. But they are gone. Can this be said to be a successful defence policy?
Admiral Landymore has made the point that even with the few steps in the direction of unification in his own maritime command the administrative costs have trebled. As one of our objectives in Canada we try to achieve as much for the defence dollar as possible. Yet there appears to be, from Admiral Lan-dymore's statement, a wastage of dollars in administration. Can this be said to be a successful defence policy? In addition, though the minister trumpets the virtues of unification to the world the world does not listen
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
and nobody else is following Canada's lead. Can this be said then to be a successful defence policy? Is Canada to be the only nation in the world in step, with everybody else out of step?
So far as the military opinion is concerned, it seems to me that most of the anti-unification feeling is precisely at the level where the most important part of our national defence effort should lie, that is, at the combat level. The voices of experience there are saying that unification simply will not work. We have the views of Lieutenant General Guy Simonds and Major General C. Vokes in a letter dated August 31 of last year which has been given some circulation. I will read the summary rather than going through the major part of their brief:
To summarize, it is our opinion-
(a)	That the aim of governmental military policy has become wrongly oriented, by ignoring the possibility of having to mobilize for a major war.
(b)	That an "integrated" defence headquarters in Ottawa and at other high command level is correct.
(c)	That the reorganization of the command and administrative function of each service, below national defence headquarters, into one set of integrated functional commands; and the projected scheme to "unify" all three services, is the direct result of the wrongly oriented aim of Canadian government military policy.
We believe that (a) and (c) should be corrected before it is too late, and that this should be a matter of foremost concern for all Canadians. This is our only motivation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I turn again to the minister's great friend, Mr. Malone, who has made the following point:
Techniques and skills are not all interchangeable nor are all vehicles, weapons and communication services. For example, there are vast differences between operating a tank and a submarine. As in civilian life you could expect service on your car from a mechanic at almost any service station. Yet, you could hardly expect that same mechanic to be an expert on marine engines or airplane motors. To make this possible would be a very costly and wasteful exercise.
My concern about the unification upon which the minister would have us embark is that it may create a monolithic rigid and therefore immobile structure rather than a flexible one. Some of these issues are important, particularly to the province of Nova Scotia. We are concerned about the study that has been carried out by the Department of National Defence regarding the closure of bases. Although we do have the assurance of the Associate Minister of National Defence that no bases will be closed in 1967 I wish we 23033-795
National Defence Act Amendment had an assurance that none will be closed in 1968, 1969, 1970 and onward.
Here is what will happen in some of the municipalities when the bases are closed. The taxpayers who have chipped in together with the Department of National Defence, to provide first rate educational services will be left with a staggering tax load. The schools are paid for over a period of say 20 years, and if bases are arbitrarily closed then the tax burden alone assumes the proportions of a Frankenstein monster. I think that in considering the closure of bases the department should deal with this very fundamental point.
Then there is the economic effect on different areas. For example, in western Nova Scotia it would be a disaster if Cornwallis base were to be closed. The detrimental effect on that area would undo all the good that other departments of the federal and provincial governments have done to bring about more economic viability in western Nova Scotia. I think it should be noted that Nova Scotia stands united in its opposition to the minister's policy. We do not have political differences in this regard.
The leader of the Liberal opposition in the province of Nova Scotia and former member of parliament, Gerald Regan, made the following statement in talking about what he was going to do at the annual meeting of the Liberal Association of Canada held last fall:
I am not sure what is meant by unification of the armed forces. Everyone seems to have a different version, but I am concerned that the existence of the three separate identifiable branches of our armed forces, the navy, army and air force, should be retained. Therefore, I have given notice of a resolution praising integration but calling for the continued existence of the navy, army and air force as separate identifiable branches of an integrated armed force, and for the retention of distinctive dress uniforms for each of these three branches.
The views of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia are also of interest in this regard. They are certainly different from the views that were expressed in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


Mr. Pugh:: There are no members of that party in the house right now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, that is so, but I understood the position of the hon. member for Greenwood yesterday to be that he was tearing a paper tiger to pieces and then sanctifying the mincemeat which was left over. In other words, he criticized the policies of the minister and the Department of National


National Defence Act Amendment Defence and then said that in any event his party would vote for the bill. However, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia takes a more forthright view of this issue. On September 21 Professor J. H. Aitchison had this to say in part;
Governments have been known to change course before now, and ministers have been changed. Mr. Heilyer is in trouble and the cabinet and the Liberal party will be in deep trouble if they allow him to continue on his present course. The best thing that could happen is for the cabinet and the Liberal caucus to require Mr. Heilyer or a successor to him to change course. If that happy result ensues, it will be due chiefly to Admiral Landymore and officers like him who have served their country well.
As I said, Nova Scotia is united in opposition to the policy of the Minister of National Defence.
I should like to deal with two small side issues before concluding my remarks. Last year I suggested that the minesweepers, although they are older ships, should be reactivated for two reasons. First, they would provide an economic method of training younger officers instead of putting them willy-nilly on the bridge of large and expensive ships and, second, mine warfare skills are not easily acquired and have to be studied and practised. I believe that the minesweepers are now back on the water and I compliment the minister for accepting that suggestion.
The other point, which I raised in the house the other day, deals with a bulletin published by a private company in Dartmouth. It is called "The Bulletin of Maritime Command" but actually it is an unofficial publication, and the maritime command has now set up a new publication which officially represents its views. The Bulletin of Maritime Command is dead set against the policy of unification and it makes no bones about it. It publishes articles criticizing the concept of unification, although admittedly they are not signed by people in the services.
Distribution of this bulletin is not permitted on ships of the maritime command. In short, there is a form of censorship at work and a definite discrimination against this publication. I hope the minister will be open-minded enough not to attempt to keep away from the services those aspects of this issue which may be unfavourable to him. I think that as citizens in a democracy they should have the right of access to all forms of information just as we outside the Department of National Defence have. I hope that this policy, which does not reflect credit on the minister or his department, will be changed and that this
[Mr. MeCleave.l

bulletin will be distributed in the same way as other publications.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Finally, I want to say that I reject the concept of unification which, by the way, was last tried in the reign of Queen Anne. At that time there was a captain general of all the forces. You see, we are not going ahead into the twenty-first century, we are going back to the eighteenth. I reject unification because it fails to take into account service conditions; it fails to take into account specialization because nobody who knows the subject can be satisfied the economies will accrue that it is hoped will be achieved. I think it is flimflam and a piece of razzle-dazzle which the minister in particular wants as an expensive memorial to himself. However, I do not believe it is in the best interests of Canada and I propose to vote against it.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, the electors I represent here are concerned about this matter of unification and integration for various reasons. The first one is that we have at home a regiment which did our country proud during the last war and which, as a reserve regiment, is still very active. This matter is discussed on the principle that we believe in effectiveness, economy and competence in the organization of defence and all other government services.
I feel justified in saying to the house that all the people I represent approve of the unification and integration program for another reason, namely because General Allard, who is chief of staff of the armed forces, is one of our native sons. As a matter of fact, according to his biography, he was born in Sainte-Monique, in the riding of Nicolet, but he left when still quite young for Trois-Rivieres where he got his early schooling and experience. That is where he joined the army and his studies, hard work and competence earned him promotion after promotion. He enjoys the full confidence of our men.
When we heard that the government's unification and integration program had General Allard's full support, our people said: That's all right, we support it. And they asked me to express their views in the house.
What is it all about, Mr. Speaker? I said a word about it a while ago. The object is to make our defence system more efficient; it is to increase competence, to concentrate our technical skills, instead of leaving them


divided among three services; it is also to avoid disastrous delays which occur because of that multiplicity of commands and services; it is to avoid conflicts of authority which we so often witness in some countries, conflicts of prestige precisely because there is a great desire to uphold ancient traditions which very often result in ranks, dazzling uniforms or certain small prerogatives acquired through the centuries but do not meet modem army needs for efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, in order to define exactly what the object is, I have some literature which gives explanations that I should like to comment on, in order to circumscribe the debate. For instance, in reprinted articles in the Toronto Telegram, I find things that seem to be quite concise and quite to the point and which read as follows:

This requires unity of planning at all levels, especially in projects and priorities.
The other objective was most fire power, most flexibility and the fastest response possible for the taxpayers' dollar. The unified force would reduce duplication which has increased sharply over the years.
"Admirals and Air Marshals no longer have to write to each other when combined reserves are required," says Hellyer. "One unified command can work out a plan and issue orders, as combined operations did during the war.
This gives us instant decision making, which is more important than ever before."
In the process, there is more control over the military, as recommended by the Glassco commission's investigation of government operations.

And it goes on:

"Similarly, there is no lack of competition. The sailors will press for more ships, the soldiers for more tanks and the airmen for more planes.
This is as natural as breathing. Competition will not be lost, but it will be contained at the service level."

And a bit further, other advantages are listed:

A new single pay system is being developed in three stages over three years. By that time, when the system is fully automated, pay services will be provided with 650 fewer men.
Recruiting organization has been integrated. This has been discussed for 15 years, but there is no agreement among the services, which sometimes had their recruiting offices in the same building.
The new Canadian forces recruiting centres enlist officers and men for the army, navy and air force. Recruiting is higher than last year so far, but 23033-795J

National Defence Act Amendment
the job is being done with 30 per cent fewer people.
Before integration, there were five separate intelligence organizations at headquarters. Now, there is one.

And further on, we read:

Savings and an increase in efficiency are also expected from the new Canadian forces communications system.

So, that explains fully, for those of course who do not doubt the minister's word, what the aim is. It is crystal clear and should win over all those who really believe in the old proverb that unity is strength. Consequently, concentration of technical skills, especially in defence, more than anywhere else, will ensure the best results under the best circumstances.
Objections have been made, some of which are constructive and deserve to be brought forward in this house if we want to know the opinions held in all sectors of the Canadian people before passing the bill. On the other hand, some of them are whimisical and smack of some kind of personal aversion for the minister, and they result in criticism that, to my mind, should not be allowed in this house if I am to go by the rules founded on the century-old precepts of the gentlity which were explained to me upon my arrival here.
Other purely sentimental objections have been put forward; some people would like to maintain traditions charming in themselves, but certainly not fundamental qualifications for an adequate national defence system.
Concern over the possible disappearance of the pipers, or whether the kilts will be retained, lengthened or shortened, whether dress uniforms in each of the services will still be sine qua non, etc., in my opinion, this type of concern is imwarranted.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think that if this were the hon. minister's only worry, he would readily tell everyone: "Keep your kilts and we will keep our pipers; if the French Canadians want their arrow sash, they can have it; but please, let us get on with unification and integration so that this first-rate defence force can be set up as quickly as possible, and in the best conditions."
Sentimental considerations do not agree very well with North American tradition; we were taught that two and two makes four


National Defence Act Amendment and that we should not let ourselves be influenced by traditions which are very nice in themselves, but surely not based on efficient administrative principles.
Mr. Speaker, some complain that the matter has not been adequately explained. I shall come back to this later. It seems to me that more than enough explanations have been given and that ample discussion has taken place. But at any rate, let us consider those criticisms as well-founded and suggest that the minister continue providing factual and specific explanations, so that no Canadian may complain of being kept in the dark concerning unification.
I say no Canadian of good will, because I notice some who refuse to understand, and there are none so blind as those who do not want to see, who do not really aim to provide an efficient and modem defence, but who pursue instead partisan concerns or personal grievances against the minister.
Some complain that we are proceeding too hastily. It might be, Mr. Speaker, that we are proceeding too quickly for some people. But in our day and age, if you are not quicker than your neighbour you may be too late very often. It is probably more so in the field of defence than anywhere else: The first one there will win the battle, not the last one. In the re-organization of our defence system, such a principle is surely useful and valuable.
I am somewhat surprised at the feud being carried out by the opposition-that is to say, I am surprised, yet I am not, because they obviously have a political opposition role to play and they intend to play it, except that expensive delays will occur as a result, for all concerned, But at least, they are fulfilling their role.
I cannot say as much for the admirals' revolt, Mr. Speaker, for I have always thought and many people share my views, that a reasonable defence system is required in this country. I believe in the military career and I have always felt that in their career, the military should have a basic principle that discipline is something fundamental and that the higher ranking the officer, the more he should set an example of discipline. Many of those admirals were more interested in playing politics than in setting an example for their subordinates. This may be one of the reasons for the weakening morale of our troops, if it has indeed weakened.
In my opinion, those who complain that these admirals had to resign their commission or were dismissed do not help the morale

of the armed forces nor that of the Canadian people, because it is true that the higher the rank of a soldier, the more he must set an example with regard to discipline, and it is not the admirals but the government in power which determines a national defence policy. Let the officers be consulted in time, I agree, but when consultations are over, it is time to submit. This has always been an unquestionable principle in any country which has tried to establish an efficient defence system. Therefore, I find the revolt of the admirals most objectionable.
Besides, there is an old American saying which is quite plain: Get in or get out. I think it applies to admirals and generals as far as government policies are concerned. Now, we have been talking about a unification policy for fifteen years, and I think it is time for action.
Some nostalgia will have to be overcome, of course. In all modern progress, old customs are discarded and many people sigh for the good old days. Every modern economic revolution is made in spite and at the expense of some of the keen feelings one might have had heretofore.
I have seen, for example, in a western paper I believe, an editorial entitled: "Are we losing our pride?" Then, to show that there should be national pride, the article spoke about flags, kilts, pipers, and that sort of things.
Mr. Speaker, if our national pride must be based on such artificial things, I believe that Canada's future is in danger. Our national pride should be based on a concern for efficiency at the lowest possible cost, on the belief that we have a defence system which is entirely adequate and which was able to derive maximum benefit from all the skills we attracted into it.
I have said, sir, that in my opinion, improper criticisms had been made in this debate. For the guidance of the house, I should like to note a number of them.
For instance, I did like the approach taken by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness)-perhaps I am mistaken as to the name of his riding-as well as that taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman), whose views I do not always share and who sometimes seems to be fanatic. But he gives facts, advances arguments, explains them his own way, although it may be in an intransigent way. But when I see certain other hon. members trying to tie the minister
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
to the stake, trying to attack his personality,
I am of the opinion that nothing is being settled. I should like to quote some cases in order to arrive at a conclusion which I believe the vast majority of my colleagues will approve.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), referring to the minister, said, as reported on page 12477 of Hansard for January 31:
His prime purpose is to ensure his own greatness.
Mr. Speaker, if one started from that principle, one could say of the opposition members that their first objective is to further the political interests of the Conservative party. It would be just as unfair, Mr. Speaker; in fact, it would be mean. The hon. member went on:
This is the first time that parliament has ever been so affronted by any minister of the crown.
Parliament is affronted. I have heard many hon. members raise questions of privilege to protest against that affront to parliament.
The minister is guilty of tampering with evidence and he has done so for the purpose of ensuring that parliament does not get the information which is essential before it can decide-
Those are serious charges, Mr. Speaker, and I think that the hon. member who made them is serious. He added:
-it is sheer hypocrisy and I am amazed at the hon. member's effrontery in making such a suggestion to the house.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member who made those serious charges should ask the house to have the minister called before the committee on privileges and elections if he really meant what he said. Then, after blaming the minister for not giving enough explanations, he said:
-I do not think anyone-is prepared to accept the minister's testimony-
Then why ask him for explanations if, at the outset, one will not believe what he says.
-we must even suspect his motives.
It is always the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) speaking and he added:
-I cannot in all conscience accept any information pertaining to defence which he gives to the house as being helpful to us.
The minister who has the support of about a score of ministers and some 130 members would then be guilty of imposture.
National Defence Act Amendment
Mr. Speaker, to my mind those are unconsidered accusations. He continues by saying:
Certainly this is not the only insult which he has thrown at most of the top personnel-
And he continues in that vein, but I shall spare you the rest. I apologize for seemingly lecturing my colleagues who are more experienced that I am. But I feel, Mr. Speaker, that in this year of the centennial of confederation, our first concern should be to reinstate Canadian patriotism in the minds of all Canadians, reinstate the confidence Canadians have in their parliament. If, like the member for Edmonton-Strathcona and others, including the member for Cape Breton, whose riding I have forgotten, we take pleasure in discrediting one another, if like the members for Lapointe and Villeneuve (Messrs. Gr6goire and Caouette) did not long ago, we take pleasure in clamouring outside the house that the majority of members are incompetent, we are destroying in the public mind the prestige our parliament should have, and we are undermining the patriotism we want to create.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we could discuss the pros and cons of unification and integration without attacking individuals and discrediting ourselves before public opinion. I cannot help but recall the old saying that those they would destroy, the gods make mad.
That may explain why, in too many spheres of Canadian life today, there is a lack of respect for parliament, but people are beginning to really think that parliament is made up of incompetents, individuals who are dishonest intellectually, if not morally, and who are pursuing greatly disquieting aims for the future of our country. I find such criticisms unseemly and improper in the House of Commons. I must point out, however, that a few of them were timely.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
For those of our colleagues who make such unseemly criticisms, who object to new methods in the defence reorganization, who attack any new policy proposed by a government which is keeping up with the times, I should like to recall that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, who will honour us with her visit this year, is much more broad-minded and noble-minded about the source of inspiration of government policies, about those responsible for them since they are in power and about those partly responsible, because they form the opposition.


National Defence Act Amendment
I shall simply quote two paragraphs from the speech made by Her Majesty on her last visit to Quebec city. She was then speaking about the future of Canada and the human race.
We must prepare for that future today among our fellow citizens, we must give explanations and express our views dispassionately while respecting the opinion of others-
Rather than disparaging each other, we should set the example of constructive discussion. This comment is mine. Now I quote:
The problems will founder in confusion if we do not learn to enlighten them with fraternity and humanity. Let the dialogue remain open and it will tend to unite men of good will. True patriotism does not preclude the understanding of the patriotism of others.
And she added:
The democratic system rests upon the conscious adhesion of the citizens. The role of the constitutional monarchy is to personify the democratic state, to sanction legitimate authority, to ensure the lawfulness of the methods, to guarantee the execution of the popular will.
In order that the inhabitants of a country may live happily, they must live in an atmosphere of confidence and affection. But a dynamic state must not fear to reconsider its political philosophy.
I repeat, and the Queen said it:
But a dynamic state must not fear to reconsider its political philosophy.
And to reconsider it in relation to present needs and modern progress.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the only practical discussion called for, in these circumstances, is the one carried on by some of our colleagues when, for instance, they tell the minister: We are not getting enough information. Some Canadian citizens are not getting sufficient information. Yet, information has been given, since the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) said the other day as reported in Hansard on page 12476: Between October 31 and November 15, over 200,000 words covering nearly 250 pages were uttered during debate on the defence estimates, in committees. There were two committees on defence and they held 81 meetings, the proceedings of which cover 2,300 pages. Some 103 witnesses were called; the Minister of National Defence or the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) testified 63 times. There was opportunity to ask questions, since 857 have been recorded. Now then, if 857 questions were not enough to get an idea of what the minister had in mind in this regard, we should give up. I personally feel that these criticisms are uncalled for. At that time,


there were almost 250 pages of text containing 200,000 words. At that rate, one million words will probably be on the record. It might be a good idea to print some 20,000 copies of Hansard, or condense the debate, so that all Canadians may have the opportunity to see how extravagant some criticisms can be when they are not made in an objective manner, when one forgets the purpose of a bill. In this case, it is to ensure greater efficiency and modernization in the field of national defence, as in all other fields.
Mr. Speaker, it has also been argued that some servicemen objected to the plan. Of course, they have the right to do so. They have the right to object up to a certain point. But they no longer had this right, when it became a government order. Only one thing remained for them to do: to leave voluntarily or to be dismissed, as it happened.
The men and the soldiers who endorsed the principle of unification and integration have been listed. They are not just anybody or fools. I shall spare the house another such enumeration. Anyway, a rather complete list of names has been given by many hon. members who spoke before me. I shall mention only the case of General Allard, a French Canadian like me, for whom we have a great deal of respect. He did not usurp his post, but literally conquered it by his own strength. He is entirely in favour of unification and doing everything he can to implement the program, together with his many associates who have also endorsed the program.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the views of these professional soldiers who acquired experience by visiting the defence arrangements of all the countries in the world and who rose to their rank through their knowledge and ability, should suffice to assure us that the minister is on the right track in speaking of integration and unification. Therefore, I should like to conclude by saying that there are 20 million Canadians who do not care whether we will have kilts or pipers tomorrow, or whether admirals will continue to parade in one uniform and generals in another, but who are interested in knowing whether the country can have the best equipment in the world, operated by the best technicians in the world and at the lowest possible price, so as to put as small a strain as possible on the taxpayers. That is what they are interested in.


The opposition has suggested that if most Canadians favoured unification, it was because the minister had made them believe that the moon was made of green cheese, had blinded them to the facts. I for one, Mr. Speaker, believe in the common sense of Canadians. I think, on the contrary, and the opposition has admitted it, that the great majority of the Canadian people supports the government on the question of unification and integration, and that should be sufficient reason for members of parliament not to go against public opinion so eloquently expressed.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I will support as much as I can, the policy of the government regarding unification and integration.


Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the unification bill will be brief. I have listened to and read the speeches, particularly those by members on the other side of the house. I want to refer to one speech from the other side, that made by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) on Tuesday, January 31. I and many others on this side have asked many questions and have sought answers from the minister. In my opinion the minister has not given satisfactory information. We looked forward with anticipation, therefore, to the speech to be made by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) as he is chairman of the defence committee. What a disappointment it was. His speech covers more than two pages of Hansard but he uttered not one word about the merits or demerits of the unification bill. I did not expect the hon. member to emphasize the disadvantages of the government proposal, but surely it is not too much to expect the chairman of the defence committee to give his views on the subject matter under debate. The hon. member uses this excuse, to be found at page 12468 of Hansard:
I have purposely refrained, Mr. Speaker, from entering into the subject of the debate because, as chairman of the defence committee, I feel it is my most important duty, if this bill ever does come before us, to help resolve the differences during the clause by clause study in committee.
I will come back to that later. Just before that statement the hon. member said, as found on the same page:
Let no one misunderstand the motives which have prompted the opposition. We have two genuine points of view and for the moment they appear to be irreconcilable.
National Defence Act Amendment
First the hon. member says that the points of view of the two sides are irreconcilable and then he says he will do his best to bring them together. The main point I wish to make clear is that the position of the hon. member in the House of Commons is entirely different from his position as chairman of the defence committee. It is his duty as a member of the house to let his views be known on the subject matter under discussion. It is his duty to the people of Canada, because of his position as chairman of the defence committee, to state his views. It is his duty to his constituents to let them know what his arguments are before voting for this measure. When the hon. member acts as chairman of the defence committee he does not deal with the subject matter of the presentations. He deals merely with matters of decision. Any statements, therefore, that he might make in the house would not in any way prejudice his position as chairman of the defence committee.
Having checked with many eminent parliamentarians in the house I find it is quite customary for the chairman of a committee to participate actively in the house when the subject matter for which his committee is responsible comes before the house. I suspect that the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. was playing it safe. He was afraid to put forward arguments in favour of the bill because his constituents in Victoria would be in a position to question them.
The very least the hon. member could have done was to answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) during the previous debate in the house. The question is on page 9551 and it refers to the knowledge the chairman of the defence committee had with regard to the changing of the evidence which Admiral Landymore was to give before the defence committee.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) seemed to imply that speeches made in this debate are made for the purpose of prolonging the debate and nothing more. His attitude seems to be that since the government is now proposing this legislation there is no point in seeking to oppose it because it will go through in any case. Let me tell the hon. member and all hon. members over there that those who have taken part in this debate, on this side of the house at least, did so because they were anxious to make their views known on a matter which affects the security and sovereignty of Canada. I for one consider it


National Defence Act Amendment my duty to express the views I have put forward not only for the benefit of the government and for the benefit of other hon. members but for the benefit of the people who sent me to parliament. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C. said that the chairman of the committee does not normally express his views on a subject matter to be discussed by the committee, but I hope that when this bill comes back to the house from the standing committee or on third reading he will tell the people of Canada and in particular his own constituents his reasons for supporting this measure.
I wish to refer briefly to the statements and speeches made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). I have read carefully the speech he made on December 7. I for one believe that either the minister is unwilling or he is unable to advance cogent arguments in favour of a single defence force. Indeed, he seems unable or unwilling to give a clear explanation of what he means by a single defence force. Of all the speeches made on this subject by members of the other side I consider that made by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to be the one which most genuinely sought to advance concrete arguments in favour of the government's proposal. The hon. gentleman made a genuine effort, I believe, to explain what unification meant. I hope my remarks will be listened to in the same spirit as were the minister's.
When this same subject was before the house during the debate on interim supply, members on this side were attacked for consulting with experts who had been kicked out of the forces by the minister. The Associate Minister of National Defence said we had done the right thing, that we should consult anyone who was knowledgeable in these matters, as he himself had done. He admitted that he was not sure of all the facts so he had consulted a person whom he considered to be an expert. The person whom he consulted was General Foulkes. He says of General Foulkes as found in Hansard on page 9395:
General Foulkes is a reliable source upon which the members of the opposition called, and I am not blaming them for that, since I have a great respect for General Foulkes.
He goes on to say of him:
-when I saw a man with such experience, holding an absolutely necessary position, realize the urgent need of the Canadian forces-
And so on. Incidentally, on November 1 last the associate minister was quoting the opinions of General Foulkes as reported in the

Star Weekly magazine of October 14, 1961. On November 4 I referred to the speech which the associate minister had delivered and suggested he should bring himself up to date by reading a more recent statement which General Foulkes had made. I quoted excerpts from an article written by the general in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, October 13, 1966, in which he was critical of the government and of the proposed unification plan. They can be found on page 9555 of Hansard. I would now refer the associate minister to the Ottawa Journal of October 11, 1966. The headline is: "Foulkes Asks Hellyer What On Earth He Is Doing".
The only other record of wholesale changes in the military occurred in the Hitler regime. He dismissed every general who dared to tell him what he should know and not what he liked to hear.
I hope, therefore, that the associate minister, whom I have always found to be a fair-minded man, will tell us when we are in committee what his reaction was when he read this later statement by General Foulkes.
As reported at page 12536 of Hansard, the associate minister outlined the various alternatives which the government might have considered, and I think he did it very well. He indicated there were three options open to the government. The first was to contribute all-out forces toward the maintenance of peace keeping by placing them under the United Nations. Later he asserted, rightly in my opinion, that this should not be the main purpose or the only purpose of our defence forces.
The second option available to us was to commit all our forces to the deterrence of war by making additional contributions to NATO and NORAD. The third was to maintain only such forces as would be required to uphold our national sovereignty. The associate minister told us that a fourth option had finally been chosen. I quote from page 12536:
This is the option we have taken. This is the option which permits us to create a proper mix of forces which can be used to contribute to international peace keeping, which can be used to maintain our national sovereignty.
I maintain, in reply to the minister's argument, that the type of force we now have is most suited for these purposes and that it has proven to be so. In the first place, it has proven itself to be satisfactory. We have played an important part in NATO and NORAD, and since the present set-up of our armed forces corresponds with that of our various allies I believe we are more likely to
February 2. 1967	COMMONS
continue to make an effective contribution to those alliances by maintaining the structure we have at present.
In my opinion it has also been shown that Canada has played a leading part in peace keeping. There has been no indication that the role which our forces have played in various parts of the world has been in any way unsatisfactory as a result of their conventional structure. Again, I think it has been amply demonstrated that the type of force now in being has proven to be adequate and satisfactory for our defence and for the protection of the security of Canada.
I submit that the priorities, objects and functions of the Canadian defence force should be in the following order. The first consideration should be the security and sovereignty of Canada. That is the number one priority by far. Number two priority should be participation in defence alliances and the third should be participation in United Nations peace-keeping tasks.
Although the government has not admitted this, it seems to me that according to their view of the matter the primary role of the unified defence service, if not immediately then in the future, is that of peace keeping for the United Nations. I am one who believes that if it is at all possible we should encourage the United Nations to set up a peacekeeping force on a regular basis. I think it would be contrary to the interest of Canada if we unilaterally set up such a force for that purpose. When the time comes for such an international United Nations peace keeping force to be established, the type of force which should be established must be determined by the United Nations, not by Canada. If we proceed now to set up a type of force with a peacekeeping function, in the future we might find that it would conflict with the decision made by the United Nations when such a police force is set up.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
To me the attitude that we should create a single force with the major objective of performing a United Nations peace keeping function is part of the kind of continentalism which seems to be common to the Liberal party. Republicanism or continentalism seems to be in line with such an idea.
The security and sovereignty of Canada are too important to be tampered with by an experiment such as the minister now is undertaking. In support of my contention that this attitude prevails in the government I 23033-796
National Defence Act Amendment quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of November 5, 1966:
The evident strategic doctrine contemplated by the government is to set up a mobile force of land, sea and air services that could be moved quickly to any part of the world to undertake either a UN peace keeping obligation, or to help fight a brush-fire war on NATO's behalf.
This would require the country's air and naval units to play largely a support role for the army, rather than the semi-independent part they once took.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an editorial in the Victoria Colonist of Saturday, December 24, 1966. It is headed "The Defence Role" and reads:
It is persistently argued that the proposed integration of Canada's defence forces is justified in large measure by this country's responsibility in peacekeeping roles on behalf of the United Nations.
I shall skip part of the editorial and then quote again:
They exist primarily to defend the interests and the integrity of the people who pay for them.
Then I go to the last paragraph:
It is doubtful if the people of Canada would accept a military budget of more than a billion and a half dollars a year to provide a United Nations' police force even in the highly improbable event of our being invited to assume this function.
If I am correct in my assumption that this seems to be in the mind of the government, then I think the government is premature. As I said, I hope the time will come when the United Nations will set up an effective police or peace keeping force. When that is done eventually, I would assume first of all that it would be the smallest countries which are members of the United Nations that would provide the actual personnel. Surely, however, all members of the United Nations would contribute toward the cost. If the United Nations should decide that a certain type of force is required, since all the countries which participate in the United Nations would have to pay for it it would be logical, if a certain type of force is required, that Canada should play its part by then establishing the type of force which would meet the special requirements of the United Nations.
I should like to quote again from the speech of the Associate Minister of National Defence. The reason I quote him is that he is the only one who has presented arguments which call for us to reply. He has tried hard, I think, to put forward valid arguments. The next question with which the associate minister dealt was the question of what is meant by unification. Here I think the associate minister felt it would be wise to rely on the


National Defence Act Amendment definition given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). As found on page 12538 of Hansard the Associate Minister of National Defence, in answering the question "What is meant by unification", quotes the Minister of National Defence as follows:
Integration-to-unification is a series of interlocking steps designed to provide Canada the best military course possible to meet our international obligations for a reasonable expenditure.
I think what the associate minister did not realize was that the minister finally let the cat out of the bag when he said:
-the best military course possible to meet our international obligations for a reasonable expenditure.
Apparently that is the only explanation that could be given of what is meant by unification. However, in a further effort to explain what is meant by unification the associate minister again quotes the Minister of National Defence as follows, as recorded on page 12539 of Hansard:
One general principle should be underlined again [DOT]-the combat units will retain their identity and their specialized functions and training.
That confuses me more than ever, Mr. Speaker. If this is what the minister has in mind by way of a single defence force, namely, "the combat units will retain their identity and their specialized functions and training", then surely that is what the situation is under the present set-up. Then the associate minister in a very genuine and sincere manner attempts to indicate some of the advantages of a single force. At page 12538 of Hansard he cites some of the advantages of unification:
Separate and distinct uniforms.
Well, surely if 100,000 new uniforms have to be bought it is going to be more expensive. There will be 100,000 new uniforms of a different colour and type. Surely there can be no appreciable saving there. The second advantage is:
Separate personnel policies and the duplication of manpower required to support these policies.
Third:
Duplication in areas of common training.
Then, fourth:
Duplication of the communications systems.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? He is quoting me the wrong way around. This is the argument I was advancing against the former system. I said that we wished to obviate these duplications.


George Louis Chatterton: I accept the minister's correction. From the statements the minister made on various occasions I had understood that these were the things we would be avoiding by integration. The associate minister then dealt with the question of costs. He stated that a considerable amount of savings has been effected in various parts of the defence service. Then at page 12539 of Hansard he quoted from an answer already tabled in the house:
Savings already achieved through the integration of headquarters and services since July 1964:-
I repeat, "Savings already achieved through the integration of headquarters and services since July 1964". The minister repeatedly has said that integration has effected savings. I do not concede that at all. If there are 23,000 fewer personnel in the armed forces now than there were a year ago, naturally a lot of money would be saved thereby. I think that is the way to save money. If I did concede that integration has saved money, and I do not, that does not mean that the next step, unification, will also save money. Surely it is up to the minister and the government to present us with evidence of some kind of a plan which will indicate that unification will effect savings. It is not enough just to make a general statement in the house that it will do so. We must have some evidence of some plan, and it is my opinion the minister has completely failed to present us with such evidence.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In support of that statement let me quote Admiral Rayner, the former chief of naval staff. I do not know the date of this article but it appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. Admiral Rayner was referring first to unification and he said:
The fact that we were to proceed with a firm plan was considered acceptable by the government-
He was suggesting that there was no clear plan developed for integration. He also said.
I was concerned that there was no detailed plan to implement the new organization. Hence people could not be told in good time how it would affect them. Also, without a plan, I found it impossible to estimate the savings that might be made.
In referring to unification he is also reported as having said:
Once again no plan has been produced, just the announced intention to proceed. Is this to be 1964 over again? Unification poses much greater problems than integration.
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
In the absence of any evidence presented by the government or the minister that integration will in fact provide savings I can only assume that no detailed plan has been prepared as to what effect unification will have in cutting down the cost of providing this service.
I shall not be much longer, Mr. Speaker. Earlier I mentioned that this whole plan is in line with the government's attitude toward continentalism and republicanism. We have seen examples of this. Let me quote from the Victoria Colonist. The quotation I wish to put on record appeared in an editorial on Saturday, November 5. It begins:
For a start, no longer will any branch or unit of the services be "royal" according to the minister's pronouncement.
I have just been informed that the minister may not know where the Colonist is published. It is published in the Victoria riding.
The editorial then continues:
This will please few except the republican element in the country and conceivably those who resent the fact that Britain's Queen is also Queen of Canada. What useful purpose such a controversial change can serve the minister will explain, no doubt, when the opportunity for debate is given the commons. But if this is a part of Prime Minister Pearson's "Canadianization of Canada" plan, ostensibly aimed at a closer national harmony, it is likely to fail dismally.
In fact, such tampering with tradition and honoured symbols is likely to be dangerously divisive.
There will be those who mourn for the passing of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. These will become the sea and air arms of the Canadian Armed Forces, to be built in future on the rank structure of the army.
The last part of the editorial states:
It also remains to be seen how Canada's voluntary enlistment system stands up under the strain.
Mr. Hellyer may be prepared to take these risks but the nation should not. Unless he can be prevailed upon to modify this new military design, either by the already vociferous opposition in the commons, by respected and experienced military men, or by the sober elements of his own Liberal party, he is leading this country very close to the edge of disaster.
What he risks is a wholesale demoralization in the armed forces, if not their disintegration.
This is too solemn a matter for experiments of the drastic nature this minister proposes.
We have been urging all along that the government refer this bill to the defence committee before approval in principle on second reading. That fact of the matter is that once the principle of unification is approved by the house it will be a fait accompli. This is such an important matter that I feel sincerely it
23033-796J
National Defence Act Amendment would be risky to proceed with the government proposal. In my view it would be the-better part of wisdom for the government to withhold its request that parliament give this important matter approval in principle until we have heard all the evidence of experts and other people who wish to appear before the defence committee.
If the principle of this bill is as good as the minister has maintained and if a single defence force has all the qualities ascribed to it by the minister, surely it will stand up to the test of critical analysis and examination by the committee before approval in principle. The fact that the minister seems to be convinced that it will stand up is all the more reason he should send it to the defence committee. Surely if this were the case he would say: We are absolutely sure our contentions will be borne out by the evidence. Even at this late date I hope the minister will give serious consideration to this suggestion.
It is also my hope that when the bill goes to the defence committee there will be no attempt on the part of the minister or the government to prevent any person, whether he be a member of a military force or not, from appearing before the committee. I recognize that a member of the armed forces appearing before a committee cannot disclose matters concerning security or policy. I am satisfied that the chairman of the committee will handle that situation adequately. I sincerely hope there will be no attempt to prevent the appearance of individuals the committee may wish to call.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-243, which will provide a unified defence force for Canada, is a legislation which, in my opinion, has the approval of the majority of Canadians.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) talked about the indifference of the people. I do not agree with him on that point, and I wonder whether the Canadian people are not rather indifferent to some passionate and emotional arguments put forward by the opposition.
For some, the people are unable to assess the results of such government action. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if actually the arguments put forward by those who object to the unification of our forces are really valid.


National Defence Act Amendment I agree with the hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) who said that those who are interested must voice their opinion during this debate; but I believe that some speeches should have followed a different course. The same member also referred to an editorial published in Victoria. I even blame editorials which inject matters of tradition, of royalty and republic into a debate such as this one which only seeks to improve our armed forces.
Mr. Speaker, all kinds of motives are ascribed to the hon. Minister of National Defence; he is accused of stubbornness, he is blamed for his determination and even his sense of responsibility is questioned. It is a pity, in my opinion, that in this house, in public, the sincerity and honesty of our public men can be questioned. Earlier, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) gave us a few examples of arguments which, in fact, were unwarranted and which do not improve the debate.
The present Minister of National Defence is just as sincere as his predecessors. He tries to assume his responsibilities in the best interest of everyone; he places before us a bill which is indeed right with our time, 1967, and consistent with our world commitments. I am even led to believe that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) would probably have made the same decision if they were still minister of national defence.
Is it wrong to submit that ministerial decisions are always preceded by studies at the department level, by consultations with officials and the people responsible for their implementation? Of course, in the end, somebody has to make the decision. And I am sure that, even in this case, it was not made lightly and that everything was carefully thought out with a sole object in view: improving the efficiency of our armed forces and establishing a defence policy more suitable to our country and to our modern times.
It is nevertheless ridiculous to see the reaction of certain members in this house. They always blamed the present government for its lack of policy, for its rehashed policies, for following constantly the influence of our southern neighbours, for waiting too long before meeting problems, for its inability to take decisions. Now that we have before us

a legislation innovating in the field of defence, a first, a plan which many countries are considering, what happens? Everyone cries shame, is afraid of the venture, anticipates the worst, instead of encouraging and helping the minister to implement a legislative measure which will be to the credit of our country and will give a new dimension to our armed forces.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, all those changes will not be made smoothly or without difficulties, since any change naturally brings about a little disruption, especially when men are concerned. This is quite normal. Are we afraid to meet the challenge?
Were the few retired officials who engaged in a pitched battle against unification also afraid to meet the challenge? I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that practically all members of the Canadian forces are able to meet such a challenge and to carry out this unification project, a "made in Canada" project.
Yet, in this debate an effort is made to have the minister contradict himself or others; an attempt is made to show that he has hidden the truth. We hear an exercise in semantics, quotations, so-called contradictions, and above all, efforts are being made so that the people will look upon the Minister of National Defence as a monster who wants to crush our poor little servicemen and get rid of those who will not submit to his requirements. How ridiculous. Those who are talking of arrogance should rather say of the minister: determination and conviction. Those accusing him of stubbornness should talk about decision and action. Those blaming him for his obstinacy should rather see a sense of responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I too have been a member of the committee on national defence since 1963, as well as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the critic in military matters of the official opposition, and I do not contend that somebody tried to hide anything from me. I am convinced that we were given all the necessary opportunities during the 81 meetings to examine the defence policy of Canada, to hear statements from servicemen, former servicemen and civilians, to question them and also to read the special studies prepared for the committee.
The minister, or the associate minister (Mr. Cadieux), attended 63 meetings of the committee. They answered a considerable number of questions, namely over 800. If certain senior military officers who gave evidence before the committee on the Canadian defence policy feel
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
frustrated because their evidence was reviewed before they could present it, I am surprised at their attitude, all the more so because they were able, while answering questions from members of the committee, to go far beyond the information embodied in their brief or in their statement.
The hon. members opposite did not lose a single opportunity, I think, to question or cross-examine, either in the presence or in the absence of the minister. On the other hand, there is nothing abnormal, in my opinion, in considering certain pieces of information as classified in defence matters.
I have compared the brief submitted to the committee by Admiral Landymore with his draft brief, and I do not see why such a storm was raised on this matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we should see if the minister has indicated very clearly, bluntly and strongly in his statements and in his answers the meaning of integration and unification.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
To my mind, integration meant integration and I think all members understood it and accepted it. As far as unification is concerned, I have not seen anything more in it than unification of the three services of the Canadian forces into one unified defence force. How can it be otherwise? Moreover, the minister has mentioned that the whole process would evolve progressively, beginning with the integration of command and, through stages, leading to one single force. One can scrutinize all the evidence given by the minister and wonder what he really meant in one sentence or another, whether he has been explicit or could have been more explicit. In my opinion, this is a childish attitude and we have more constructive things to do.
Of course, the process of integration represents a big job with a lot of things involved; the minister himself has admitted it, and that is why it will be done in stages. Unification will probably be even more complex, but the first step was integration and, according to statements already put on record, it was obvious that the objectives could not be precisely defined in every detail before at least some progress had been made toward integration.
Mr. Speaker, in any case, I challenge anyone who can read either English or French to deny that the white paper on defence has
National Defence Act Amendment not made clear the objectives set by the government, and everybody knows that this white paper has been available to the general public since March 1964.
I believe I can understand French; on page 19 of the white paper, I read:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the INTEGRATION of the armed forces of Canada under a single Chief of Defence Staff and a single Defence Staff. This will be the FIRST step toward a single UNIFIED defence force for Canada. The integrated control of ail aspects of planning and operations should not only produce a more effective and co-ordinated defence posture for Canada, but should also result in considerable savings.
Surely, there is nothing underhanded here. What more can one ask for? Every hon. member received a copy of this white paper, the admirals surely read it, and the matter was publicized in newspapers across the country; even those unappreciated persons had an opportunity to find out about it. The concluding sentence of that same paragraph reads as follows:
Sufficient savings should accrue from unification to permit a goal of 25 per cent of the budget to be devoted to capital equipment being realized in the years ahead.
Who in the world would have the nerve to declare that integration only would result in that much savings? After all, 25 per cent of one and a half billion dollars is 400 million dollars per year, the greater part of which would come from unification and integration, precisely. Everything is expressed in clear terms, and the paragraph I referred to should help convince hon. members that there was nothing ambiguous about the white paper.
In this connection, I cannot understand those who, like the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) a while ago, wanted the bill referred to a defence committee before second reading, alleging that the committee has not had the opportunity to study the whole matter and hear the full testimony with respect to the desirability of such legislation. Of course, the committee never took a definite position on unification, but it could have done so. The government cannot, if it is in earnest about the discharge of its responsibilities, wait many more months to introduce a bill it considers both necessary and pressing, and all the more so after having given a standing or special committee of the house the opportunity to study the matter for months on end and even years.
Let no one tell me that it is normal for the dissatisfaction of a few retired soldiers to
12580	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment have so much weight in the balance, when we know that the majority of our military establishment, from the chief of staff down, is aware of the problem and supports, wholly or partially, the proposed unification.
Present procedure does not prevent in any way the committee on defence from perusing the bill after second reading and calling witnesses if it so wishes as well as making the required changes.
Some say that it is too late after second reading because the principle of the bill is then accepted. I do not agree at all, and in this I have the support of Bill No. C-231, an act to define and implement a national transportation policy. Everyone saw the work put in by the members of this house during committee consideration of that bill, and the amendments made to it. Moreover, there is no doubt that the nature of the evidence before the committee, if the proposition was to be as ill-fated as some claimed, would surely have influenced the decision of the government. However, I doubt that the evidence of some people who may be speaking for their own small vainglory, has much influence. Not on me anyway.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as for the merits of integration or unification-two things that I do not want to separate, for in my opinion one is completed by the other

I believe that there is no problem for integration, as I said earlier. But as for unification, some people made reservations as to its effects.
This legislation will surely bring about important changes in our military structure, but if the aims sought after when the decision was first made are really kept in mind, a general improvement is necessarily to be expected.
This bill has been prepared in close consultation with our military leaders and the heads of our armed forces, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, and they are the ones who will also be responsible for its implementation. I think that point is very important.
During the debate on Bill No. C-90 in 1964, this whole question of unification was discussed, even though only integration was being mentioned then. And now, most of the arguments put forward at that time seem to crop up again. It is feared that our armed forces will be weakened, that they will be unable to carry out their duties; it is thought that this change will cause concern and reduce our strength and, finally, it is much
[Mr. Laniel.l
DEBATES	February 2, 1967
feared that the morale of our troops will greatly suffer.
Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this bill, the present and the future must be taken into account much more than the past. Efficiency must take precedence over sentiment; nor should the returns we can obtain from our national defence dollar be overlooked.
Sentimental and fond of custom and tradition though we may be, we also must be progressive and face our problems. Everyone knows that in this house, no one dares change too rapidly the procedures and precedents going back a number of years, precisely to spare the feelings of some of us.
In the meantime, however, the population of Canada is paying the cost of long discussions.
Mr. Speaker, I have personally served in the Canadian air force during the war, I was proud of my squadron and of the Royal Canadian Air Force, or the Corps deviation royal canadien as it was then called in French, but I was particularly proud of being a Canadian and equally proud of the exploits of each of our three services, at sea as in the air or on the ground. I was even sorry that our navy was not identified by a more distinctive insignia to separate it more clearly from the royal navy.
After the war, I was active in reserve troops in an anti-aircraft regiment for about eight years. There, too, I am happy to say, I was proud of my regiment and I showed as much eagerness in my work as artillery officer as when I was officer in the air force. Today, I have a certain attachment to both, and I remain proud to be Canadian.
However, in the present case, there is no question of transferring sailors to the army, soldiers to the air force or airmen to the navy. The minister said it, General Allard said it and it was the talk of the town but some are still afraid. The point is simply to set up a single force composed of several elements, a unified force so that its efforts will be better co-ordinated under a single leadership, with much more flexibility in action.
I think that the emotional problem has to be put aside, at least for the time being. Besides, the emotion is felt a little more among former and present military people who have lived through the last war, than among our young people who now join our services, either for a few years or to make a career out of it. However, the latter group is still the larger, it is where the fighting force is.


Therefore, let us give those young people the opportunity to extend their affection to the whole Canadian forces, rather than to a single service and very soon, they will develop a feeling of pride and generosity even greater toward their country, all the more because they will know that many countries of the world are watching Canada and this unification project.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As for the uniform, it is again a passionate matter. The minister said that the military heads will be responsible for it. Well, I am prepared to place my confidence in them and I am convinced that they will choose a style which will meet all the requirements and which will even be attractive.
As for efficiency, integration certainly brought about improvements, for instance, the setting up of a single command-I think that everyone agrees with me on that-and the creation of the Canadian Forces Council, followed by the reorganization of headquarters and the structure of commands such as the mobile force command, the maritime command, the air defence command, the military command, and the air transport and materiel command. Already, it is possible to show that great savings have been made with an increased efficiency and a reduced staff.
With unification, we shall complete the process so that our three present services may benefit from a better co-ordination of effort in the field of administration, personnel training and the discharge of military jobs. Those who during the last war served in the army and in the air force, know full well that, at certain times, such lack of co-operation and co-ordination between our two services, was responsible for the loss of lives of some of our airmen and soldiers.
Yesterday afternoon the Associate Minister of Defence pointed out some weaknesses in our present system, from the rivalry between the three services to the duplication of our military establishments, of different logistic systems, to various communications networks, from the duplication of materiel purchases to the duplication in the training of the forces in each of the services, let alone the uniforms, various regulations and so on. For a country such as ours, to define clearly our aims in matters of defence is a must. Moreover, our defence program should contain some priorities in order that the best
National Defence Act Amendment possible use may be made of our establishments, our equipment and our financial resources.
Through unification we shall be able, with up-to-date armament and equipment, to protect our territorial sovereignty. We shall also be in a position to help prevent major conflicts through our contribution to deterrence forces, as, for instance, NATO forces, and maintain world peace while participating in operations under the United Nations, and all this with minimum strength and maximum effectiveness, which, in itself, will result in financial savings.
While setting up a single force, we shall assist in the establishment of better co-ordination and greater flexibility and mobility within each component of our armed forces.
Since that personnel must be replaced periodically, since some rotation is even advisable, each of those elements will thus be better prepared to play various roles according to immediate needs.
Our soldiers will be more versatile, our sailors, our airmen, our soldiers will be better prepared to work together and perform tasks as different as those called for by NATO mobile force, the defence of Canada and the protection of our territory, world peacekeeping operations, NATO deterrent force, help to the civil government in an emergency. All that through a more diversified training and equipment chosen precisely for more diversified use. For that very reason, the Canadian armed forces will be in a better position to face all kinds of emergencies, they will be better suited to periodic rotation and the government will be able, if need be, to change its international commitments without having to change drastically our military structures.
No doubt you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that I have purposely avoided so far to quote the views of any expert or soldier, because I wanted to express my own views without, for all that, feeling the need to repeat the various quotations which in general have already been heard in this debate or the previous ones on defence.
My personal views are based nonetheless on a thorough study of the matter and were arrived at following the work I did when I took part in the business and meetings of the special committee and the standing committee on national defence.
Mr. Speaker, the western world is watching Canada, it is taking considerable interest in our unification program. Let us join hands


National Defence Act Amendment and make this undertaking a complete success. And, if we really want to help the minister and our military leaders, let us make constructive and practical suggestions, as he recently asked us to do, and I am sure that request still stands today.
At the same time, we will be achieving this result through common effort, and I am sure that we will be proud of our accomplishment in the not too distant future.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in participating in the debate on such an important bill which affects a good number of my constituents physically and materially and affects the traditional and historic role and interest of the Atlantic provinces in the defence and defence forces of Canada. I must say I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. La-niel). He managed to keep the debate on a logical and unemotional basis but, with respect, I think he glossed over some of the cracks in the cake with the frosting of a few words.
It has surprised me during the four days we have been considering this bill, and it has only been four days, to hear speakers opposite, perhaps hoping to be constructive, continually refer to a committee that has been meeting for two or three years and a white paper that was published in 1964. This bill, once passed, is going to change forever and a day the form and substance of our armed forces. The minister is maintaining his usual silence, which is certainly most constructive fos debate, but I would ask him to tell me where, other than on page 19 of the white paper, there is mention of the word "unification" or the expression "a unified force".
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I will follow the precept of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry and will not become unnecessarily emotional in this debate. I have had no military experience to bring to this house in trying to define the minister's concepts or in pointing out constructively some of the pitfalls. However, one thing that does concern me, which has been mentioned by others in the house with military experience, is what the experts outside the house think of this measure.
The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry in frosting the cake, and perhaps
[Mr. Laniel.l
gilding the lily, will have to admit that there is a very real and sincere division about this issue among people most knowledgeable outside the house. For all the talk both in the press and in the house

and the government cannot have it both ways-the most constructive step that the Minister of National Defence could take would be to refer this question to a committee. The minister knows that this is the reason we are objecting so strongly and fundamentally to his bill.
During the debate on this subject last November many hon. members did not come out flatly against integration or unification but wanted the bill referred to a committee. With regard to the debate on interim supply last November we in this house know, and certainly the public know, that it was almost exclusively directed to the question of Admiral Landymore's evidence before the defence committee and whether or not it was changed either before or after he gave his evidence. That was the primary theme of the supply debate.
The testimony of the minister and his officers before the committee has been somewhat muddied by what we have heard from Admiral Landymore, and some attempt was made to introduce that evidence in the house. No less a person than General Foulkes, who occupied the highest military position in this land, suggested, with respect, that the minister was not as direct and purposeful in his evidence before the committee as he should have been. For instance, in 1964 the minister suggested in evidence that only the command structure of the forces should be integrated.
No doubt the minister or his advisers can provide me with exact information but, having read the 30 pages which comprise the white paper of 1964, as far as I can see the only time among all the thousands of words contained therein that the word "unification" is referred to is the one occasion mentioned by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry with reference to a single unified defence force. Only once is a unified structure mentioned.
There has been constant reference to the 1964 white paper and to the committee hearings based in part upon the white paper, but all of this as well as the supply debate in November was before the present bill came before the house. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if members of parliament are to earn their keep at all they must, when a bill as fundamental as this comes before them, define and dissect


it if they are not granted their one acknowledged wish which would resolve all matters for the time being anyway, the referring of the bill to the committee.
This is a constructive step that the minister could take but unfortunately he has not taken too many constructive steps thus far in response to the wishes and recommendations of those of this side of the house. That, of course, is his privilege. But in a way he should be complimented for putting the issue before us because for the first time in Canada, certainly since the conscription crisis debate during the last war, through the minister's action we are now at last concentrating our efforts upon the subject of defence and trying to ascertain what is our defence policy. As I say, Mr. Speaker, for that the minister is to be complimented.
Having complimented the minister for focusing attention on what the defence policy of this small nation of 20 million people should be in relation to the Goliath to the south of us consisting of 200 million people, the question must be given real scrutiny. In a way, perhaps this whole debate is academic. We all know that the shield and umbrella of the United States protect us in a meaningful way, and we on this side have tried to elicit from the minister whether it is the ultimate intention of the government to let the shield and umbrella to the south protect our shores and air space. Hon. members opposite may scoff at this, but I will not repeat all the arguments about sovereignty. Suffice it to say that references to the white paper, to the committee proceedings, to the revised evidence which was given and to the debate on supply are merely a red herring.
This bill was given first reading on November 7, 1966. It may be prophetic that December 7 was a day of infamy some years ago, and I hope that this date is not going to be symbolic as far as the effects of this bill on the defence forces of this country are concerned.
I realize it is the minister's belief that the bill will place Canada in a better state of preparation for defence than we were before. But many people more knowledgeable than the minister, let alone this member, have said that the bill will not fulfil this purpose. Therefore, what more constructive step can the minister take than to refer the matter to the committee?
The minister has had a very favourable press on this bill, and I do not begrudge him
National Defence Act Amendment that; it is understandable. As I say, I compliment the minister for focusing attention on this issue. But the minister has disappointed me. He has come from the booming area of Toronto with new ideas and new concepts to revolutionize parliament. To a certain degree he has a keen mind in many areas.
Having said that I suggest, with respect, that he has not followed his own principles in the one area he knows best, the area of construction. This is my reason for injecting the word "construction" into this debate. When you are mixing concrete and erecting a building it is not quite the same as radically changing an established structure and hoping you come up with a better one.
Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of his duties outside the house in the construction field the minister was planning a large building. Let us say that some of the architects, design engineers, even foremen and electricians employed by the consulting firm to prepare plans and specifications for the new building resigned. Would any reliable or successful contractor say; in the words of one famous admiral "Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead"? I suppose we still have some torpedoes left, but I use that expression in the allegorical sense. I suggest that the construction industry would ride that particular contractor out of town if under those circumstances he decided to build.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Let us say there have been resignations and protests and that, as any reliable, responsible and reasonable contractor would do, a meeting is held to air the views of different men. In any reasonable consulting or construction firm views are thoroughly thrashed out. If somebody then resigns because he objects to the way the plans are being laid out, because he does not believe they are logical or sound, you know where you stand. This is quite apart from an aroused public with regard to a development planned in the area, or from any change in the basic rules. A good contractor looks at things carefully, and I make no apologies for using the analogy of a contractor in this debate.


Mr. Hellyer:: I am glad.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hear the minister commenting. There is an analogy to be drawn between what a contracting firm would do and what is happening to our defence structure under this bill. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, my analogy is not restricted to mixing concrete for a big
12584	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment building. It does not deal with the ingredients which are needed to build any structure. Let us look at the example of scrambled eggs. You take a little milk, a little butter and eggs and mix them together and you are left with eggs no matter what the ingredients were, no matter who stirs the mess in the frying pan.


An hon. Member:: That is what you have in your speech.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The scrambled egg analogy is apt. Once the forces are reconstituted you cannot unscramble them. After all, a four day debate on something which will change a structure which has existed for 100 years is not too long.
I believe every hon. member should stand up and say whether he supports unification. I did not stand up and speak before because I do not know the facts and figures of logistics.
I do not know much about supply or the theory of integrated command. Those things are for the experts. I am sensible enough to know that others know more about these things than I do. But to come back to the construction analogy, would not a contractor who acted as the minister is acting be run out of business? Would not a contractor who was starting some revolutionary housing development, apartment block or supermarket, want to look into things carefully and make sure he was doing the right thing before he went ahead? After all it is not the minister's money that he is spending. If he were a contractor in the outside world and there was a great division of opinion about the design of anything he tried to build, he would be more cautious about the way he spent his clients' money. Here he spends the taxpayers' money.
Theoretically, in an improved parliament we ought to have no repetitious speeches, the debate should go along smoothly, and we should contribute nothing outside the scope of the debate. But here let me say that I am most disappointed with the minister. The minister has heard the Prime Minister of this country say that no cabinet minister should stand in hardening cement. In the words of the Prime Minister, if you want to give leadership you do not stand in a bucket of cement. That way you get stuck and when you are stuck you cannot give leadership. I need not repeat that for some time it has been difficult for members on this side to determine the course the government is charting on this issue. It was at the rejuvenation meeting preceding the recent reincarnation of a minister that the Prime Minister, as reported

DEBATES	February 2, 1967
in a Toronto Telegram article of October 13, 1966, said:
Remaining firm and immovable in a bucket of hardening cement is nothing to boast about. Political leadership is being steady, not stuck.
I had hoped that the minister would heed the admonition of the Prime Minister. The minister may be sincere, though it is perhaps not apt to use that term in this house. Disraeli said that the only person who does not change his mind is the person who has no mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nobody ever accused
Disraeli of sincerity.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not hear what the Minister of Transport said. Undoubtedly it was a logical intervention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said, nobody ever accused Disraeli of sincerity.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not know if Disraeli was sincere or insincere. I know he was a master psychologist who applied his talents with notable success to politics. I know equally well that the Minister of Transport has been in this place for a fairly long time and that he knows a thing or two about psychology, at least.


An hon. Member:: Too long.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: An hon. member says he has been here too long.
Let me say that there have been noticeable changes in the Prime Minister's course. I cite medicare, Mr. Spencer, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), nuclear arms, and so on. In all these things there has been change, noticeable change. Why can the minister not change? Even at this stage there could be a change overnight if this matter were only referred to a committee. We need to know more about the proposal. We need to know if the plans are correct, if they will stand scrutiny and criticism. If this matter went to a committee and then came back to the house we should not have the repetitious contributions from this side that members on the other side do not like. We have a precedent. The transport bill previous to the one recently passed was referred to a committee before being approved in principle. The precedent is there. Let the Minister of National Defence follow it. I have been disappointed as have others in my party by the minister's behaviour. We were disappointed that he did not follow the advice of some of his advisers. They too could come before that committee.
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
I shall not review in detail the arguments repeated here for the last four days. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) last night tried to show the history and chronology of the concept of unification as propounded by other governments. One cannot stress the points he raised enough. The subject matter of this debate is unification, not integration. Unification concerns us, as do defence policy and the sovereignty of this country.
Do efficiency and economy mean anything in the context of this bill when one considers what has happened in the forces in the last year? These questions concern us. What do we find? There has been a sort of stop and go, pause, retreat, change, reverse and forward action on the part of the Department of National Defence which has disproved the validity of what the minister has tried to maintain. In the forces we see a patchwork quilt of reaction and reflex actions. In these instant decisions that we have heard of the prime ingredients in the kitchen have not necessarily turned out to be for the good of decision making. Certainly the incident of the 500 pilots who were prematurely retired-one leading authority said that this decision cost the *Canadian taxpayer over $125 million-was not a positive contribution or a peg on which the minister can hang his hat. There was the howler hat incident, and that does not make members on this side of the house or the people of Canada feel particularly relaxed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Then there was the "instant mix" decision on pilot pay increases which for the first time involved discrimination between air crew. This has now been resolved in part as a result of the general increase and the recent study of the salary structure. So there was a positive contribution in the end but for many months the situation caused dissatisfaction and erosion of men and morale. Again, the re-engagement bonus, though perhaps fine in theory, was not working out until the pay increases were announced last October. These decisions, I suggest, were nothing more than desperate reflex actions by the department at a time when they did not really know where their plan was taking them.
Much has been said about the efficiency and economy which will result from unification. Let us consider the question of economy. The minister can boast about results in certain areas but the over-all price tag, according to my information, is higher than it ever was.
I do not intend to review the command structure proposals, because the hon. member
National Defence Act Amendment for Queens showed us that no other country has followed the proposal contained in the bill before us, certainly not Britain and the United States, two large countries with a long military history. There has never been any complaint about the integration of command at the top level or about integration at many levels. Our criticism is directed toward unification at the lower levels, especially at the combat level. There is no objection to transport, dental, medical services and so on, being supplied by a single corps. But there should never be unification at the lower levels where combat is involved.
These are my views after reading the reports and the evidence presented before the defence committee. I suggest that the level at which unification might be applied should never be below the regimental level in the army, on the ships and in the squadrons. No less a person than Mr. R. S. Malone, in the course of a series of articles which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, has pointed out the danger of unification at combat level. I do not know whether he has yet been quoted on this aspect, but he writes that the minister is trying to swim against the current which is flowing in other countries of the world, especially the United States. Mr. Malone is speaking about the decision not to impose unification at combat level. He says:
The same situation exists in the United States where an increasing effort is now being made to create and expand on regimental identification. To quote the U.S. Secretary for the Air Force, "men have functioned most effectively as members of an identifiable group. The spirit of unity ... of brotherhood ... is enhanced by tradition, pride in one's organization and by a distinctive uniform which is a mark of membership.
The value of esprit de corps cannot be measured with precision.
This is very different from something like concrete which can be measured with precision. That is why progress toward a unified command is so different, in one sense, from the construction of a supermarket, for example. The writer continues:
No price tag can be placed on it. yet we all recognize its intrinsic contribution in the quality of our armed forces. It is the heart of the true fighting force.
We should not tamper with that precious esprit de corps, that sense of identification, by immersing it in a vast agglomeration of a single service."
I ask the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry to consider carefully this expression of opinion by Mr. Malone, a man who, if he ran for political office, would certainly not sit on this side of the house. He is fairly well identified, I think, with one party, or at least


Private Bills
he was until the question of unification arose. It is such reasoning by men like Mr. Malone and men still more knowledgeable than he which disturbs so many of us in this house to the point at which we speak perhaps ad nauseam, in the opinion of some sensitive members of the press, in order to discharge the duties which we feel are placed upon us. It is because of this concern that we find ourselves so firmly opposed to this unification bill.
Loss of identification at combat level will leave Canada by itself.
I see it is six o'clock and I would like to call it so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. Perhaps I could read the proceedings on the adjournment motion at this point.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Si-mard), Administration of Justice-absolute pardon for first offence; the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), National Film Board-lack of documentary films on confederation; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Canadian Centennial-suggested complimentary trips to EXPO for older Canadians.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-26, respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to continue as a federal company a company which is an existing Ontario company, in fact, one of the leading insurance companies in Canada.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The Excelsior Life Insurance Company was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario by letters patent dated August 7, 1889. It has been licensed with the federal Department of Insurance since June 23, 1897.
[Mr. Nowlan.)
I understand that, in terms of assets and over $1 billion of insurance in force, it is one of the largest insurance companies in Canada. As a provincial company the Excelsior Life Insurance Company is subject to most of the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act to which it would be subject as a federal company, but at the same time it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Corporations Act, certain provisions of which overlap and conflict with the provisions of the federal act. This dual jurisdiction does result in some hardship and inconvenience. The company, for instance, must prepare its annual statement in the form prescribed by the federal Department of Insurance, but its annual report is prepared on a different basis to comply with the provisions of the Ontario Corporations Act. The Ontario act, of course, is designed to apply to all Ontario corporations and not particularly to companies engaged in the insurance business.
The investment powers under the Corporations Act in Ontario do not conform to those provided for under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. The provisions of the federal act, however, are the standards referred to in the investment community.
The company is engaged in direct competition with federally incorporated companies and with British and foreign companies operating in Canada, and it feels prejudiced by the narrow investment powers which it has under the Corporations Act of Ontario.
In some respects the Ontario legislation is silent in respect of certain administrative procedures, and the company has been following, and must comply with, the more detailed federal requirements. There are certain areas of difference in the field of administration between the federal and provincial requirements. These could be resolved if the company became a federal company.
I understand that the Ontario Department of Insurance has been quite understanding in dealing with this company in its operations under these circumstances. The company, in fact, has been treated much as if it were a federal company. The Excelsior Life Insurance Company is licensed to operate in each province and to transact the business of life insurance, accident insurance and sickness insurance. The company carries on business in all the provinces of Canda.
Reincorporation as a federal company and subsequent sale and transfer of the company's assets to the new corporation is not in itself feasible in view of the size of the Excelsior


Life Insurance Company. First of all, there are close to 200,000 policyholders. There is more than $1 billion of insurance in force. It would be quite impracticable to transfer these policies to a federal company. Second, there are mortgage loans on real estate which are held by the company totalling approximately $68 million. It would not be feasible to register assignments of such a large number of mortgages to a new corporation. Third, the company has marketable securities to a value in excess of $83 million. The task of transferring these securities would be quite onerous.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to achieve the effect of reincorporation as a federal company without the apparent difficulties posed by that course of action. This bill, by a special act, would make The Excelsior Life Insurance Company, a company of long standing and high reputation throughout Canada, a federal company subject to all the controls and federal laws to which it is now subject and make it if anything more competitive with other companies in the field and enable it to serve the public interest better.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member concludes his remarks, would he permit a question? If so, could he tell the house, if he has knowledge of this, the extent to which the company is owned in Canada by Canadians and to what extent it is owned by nationals of other countries? In other words, could he tell us to what extent the company currently is owned by Canadians and to what extent it has foreign ownership?


Mr. Slanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that specific information. My information is that it is an independent company, not controlled by any foreign company, but I am not familiar with the exact shareholding. I would be glad to inquire about that and have this information available when the bill reaches the committee stage.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) for undertaking to provide this information when the bill reaches the committee stage, which I suppose is as appropriate a time as any to deal with it. I think it is perhaps all the more appropriate that we study the structure not only of this company but of other companies in the light of the extremely important doublebarrelled statement which the Prime Minister made last evening. I did not see the whole speech but I read newspaper extracts
Private Bills
from it. I think we might touch on that a little later.
At the moment, however, I should like to quote a few words from the explanatory note in the bill, which to me are extremely revealing. I should think they would be revealing as well to the government and would give the government, if it needs it and I hope it does not, an additional reason to spur on its consideration of the degree to which Canadian law should apply to companies of this sort or companies generally operating in the field of handling other people's money, which includes life insurance companies, other insurance companies, trust companies, loan companies, investment companies and the like. The explanatory note reads as follows:
Non-conformity of the Ontario legislation with the federal legislation respecting the operation of a life insurance company and the inconvenience and hardship resulting from the dual jurisdiction of the laws governing the affairs of the company make it desirable for the company to achieve the status of a company incorporated by special act of parliament.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Perhaps I am reading more into this than I should, not having the knowledge lawyers possess in respect of the intricacies of law, but as I see it there is a conflict in this field between the law of Ontario and the law of Canada which results in inconvenience and hardship to such companies. Our first consideration should be in respect of private individuals, and if this conflict results in inconvenience and hardship to the companies it must result in greater inconvenience to the policyholders, shareholders and investors.
In passing let me cite as an example the awkward position in which the investors, shareholders and policyholders of the Prudential Company found themselves, and that company was incorporated under Ontario law. I might also cite the situation in respect of the North American General Insurance Company which was incorporated federally by private bill. In that case the provincial government said it had nothing to do with the situation because it was the federal government's responsibility to legislate in respect of bankruptcy. The federal government said it had no responsibility because North American General Insurance Company, although incorporated by the federal government, was a company belonging to Prudential. As a result of the buck-passing between the federal and provincial governments the investors, shareholders and policyholders of those companies found themselves in the middle of a squeeze.


Private Bills
I am not arguing about the merits of the relationship which investors, speculators, shareholders or policyholders might have with these companies, but the fact is that because one was incorporated provincially and the other federally, with both governments passing the buck and refusing to accept responsibility, these people were left out in the cold.
The Excelsior Life Insurance Company has attempted to explain this away by suggesting that the non-conformity of the provincial legislation with federal legislation results in hardship and inconvenience because of different laws and dual jurisdiction. We should be looking for some way to do everything possible to ensure that individual Canadians who have a financial relationship with these companies are fully protected. This is particularly true because we have required these companies to be incorporated by statute.
We in parliament should pave the way for the federal and provincial governments to do away with the luxury of political combat in regard to the fixing of responsibility. These governments should be honest enough to admit their errors. There is obviously something of greater importance than political gain on the part of governments. The rights of individuals in respect of their relationship to the companies are of more importance.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Has he not heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) say on several occasions in the house that the North American General Insurance Company was involved because its investments were stolen?


Frank Howard: I realize that it is impossible to legislate against theft. The best we have ever been able to do in this field is to legislate penalties.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Is it not true that-


Frank Howard: Just one moment. Surely my hon. friend, who is a very learned lawyer with many years of experience in this house, will give me the opportunity of answering his first question before he asks another. I know what the minister has said. I am simply suggesting that there was buck-passing involved between the federal and provincial governments, neither one of which wanted to set up a commission to inquire into this situation. I only referred to Prudential and North

American General because they are companies which fell by the wayside. I am referring to Excelsior Life, North American General and Wentworth in relation to the necessity for governments to do something to protect the rights of individuals. That is the point I am making. If my hon. friend wishes to ask his other question now I will attempt to deal with it.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: The federal government's responsibility is to check on the financial stability of the insurance companies incorporated by the federal government through private bills. The North American General Insurance Company, which was incorporated in this way, as the result of stock control became the owner of a finance company. The real onus in respect of what happened to the finance company should be placed on the insurance company for allowing the finance company's assets to disappear in this way. Let me also say to my hon. friend that I agree the government should assume some responsibility in this matter.


Frank Howard: I did not think for a moment that the hon. member for High Park and I were at odds in respect of that principle. We must be concerned about the welfare and rights of individuals. The government of Canada has for some time had knowledge of this matter. Certain officials of the government of Canada, charged with the responsibility of overseeing activities in this field, viewed with alarm the growth of inter-corporate relationships which permit one individual or a group to control a borrowing company, an insurance company, a lending company and a finance company. So the government should have become alarmed about this situation.
This situation has permitted a savings and loan company involved in this inter-corporate group to borrow money from the hon. member for High Park, using him as an example only, to lend to one of its other companies. This relationship in the field of finance which allows companies to borrow money and act as insurance companies and lenders, all of which is done in an intimate way rather than at arm's length, does not lend itself to the protection of investors. The government of Canada has known about this situation for many months, if not years, but has done nothing except to say that the matter is under study and consideration. In my opinion that is not good enough.


[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The parliament of Canada is here being asked to deal with a matter of great magnitude and we should be concerned about protecting as much as possible the rights of the people who will have a financial relationship with the Excelsior Life Insurance Company. If the government of Canada has abdicated its responsibility in this field, parliament must step into the gap. We hope this is what parliament will do; we hope this is what the committee will do when the bill proceeds beyond second reading and is sent to committee. I understand there is an arrangement that the bill will be sent to a committee that is not now heavily burdened with work and can tackle this job with some ease and speed.
We should insist that when the bill gets to that committee not only the company officials but government officials will give the committee detailed knowledge about the extent of the relationship of this company with other companies, the extent to which it is owned by people who are not Canadians, and the extent to which it is able to protect the interests of the individuals who have financial relationships with it. I do not think it is good enough to say that the company is financially sound at the moment and is thus able to meet its liabilities. That may be all well and good now, as was the case with the North American General Insurance Company when it was incorporated by parliament, but there is nothing to stop some other element in the financial field gaining control of this company and operating it in such a way that the interests of the shareholders, investors and policy holders are not protected.
It falls upon our shoulders, in the absence of any government indication of responsibility or concern as to this matter, to try to do something about it. I hope that before the appropriate committee we will be able to amend the bill in such a way that the degree of protection we feel is necessary will be written into the bill. I believe this is necessary. We are concerned about the extent of foreign ownership of Canadian industry. We in this party have been concerned about this for many years. Many of us noted with appreciation the comments of the Prime Minister-as I said earlier, I only read them later-about his government's concern over the question of foreign ownership.
We, of course, do not bring the approach of Janus to this problem. Ours is a one-faced
Private Bills
approach. We are looking in only one direction, that of protecting the interests of Canadians. My reading of the Prime Minister's comments reminded me of Janus, an ancient Roman deity after whom the month of January was named. The first month of the year was named after him because he had two faces and as a consequence was able to look both fore and aft.
We take the Prime Minister at his word when he says he is concerned that there be greater Canadian ownership of our industries. This concern has been expressed in the bank bill, No. C-222, which is being examined by a committee at the moment. The bank bill contains a declaration of government policy in the field of banking, namely, that not more than one individual or corporate group can own more than 10 per cent of the shares of a bank, not more than 25 per cent of the shares of a bank can be owned by foreigners, three-quarters of the directors must be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada, and nobody who is a director of a bank should at the same time be a director of another bank, trust or loan company.
This exemplifies what we are getting at. It shows that the government was cognizant of the problem of the close ties between banks and other financial companies when it wrote those provisions into the bank bill. In our opinion insurance companies have just as great an effect upon the money situation of a nation as a bank because insurance companies have within their grasp, I venture to suggest, billions upon billions of dollars of policyholders' money. This money is invested by insurance companies at varying interest rates in various projects and is thereby pumped back into the economy of the nation.
We submit that if the government deems it to be the correct policy to place certain restrictions upon the degree of ownership and the interdirectorship of banks, it is equally valid to take the same position with respect to insurance, trust, loan and investment companies or any company that comes before parliament, asks to be incorporated and is involved in the financial field in some way. We want to assist the Prime Minister in attaining his goal. We think it behooves the Excelsior Life Insurance Company and other companies in this field to conform to the policy of the government, enunciated by the Prime Minister, with regard to restrictions on the degree to which they are owned in other countries and restrictions upon the relationship which their directors have with other companies in


Private Bills
the financial field. The policy enunciated in the bank bill should apply to them.
When this bill is before the standing committee we want from the owners of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company an indication whether they agree to the incorporation in this bill of the principles set out in the bank bill. If they do, to a degree this would be an acceptable course for parliament to follow. In addition,-and this is much more vital-we shall have to consider the steps necessary to preserve the rights of Canadians who have relationships with this company whether as investors, shareholders or policyholders, because while the Excelsior Life Insurance Company may today be as sound as can be, there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case. We have only to refer again to the North American General Insurance Company which parliament incorporated some years ago without a word of debate or examination. Presumably at that time everything was fair and above board in so far as the operation of the company was concerned, but it subsequently fell into difficulties. We have to look at-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members listened with interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon when he indicated, in reply to a question, that already the insurance companies operating under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act were fulfilling the requirements that the government has now seen fit to introduce in the amendments before the committee in respect of banks owned in Canada.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I was very interested in discovering what was the authorization for this statement and therefore I looked at incorporation under the original Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and particularly the sections with regard to Canadian ownership. I find in the second volume of the statutes, chapter 31, Part II, section 6 (3), the closing part of which reads as follows:
-and a majority of the ordinary directors or of the shareholders' directors, as the case may be, of a company shall at all times be Canadian citizens resident in Canada.
Certainly this section was drafted many years ago. In fact this statute was originally
fMr. Howard.]
drafted in 1911 and revised in 1952. At that time a section was written into it which affects the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act which demands among other things that they shall deposit in a chartered bank in Canada all moneys received by them on account of stocks subscribed or otherwise received on account of the company, and may withdraw the same for the purposes of the company only, and may do generally what is necessary to organize the company.
I am raising this matter in speaking about the bill because I think that there is a growing need in Canada to review our policy with regard to the creation of these new insurance companies and to consider whether we are accomplishing what we wish to provide for in incorporation of financial institutions. It is interesting to note that this particular company is a very large one; it has $83 million in assets. I was particularly interested in discovering how these assets have grown. This information is contained in the report of the superintendent of insurance. Under section 63(4) of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act it is indicated that in 1948 only .30 per cent of the total assets were invested in specified fields. This amount has now grown to 1.5 per cent of the total assets. If we check the amounts we will see that they are divided between bonds, stocks and real estate. The investment of the insurance companies registered under the federal government in 1948 was $8,900,000. In 1965 it was $94 million in stocks. In 1948 their investment in real estate was $1,183,000 and now it is $41 million. This proves the impact that these companies had on the Canadian economy and emphasizes the need for greater study and consideration which should be given to these bills.
A certain philosophy is apparent in our attitude to various companies. If the company is Canadian owned it is considered to be a good company, but if it is foreign owned it is a bad company. I think this is not necessarily true, and it is certainly not always true. However, I think it is of advantage to Canada if the company is owned and controlled by shareholders in our country because of our greater ability in directing the assets and savings of that company. Much of it is in the real estate field, and it is easier to direct the operations of such a company so that Canadian needs can best be served.
I have not had much opportunity to study the insurance companies act in any depth but I find that in the past there was a great


interest on the part of the legislators to make sure that insurance companies under federal control take into consideration at all times the best interests of Canada both as far as investments are concerned and in the choice of directors. Since 1910 there has been no change. The government, in its recent instructions to financial institutions as contained in the Bank Act and in the pronouncements of some ministers of the crown has placed greater emphasis on the majority control than was originally required in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. There is a requirement now for a 100 per cent directorship in Canadian hands. In fact it goes further than that and states that the directors must represent not less than 75 per cent of the ownership, and that of the 25 per cent which remains only 10 per cent can be under the control of one company or corporation.
I was pleased to hear the explanation given by the hon. member sponsoring the bill and to note that he was willing to ascertain the disposition of the control of the original capital of the company.
I am surprised to see that the explanatory note does not indicate whether or not the company wishes to be incorporated. A reference is made to Part IX of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. I find that in chapter 31, Part IX, section 150 there is an indication of the role to be played by provincial companies. As I read the other sections in that part, I find that these companies are not placed under the same restrictions under which they will now find themselves under federal control. It is quite true that under section 152, and to some extent under section 153, the superintendent is the federal superintendent. At the same time, they do not have to provide information as to the control of their stocks, the disposition of their holdings or file certificates that the proper transactions have taken place, as they would if they were a federal company.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I presume part of the difficulty of this company arises from the fact that they have been issuing life insurance for a great length of time in the province of Ontario, as well as in other provinces, in conformity with Ontario insurance laws. I assume the company is rather reluctant to release the paper that they have, including the assets which they hold in trust for their policyholders. I assume they are reluctant to make any major change in the transactions in which they have hitherto engaged in the province of Ontario, but are
Private Bills
going to set up a new federal company that will assume responsibility for the provincial company but will not take over the assets or liabilities of that company. It is extremely difficult to tell what the company wishes to do or what it is asking in this instance.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: If the hon. member will permit, I will try to explain briefly. As I understand it, one of the means of dealing with the situation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I understand the hon. member is posing a question, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to answer it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member can only reply to the question on the understanding he is not closing the debate.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Perhaps the hon. gentleman has made his point and is satisfied that the debate may be closed?


William Arnold Peters: No, I understood, Mr. Speaker to say, on the understanding that the debate would not be closed, that the question could be answered.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Perhaps I could answer the questions at the end of the hon. member's remarks.


William Arnold Peters: We are confused as to what this particular incorporation may mean in terms of this specific company. There have been a number of other companies that have wanted federal charters and were prepared to operate under federal legislation. However, this company appears to be operating now under part IX of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. The explanatory note reads in part:
Non-conformity of the Ontario legislation with the federal legislation respecting the operation of a life insurance company and the inconvenience and hardship resulting from the dual jurisdiction of the laws governing the affairs of the company make it desirable for the company to achieve the status of a company incorporated by special act of parliament. Due to the size of the company, continuation as a federal company and not a federal re-incorporation has been applied for.
Perhaps this explanatory note is easily understood by insurance people, but it completely confuses me. I have looked at part IX of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act under which I understand the company is operating now. As I understand it, the company operates under this act because of

February 2, 19G7
Private Bills
the inspection that is given by the superintendent of insurance. Now it is asking for continuation as a federal company, but not federal re-incorporation of the same company. I feel this situation raises a problem as to exactly what the company wants. It certainly is not clear.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the operation of The Excelsior Life Insurance Company has been good. I have checked and it rates quite highly, I believe about seventeenth amongst insurance companies in Canada issuing ordinary insurance. It rates fairly high in group and collective insurance. I presume the company is going to continue to operate in the same manner. I assume therefore that the only reason for applying for federal incorporation, and not re-incorporation, is something which I do not understand. I wonder therefore why this should be granted.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that members of parliament will have to give very serious consideration before they pass insurance bills, particularly those bills which will give to insurance companies the protection they are obviously going to be granted by federal incorporation. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned that the North American General Insurance Company that is federally incorporated and operating in Ontario is the exception. I feel that things have been done in that company that were close to the border, and that the superintendent of insurance probably did take special precautions against what eventually happened. I understand that rather than the annual inspection, the superintendent made inspections of this insurance company every two months, and that he was trying to track down some of the transactions that have taken place. An accountant was placed in the office to ascertain the total operations of this insurance company. The fact that one of the senior officials of an insurance company steals from the company, not by manipulating company assets but by actually removing the assets from the company office, cannot be prevented.
If we are going to give federal incorporation, then we should be assured as nearly as possible that the incorporation is going to be in the interests of the Canadian public, that the shareholders are going to be protected to the greatest extent possible and, in particular, that the policyholders are going to be protected by the superintendent of insurance to the extent that this money may be the same as

money in the bank. For these reasons, I believe it will be necessary for the Canadian government to make amendments to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act to ensure that the majority of the directors of the company are Canadians and normally resident in Canada, and that the capital, which in many cases is more important than the people that we have in these offices, be Canadian. This capital should be directed toward Canadian ends and Canadian needs. I think the indication of large investments by insurance companies, particularly in the field of real estate, is something that is worth while and should be encouraged not only by individual companies but by the government as well. I think that this can only be done when these companies become Canadian companies, the finances of which are under the control of Canadian citizens.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
In reading the insurance act I find there is no limitation upon insurance companies conducting bona fide transactions in a businesslike manner. Section 9 of the act which refers to provincial companies asks only for very limited control over such companies. I see the provision as no infringement upon their rights as provincial corporations, and I see no particular limitation upon this company if it did wish to remain in the provincial field and conduct its affairs over a large number of Canadian provinces. That this company should ask for federal incorporation I think is a very good proposition; but I suggest that the company representatives should be very carefully questioned when they do appear before the committee about why they want this protection of federal incorporation and are not satisfied-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Richard J. Stanbury: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he closes the debate.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether it could be understood that when the hon. member has finished speaking we will call it seven o'clock. In that event I would certainly have no objection to listening to the hon. member conclude the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to rule on that question because the hon. member is raising a
February 2, 19S7	COMMONS
point in anticipation. It is rather difficult for the Chair to say in advance what will happen at seven o'clock. The only thing I can say now is that if the hon. member speaks he closes the debate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I raised this point of order because earlier when somebody else was occupying the chair there was a little mix-up about who was asking whom a question. It was suggested that the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill would be prepared to deal with certain questions which were raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming, and there was a question of order involved at that point.
In view of the closeness of the hour of seven o'clock I do not think that it would be fair to the sponsor of any other bill if we were to proceed with the discussion of another bill at this time. That was the reason for raising the point of order, in the hope that there would be consent.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have no objection to the hon. member's suggestion and I hear no objection from the house.
Hon. members have made some constructive comments, and I thank them for their appreciation of the status of this company which is applying for this unusual and special act. This company does not fall into the usual category of incorporations because it is an existing and long established company, as I explained. The difficulty is that it is incorporated as a provincial company, and because it operates in every province in Canada this makes for some awkwardness, in addition to there being certain conflicts between the requirements of the various jurisdictions.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is correct in that this company would have to submit itself to stricter requirements than it is now subject to if this bill were passed. It is quite prepared to do that. I think this bill is clearly in the public interest, as well as in the interest of the company, which feels that it will have less red tape to deal with in coping with the requirements of federal jurisdiction, which it is quite prepared to abide by. Frankly I think it will have perhaps some additional prestige in being a federal company, rather than a company incorporated in one of the provinces of Canada.
The bill is somewhat unusual, as I say, in that it is not seeking an incorporation of this company but will simply perpetuate the same rights and obligations the company now has
National Defence Act Amendment as a provincial company. The only difference will be that as a result of the passage of the bill it will become a federal company and will acquire certain additional obligations as a consequence.
I understand members feel that this bill should be considered in committee, and therefore by consent I intend to move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron):
That notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 105 the said bill be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Richard J. Stanbury: I move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park:
That notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 105 the said bill be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has now expired.
Is it understood that this sitting is now suspended until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, before the supper recess-I almost said summer recess, we


National Defence Act Amendment may not have a summer recess-but before the supper recess I think I had reached the point of saying that Canada, with this policy, is going against the current. The minister is trying to swim against the current, against the rocks. I said other countries had not followed his policy of unification. I cannot stress too strongly that what has taken place elsewhere is integration, not unification. When we look at our commitments under NATO or NORAD, what unified forces are there? What unified forces are there in the Gaza strip, in Cyprus; what unified forces of this country contributed to Korea? In the present confrontation in which North Viet Nam faces the free world, and involves the whole world, does a unified force exist there? There you have the classic case of an integrated force working under a commander with integrated commands. Does the soldier slogging through the mud in Viet Nam worry about unification? He is under an integrated command.
Government members invariably say that the unification concept is bold and new, and is examined by the world. Ministers of defence come here to look at what we have done. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems that most countries, seeing what we have done, reject similar moves in their own countries. We might be the microscope for other countries to look through, but they reject the concept of this when they see what is beneath the lens.
Listening to hon. members opposite trying to be constructive and trying to take pride in what they think other countries admire reminded me of a legendary story. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) told the legendary story of Canute but he twisted it. I hope I do not twist mine. I am reminded of Lady Godiva and her journey through Coventry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Careful.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: At least that lady had the direction of her horse. She knew why she was on the horse. Had the townspeople disobeyed their orders and looked at the lady they would have seen that she was good to look at.
So it is with this integration plan. Some features of it are constructive and positive. But Lady Godiva had the direction of her horse, and because of the demand of her husband there was some purpose in what she was doing. Besides, it was difficult to see her; she had long hair. Unfortunately the present minister, with his policy, is exposing the armed forces of Canada to a scrutiny which


cannot be covered by long hair or propaganda. What he is doing to the forces is fundamental to the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister a peeping Tom?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member the time allotted to his speech has expired.
Is it agreed that the hon. member may continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: He never even asked.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to thank the house for allowing me to continue my remarks. As I was saying, from the beginning the function of Cornwallis has been training. Several members of this house were trained there during the second world war. All the facilities are available. It is a completely integrated town. To close that base and establish training bases in the more central parts of Canada to perform the same function seems a poor way of economizing. In many areas of the east, and indeed throughout Canada, there is real concern lest Hellyer's hallucination might be Canada's lament.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that, as another layman in this debate, like the hon.
12596	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment member who has just spoken, I will try to keep my eyes on the horse because I imagine he had a better sense of direction than Lady Godiva.
Major changes in the economic and social characteristics of a country or of several countries have a great effect upon the old ideas of nations concerned. Similarly, international pressures such as those created by the conflicting ideologies of the western democracies and the communist bloc have been the guiding force of changes which have taken place in the defence strategy, defence equipment, and defence planning of the western world.
Naturally, the larger and wealthier nations of the world can participate in every phase of defence operations and defence research. Middle powers such as Canada must decide what they can do best and try to specialize in fewer fields of military endeavour. Canada is also among those nations which have to decide how best they can perform those tasks in such a way that both efficiency and economy will receive the fullest consideration.
The real basis of this bill can be found in the substantial technological change which has taken place during the last 20 years, as reflected in the report of the royal commission on government organization, which had the following to say in regard to the Department of National Defence:
Not only is the relative size of the 'administrative tail' growing steadily in all military forces-for budgeting, accounting, supply, construction and general administration; in addition, among the operational elements themselves there is a rapid increase in the technical content of the work, a large element being common to all three services. Consequently, there is a growing range of activities of common concern to the services, for which the traditional basis of organization is unsuited. It is increasingly recognized that to maintain three separate organizations for such functions is uneconomic. Moreover, the chronic scarcity of many of the skills involved cannot be ignored.
The traditional pattern also aggravates the rigidities in the defence establishment resulting from collective arrangements. It has meant, for example, that in finding signallers for the Congo at short notice, the Canadian Army could look only to its own resources in the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, having no access to the large reservoir of communications personnel in the other two services.
The commissioners went on to say:
It is the opinion of your commissioners that effective consolidation cannot be based on joint control by the three services with the object of preserving the traditional responsibility of the three chiefs of staff for the control and administration of all the armed forces.

DEBATES	February 2, 1967
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The commissioners recommended that the gradual transfer of executive control of common requirements to the chairman, chiefs of staffs, take place. The government, however, felt that this recommendation did not adequately solve the problems of the basic issues. It was recognized that if a single command structure was not established, co-ordination by the committee system could remain and would retain all of its inevitable delays and frustrations. The Minister of National Defence has been criticized in this house for not informing the house and the Canadian people about his plans to carry out his program to its obvious conclusion-a unified defence force for Canada. On page 19 of the white paper on defence I wish to quote the following:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff.
This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada. The integrated control of all aspects of planning and operations should not only produce a more effective and co-ordinated defence posture for Canada, but should also result in considerable savings.
The white paper on defence has received wide distribution and in particular has been made available to all members of this house.
A special committee in 1963 met on 30 different occasions and heard from 28 different witnesses, some on two or three different occasions. After the publication of the white paper in 1964, the special committee met on 36 additional occasions, made five reports to the house and heard 41 different witnesses. In 1966 the standing committee on national defence met on 15 different occasions and heard from 34 different witnesses on the whole range of subjects dealing with reorganization, the progress of integration, the force capabilities, the roles and mission of each command, and the equipment that the commands operated to carry out their missions.
Since 1963 there have been 2,355 pages of committee evidence. Since 1963 the committees have met 81 times and have heard 103 witnesses. The minister and/or the associate minister have met with the committee on 63 different occasions.
The Canadian forces produce 4,500 copies in English and 4,500 copies in French monthly of an integrated magazine known as the Sentinel. The Canadian forces bulletin is another monthly publication containing unclassified information of general interest. It is.
February 2, 1987	COMMONS
issued under the authority of the chief of defence staff. There are 30 base and station newspapers operated by the servicemen, containing news of local interest and of the forces at large. The comprehensive coverage and review of the principles involved in reorganization, the force structure and the important provisions necessary for unification were given by the Minister of National Defence on moving second reading of Bill C-243 on December 7, 1966. There have been numerous visits and talks by senior defence officials to civilian organizations and military units in Canada and abroad. Surely all these facts destroy any charge that has been made by anyone about lack of information.
The whole business of integration and unification of the armed forces of Canada is not just a political scheme, as some would have the people of Canada believe. It is a major readjustment of the administration and the operations of our armed forces, which forces have served our country in a responsible and dedicated manner in our past history during times when conditions were such that they could perform their duty without having to face many of the technical and complex international problems that or some time have been presenting themselves as a challenge to our country, and which are going to continue to present themselves in an even more complex way as a challenge in the future. Page 7 of the white paper on defence states as follows:
In the post-war reorganization, which took place during the years 1945-47, it was recognized that Canada could not return to its pre-war attitude to defence. Canada was then relatively strong and prosperous at a time of Soviet expansion and western European weakness. In addition, Canada had undertaken new responsibilities through its membership in the United Nations.
Another major lesson of the war was the inadequacy of the pre-war mobilization base. After September, 1939, considerable time elapsed before Canada was in a position to take a significant share in military operations. It was recognized that in any future war, such time, in all probability, would not be available.
Any industry that is running a large-scale operation must review those operations from time to time and make the necessary adjustments in its operations so that it will always be operating in the most efficient way, in the most economical way and in a way that can best serve its purpose. Similarly, the Department of National Defence is a large operation but is even more important to the Canadian people than is a particular industry.
It is important to the defence of Canada; it is important to the peace keeping operations of
National Defence Act Amendment the United Nations; it is important in the field of international relations; it is important to the image of Canada, at home and abroad; it is important to the economy of many areas of Canada, and it is important to every man and woman who serves in the defence forces of Canada.
At this point I should like to quote in part from a speech delivered by K. R. Patrick, O.B.E., C.D., president of Canadian Marigot Limited of Montreal. This speech was delivered to the Business Papers Editors Association:
Defence is a big business and a big piece of the taxpayer's dollar, yet for the first time the application of modern management techniques is being applied to the management of this "business". It offers an unparallelled opportunity for the military to conduct their business in a businesslike manner.
We know that the era is significant in terms of rapid changes and that these factors are changing the traditional way of doing things. Political, economical and social changes throughout the world are having a profound effect on the nature and the location of confrontations that might lead to war. It is just not radar and guided missiles or atom bombs that are new. There are, for example, satellite observations and computer manipulations that enable the armed forces to keep track of all surface vessels throughout the world at any instant and it is possible to instantly attack this shipping through use of this data.
Who would have thought that our main concern, in a period of tension between the two great powers, would be centred in the events of Cyprus or central Africa, or that this would be a sufficient threat to world peace to call for United Nations troops.
We sometimes forget that for 16 years now, the Canadian armed forces have not been involved in any war (since Korea). This suggests a whole new concept of training based on the kind of service that troops are now doing overseas, which is clearly an extension of the Canadian foreign policy. This exemplifies the military life and rules for Canadians as opposed to Americans.
This important bill cannot be considered in the light of the present alone. Its values and purposes are far reaching in that it deals with preparedness for the future. There have been several occasions in military history when countries have been caught unprepared.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The big reason for the unfortunate incidents that occurred during the Crimean war were largely due to the outdated military tactics displayed by the British. That lesson taught them to review their military strategy and techniques from time to time, and this is one of the major reasons Britain was in a position to face up to the first world war. The Americans had for a long time throughout their history felt they could remain aloof

12598	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment from world affairs, but the disaster at Pearl Harbour proved to them they had to embark unequivocably into international affairs and maintain a higher calibre of preparedness.
In 1909 and in 1910 a naval defence bill was debated in this house. That debate took up approximately 2,400 pages in Hansard. The bill passed in 1910, but before a Canadian navy could be established a change of government took place and the Conservatives under the leadership of the right hon. Sir Robert Borden decided not to build a Canadian navy. As a result Canada entered the first world war without a navy.
Many things can be done in defence and other areas when a nation is under the pressure of international conflict, but it is to the credit of the Minister of National Defence, (Mr. Hellyer) that he is attempting to prepare the armed forces of Canada for their future role during a period of relative world peace.
We have heard a great deal from some of the senior officers who left the services because they disagreed with the policy of integration and unification of the armed forces of Canada, but what about that large number of senior officers who have chosen to remain in Canada's armed forces because they solidly support integration and unification and want to be identified with it? These are the people who really count for the future; these are the people along with the rank and file of Canada's armed forces, who are playing and who will continue to play a constructive and a useful role in Canada's future military history.
At this time I should like to read an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal dated February 1, 1967. It is under the heading "Corporal" Hellyer Needled, and states:
Defence Minister Hellyer got another needling in the commons Tuesday about the fact he was a lowly corporal during the second world war.
On Monday Harold Winch (NDP-Vancouver East) said there was a story among the armed forces that the three main troublemakers in history all were corporals-Cpl. Napoleon, Cpl. Hitler and now Cpl. Hellyer.
Gordon Churchill (PC-Winnipeg South Centre) spoke Tuesday supporting Mr. Winch. But as a first world war corporal himself, he maintained that those three were exceptions to the rule, that "corporals are the mainstay of the army".
"I hope that because we have had some offenders like Napoleon, Hitler and Hellyer the rank of corporal will not be downgraded," he said.
Let me just add that I know a great number of corporals, and they are fine individuals.


I will ignore the comparison with Hitler because such personal slams do not add anything to the decorum of this house. However while there are many characteristics about Napoleon that cannot be compared with similar characteristics of the minister, there are a couple that bear watching. History records the fact that Napoleon was the greatest military leader and organizer of his time. The morale of all his forces was high and every man performed his duties in a spirit of cooperation, never lacking the courage to accepl challenge.


An hon. Member:: Do not forget the battle of Waterloo.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I never thought I would see the day when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) would pay such a high tribute to the Minister of National Defence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I paid him a tribute I retract it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Furthermore it is interesting to note that personal admiration for Napoleon lives on even today, in the national spirit of France.
At this point I should like to quote once more from K. R. Patrick, O.B.E., C.D., president of Canadian Marigot Ltd. who said, as reported in his speech delivered to the Business Papers Editors Association, on January 25, 1967:
I have listened to the chief of the defence staff, General Allard, and other senior officers in similar discussions with all ranks. The "face to face" contact with all ranks has produced a new kind of "esprit de corps", based on logic and an understandable purpose. During the last few months I have been invited to address a large number of officers and men to outline my views on the reorganization of the armed forces, and have submitted to hundreds of questions. I think it is fair to say my contact with the subject is fairly broad, current and first hand.
From this experience I am convinced that the men and women of the armed forces accept the changes and regard them as progress. There are opponents to be sure, but I have yet to see any opposition based on anything other than emotional factors.
This is the danger. To stop, or even slow down the process of this essential reorganization for "emotional reasons" would be tragic and expensive, a dreadful disservice to Canada, to the personnel in the armed forces and may even further postpone our hopes for international peace.
I am one of those members of this house who is proud to have a large military establishment in his constituency. I have heard many comments from personnel about the
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
omnibus bill brought to this house by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) which allowed certain world war veterans to claim their years of war service in respect of over-all pension. This means that if they had joined up in 1942 they received credit for the three years between then and the end of the war. Many members of the armed forces have expressed their gratitude for the recent increase in pay and for the good pension retirement plans which have been introduced. One individual said to me just the other day that he now no longer feels like a second class citizen.
I have known many of Canada's armed forces personnel during the past few years and appreciate the opportunity to work for and represent them. Many of these people have served our country with dignity and honour in many areas of the world. We can all be proud of the great contribution our military personnel across Canada and abroad have made toward the building of an outstanding image for Canada at the international level.
At this time I should like to say to those members of this house who are veterans of the first and second world wars that I regard it as a privilege and an honour that younger Canadians like myself can be members of this house. Along with them and on behalf of the younger members of this house I want to express my appreciation for their efforts in the second world war which have guaranteed our right to serve, if we so desire and our fortunes are right, in the parliament of Canada.
As a result of this bill before us the same people are faced with change. No matter what type of change takes place in any society there is always some reaction. These men and women will meet this change in the same way they have met problems in the past-by getting on with the job.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of these remarks I must express my appreciation to the minister for his prompt attention to any inquiries I have directed to him. I have directed inquiries to him on occasion and have been very pleased with his attention to them. I also wish to express my appreciation to the associate minister. I have directed to him a number of complaints on behalf of personnel of the armed forces. I particularly wish to thank him for the trouble he has taken on occasion, 23033-797
National Defence Act Amendment
and quite recently, with respect to inquiries that concerned the health of the armed forces and the peace of mind of all ex-servicemen. I appreciate the trouble he has taken.
I have listened with interest to this debate, particularly the views of those members of the Progressive Conservative party who have served with distinction in the armed forces. I have heard them called primitives on occasion, but I think it is only right to recognize these people. In this instance I am going to place on the record some of the achievements of my opponents to the right. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was awarded the D.F.C.; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), the M.C.; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was in the Canadian army in the second world war; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) won the D.S.O. overseas and served in both the first and second world wars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see the hon. member is blushing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a primitive blush.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) served in the R.C.A.F. and was awarded the D.F.C.; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) won the M.C.; the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) won the George Cross and was a lieutenant colonel in the second world war. I wish to refer to the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) who went through the second world war and was a sergeant. He was one of those Canadian socialists who recognized the need to come to the support of Great Britain and France when those countries were fighting the greatest organized tyranny in world history.
On the whole, regardless of our differences of opinion, members of the opposition have presented their views forcibly but with respect for parliamentary procedure and the decorum of this house. However, as a member with 21 years service in this house and, as a matter of fact, the senior member of my party in terms of service in the house-this is the only opportunity I get to blow my own horn-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

12600	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -I wish to give the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) a few kindly words of advice which I trust they will accept in the spirit in which they are given. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona spoke with conviction, but I thought he was rather carried away on occasion by his own oratory when he pointedly indicated that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) was not telling the truth. I suggest he would have been just as effective, without transgressing the decorum of this house, if he had simply said, "The minister has just uttered a Hellyerological inexactitude."
With respect to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I must say that the other evening I was not impressed with some of the language he used when he suggested the minister lacked so-and-so, and so on, and so on. I thought-and afterwards I found out that a number of people in the galleries had the same impression on that occasion-he could have made his point quite clearly, while observing the courtesies of this house, if he had simply said, "The area below the minister's thoracic cavity is a void."
This afternoon a Liberal backbencher spoke. I enjoyed listening to this young man who made his contribution to the debate. He quoted from a book written about General MacArthur which quoted General MacArthur as having said, "Men fight for their country." That is quite correct; but from my experience I have found that tradition, service, unit and regimental loyalties make it easier to fight for one's country on certain occasions. I happen to have served in the infantry; I did not have any of the glorified positions of some hon. members to my right. However, I found on a number of occasions this loyalty to the service, loyalty to the regiment, unit or platoon was a very great morale builder in times of stress and made it easier for men to fight for their country on such occasions. I trust the minister will understand that when he comes to the final application of the terms of this legislation.
I listened to the minister's speech delivered on December 7 last and have read many of his statements since. But I must say, in fairness, like many other hon. members on the opposition side of the house, that I am slightly confused as to the details of the policy the minister intends to pursue, as are a good many other Canadians at this time. A number of senior service personnel have taken objection
)Mr. Herridge.]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Will the hon. member read it all?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister suggests that I should read the whole Regina manifesto. I shall be only too pleased to send him a copy for bed time reading.
The following is part of the manifesto which I wish to quote;
NATO has played its part in the maintenance of West European security. However, it has concentrated on a military role and has failed to adapt its policies to the growing importance of the economic and social front in the present world struggle. The New Democratic party believes that we should seek a reappraisal and change of NATO's policies and objectives.
The New Democratic Party believes that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and alliances threatens disaster to the world. It therefore opposes Canada's troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad.
At present, except for those nations which have independently developed atomic capacity, neither NATO itself nor its members individually possess or control nuclear warheads. Should they do so, Canada must make it clear that it cannot remain in the alliance. To relieve tensions, Canada should press for a demilitarized zone in central Europe and for the simultaneous disbandment of the Warsaw and NATO pacts.
I think that this policy has even been advocated by some members of the United States congress. This is the position of our party and our continued attitude with respect to this problem.
I will go on now to the question of NORAD. In this regard I wish to quote from page 51 of the N.D.P. program which reads as follows:
It is questionable whether NORAD ever made any significant contribution to the defence of Canada and in any case it has outlived its usefulness.
I remember the time when the Minister of National Defence agreed with this wholeheartedly and made ringing speeches on the


National Defence Act Amendment matter in the house. I am sure that some hon. members remember that. The program goes on to read:
Furthermore, there is every danger that the Bomarcs will be equipped with nuclear warheads. The NORAD agreements should therefore be terminated.
That is the attitude of the New Democratic Party with respect to NORAD.
I put these two resolutions on the record so that there be no confusion whatever. As the years have gone by we have found that, having been pioneers in policy in all fields, both domestic and international, we have gathered support.
In this connection I want to quote briefly from the Vancouver Province of December 14, page 26.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Tell us what you believe.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That would take a very long time indeed. As I was saying, I wish to quote from the Vancouver Province in which an article concerning this matter reads as follows:
Canada should consider dropping out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization when the present treaty expires in 1969, says Howard Green, former external affairs minister.
NATO was formed by 13 nations to create a defensive alliance to prevent communist aggression, he said. But one of the few bright spots in the world situation today is a reduction of tensions in Europe and between the U.S. and Russia.
This has downgraded the position of many of the middle-power nations, including Canada, he said.
But there is still a very real threat of nuclear war, particularly if production of nuclear weapons spreads to a large number of smaller nations. "And once the first bomb falls, the whole world goes up."
Green recalled that during his term of office as external affairs minister from 1959 to 1963, there was a "terrible tension" between the U.S. and Russia.
"On one bleak Saturday night during the Cuban crisis, I was sure nuclear bombs would be falling by morning."
I am very pleased to be quoting Mr. Green because we served together in the same company in the first world war. However, recently we have discovered another ally following along the pioneering impulse of this group. In this connection I wish to quote the Nelson Daily News of December 18, 1966. It is entitled "Diefenbaker urges cut in Canada's force in Europe", and it reads:
Opposition Leader Diefenbaker has added his voice to the growing chorus seeking a Canadian troop reduction in Europe.
For the last year or more, a group within the Conservative parliamentary party led by Heber Smith, M.P. for Simcoe North, has been suggesting

Canadian troop reductions in Europe, if not a complete withdrawal. Some Liberals are known to support this view privately.
I know some of them but I will not give their names away at the present time. It would not be fair. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Diefenbaker had not supported Mr. Smith's group, at least publicly, until he said in the commons December 19 that "Canada should give consideration to reducing the numbers of her forces on the continent of Europe" because of the easing of East-West tension and the preponderance of nuclear power in the U.S.
That shows that the Leader of the official Opposition is commencing to march in our direction, and we are very pleased to see that.
The question of remaining in the NORAD alliance is related closely with the type of force that we will build up in the future. I want to quote something in that connection because I agree with it. I will quote a statement made by the minister as reported in the Ottawa Journal of March 2, 1966:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
NATO top heavy-Hellyer
Change is inevitable in NATO, Defence Minister Hellyer said Tuesday.
He told the Canadian Club it was time to take a hard look at the alliance and the form it should take in the next decade or two.
Mr. Hellyer said NATO is becoming "top heavy with headquarters and bureaucratic machinery." He cited what he called the "plethora" of military headquarters.
Mr. Hellyer suggested NATO could make savings of some $7,000 million annually on its present annual gross defence expenditures of $74,000 million.
He said such savings could be used for better weapons and equipment and for more aid to underdeveloped countries.
We are all for more aid to the underdeveloped countries. I am sure the minister was speaking from personal experience. We have to remember that some of this money that is being wasted is Canadian money, and even on those grounds alone we should give very serious consideration to this situation.
I have a list here of the costs of NATO, but I am not going to repeat them because I dealt with them before. A question which I asked was answered on July 6 last year, and I found out the cost of maintaining our forces in Europe. It is very heavy indeed. I think a good many people agree, under the circumstances that prevail at the present time, this cost is not justified and we would be well advised to use the money for other purposes. I feel we are on sound moral grounds and we are on sound financial grounds in urging the withdrawal from NATO and from the

12S03

NORAD alliance. Anyone who goes into these figures carefully must realize the immense amount of money that is going into this top-heavy bureaucratic organization which the minister says is wasting some $7,000 million annually on defence.
We support the policy of integration which, to us, appears sound and sensible. I have not heard anyone who has any interest in or knowledge of defence matters oppose integration. We believe it will remove duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures, and as a result provide greater efficiency in the operation of the armed forces. This would mean savings for the people of Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, unification is a more complicated matter to resolve. Unfortunately, to date the minister has not defined this term. We have had no definition of what the minister means when he uses the terms "integration" and "unification". In my opinion, there is need for a basic and fundamental decision on the role of the Canadian armed forces in the future. Before we are going to understand this question properly, we have to have these terms defined. This has not been done so far to the satisfaction of members of this house, senior officers of the armed forces and a good many people interested in the subject. It is for that reason we urge that the bill be sent to the defence committee before second reading.
We believe the minister has been too dogmatic in introducing certain changes and new policies which could far better have been left to develop by themselves under the direction of competent officers and advisers in the natural course of events, to meet the circumstances that prevail in the world. Unification has produced nothing but confusion in the minds of the members of the armed forces and a great number of the civilian population in Canada.
In my opinion, the minister has created a great deal of misunderstanding himself, because he has failed to be frank with parliament, frank with the members of the armed forces or frank with the people of Canada with respect to what he actually proposes in this change in policy, what unification actually means. The members of this party believe that, under present world circumstances, the role of the armed forces in Canada should be in the first instance to protect Canada and her shores and, in the second instance, to provide a well trained, mobile force for peace keeping operations under the United Nations wherever and whenever required. We believe in that

National Defence Act Amendment role we can, as a middle power, shall we say,, or one of he lesser powers, make a contribution to peace in the future.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons for my participation in this debate on unification. One is, and I hope I will not be considered presumptuous in stating, that I represent the riding of Wellington South, and the new name of the riding will be Wellington. It is named after that great general, the Duke of Wellington, who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. I must remind the minister that the man who won that battle did not know about unification, nor has the country for which he fought ever brought about unification. Although they have considered it, they have never brought it about. Wellington won that battle with an army and a navy, but I think we can say that the man he defeated had unified forces because he fought a one-man battle.
There are, as I say, many reasons, of which the above is only one, for my speaking on this subject. That portion of Ontario from which I come has a great military history and a great tradition in the military field. As far back as 1837 we had a volunteer unit called the Wellington Rifles. In 1866 we had the 11th Field Regiment which celebrated its 100th anniversary just last year, and of which Hon. George Drew is honorary colonel. We have the 34th Battalion which was mobilized in 1915. As I say, this area has a great tradition and these units along with many others have brought honour and glory not only to themselves and to our county, but to the world in general.
When I think of unification I am reminded that all of this tradition will disappear. I am one of those who realize that we cannot live on tradition; we must have change. However, here is tradition that has been tried and tested down through the years by all the great military nations; yet here we are, a young nation, wanting to throw overboard this tried and tested tradition. I want to state at the outset that I believe in integration. I believe integration is very necessary in order to bring about efficiency of operations and curtailment of expenditures. We have proven the success of this approach in the medical field. As a matter of fact, it was the Conservative party that integrated the defence medical services. The padre services were integrated, and there has been integration in the purchasing and other branches of the Department of National Defence.


National Defence Act Amendment
However, the fact that we have made a success of integration does not mean we should go one step further and go into unification by bringing all the forces into one unit. I am sure there are many who agree with me that there is only one answer, and that is an emphatic no. In my opinion there are many valid reasons for continuing to maintain separate units of the army, air force and navy. There have been many excellent reasons given, and wonderful speeches have been made on this very point.
Four reasons come to my mind, why we should keep the tri-services and I do not think they have been dwelt upon, at least not to any great extent in this debate. I would list them, Mr. Speaker. First, the constantly increasing need for military professionalism; second, the value of competition and a system of checks and balances; third, efficiency of management and, fourth, the intangible but real value of esprit de corps.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Let us look at them one by one. First, the question of professionalism. There was a time not too long ago when a soldier could move from infantry to artillery to calvary, and even to aviation, with a minimum of training. An airman could transfer quite readily from pursuit to observation to bombardment duty. Machines of war were relatively simple. Peacetime forces were small, and wide oceans provided time for mobilization in the event of an emergency.
All this has now changed, Mr. Speaker. We need professionals today. We have to maintain large and instantly readied combat forces which can be moved swiftly to any trouble spot on the globe, or meet an attack against this country with no more than a few minutes warning.
May I cite a little practical example where I think professionalism has proven its worth. In the medical field years ago there was the family practitioner, the general practitioner, who was able to handle all phases of sickness and disorder. As medicine and science progressed and drugs became more varied and more difficult to administer, there developed the professional, the specialist. Since the arrival of the specialist in the field of medicine we have been able to give better service to mankind.
So I think it is with the Department of National Defence. They need specialists, those who can look after this section or that section. I am sure that by unification we will not promote professionalism.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You integrated the doctors, you have just said so.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The professional produced by the services is just as essential at the level of the joint staff, and department of defence staff, as they are in the field, in my humble opinion. Their expert advice is indispensable in planning strategy, deployment of forces and weapons requirements. So to sum up this point very briefly, Mr. Speaker, military professionals, military equipment, military doctrine and their ultimate expression, effective military forces, must be developed for each of these media of warfare-air, land and sea.
As to the second point, competition, I am one of those who believe that the existence of three services, the army, the air force and the navy, serves to create a feeling of competition among them. This has been the lifeblood of the Canadian forces. I think it has been proven that wherever competition is stifled it generally follows that the rate of progress declines. It does not matter whether it is the army or business: When you stifle competition, progress declines. Unification will be bound to stifle competition.
In the militia, competition engenders new ideas and forces everybody to examine critically the old and accepted ways of doing things. We would not suggest for a minute, Mr. Speaker-I do not think anyone here would suggest this-that Ford, Chrysler and General Motors should be merged into one to form a non-competitive giant in order to produce a better and cheaper automobile. Yet this is what we are suggesting for our forces. Such a thing is not done in business; it has been tested there.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that it is just as unlikely that a merger of our three military services into a single service would produce better military thought and performance. However there is one qualification here. Competition must be controlled so that it creates a positive contribution to the nation's defence. I believe there are adequate controls on inter-service competition which should be exercised by the Department of National Defence.
The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in his speech indicated that competition was dangerous because we have already experienced some of the bitterness of inter-service rivalries. I do not think there is anything wrong with inter-service rivalry, inter-service bickering, or whatever you call it. We should remind ourselves that in this house where we are working for the good of the
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
country we are often involved in bickering with each other when discussing various subjects. On the college campus such debate would be called discussion, or in the Supreme Court it would be called deliberation. So what is wrong if the members of the three armed services deliberate, discuss or even bicker between one service and another? I think that is all to the good and should be so, and I would hate to see this principle done away with.
My third reason for retaining the three services is efficiency of management. I expect someone right off the bat will immediately ask: How could you have that in three services as opposed to one service? I should like to give one or two illustrations of this. The personnel strength of the armed services is something like 105,000 in uniform, with more than 40,000 civilian personnel. This constitutes one of the largest organizations of people in the country, exceeding that of General Motors by as much as six times. Yet General Motors, like every large corporation, has found it desirable to organize semi-autonomous, even competitive divisions for effective management and greater profit.
For example, General Motors built a separate plant within its own business to manufacture the differentials for its cars. It has set up other companies under the direction of the main company to build other parts for its cars. Why do they do this, Mr. Speaker? It is because they have found they have greater control, more effectiveness, and better financial results are produced by dividing their organization into component parts under the ownership of the main company. Yet what do we want to do with our defence forces? We want to put them all together and create one great conglomeration over which we will not have the control that we exercise today.
Let me cite another example, that of the Thomson-owned daily press in this country. I do not know how many papers Lord Thomson owns in Canada-perhaps 30 or 40 of them. But has he brought them all together and said that they must do this or that? Has he unified the press? No. He has integrated parts of it, such as the finances, head office costs and other items; but as far as the individual papers are concerned, whether in my area or anybody else's area in which Thomson daily papers circulate, the editor of the paper is allowed to run things in the way he sees best for the community. Business organizations do not believe in unification; why have it in our three armed services?
National Defence Act Amendment
Finally there is the question of esprit de corps, the value of which all of us recognize. We know there must be a great spirit within each organization. If you do not have that, Mr. Speaker, you are lacking one of the greatest binding factors. Throughout history the majority of men have always functioned most effectively as members of an identifiable group; that is beyond dispute. Men fight better when they are identified as a particular group.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This is particularly true of the military profession in which certain values are held superior to life itself. The spirit of unity, of brotherhood, is enhanced by tradition, by pride in one's organization and by a distinctive uniform which is a mark of membership. Now we want to throw that away.
The value of esprit cannot be measured with precision. I realize that no price tag can be placed on it; yet we all recognize its intrinsic contribution in the quality of armed forces. It is the heart of the true fighting force.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Our minister wants to throw all these things aside, to disregard them. He wants to move in the opposite direction to which the oldest military countries in the world have decided to go. The United States Congress repeatedly has opposed unification. In 1945 they considered unification for the first time in the United States; in 1948 Congress opposed it. In 1949 the Hoover commission recommended it, yet Congress opposed it. President Eisenhower suggested unification; when the matter went to Congress the answer was no; they opposed it, because congressmen represented the viewpoints of all American states. They debated-discussed it, and in line with the thinking of the people of the United States they said: No, we will have no part of unification. Yet our minister, in Canada, knows better than the congressmen of the United States. He wants to bring unification to Canadian armed services.
Let us look at Great Britain. What has Great Britain done about unification? She has studied it, given it careful thought, but here again they have opposed it. I have here a quotation from the Central Organization for Defence Paper of July, 1963, page A3, paragraph 10. This was published just three years ago, and this is what they say over there, in
12G06


National Defence Act Amendment summary, about whether they should adopt unification:
The services must preserve their separate identities. In action they are increasingly interdependent. This interdependence must be expected to increase. Nevertheless all experience shows that the fighting spirit of the individual man in battle derives largely from his loyalty to his ship, his unit or his squadron. Services are an important vital factor in morale and fighting efficiency. This must be preserved.
That is what Great Britain says about unification. Yet our minister ignores the viewpoints of! two tried and tested military powers of the world which have looked into the subject very carefully.
In a pre-election speech the minister said: "Sailors will always be sailors; soldiers will always be soldiers; airmen will always be airmen." I should like him to explain this. Let us take it to a committee where it could be explained. Maybe he could give us information there. How will sailors always be sailors? Let us consider these remarks of the associate minister as they appear at page 12537 of Hansard:
This is the crux of the problem. From a single force containing land, sea and air elements-
I do not know whether he means sailors, soldiers or airmen. He refers to "elements". Continuing:
-we must be in a position where we can detach the required portions necessary to fulfil a particular commitment. If the particular commitment requires a combination of land and sea elements,-
Again I think he means soldiers.
-or land and tactical air elements, or just a land element we can provide this portion by detaching from the single force the strength and type of force required.
How in the name of goodness will you do this if you have unification? The minister said sailors will always be sailors, soldiers will be soldiers and airmen will be airmen. For the life of me I cannot understand this, and I am sure that thousands of Canadians do not understand it, either. They want to know more about unification, as we do. We want to move this to a committee where it can be studied in greater detail.
I say to the minister and his associate, "slow down and look". This matter is important for Canada. I, for one, can simply not see why we, as a young country would want to over-ride, to ignore what great military countries of the world have decided to do. The minister wants to rush into unification and do the opposite to the great military powers of the world.


This concludes my remarks on unification along with the hope that the minister will send the bill to committee. I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forres tall):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"The further consideration of Bill C-243 be deferred until the principle thereof has been examined by the standing committees on national defence and external affairs meeting together."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Perhaps at this time I could ask for an expression of opinion from members of the house on the validity of this amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question of relevancy comes into the argument. If you will look at Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 396, under form No. 93, you will see the heading "On Second Reading". There are three methods of determining amendments on second reading, and you will notice that the first one reads as follows:
The question being proposed "That Bill No....
intituled An Act	 be now read
a second time";
Mr	 moves in amendment
thereto, seconded by Mr	that
all the words after "That" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This is the meat of the matter. I quote:
The further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has,-
And this is the only portion where the present motion differs from the motion approved by Beauchesne. I read on:
-by means of a Referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada.
That is the end of the quotation. That is a recognized form for moving an amendment on second reading. We are here suggesting the deferment of second reading until the bill has been examined by two committees sitting together.
The means by which it is done are immaterial. It is the deferment of the bill until that study has been made. The amendment is based directly upon the form approved by Beauchesne.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: It is the desire of the house to call the question immediately, without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.	
Bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on national defence.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired on both votes. On the first vote I would have voted against the amendment and on the second vote I would have voted for the motion.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted yea and nay in that order.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Had I voted, I would have voted the same as the hon. member for Prince.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, would someone on the government side tell us what business we will be taking up tomorrow.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the first business will be item 121, second reading of Bill C-261, an Act to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; then, item No. 62, house again in committee of the whole on Bill C-204, an Act to provide for the establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation; then item No. 116, house in committee of the whole on the resolution to introduce a measure to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. Again, continuing in the same optimistic vein, we would consider item No. 120, second reading of Bill S-55, an act to provide relief in certain cases against loss or hardship suffered as a result of interruptions of normal postal services.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I want to re-read the question I put to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Cardin) last January 18:
Could the hon. minister tell us whether his department intends to exercise its prerogative of absolute pardon in the case of a person who has committed only one offence during his life?


In the few minutes at my disposal, I wish to put forward the main reasons which motivated my question.
At a conference on criminality, under the sponsorship of a Quebec welfare council, some outstanding experts on criminology agreed unanimously that, in some cases, a criminal record may stand in the way of rehabilitation.
The members of that panel were Messrs. Julien Chouinard, Yvan Migneault, Quebec's deputy minister of justice, as well as Messrs. Thomas Tremblay and Noel Dorion. Along side those distinguished lawyers were seen doctors, social workers, psychologists, probation officers, welfare officials, even police officers.
Last November 26 in he Soleil one could read this:
The chief justice of the Court of Sessions of the Peace, Mr. Thomas Tremblay, and a well-known criminal lawyer, Mr. Noel Dorion, deplored last night that the federal cabinet is no longer called upon to exercise its privilege of absolute pardon which makes it possible to erase completely the criminal record of a citizen who, for instance, has committed only one offence in his life.
At that conference, Mr. Dorion pointed out that as a Conservative member in Ottawa he had submitted a bill to destroy the record of an offender who had not committed any offence over a period of five years.
Since the hon. members of the time had boycotted his bill, his deduction was that only public opinion could conquer the inertia of certain members of parliament, when confronted with such important matters.
Mr. Yvan Migneault, Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, quoted a provision in our Criminal Code which, according to him, discourages rehabilitation completely; it is the section dealing with persons convicted of impaired driving. A $50 fine is the penalty for a first offence, but if there is a recurrence, the law provides for 14 days compulsory imprisonment; I submit that, instead of spending 14 days in jail, the man's driving licence should be suspended for two years.
Another section of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment when a convicted person is unable to pay the fine; this measure was also labelled discriminatory by two members of the panel.
Mr. Dorion explained that a convicted person who could afford to pay a $50 fine, for example, did not have to go to jail, whereas a poor person could not get out of it.
23033-798J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In view of the opinion expressed by such distinguished lawyers and criminologists, I feel we can reasonably say that some of the laws in our present judicial system are archaic and outdated, and that it is high time for parliament to draft legislation which will eliminate all types of discrimination and place the emphasis on rehabilitation of the citizen who makes an unfortunate mistake, perhaps only once in his lifetime.
What are the views of the hon. minister in this respect?

[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) I would like to say that pardons, as the hon. gentleman is aware, may be granted pursuant to the letters patent constituting the office of the Governor General, and under section 655 (2) of the Criminal Code.
By well established practice the advice tendered to the Governor General in regard to pardons is regarded as confidential and is not disclosed except in very exceptional circumstances. Every application for pardon is considered on its individual merits. Among other things, the age of the applicant at the time of the offence or offences, the nature of the offence or offences, the amount of time that has elapsed since the offence or offences were committed, and the subsequent conduct of the offender are taken into consideration. It may be of interest to the hon. member to know that the policy in respect of pardons generally is under consideration in the department at the present time.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-FAILURE TO PRODUCE FILM ON CANADIAN CENTENNIAL

Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, when I put a question to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) last Friday, with regard to the National Film Board and the availability of recent films on the Canadian confederation, I knew beforehand that my question was not urgent as required under the standing orders of the house. However, since I find this lack inexcusable, I wanted to raise the matter right in the house in order to give more weight to my representations, in the hope that remedial action would be taken without delay.
12610	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, it is unthinkable, in my opinion, that in this very centennial year of confederation, the National Film Board authorities have failed to provide for one or several films on confederation and the Confederation Act.
That is why I suggest immediate measures should be taken to remedy the situation right away and to start production on some films of the Confederation pact, of Confederation, of preceding events of the development of our political system toward the federal system as well as of the British North America Act, its adoption and finally, of the various stages of the Confederation pact from 1867 to 1967.
Throughout the year, Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that the public will take part in civic, artistic and sports events to mark Canada's centennial. Should not, at the very basis of such activities, a fair programme of information have been initiated to make Canadians cognizant of their political system of the ties that bind them together and of the efforts made by our leaders to ensure the development of this association of citizens?
Of course, the National Film Board has some more or less recent documentaries on the Fathers of Confederation and on certain Canadian politicians. Furthermore, the Film Board has a number of film strips on our constitutional evolution and on our system of government at the federal, provincial and municipal level, but these are caricature films without handbooks or commentaries.
I think it would have been easy for the Film Board to prepare a program of film productions before centennial year, so as to make 16 mm. synchronized sound films available to the public, to schools, and even to members of parliament. Within the framework of an educational centennial year program, the Film Board could perhaps have prepared 30-minute films on the events which led to the signing of the British North America Act, covering perhaps the period from 1860 to 1867, as well as other films explaining the Canadian constitution, the political evolution which took place during the last hundred years, our parliamentary system in the country and perhaps particularly in Ottawa, the proceedings themselves, the responsibilities of the different levels of government, and, finally, the main events which occurred in Canada during these years.
Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to disparage the work of the National Film Board. I know

DEBATES	February 2, 1967
it has prepared films which will be distributed across the country for centennial year. I wish to congratulate the Board particularly for its last production, called "Helicopter Canada", which allows us to travel clear across the country and to see our cities, our panoramas and our scenery.
I congratulate them in general for most of their contributions, and it is precisely because they deserve to be congratulated for the fine work they have accomplished that they should undertake today, or as soon as possible, the program I suggest.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard), in his capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State, will make the necessary representations to the proper authorities, and I thank him warmly.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing on January 17 last the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) express his concern with regard to films which the National Film Board should have or should not have produced with regard to the centennial of Confederation and especially a certain reproduction of the ceremonies surrounding the signature of the confederative pact. After hearing the stirring words of my good friend of Beauharnois-Salaberry tonight, I must say that the government may be rightly proud of the enthusiasm of a member for one of the Quebec ridings most concerned with the celebrations, throughout the country, of the centennial of our Confederation, the success of which we are happy to celebrate this year.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, in order to do justice to the National Film Board and to the government of Canada, but more particularly to the National Film Board, it would be proper to point out to the worthy representative of Beauharnois-Salaberry, that to think of making a film about Confederation, about the signing of the confederative pact, was in itself a rather far-fetched and ambiguous idea since in 1867 the cinema industry was in its infancy.
It would also be proper to remind the hon. member that there is a series of five historical films on Canada, of 28 minutes each, intended for television, in French and in English, bearing the general title "Our History Makers". The five films are entitled as follows: Sir John A. Macdonald, The Fantastic
February 2, 1967	COMMONS
Intuition; Alexander Galt, The Unrepentant Idealist; George-Etienne Cartier, The Quebec Lion; Charles Tupper, the Magnanimous; and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine.
Moreover, it might be well to add that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, allow me to add-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time
allotted the hon. member is over.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL-SUGGESTED COMPLEMENTARY TRIPS TO EXPO FOR OLDER CANADIANS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, two days ago, as recorded at page 12459 of Hansard for January 31, I asked the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) a question in which I made the suggestion that the centennial commission might be asked to arrange for complimentary trips to Expo for Canadians 80 years of age and over. As hon. members will recall, the asking of my question seemed to attract a bit of banter. I did not mind this because it at least had the effect of drawing attention to my question. I am sorry that the Secretary of State cannot be here tonight, after the arrangements that were made in public, but she has extended her apology to me and has indicated that she is well represented by her parliamentary secretary.
I should like for just a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to press the point I made by way of a suggestion two days ago. In this centennial year we are trying to honour our older people in a number of ways, but to a large extent the honours that we pay to them are quite formal. I think, for example, of the framed certificates that are being presented to those who are 100 years of age or over, and there are other ways in which tributes are being paid to our older Canadians.
It seems to me it would be a good idea to do something concrete for some of these people who have seen most of the century of our history, and have helped to build Canada into what it is today. It was for this reason I suggested that Canadians who are 80 years of age or over might be given a complimentary trip to Expo. Someone may say this would cost a lot of money. I suggest that a lot of money is being spent on travel in this centennial year. I think it is a good idea that young
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion people and others are being facilitated in their travels about our country. But if we are finding it possible to help our younger people to travel, why not make it possible for older Canadians as well?
I realize that many people 80 years of age or over would not be able to make the trip because of their health or for other reasons. But surely some arrangements could be made for those who could make the trip to get to Expo to see what is going on there. I know that Expo is largely a case of emphasizing what is happening now, and what is going to happen in the future. There is therefore an emphasis on getting young people there to see it. However, do not our older people who have helped to bring this country to where it is today also have the right to see what may be ahead in Canada's second century? I recognize that the confederation train is being taken around the country so that people can see it in various parts of this land. In the main, when they see the train they see the history of the past. I think our older people are not only interested in the past, in the last 100 years, but they are interested in the next century as well.
In so far as Expo has been billed as a glimpse into the future, I think it would be a very fitting tribute for the country to make provision for as many as possible of our older people to see what is being put together in the St. Lawrence river at the city of Montreal. I hardly expect the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State to give the final answer to this suggestion tonight, but I trust he will at least indicate that his minister will be prepared to pass this suggestion on to the centennial commission, in the hope that the commission might give it favourable consideration.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I first want to express the regret and apology of the Secretary of State for not having been able to keep her date tonight with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In his question to the Secretary of State on January 31, as reported at page 12459 of Hansard, the hon. member asked:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. If she decides to give me a one word answer, as she did to the hon. member for Winnipeg South, I hope it will be "yes" rather than "no".
The minister answered:
I have to confess to the house that I have been waiting 40 years for the chance to say "yes" to a question, but this is not it.
12612	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I too am not in a position tonight to answer "yes" in the sense used by the Secretary of State in her answer the other day.

Mr. Speaker, in short, the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) is quite sympathetic to the hon. member's suggestion so that our older people, 80 and over, may visit Expo '67.
However, I must say to the hon. member that no funds have been appropriated for that purpose in the budget of the trade and commerce department or the centennial commission, to organize such free trips for our old people, although the government would like to give to all the Canadian people the financial means to see that memorable and unique event for us, Canadians.
DEBATES	February 2, 1967
However, I shall be glad to pass on to the hon. Secretary of State the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which, I am convinced, meet the approval of every member, so that she may make the necessary representation to the centennial commission, even if it is a little late, in order to find out its views on the matter.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to add that the old people who will be 68 and over during Expo '67, thanks to the policy of this government, will have more financial means to visit Expo '67 since this thoughtful government has granted them a $30 a month increase.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11 p.m.

Friday, February 3, 1967