1967-04-05

PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in English and in French, copies of 29 additional recommendations of the royal commission on government organization which have been adopted by the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the Public Accounts volumes I, II and III for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1966, and the report of the Auditor General thereon, tabled on January 9, 1967 and February 20, 1967, respectively, together with the report and financial statement of the Canada Council for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1966, and the report of the Auditor General thereon tabled on August 30, 1966 be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the supplementary estimates the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) raised some question about a contract 23033-920J
between the government and Leeward Island Air Transport, Antigua. I promised to table the document, and I would be glad to do so now.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCASTING ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-287, to amend the Broadcasting Act (cigarette advertising).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the present powers of the Board of Broadcast Governors to regulate or prohibit certain liquor, food and drug advertising so that in future these powers will also govern cigarette advertising.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On how many shifts per day is the Air Canada maintenance and overhaul base at Dorval being operated?
2.	Can the maintenance and overhaul base as it is now constituted at Dorval handle all the work which Air Canada requires it to do at the present time?
3.	Is Air Canada planning to expand the maintenance and overhaul base and/or its facilities at Dorval in the next three years and, if so. what is the cost of the planned expansion of the base or facilities at Dorval?


Questions
4.	Is Air Canada giving consideration to shifting part of the work now being done at Dorval to Its maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Three.
2.	Yes.
3.	Expansion is expected but extent and cost has not been forecast at this time.
4.	No.


C.M.H.C. LOANS IN LEBEL-SUR-QUEVILLON. QUE.
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many loans has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved since its inception for Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Chapleau county?
2.	How many of these loans required the services of Mr. Real Caron of Senneterre, Quebec?
3.	How many of these loans have required the services of Mr. Joseph Morin?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has approved 335 loans for 378 units for an amount of $5.8 million in Lebel-sur-Quevillon to December 31, 1966. Of these, 92 loans have been cancelled, leaving 243 active loans for 286 units in an amount of $4.4 million.
2.	None.
3.	The 243 active loans have required the services of Mr. Joseph Morin.


FERRY TRAFFIC TO AND FROM PORT AUX BASQUES, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: 1.	What was the total number of passenger vehicles carried by the C.N.R. carriers to and from Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, in each year from 1960 to 1966, both years inclusive?
2.	What was the total number of trailer trucks and other commercial vehicles carried by the C.N.R. carriers to and from Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, in each year from 1960 to 1966, both years inclusive?
3.	What was the total number carried by other carriers to and from Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, in each year from 1960 to 1966, with respect to parts 1 and 2 above?
4.	What was the total number of passengers carried in each year from 1960 to 1966 by (a) the coastal ferry William Carson (b) other ferries during the same period?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Passenger vehicles: 1960, 15804; 1961, 16219; 1962, 19172; 1963, 22209; 1964, 26507; 1965, 28684; 1966, 35101.
(Mr. Orlikow.]
2. Trailer trucks and other commercial vehicles: 1960, 2277; 1961, 2886; 1962, 3572; 1963, 4139; 1964, 4592; 1965, 4533; 1966, 5025.
3. Other carriers:
1960	Autos 28	Trucks1961	332	-1962	517	-1963	535	-1964	41	91965	134	361966	86	3Passengers William Carson	Other1960	62366	53271961	62566	65971962	70193	71251963	77408	148961964	103473	36051965	120108	76521966	99518	58696C.M.H.C. LOAN APPLICATIONS, QUEBEC


AND ONTARIO
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many requests for loans were made to
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation each year from 1962 to 1967	(a) in Quebec (b) in
Ontario?
2.	In 1962-63-64-65-66, how many loans were approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (a) in Quebec (b) In Ontario?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. (a) and (b)
Applications for direct C.M.H.C. loans for new housing under section 40 of the National Housing Act (dwelling units)
Period	Quebec	Ontario1962	6,120	4,3891963	8,718	7,6451964	10,282	8,7411965	12,560	7,8201966	11,219	9,646
The foregoing data, which are available in terms of dwelling units only, relate to formal applications, where application fees were received, for direct C.M.H.C. loans under section 40 of the National Housing Act. Data relating to the discussions and negotiations preceding loan approval for direct C.M.H.C. loans under other sections of the act, are not available.
April 5, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
2. (a) and (b).	Questions


DIRECT C.M.H.C. LOANS APPROVED FOR NEW HOUSING UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
[Stage Direction]
Quebec	Ontario
Dwelling units	Amount (S000)	Dwelling units	Amount ($000)Year	Loans	Sect. 40<'>	Others	Loans	Sect. 40(1)	Other<* 1 2) 3	1962	. 4,258	4,321 -	48,010	3,304	3,329	718	44,1441963	. 7,340	7,625 -	92,461	6,188	6,253	1,106	91,6331964	. 8,653	9,228 -	117,238	7,407	7,601	1,118	111,4371965	. 10,291	11,353	41	151,707	7,144	7,201	1,800	129,7991966	. 9,697	10,572	36	153,514	8,820	8,814	4,193	193,701
(DThe data for dwelling units approved under section 40 are comparable to the data on dwelling units for which applications were received, given in table I above. Differences between the number of loan applications and the number of loans approved, in terms of dwelling units, arise not only because of applications rejected by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but also because of withdrawals and cancellations by prospective borrowers prior to approval.
(*Self contained units in projects financed under sections 16, 16A and 35D, N.H.A.

Mr. Bell (Carleton): Why has the government reduced the payment to the national capital fund from $25,000,000 in the fiscal year 1966-67 to $14,650,000 In 1967-68?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the difference between the sum of $25 million paid to the national capital fund in 1966-67 and the sum of $14,650,000 to be paid in 1967-68 is more than accounted for by the reduction in the amount required for the railway relocation project and for the construction of the Ottawa river parkway, which was well advanced toward completion on March 31, 1967.


ARDA GRANTS TO CO-OPERATIVE ENTERPRISES
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	How many direct grants have been made under ARDA to co-operative enterprises?
2.	To whom were these grants made and in what provinces?
3.	What was the basic purpose towards which each of the grants contributed-employment, the eradication of poverty, land development, etc.?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. None. The
federal ARDA program does not provide for grants of this nature. It is possible through the provincial program.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


USE OF WELLAND CANAL
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the last three years, how many ships used the Welland canal?
2.	How many of these ships were loaded with grain when using the canal?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows: 1. 25,402.
2. 4,416.


REPOSITIONING OF MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION IN DEPARTMENT
Mr. Brand: 1.	Has the mental health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare been repositioned to a lower position in the departmental structure?
2.	If so, does this mean that the chief of the mental health division no longer reports to the deputy minister?
3.	If so, does this indicate a decline in the incidence or importance of mental disease in Canada?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2 and 3. See answer 1. above.


COST OF ARDA PROJECT 7030
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What was the total cost of ARDA project
No. 7030?
2.	Of that amount, what percentage constituted the federal share of the cost?


Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development): 1. The total approved cost was $20,000.
2. The federal share amounts to 50 per cent, $10,000.


BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT
Mr. Allard: 1.	Of the 68 bilingual civil servants working in Department of Manpower and Immigration offices abroad, did any claim to be bilingual on their job application forms and speak no French but simply read it and, if so, how many?
2.	Do civil servants who are hired locally abroad, by the department for work in its offices, including those who speak and write French, in contact with the public and do they perform confidential work and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Do civil servants hired locally abroad by the department for work in its offices communicate with the local public in English only and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes, two.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that notices of motions Nos. 205, 209, 212, 214, 215, 220, 221 and 222, that is all notices of motions appearing in today's order paper, be allowed to stand.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will allow me to preface the question I am about to ask, I should like first to offer my most sincere congratulations to the new Minister of Justice, for whom I have the highest admiration, and also to the new Minister without Portfolio. The same applies to the others who have already entered the sacred precincts of the privy council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Now I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It is a matter about which I am endeavouring to get information. Now that the new minister has taken office, would he give early consideration to the convening of a national constitutional conference-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -to which in days past he has given his allegiance? I hope he will give consideration to this question and will be able to use the powers of advocacy in support of this conference now that he has the responsibility of office.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for the occasion he has given me to thank hon. members of this house from both sides for the friendly way in which they have congratulated me on my appointment. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition particularly for starting off gently by asking me a difficult question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Trudeau:: Of course I will give consideration to the matter which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised. I would always give consideration to a matter the right hon. Leader of the Opposition might raise. On the issue itself, I must say that I have not been in cabinet long enough yet to change my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MacEwan:: Later this day.


Mr. Churchill:: Twenty four hours.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps at ten o'clock. My opinion, as I have expressed it a few times in the past, is that I did not feel it was good policy for the government to be overanxious about the convening of a constitutional conference, for the simple reason that some of the other ministers and myself feel there is perhaps not yet the measure of consensus existing in the country which would permit-


Mr. Siarr:: You have already changed your mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No; that will have to be shown. I would say that I am optimistic about the future of this country, as are hon. members on both sides of the house, and I


think some day or other we will have that measure of consensus which will permit us to look at various forms of constitutional change.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In asking the Minister of Justice a supplementary question I should like to join in the general congratulations of the house and express especially the pleasure of this party in the minister's appointment, particularly as I heard on the radio this morning that he was a member of this party at heart.
My question to him is this. In order to try to establish the consensus across Canada that he thinks is necessary in order to deal with the constitutional issues raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, will the minister direct his attention to the suggestion that has been made on a number of occasions by various members of the house, that a committee of this parliament be established to look into this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that the history of the past few years has indicated that the opposite course is precisely the one that should be followed. I feel there is progress toward the establishment of a consensus, and this has happened as a result of sensible politicians in all provinces and in the central government looking at the difficulty of establishing agreement.
We did have the example of an amending procedure, which was discussed very largely across the country and which just did not arrive at any concrete conclusion because the country was not then ready. I feel that precisely because we have avoided such confrontations we are permitting responsible politicians everywhere to arrive at the conclusion which we on this side of the house have reached, namely that time is on our side.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF MINE DISASTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the unfortunate mining disaster in Natal, British Columbia. All of us share the sentiments of sympathy which he expressed yesterday for the families of the victims. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is
Inquiries of the Ministry now prepared to announce something fairly concrete. Press reports have indicated that the government of British Columbia is making a cash contribution to a fund to provide for the widows and dependants of the victims. Is the Canadian government prepared to make a contribution to such a fund as a first step in helping those affected by this mining disaster?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday this matter is under consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any announcement with regard to what we can do to help the victims of this terrible disaster, except to say that one decision has been made, namely that all contributions will be tax deductible. However, I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister give early consideration, while this fund is being collected, to the federal government making a substantial contribution as a first step, which would not prevent the government from doing other things which it might be necessary to do?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what I said is under consideration.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
As a result of the new dairy policy of the government, has the minister received representations from the various agricultural organizations of the C.F.U. of Quebec with a view to resuming discussions between the farmers and the Department of Agriculture specifically with regard to that new dairy policy.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any such communication, but I shall take the question of the hon. member as notice.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be willing to resume the dialogue with the farmers of Canada in connection with the dairy policy? And is it not true that the minister is to meet

Inquiries of the Ministry the farmers on Friday, April 7, that is the day after tomorrow, about this matter?


John James Greene: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall see the farmers, on Thursday and Friday, and I shall be very happy to meet the members of the C.F.U. as well, if they wish to see me about the new dairy policy.


INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION OF OMBUDSMAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that R.C.M.P. Commissioner George McClellan is reportedly resigning his position to accept the post of ombudsman for Alberta, the first such office to be established in Canada, I would again ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to introduce legislation during this centennial year which would establish an ombudsman or parliamentary commissioner for Canada at the federal level.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would ask my hon. friend to allow me not to answer his question now, as I will be making a statement on this in a few days' time. We have been giving consideration to this very complicated matter and we have not yet come to a final conclusion, but I hope to be able to make a report in a few days.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General and ask him whether he can confirm the fact that Commissioner McClellan is leaving the R.C.M.P. to become ombudsman for the province of Alberta.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point out that in the normal course of events the commissioner will reach retirement age as of August 15 of this year. Although he is under no obligation to discuss his future plans with me, we have discussed them at some length. Of course any announcement as to his future after his retirement from the force will have to come either from the commissioner or from his employer at that time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether it is his practice to let his officials reach retirement age, or is he going to adopt [Mr. CaouetteJ

the practice of the Minister of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the success of the committee established by the government of Ontario in outlining the reforms needed in Ontario corporation law to provide better protection for the public in that province, does the government intend to initiate a similar study at the federal level with a view to providing better protection for the public in all parts of the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have already done that, Mr. Speaker, as the result of a decision to hold a meeting to consider this matter I believe next Monday.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that Canadian automobile output decreased by 11.4 per cent during the first quarter of this year as compared to the same period last year, will the minister immediately consult with his officials and his colleagues in order to determine to what extent this decrease was caused by the Canada-United States auto pact?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Without admitting the premise on which the question is based, I should like to take the question as notice.


OATS AND BARLEY-REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SHIP INTO MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: My question concerns the western provinces, and particularly Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I have to preface it by stating that today in Saskatchewan farmers are selling their oats on the farm at 70 cents


to 80 cents a bushel, barley at $1.10 to $1.26 and feed wheat at $1.70 per bushel. There are ample supplies of the first two grains in that province. In Manitoba there is a very serious shortage of feed grain for those who feed cattle. The wheat board, of course, will not allow the transport of oats or barley from one province to another.
In view of the serious situation resulting from the shortage of these two grains in Manitoba, will the minister communicate with the wheat board to ascertain whether some temporary moratorium might be applied that would permit shipments to be made, thereby meeting the serious demands of Manitoba feeders?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I would be glad to discuss this important matter with the wheat board and endeavour to give a report to the house tomorrow.


MANITOU SEED WHEAT-REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF EXPORT EMBARGO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister had any recent requests to remove the embargo on shipments of Manitou seed wheat to the United States? If so, what action if any does he contemplate taking with regard to this matter?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we have had no recent requests, though prior to the recess there were some communications in this regard. Our investigations indicated that there were two sides to the story, two views held by different groups of farmers. Having considered both sides of the story, no change in the government's policy has been made to date.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED MOVEMENT OF TOUGH AND DAMP GRADES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and it has to do with tough and damp grain still on the farm. Would the minister inquire of the Canadian Wheat Board whether they will be in a position to allot more cars to remove this grain or to increase the quota?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation, which I assume has been noted by the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC WORKS


PORT McNEILL, B.C.-REQUEST FOR BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneff (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to direct to the Minister of Public Works a question which, to borrow a phrase from my colleague from Kootenay West, is of great national importance. I should like to ask the minister whether he will endeavour to prevail upon his colleagues in the cabinet to provide a supplementary estimate for the construction of a breakwater at Port McNeill on Vancouver island?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to tell the hon. member what I sometimes have had to tell the hon. member for Kootenay West, that the question should be placed on the order paper.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ten o'clock.


COPPER-REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF EXPORT RESTRICTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the steady decline in the international price of primary and scrap copper, and the general improvement in the whole situation, is the minister considering rescinding any of the restrictions the government has imposed on copper?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the situation has eased somewhat in recent months. The 50 per cent quota that applied to copper scrap and copper alloy scrap has been increased to the point where, effective in April, it will be 100 per cent. Permits are now let freely for the sale of scrap not now normally consumed by refineries. There are no restrictions on exports to the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr,
Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which there is no doubt as to its national importance. In view of the concern of many Canadians with the failure of the Canadian


Inquiries of the Ministry government to respond to Dr. Gustave Gin-gras' plea to provide a medical aid program to the children of South Viet Nam, is the government now prepared to give consideration to this plea and to the advice of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) who, when addressing the Montreal Reform Club on Monday, said "We could show where our heart truly lies by sending massive medical aid to both North and South Vietnamese war victims"?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, of which I have received notice, I can definitely state that the delay in bringing this project in South Viet Nam into being has not been for want of a strong indication from the Canadian government of support for the idea of helping the children of South Viet Nam. Dr. Gingras himself went to South Viet Nam at the government's suggestion and request, and he made a report on his visit. We are still hopeful that something will come out of the work which he did and the work which has been done since. As soon as the results of our latest efforts are known, I will report them to the house.
With regard to the second part of the question, I have already indicated that Canadian aid is granted on the basis of government requests. If such request is made by the government in North Viet Nam the Canadian government will give it the consideration it would want to give.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister of external affairs why the project sponsored by Dr. Gingras has been delayed for so long?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: The reason, Mr. Speaker, which I have explained in this house already, is that the facilities where the rehabilitation project was to be established were not made available to the government of Canada. Facilities have to be established, including a site. We are still working on this, and if the site and those facilities are provided, the work of rehabilitation, as recommended by Dr. Gingras, will be commenced.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister correctly reported in the press as having stated that if a request was made by North Viet Nam for material aid-and I speak of other than medical aid-the government of Canada would grant it?
[Mr. Herridge.l


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, what I said was what I have said in this house on many occasions-


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister say that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am now answering. If such a request were made, the government would give consideration to a request for medical supplies for the civilian population. I cannot be responsible if my right hon. friend had a report which he does not think is consistent with my reply. Certainly I do not believe his report is consistent with what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if anything the hon. gentleman says is consistent I have yet to find it. In the meantime I would ask the minister whether he said that material aid other than medical supplies would be granted if requested by the government of North Viet Nam.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that my right hon. friend has read his report incorrectly.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the minister of external affairs relating to an answer given in this house some weeks ago. I wonder if the minister can now tell us when action might be taken on a proposed plan to bring Vietnamese children to Canada for rehabilitation.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no report to make on that at the moment.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the minister of external affairs. May I ask him whether any request has been made to the Canadian government for medical supplies to be administered to civilians wounded as a result of the conflict in Viet Nam. If there was, what would be the attitude of the government to this request?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: As my hon. friend knows, all external aid is on a government to government basis, though I have had a letter from some correspondent suggesting that this government might not wait for a request from the government of North Viet Nam to give such assistance.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have an easy question for the perturbed minister for external affairs. Is the report in the press correct that Canada's permanent representative at the United Nations has proposed that the United Nations set up uniform standards of special training for military units to be earmarked for United Nations peace keeping work, with special emphasis on police training?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I always find my hon. friend's questions easy to answer. Yes, that is a correct statement. At the present time the committee of 33 on peace keeping is considering what the United Nations might do in this matter. This is one of the proposals Canada has put forward on this occasion, as it has on others. It does not in any way limit the kind of peace keeping operations in which Canada has participated on so many occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I owe it to the house to remind hon. members that it is not according to the rules to ask whether a statement which appears in the press is or is not correct. I have been perhaps a little lenient with regard to the questions which have been asked during the last few minutes.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries but in his absence I would direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the damage being caused to the sealing industry in Canada and to the marketing of furs in Europe by the showing of a film prepared by Artek Film Productions Limited, Montreal, in which scenes of cruelty were deliberately staged, will the Prime Minister indicate what action his government is contemplating against the perpetrators of this international libel?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Acting Minister knows all about this, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know, sir, that I know all about it. However, I understand that the Minister of Fisheries has already said in the house that this film was a fraud, and if there was any way of taking legal action to prove it was a fraud I would be in favour of doing this. I cannot understand why so much fuss is being made about seals when nothing is said about cruelty in catching salmon.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a supplementary question for the acting minister. It is true that the minister has stated-I am quoting from his own statement in the house-that it has been determined, for example, that films shown on television here and abroad include lurid scenes staged for the purpose. I should like to ask the acting minister, in view of the fact that the sealing industry, which is an important primary industry, is being strangled by harsh regulations on the one hand and by the loss of its markets due to the showing of this film on the other, whether the government will take every action possible to limit the further showing of this particular film.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of Justice.
I wonder if he could inquire and tell us whether the government has under consideration legislation to empower the Canadian government to refuse extradition of Commonwealth citizens prosecuted in the independent countries of the Commonwealth for offences of a political character?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the minister that he could inquire after the question has been placed on the order paper.



HOCKEY-WINNING GOAL BY RUSSIA AGAINST CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have been attempting since Monday to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare this question. May I ask the minister whether in his opinion the second goal scored by the Russian hockey team


Inquiries of the Ministry against Canada's national hockey team was offside.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask another question rather than a supplementary.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I ask this question of the minister since this parliament voted funds to assist the Canadian national team to go overseas, and this parliament also voted the funds to make his trip possible. We are at least entitled to an opinion from the minister, or to an eyewitness account, as to whether the Canadian hockey team was bilked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure this question would be very interesting at ten o'clock.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R&al Caouelie (Villeneuve):	Mr. Speaker, my question should be directed to the Minister of Industry and Defence Production but, in his absence, I will put it to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader.
Following complaints by employees of the Canadian Government Travel Bureau to the effect that they have been paid one and two weeks late for quite some time now, is the minister in a position or willing to take the necessary steps so that the employees of the Travel Bureau will receive their pay cheques regularly and will not have to go from the Baseline Road to 150 Kent Street, in Ottawa, to get them?
Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is out of order.



EXPO '67 REPORTED AGREEMENT RESPECTING VISITORS FROM IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The question, Mr. Speaker, is based on a newspaper story appearing in 
Monday's New York World-Journal-Tribune. Will the minister say whether, as the result of a top level secret agreement between himself and the Czech foreign minister last winter, Canada has given assurance that any visitors from Czechoslovakia to Expo who might defect to Canada will be sent home and that Canada has agreed to waive the $1,000 security bond required from people coming from behind the iron curtain?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, this government does not enter into agreements of that kind, and certainly no such agreement was entered into.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence, who I understand is to lead the party to the Vimy recognition ceremonies at the end of this week. Would the minister make provision for displaying the Canadian red ensign in addition to our present flag at the Vimy site, so the veterans of that period may see the flag they were so familiar with during the 1914-18 war?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows very well this Vimy ceremony is organized by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I shall be leading the Canadian delegation there, but I am not the organizer. I think this matter would come under the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then may I direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the arrangements for this ceremony for which I and my department are responsible, the Canadian flag will be the dominant flag at Vimy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question. It is not a question of a dominant flag. I was simply asking whether, in addition to the Canadian flag, the minister could consider displaying the Canadian red ensign with which the veterans were so familiar in their war years.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hoped for presence of the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, at Vimy representing the Queen of Canada there unquestionably will be a display of the royal flag, the union jack, as well as the Canadian ensign.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Refusal.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforth: I have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reports published today in a prominent Toronto newspaper to the effect that the international mafia is infiltrating into Canada, and that the officials from Montreal are presently meeting with the federal bureau of investigation of the United States, could the minister give us any information on these serious allegations. If they are true, what action is his department taking to deal with the situation?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the R.C.M.P. are maintaining constant vigilance over the situation. As the newspaper reports, we have been in close contact with opposite numbers in the United States.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: A supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the house what liaison he has developed with his deskmate the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to avoid a repetition of incidents of the past, where these gangsters have been able to move with considerable ease back and forth across the border.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a statement on a hypothetical situation.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I understand, from a note I have received, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would like permission to revert to motions for the purpose of correcting Hansard. Is this correct?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
National Defence Act Amendment


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a correction, but not a correction in Hansard. On page 7 of this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail, where there is a report of the proceedings of parliament for yesterday, I am referred to as "Stanley Knowles, P.C."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: The hon. member would never be accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the Progressive Conservative leadership candidates to waste their time lobbying for my vote. I am a confirmed and inveterate New Democrat.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 4, consideration in committee of BUI No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer -Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was being considered. Shall clause 2 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am entering into this debate because of my conviction that the proposal placed before us by the government is unsound and should be resisted.
I begin by expressing my regret that in our centennial year we should be involved in a debate such as this. During centennial year we are emphasizing the history and traditions of our country in every hamlet, community and city of Canada. We are drawing attention to a glorious past; we are recognizing the activities of our forefathers and paying tribute to their work in developing this country.
During centennial year we are also recognizing the devotion to duty and the sacrifices of generations of military people who have contributed over the years to the defence of this country. During that historical survey attention will be drawn to the early conflicts in the early settlement of this country. Attention will be drawn to the difficulties with the native population, to the struggle with the United States in 1812-14, to the Fenian raids which caused loss of life and disturbance on our borders, to the 1885 rebellion in western Canada, to Canadian participation in the South African war, the first world war, the
14554	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment second world war and in Korea; and yet during this year when these things are going on, and when this recognition is being given to those who devoted their lives to the service of their country, we are caught in a conflict instituted by the Minister of National Defence, and supported by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister, with regard to the military services of our country. And if the government's proposal is carried, the traditions of these fighting services will be wiped out.
I say, Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that in this centennial year we have to have a debate of this nature. I do not normally shrink too rapidly from mild controversy in the House of Commons, but I do confess it is with great reluctance that in this particular year, at this particular time, I find myself involved in opposition to the government on an issue such as this. Just this coming week end, sir, there will be a celebration here in Ottawa, and one in France at Vimy Ridge, recognizing the activities of Canadian military people in the first world war. It is proper that this should be done.
The Vimy Ridge ceremony will bring back to the knowledge of Canadians who lived in that period, and to the attention of the younger generation, the sacrifices and endeavour of people in the first world war. Their attention will be drawn to the battle of Vimy Ridge, which was not more severe than other battles in that war, and did not occasion greater proportionate loss of life than some of the other battles in that war. It was not greater in importance than, say, the gas attack at Saint Julien, or the battle of the Somme, or the Passchendaele struggle in the fall of 1917, or the 100 days of victorious advance in 1918; but the capture of Vimy Ridge, one of the strongest points on the western front in 1914 to 1918, marked a change in the difficulties of the allied armies on that front, and was about the only optimistic note struck in the year 1917, during which we almost lost the war. It was the good fortune of the Canadian corps, working together, to be the spearhead of that attack, and Canada on that occasion found her national identity. For 50 years I have been wondering at people who are bemoaning the fact that we are striving to discover our national identity. It was discovered then, on April 9, 1917-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -when between 80,000 and 90,000 young Canadians played their part in that struggle, and when in the space of three

DEBATES	April 5, 1967
days over 3,000 of them were killed and over 7,000 were wounded. Sir, with these ceremonies so close to us I say again it is with regret I have to engage in a debate on the situation concerning the services for which I have such a high regard, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
It has been my good fortune to see these forces in action or to be assisted by them somewhere along the line in the course of such military experience as I have had, and I have nothing but admiration for the two forces with which I did not serve, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have the greatest respect for the fighting men in those services, as well as for those in the army, and the greatest regret that they are facing this crisis at this period of our history when the government is attempting to wipe out their great past and launch out on an uncharted future without placing reliance on the experience gained by the fighting men of Canada over the last 100 years.
Sir, this is exactly what is going to happen. Section 15 of the present statute, which is called the National Defence Act, reads as follows:
The Canadian Forces are the naval, army and air forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of three services, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
We are being asked in this parliament to strike out that section and substitute the following for it:
The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
We are being asked to strike out the three services, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force and substitute for them the Canadian Armed Forces. The identity of the three well known services will be destroyed. We will have one single force and, if the minister has his way, dressed in the same uniform with a common rank structure.
That is what is facing us in this debate and that is what we are objecting to, among other things that are in the proposed amendments. I certainly lodge my objection to the formation of a single force to be simply called the Canadian Armed Forces, and to the destruction of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Yesterday, sir, attention was drawn once again to the lack of confidence that we have in the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for Calgary North indicated, with several examples tied down to evidence given, that the minister is an unreliable purveyor of information to the House of Commons, and I raised a question of privilege on that occasion in order to underline the seriousness of the situation. I do not propose to spend all my time on that aspect of the subject today, but I do intend to draw attention to the credibility gap which has developed between the minister and the House of Commons, and between the minister and the Canadian people, and to point out that that gap has become a yawning gulf separating us, because we can no longer rely on the Minister of National Defence.
I think it is destructive of the parliamentary system that we are not able to rely upon statements by ministers of the crown. If we cannot rely upon their statements, what type of government have we in this democracy? It is no longer a democracy if ministers of the crown fail to give us the facts and fail to give us the absolute truth.
I drew attention to this difficulty on November 4 last in a speech which was not widely reported. In fact I do not think it was reported at all, but I make no complaint. I am not attacking the press of this country as the minister did. I think the press representatives of this country achieve miracles in interpreting some of the things we say here in the House of Commons, considering the restriction of space that they have in their newspapers and the, shall I say, domineering attitude taken by their editors, as a result of which some of their best copy ends up in the waste paper basket instead of in the columns of the newspapers. I am sure that is where most of the reports of my speeches end up. I do not blame the reporters at all. I find no fault with them for that. They really do a good job of summarizing in a short space what perhaps takes several hours to say here in the House of Commons or in committee. However, my speech of November 4 was a speech which showed that the Minister of National Defence was misleading the house and the country.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I should like to draw attention to two examples from that speech, and then I will take a third example from the committee proceedings. The first example appears at page 9577

National Defence Act Amendment of Hansard, where I was drawing attention to the one uniform idea:
On October 27, as reported at page 9165 of Hansard, I asked this question of the minister: "Has the minister authorized one walking-out uniform similar in pattern, style and colour for all members of the armed forces?"
The minister replied: "Not yet, Mr. Speaker." Then we went on to talk about the walking-out uniform, and I asked:
"Will the minister give a clear indication of what is government policy in this respect-" I was referring to a single walking-out uniform for the armed forces. The minister replied: "It was set out in the white paper in 1964."
Of course, I immediately said that it was not set out in the white paper. I rose on a question of privilege and challenged the minister to substantiate his statement, which he failed to do. That is only one of a whole series of misleading statements to which I drew attention on November 4.
The second one to which I again draw the attention of the house appears at page 9576. I was drawing attention to certain things I had found in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, July 16. These are the words I used:
In the same issue of the same paper I should like to read the following words of the minister.
These are the minister's words as they appeared in that paper:
Long ago I called my commanders together and asked them if they could support my policies. They were given the opportunity of dissenting. I told them I respected their rights to disagree and I made it clear that they could leave with full honours. None did.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at that time we had evidence galore of the retiring or firing of members of the armed forces. Yet the minister said that after this caution to them none took any action.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He now says it is true. I find a little difficulty, as did the hon. member for Calgary North, in dealing with this minister because he keeps repeating the same falsehoods time and again. The only other example we have of that is Goebbels in the second world war. I do not know whether or not the minister is a faithful follower of that man, but he is using the same tactics.
We had given to us, as appears at page 8560 of Hansard for October 12, a list of the senior officers who either retired because of completing their term or were fired or resigned voluntarily. That list amounted to 79 officers for the period January 1, 1965 to August 30,


National Defence Act Amendment 1966. These all are senior officers-commodores, rear admirals and vice admirals in the navy; brigadiers, major generals and lieutenant generals in the army, and air commodores, air vice marshals and air marshals in the air force. Of a total of 79 officers, 21 were from the navy, 28 from the army and 30 from the air force. Of the total, 38 were normal retirements by reason of age and 41 were either compulsorily retired or submitted their resignations before their term was up. The outstanding example was Lieutenant General Moncel who had between five and six years remaining before he would reach normal retirement age. Yet, the minister had told us away back in July 1966 that the officers did not leave. He said:
I told them I respected their rights to disagree and I made it clear that they could leave with full honours. None did.
We do not know whether that means that none did leave or that none left with full honours. I suppose there is something extra in that to consider. These were not the only officers who left. On February 13 of this year, at page 12938 of Hansard, a return was given with regard to a question asked by the hon. member for Halifax concerning resignations of serving officers of the Canadian forces at national defence headquarters. It is an astonishing list. It shows that 264 officers left national defence headquarters, 56 of them because of age and 208 because of retirement, voluntary or compulsory. These are officers most of whom are below the ranks I mentioned a little while ago.
So, what credibility can one place in this minister? Those two examples are not anything like as serious as the third example I now present to the house. This will be found in No. 16 of the proceedings of the committee on national defence for Thursday, February 9, at pages 651 and 652. I asked the minister certain questions, and I should like to read what I said:
I would like to have It proved to this committee that unification will provide the necessary reduction in overhead personnel operating and maintenance costs so that that will come down to 75 per cent and that there will be 25 per cent available for capital expenditures. The reason for my wanting proof of it is that we have been hearing for three years that great savings will be made by unification. What is the evidence? I am not talking about integration; I am talking about unification.
Then Mr. Hellyer replied:
I do not think anyone has made the statement- certainly I have not-that the financial savings from unification itself would be very great, or that they would be easy to document.

Well, I looked back at the white paper. I submit to you, sir, that the centennial celebrations in the year 2067, in addition to Magna Carta, the British North America Act and the Canadian Bill of Rights, there will also be on display for the people of that time the white paper of 1964, one of the great historic documents in Canadian history. I keep reading this document-the white paper -almost every week; it is becoming very worn. At page 19 of that white paper this is what the minister wrote:
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.
During the committee hearings the minister told me that no such statement ever had been made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, would my friend permit a question. Is he now admitting from the time the white paper was written in 1964, that integration and unification are part of the same cycle and cannot be separated easily, as he and members of his party have been trying to do in the last few days?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was brought out during the committee meetings that when the minister wrote the white paper in 1964 he was even more confused than he is at the present time. He used the phrase "unified defence forces" but the word "unification" only once. The word "integration" was used elsewhere He did not know what he was talking about. I believe he meant to say "integration", but he used the word "unification" in the white paper. That fact was brought out in evidence and I will find the page reference later.
In the same evidence to which I have referred, I am reported as having said, at page 652 of the proceedings:
Why I stress this question of unification is that through very active publicity campaigns the general impression abroad has been given that the whole program will effect great savings. The minister has now admitted that the savings on unification itself are hard to segregate, and I judge that they are minimal. What, then, is the value of unification?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This was explained in second reading, Mr. Churchill. It provides better career opportunities-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am talking about the saving of money, not these other things.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you relate it specifically to saving money, as I have just told you, the savings that can be documented are marginal.
April 5, 1967	COMMONS
For almost four years now we have been told that there will be a great saving of money as a result of this program, yet the minister admitted before the committee under questioning that the saving in respect of unification would be marginal. In other words, it could not be discovered. Other witnesses gave the same information. Let us not talk about a credibility gap, because this is a gulf. Who can believe this minister? I do not know of anyone in this party who places any confidence whatsoever in his statements.
I have other things I want to talk about and my time is beginning to run out. In addition to the white paper, the minister made a speech on December 7 when introducing second reading of the bill. That can be considered the second major document of the defence department. No one is competent to discuss this matter in respect of the armed services or sit here in the House of Commons taking part in this debate unless he has read the white paper and the speech of December 7.
One can obtain a copy of the speech of December 7, with a red cover. It was a special publication which cost over $5,000 and was distributed widely across the country. It is a historical document which will be worth a lot of money 100 years from now. In that speech the minister gave four fundamental reasons for the importance of a single unified force. I had occasion to deal with those four reasons during discussions of the defence committee. I felt that the best person to deal with them would be Lieut. Gen. Guy Simonds. I think most military men in the country will agree that he is the outstanding officer from the army during our period who is now living.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: During your period.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said during our period. The minister was alive and kicking during the second world war, and he might have had the same opportunity I had of serving under General Simonds. General Simonds belongs to our period. He enjoyed a good career and gained very wide experience during the second world war. He continued with the forces after, and became chief of the general staff. I do not know of anybody who has greater knowledge of actual warfare than General Simonds, particularly in respect of the combined operations of the navy, army and air force.
General Simonds has wider experience than anyone I know with staff colleges, and in respect of the theoretical side of warfare. He
National Defence Act Amendment also has a great deal of managerial experience which he gained while here at Ottawa and as chief of the general staff. It was my feeling that he was the best person to answer questions in respect of the four fundamental reasons for having a single unified service. I put questions to him and he supplied answers.
The first fundamental reason the minister gave us in that celebrated speech is this:
With the establishment of a common identity: sailors, soldiers, and airmen, although loyal to their ships, regiments and squadrons, will have an overriding loyalty to the whole force and its total objectives on behalf of Canada.
Those are the minister's words and that is the first argument. I then asked General Simonds this question:
Do you consider that under the triservice system there has been a lack of an overriding loyalty to Canada?
The general then replied:
X most certainly was never conscious of any during my service. I think that going back to the war and after, the Canadian serviceman was very proud of his country and very loyal to it. I do not think you could have demanded a higher degree of loyalty.
The second fundamental reason advanced by the minister was under the heading, "Careers". The minister said:
For able and highly-motivated individuals, both officers and other ranks, wider, more challenging and rewarding carreer opportunities will be available.
Unification will provide better and fairer employment prospects for service personnel. Under a system of separate services, opportunities are naturally limited to the scope, tasks and requirements of the individual service.
I then asked the general:
Do you see a substantial improvement in career opportunities that could result only from unification?
The general then replied:
I personally cannot.
This man has as wide experience as anyone in Canada. The third fundamental reason the minister advanced is this:
The unified force will provide much greater flexibility to meet changing requirements in defence organization made necessary by advances in military technology and changes in the international situation.
I then asked the general:
Do you consider that a unified force is essential to make it adaptable to changes in military technology and in the international situation?


National Defence Act Amendment
He replied:
One of our problems, certainly in the army, and I think it affected people in the other services, was as the services tend to become more and more technical, getting a man of the necessary basic foundation of education to make him even good at one thing, and getting really thoroughly trained in one field.
The fourth basic fundamental reason the minister gave is this:
The nature of modern warfare has resulted in a compaction of time and distance to the point where decision making and reaction time must be much swifter than ever before in history. A unified force best meets this demand.
The need for fast decision making and quick reaction is synonymous with modern warfare.
I then asked the general this question:
Now, I do not know of anyone who has greater experience than yourself in the demands of modern warfare, decision making, quick reaction and the co-ordination of combined operations. Do you consider that the demands of modern warfare require a single service concept or, in other words, unification?
Then general then said:
No, I do not believe it does.
The general then gave a lengthy explanation as to why he had come to that conclusion. Those are the four fundamental reasons given by the minister in support of unification.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much. I thank the minister for external affairs. I am glad that he is in his seat because I intend to say something about him very soon. I will also have something to say about the Prime Minister before I conclude, unless I am interrupted.
It was brought out time and time again in evidence before the committee that the reason for having a defence force was to train men to fight, in the event our country was attacked or our people were in danger. That is the fundamental reason and that is why they are combat forces. All the supply services, all the administrative services, all the command structure are designed in order that the combat forces may be able to play their part effectively in battle, whether it is on our
[Mr. Churehill.l

own shores, which God forbid, or whether it is further abroad, in Europe or somewhere else in the world.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
When our forces are fighting abroad, as they were in the two great wars and in Korea, they were protecting our way of life and protecting the people of Canada; but they were doing it miles distant from our country, and we were saved from the destruction of our country. I believe we are the most fortunate country in the world; we have been saved from awful destruction from artillery Are, missiles and bombing up to this point, and I hope we will be in the future. It pays dividends to conduct your battles far afield, whether it is with the navy thousands of miles from our shore or whether it is with the air force and army abroad fighting on some other continent.
Our defence forces-we call them defence forces-exist for that purpose, namely to have combat people ready for action. Canada takes second place to no country in the world when it comes to combat forces. This was proved in the first world war, in the second world war and in Korea. Let me remind the people of this country that following the assault on Vimy Ridge, which will be commemorated in just a few days now, the Canadian Corps was recognized by our opponents, the Germans, by General Ludendorf himself, as shock troops. Wherever Canadians appeared in the field of battle in 1917 and 1918 the Germans were alarmed, and with justification, because every time the Canadian Corps did appear in those last 18 months of the war, the Germans lost very, very heavily; they lost ground, they lost men, they lost artillery, they lost everything-and they finally lost the war. We were shock troops on a par with the best troops of England, the Guards, and on a par with the troops from Australia who fought side by side with us on some occasions.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you write a book about it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I may write a book about it some day, and I will correct some of the fallacious information that has been spread out to our Canadian people. I say this is what our defence forces exist for-combat forces; and all these supply services assist. You do not put them all together, as the minister is attempting to do, and neglect, as he is doing, the combat forces. That is what he is doing; he is neglecting the combat forces. The minister has his mind centred on the administrative and supply services. Of course they are
April 5. 1967	COMMONS
vital in wartime; you have to have them. A great many people have to serve behind the lines, behind the front or in the factories at home to provide the fighting troops with the arms and ammunition that they need. I hold these people in respect. But you cannot win a war just with the administrative and supply services. It is the combat forces that win a war. The minister fails to see this and is attempting to change the role of our combat forces.
Let us go by experience, without living in the past. I am so far ahead of the minister in this regard that I had him admit in committee-I wish I had the reference here today and had the time to give it-that I was a great proponent, as I always have been, of mobility in our forces. As far back as 12 or 14 years ago, right in this House of Commons, I demanded the mobility for our army which the minister is only now getting around to supplying; and he still has not completed it. He is so slow in this regard.
We were told that the minister discovered the armoured personnel carrier. I had the interesting experience of pointing out to him in the committee that the armoured personnel carrier was used in the second world war. The idea originated with General Simonds, and I, along with a few hundred other people, had the job of working out the tactics for it and using it on the battlefield. The minister thinks that he discovered the armoured personnel carrier. This is a Canadian "first" in the methods of dealing with infantry forces on the field of battle. We were the discoverers of the armoured personnel carrier. I am glad that the minister is gradually catching up with the second part of the twentieth century.
In our war experience we have operated, not independently but in support. This was brought out very, very carefully by the distinguished witnesses who appeared before our committee. Canada cannot act independently in wartime. We have acted in support. So long as our major allies, Britain and the United States, continue to have navy, army and air forces as separate identities, so Canada should have those separate identities in order that we may co-operate with them in wartime. We did it in the first war, in the second war and in Korea. In Korea our forces were brigaded with the Commonwealth division. That is quite proper; you do not operate alone. We operated with British troops in the first and second world wars, and on some occasions with American troops. But you do not operate alone.
National Defence Act Amendment
These distinct forces should be maintained. I think this is an argument that you cannot get around, and it comes from the experience of our most distinguished service officers who gave evidence before the defence committee. What have we reached with regard to the utilization of our forces? This is where the Secretary of State for External Affairs enters upon the stage, because here is where the responsibility now rests. The Minister of National Defence has been going on his own, unchecked, untrammelled, and it is now time to rein him in and teach him some of the facts of life. The Secretary of State for External Affairs must give to this house, exactly and without his orotund phrases, a clear picture of what is Canada's external policy for the future.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That'll be the day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister intending that we shall withdraw our troops from NATO? Is he intending that we shall just provide troops on demand from Canada by means of an airlift, if needed? Is he intending to discontinue the anti-submarine activities of our navy?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows better than the Minister of National Defence that there is still a threat from Russia. Russia has the largest submarine fleet in the world, and perhaps the largest fishing fleet. There will be danger off our shores unless we are prepared to be on guard. In Canadian naval circles and in United States naval circles this problem of protection against submarine threat is considered in its proper light. Why are we withdrawing from an anti-submarine role? Obviously we are, because we have fewer ships in service; we have not the men to man the ships that we have in service. So we are failing to maintain our commitment to NATO, by default.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what he intends to do with regard to the proposition put forward by the Minister of National Defence on December 7 in relation to peace restoring. This is a phrase that is now being commonly used by writers. My parliamentary friend, the hon. member for Greenwood, loves this expression "peace restoring." I told him at a conference at Scarborough that I was going to accuse him of being a warmonger. Let us have a definition from the Secretary of State for External Affairs of the expression "peace restoring". I asked some of the distinguished gentlemen
14560	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment who appeared before us what they understood "peace restoring" to mean, and they said "We used to call that war". I think they are right because there is an implication in that phrase that there has been an engagement in war after which peace is restored. Therefore "peace restoring" is a very dangerous phrase to use.
At the time of the Korean war the then minister of national defence and the then secretary of state for external affairs, who is now the Prime Minister, spoke about aggression in Korea. I was only a backbencher at that time. Not much more attention has been paid to me up here in front than when I was sitting in the back benches, so I can alternate easily between the two. At that time I asked the government: Why do you not call it war rather than aggression? People were shooting at each other and being killed. Now we call it peace restoring.
I am all in favour of peace; I do not want to go to war again. But let us be clear as to what we are doing. Peace restoring means punitive action, it means fighting. If we are going to provide an armed force with sea transport, air transport, and all the offensive weapons for peace restoring, it means that we are providing a force for war. Is the United Nations going to ask us individually and alone to undertake a mission for them and engage in war? I do not think we would be so foolish as to do that; and yet this is the information that is spreading out across this country. This is what people are saying. I will paraphrase some of their statements, such as: Canada does not have to maintain a navy, an army and an air force; Canada does not have to support our allies in Europe or the United States; let us have a special mobile and well equipped force for peace restoring.
I submit that this is a force for war. The Secretary of State for External Affairs must be careful about this, because the Minister of National Defence is running away madly. He has the bit in his teeth and he does not know where he is going. Let us not desert our allies or get out of step with the rest of the world. I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question, which he does not have to answer now because if he starts to speak I will not get another chance. There is trouble in Aden. I suppose that people would call it a brushfire war. If the British withdraw, are we to send there a special Canadian force to put out that conflict? A large number of Canadian soldiers would be killed if we did so.

DEBATES	April 5, 1967
What is the situation in Somaliland? Is there a chance that a brushfire war may develop there? What about Nigeria, where some internal trouble is developing? We have to be careful about this. Putting out brushfire wars sounds simple, but it is not, really. If a war starts, is there not a danger of the larger nations intervening in some way? Are we to rush over like a fire brigade to put out a brushfire war? I cannot think of anything more dangerous. We might easily sacrifice the lives of 1,000 Canadians by getting involved in such a conflict. Surely our job is to work with the United Nations, in concert with our allies, as we did in Korea, but not separately and apart. If we are going to work in concert with our allies, we should have a force similar to theirs, a navy, an army and an air force. This is what I am suggesting.
On January 31 I held out an olive branch to the Minister of National Defence. Subsequently I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he had read my speech, but he had not got around to it as he had been reading something else. In my speech I suggested that we should get the best of both worlds. There is a great division of opinion in this country. A great many people, more numerous than is imagined, want our defence forces to be maintained as they are now. They want the history and tradition of these forces sustained. They do not want the identity of the Royal Canadian Navy or the Royal Canadian Air Force wiped out. Let us get the best of both worlds. We want to continue to play our part in the activities of the United Nations in a peacekeeping role. I emphasize that it should be peacekeeping-not the warfare of peace restoring, but peacekeeping. I suggested in that speech that we should organize a special force for that purpose. We should enlist men specially, or draw them by secondment from the armed forces and let them serve overseas. We should dress them in a bottle green uniform and create an elite force to carry out police duties. This is exactly what our representative at the United Nations is advocating now.
I intended to ask the minister during the question period whether he has now accepted the suggestion which I put forward on January 31. Let us continue our peace keeping activities, such as we have been doing for years under UN auspices, and let us do it by means of a special force. We have about 2,000 men abroad performing this special task in
April 5, 19S7	COMMONS
Cyprus and the Gaza Strip, men in the surveillance corps and in the minister's pet organization, the International Control Commission. All of this could be done by a special force, with special training in police and diplomatic activities, because their role would be different from that of the fighting forces. I will admit readily that a force of that nature would not be useful at the outbreak of a war because they would not be trained to fight. I submit that it should not be a large force. We could provide 3,000 to 5,000 young Canadian men for this task. Here would be a chance for young Canada to do something abroad under the auspices of the UN. This would not be a peace restoring mission, which means bloodshed and slaughter, but a peace keeping mission, which is being carried out at the present time by the armed forces of this country.
The peace keeping force which I am proposing should be enlisted, trained and disciplined under the direction of the Department of National Defence for this particular purpose. We would not then be involved in the affairs of some of the countries which do not want armed forces on their territory, and quite rightly so. Our armed forces would not be acting in such a capacity, but we would have a special force for peace keeping purposes. It would be lightly armed for protection, not aggressively armed as is the case in some countries now.
That is the suggestion I put forward on January 31. I said: Let us keep our defence forces as they are now, and let us create a special force for United Nations peace keeping purposes. Let us not break up our defence forces which are now being trained for a special purpose and let us not pretend that we will set them at the beck and call of the UN for peace restoring, which is war.
I suggest to the government that it should think this over. Let us not confuse the Canadian public. Let us not destroy our three fighting services and develop a special peace restoring force for the United Nations, and then fail to take any action. If we wish to get involved in war, we will have to take some specific action here in the House of Commons.
I will conclude with a plea to the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who carries the greatest responsibility with regard to the defence of this country. He has people to assist him. He has the advice of the experienced Secretary of State for External Affairs, a man who has surveyed the world and who has been here a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: He has been here since 1935. He was here during the Munich crisis and the war with Italy. He was here at the outbreak of war in 1939 and participated in the discussions. He was here during the second world war when Canada made such great sacrifices. He was in office when we were engaged in war in Korea. He followed the course of the development of the United Nations. This man is a man of great experience and I pay my compliments to him. I hope he will continue to learn in the present, as he learned in the past, if he will listen today to the sound advice I am giving this afternoon. I hope he will not develop a closed mind, like the Minister of National Defence, but I do not think he will, because of his great experience. I suggest to him that I have given this government a way out with regard to this proposal.
Then, the Prime Minister has the advice and experience of a person like that available to him. He also has the advice of the Minister of National Defence, which he should reject at every opportunity. I was surprised to learn through Air Chief Marshal Miller, who was one of the best witnesses we had in front of the defence committee, that he had not discussed this question with the cabinet. Air Chief Marshal Miller has had a long service under both governments, the Conservative government and the Liberal government, and has dedicated his life to the service of his country. He served as deputy minister of the Department of National Defence and then chief of staff.
Finally, when the position of "Supremo" was created, he became the "Supremo" after 1964. Incidentally, I opposed that change. Air Chief Marshal Miller has had all this experience. He was one of the architects of integration, the right hand man of the Minister of National Defence, yet I take it he left the Department of National Defence in the summer of 1966 disappointed and disillusioned. I asked him, as I had asked others, if he had had any opportunity to discuss some of these problems with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of this country is superior in office to other cabinet ministers. He has a grave responsibility with regard to national defence. Consequently, I wanted to know if the Prime Minister was aware of what was happening.
145S2	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
I asked Air Chief Marshal Miller this question which is recorded at page 2328 of the committee evidence for March 21:
Did you have an opportunity as chief of the defence staff to discuss with the defence committee of the cabinet or with the Prime Minister the proposal with regard to unification?
Now, the air chief marshal made an answer, but then he corrected it later because he thought he had been talking about integration and these two words, integration and unification, became confused. However, his corrected answer is as follows, as recorded on page 2342:
It has been brought to my attention that there was a meeting of the cabinet defence committee on February 12 and March 24 to consider the white paper and integration. When I said I had not discussed this matter of reorganization I was referring specifically, I thought, to the question of unification.
This was in the year 1964. Now, March 24, 1964, when the white paper was being considered was the last time that Air Chief Marshal Miller, chief of the defence staff, had a conversation with the Prime Minister of this country with regard to the reorganization of the defence forces. This was the last time he met with the cabinet committee on defence, and subject to that time, over two years, he only talked with the Minister of National Defence on the subject of unification, a single unified force. This subject was never discussed by the chief of staff with the Prime Minister of his country.
What was the Prime Minister doing? Was he not interested?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let me finish, I am just about finished.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The air chief marshal corrected this suggestion at the end of his testimony. It would be an injustice to him and to all the service officers, as well as to the government, to leave that statement on the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I gave the correction. If I am given the time, I will go back to the question on page 2328 of the committee evidence. I asked this question:
Did you have an opportunity as chief of the defence staff to discuss with the defence committee of the cabinet or with the Prime Minister the proposal with regard to unification?

DEBATES	April 5, 1967
Air Chief Marshal Miller: As far as I am aware -and I would not absolutely swear to this without checking records-I never discussed the problem of integration with the cabinet defence committee or with the Prime Minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And unification? You say integration.
Now, later it was brought to the air marshal's attention that he had made a mistake. I read out his corrected answer which is recorded on page 2342 of the committee evidence. However, I will read it again:
Air Chief Marshal Miller: ... It has been brought to my attention that there was a meeting of the cabinet defence committee on February 12 and March 24 to consider the white paper and integration. When I said I had not discussed this matter of reorganization I was referring specifically, I thought, to the question of unification.
Then, I asked:
What year was that?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: I think this would probably be quite early after the white paper was issued.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That would be in 1964.
The minister will not understand this, but I appeal to members in this house: Is that not clear? There is the correction by Air Chief Marshal Miller, and I have quite fairly given it. So I return to what I said. From March 24, 1964 until Air Chief Marshal Miller retired in the summer of 1966, he did not have a conversation with the defence committee of the cabinet or with the Prime Minister on the subject of unification. There is a gap. What was the Prime Minister doing all this time? I doubt very much if Air Chief Marshal Miller had any conversation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wish I had asked that question. All this time one minister, the Minister of National Defence, has been running the show. I find fault that the senior members of the cabinet, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and more particularly the Prime Minister of this country, failed to grasp this nettle and deal with it. He has rejected it for over two years, and I am concerned. That is my case, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: 
I do not exclude the possibility that in the future it may become feasible, and indeed I hope it will, to withdraw our forces from Europe and to make our entire contribution from bases in Canada. But such a course of action is neither feasible nor desirable at this moment, and certainly not by unilateral decision. I ask this house to consider what would be the consequences on other countries, for example the smaller countries in Europe which are bound to us, in the NATO alliance, if we were to take a decision on our own to withdraw without the opportunity for collective consideration and judgment. Until we can be sure that we can make an appropriate and effective military contribution entirely from Canada, or until a Canadian contribution is no longer considered necessary, we should continue contributing forces in Europe as part of a collective defence, which remains necessary on a regional basis, because we have not yet been able to establish it universally through the United Nations.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre referred to peace keeping. I will not engage in a discussion about an expression which he said the hon. member for Greenwood used.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the Minister of National Defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The concept of
peace keeping I think is now well accepted within the context of the charter; certainly no country knows more about peace keeping than Canada, a country that has participated in nearly every peace keeping project of the United Nations. We are currently contributing to United Nations peace forces in Cyprus and on the Israel-U.A.R. border. We also contribute to United Nations observer missions active on Israel's frontier with Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, and in Kashmir. We participate also in the international supervisory commissions in Indochina, the latter three of course not being creations of the United Nations but of the Geneva conference of 1954. Canada has contributed to all of the larger United Nations peace keeping efforts in the period since 1949, and indeed, as I said a moment ago, to almost all of the smaller missions as well.
We have found ourselves generally accepted in this role for many reasons-because, I suppose, we do not happen to be marked with old prejudices, because we have well trained and competent forces, and of course, because we have been willing participants. We have been willing because successive Canadian

National Defence Act Amendment governments-the government of which my hon. friend was a member as well as this government and other preceding governments-and, indeed, most Canadians I think, believe that the United Nations has an important role in maintaining the peace. Despite halting progress in establishing the effective authority of the UN, I think we are all agreed that in the long run the world's best hope is to equip the United Nations to stand unchallenged as the keeper of the peace.
We must work to that end, however discouraging at times the result seems to be- and how discouraging it is, right today, in the United Nations for the Canadian delegation in respect of its initiative to try to bring about a greater acceptance of collective responsibility in the financing and in the operational responsibilities of United Nations peace keeping.
There are some who would prefer that we should now devote the bulk, or even all, of our military forces solely to UN peace keeping duties. I think this proposition deserves critical examination, attractive though it may appear in the light of our longer range goal of co-operative international security. The United Nations is working with gradually increasing effectiveness to surmount the immense problems inherent in national rivalries, and in the social and economic injustices which give rise to world tensions. But there is still basic disagreement on what that organization can do with regard to the authorization, control and financing of peace keeping operations.
In co-operation with others, Canada is striving to reach a generally acceptable basis on which future operations can be undertaken, so that we shall not have to carry the kind of load which we are carrying, for instance, in Cyprus. Even if these questions are resolved there can be no assurance that the political consensus in the United Nations necessary to establish an effective peace keeping operation will in each case be attainable. This is particularly true for situations involving the major powers, let alone those involving a confrontation between them.
In these circumstances, there is really no present substitute for defensive arrangements among groups of nations. While we search and work for the ideal, we cannot discard the practical foundations of security. It would therefore be unwise to limit our contribution to the maintenance of peace and security solely to participate in UN peace keeping operations. To discontinue our commitments to continental and NATO defence now would
14566	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment imply that we denied a common responsibility with our allies to share in the defence of the North Atlantic area. It would suggest that we believe Canada should hold itself aloof from the basic differences of interest still inherent in east-west relations.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Now, sir, with this background the hon. member who has just taken his seat asks me as Secretary of State for External Affairs where I stand on the matter involved in this bill. There can be no doubt about that. The government's position is clear; it is unequivocal, this bill represents the policy of the government.


Mr. McIntosh:: Before the minister leaves this one particular phase he is referring to now would he say a few words about government policy in regard to the peace restoring role? This is one thing that bothers us in the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the British government, through Lord Caradon at the United Nations General Assembly in 1965, clearly indicated, the question of peace keeping is only one side of the coin. There must also be the question of trying to bring about peace and the way to do that is through mediation and through the use of other peace making techniques, but not in the way suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He said that the only way a peace keeping force should properly be employed was by the use of police power. It is true that there are 50 Austrian police officers in the UN force in Cyprus. There are also a number of New Zealanders who are in there as policemen; but does anyone who has followed the events in Cyprus, who knows the situation attending the United Nations in the Congo, and the situation in the Gaza strip, for one moment believe that peace could successfully be maintained by the use of policemen only?
I am sure that the use of policemen as a factor in peace keeping is something that has to be more and more developed. This was something we proposed at the conference on peace keeping that we had in Ottawa in the fall of 1964, but I cannot agree with my hon. friend that the immense tasks and the complications of peace keeping can be met in the way he believes he has uniquely conceived, as a new way of maintaining peace.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How would you do it?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would do it in exactly the way that under the leadership of

DEBATES	April 5, 1967
the present Prime Minister we first did it in Suez, and in the way we are now doing it in Cyprus, and in the way it is now being done in the Gaza strip where over 1,000 Canadian soldiers have been involved in an organization of some 5,000 men for 12 years, and by their very para-military presence have kept the peace between the U.A.R. and-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has been a police force.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend resorts to these metaphysical statements. He is such a practical man that I never thought he would put himself in a position of emphasizing something in his speech which gave me the impression we are yet to hear more substantial comments from him in the opposition he is levelling against this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I complimented you in my speech, and that was a mistake.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: This brings me now to the effects of unification of the three services on Canada's capability to meet our foreign policy commitments. I admit it is my responsibility to be able to answer that question. At the outset I should say I do not intend, of course, to cover the ground which my colleague the Minister of National Defence has covered, and which his senior officers and officials have covered in their statements. My concern is to state in general terms what the government's defence commitments are. These commitments arise out of the government's policies, all this in those areas of foreign affairs where our armed forces have the task of helping carry out the general objectives of the government of Canada.
Such important concepts as integration and unification are essentially means by which the armed forces are organized to fulfil these objectives. My hon. friend opposite may not agree, but that is the purpose of unification and integration. It is not, of course, in my purview to interpret the continuing process of armed forces re-organization. In undertaking and developing this process my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and those responsible to him are fully aware of and responsive to the capability required of the armed forces to fulfil our foreign policy objectives. What they are doing is to put themselves in a progressively better position to ensure that the roles undertaken by the armed forces will be carried out with increasing flexibility and operational effectiveness.
It has been said that unification implies that the armed forces will be capable of only
April 5, 1967	COMMONS
one role, that of a mobile force. That is the thesis of my hon. friend, the gallant member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but this is a misconception. Unification is a concept whereby the armed forces of Canada will be organized as a single service rather than as three separate services. At the present time each of the three services carries out a variety of roles.
Unification will not mean that any of these roles will have to be altered, much less abandoned. Just as each of the services now perform a number of different roles, so a unified service will be capable of carrying out different roles. Indeed, it will be capable of performing the same variety of roles required now by our foreign policy commitments and, in my view, performing them much more effectively.
Thus Canada will continue to provide air force units to participate in the air defence of the continent. We shall continue to provide air and sea force units for anti-submarine defence. We shall continue to provide air and land force units in Europe for NATO defence, and indeed we have even been able to offer a second mobile battalion in Canada to add to the battalion already committed to NATO's mobile force. We shall continue to provide contingents on land, sea and in the air as required for the various peace keeping commitments which we now have or may assume from time to time throughout the world.
Finally, we shall have the capacity to take an appropriate part in an international enforcement action, as distinct from peace keeping, should one be internationally agreed and the government decide to participate.
If unification is permitted to develop as planned it should in no way hinder our ability to fulfil our foreign policy commitments. My hon. friend asks for that statement and he has got it. It will not in any way interfere with our foreign policy commitments. Indeed, by increasing our general military effectiveness-


Gordon Minto Churchill: In what way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and by consequent economy of operation, the government will be able to fulfil present and future commitments with progressively improving efficiency. I accept the responsibility of saying that in my judgment the policy embedded in 23033-9211
National Defence Act Amendment this bill is one that is capable of meeting the foreign policy obligations of this country, and it is-


Mr. Harkness:: Would the minister allow a question? Is he aware of the fact that all of the senior retired officers who were questioned on this very point gave it as their opinion and judgment that with the single unified force which is proposed in this bill Canada would be unable to meet the commitments which the minister has just outlined, and which are laid down in the white papter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In answer to the former minister of national defence I am aware of that, and I am also aware that all our leading-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then do you think your judgment on the ability of this force to do so is better than theirs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to make the observation that it is also a fact that all of the leading officers in the department now-


Gordon Minto Churchill: The survivors.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -take a different view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
e (4:50 p.m.)


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do not offer this as technical evidence or judgment, but the other night I flew back from London with 100 men who had served Canada for a period of months with the Cyprus United Nation force. While, as I say, their technical judgment should not be expected to be that of more highly trained and superior officers, it is a fact that I found great unanimity among these men, who are helping to maintain the peace in Cyprus, in giving strong support for the policy embedded in the bill which is now being discussed.
We should, in a matter of this importance, be able to recognize that there are strong differences between us. These differences, however, in a matter of as great importance as this, should not warrant the kind of attack that was made today by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on the Minister of National Defence. We can have differences, but surely we can discuss a matter of vital importance like this without seeking to gain political advantage or without making personal attacks on those who are carrying out a policy in which they believe.


National Defence Act Amendment
Hon. gentlemen say that this policy may be wrong. This government believes it is an initiative which will be followed by other countries. This government believes it is an initiative which will enable us to fulfil our role in NATO, to fulfil our obligations toward continental defence and toward our obligations in support of the charter of the United Nations. It is on this basis and on the basis of the analysis I have given that I, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, support this bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the hon. member for Oxford rising to ask a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In view of the fact that the minister has told us at very considerable length and in great detail that in his view our existing commitments to NATO, NORAD and the United Nations will be maintained, and he hopes improved, no doubt he will have discussed these matters with his opposite numbers among the NATO allies, in the United States, and so on. Can the minister tell us whether it is the intention of any of these other countries to alter their armed forces in the way in which we are attempting to alter ours?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend knows that the policies of other governments can be announced only by those governments. I would have thought that my hon. friend, who has had experience in respect of external affairs, would have been the last one to put that question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. As we all know, the minister is an expert in avoiding questions. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps will recall, I did not ask him to name any of the countries. I just asked him whether any allied countries in NATO had informed him that they intended to alter their forces in a manner similar to the way in which we are attempting to alter ours. I am not asking him to identify any country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has the answer. He knows I cannot go beyond what I have said. However, since he has asked this question again I might say that, because of his experience over a period of four years as parliamentary secretary to a former secretary of state for external affairs, he should know that the force goals of the countries in NATO are determined as a result of discussion in the defence planning committee of NATO, and with the approbation of SACEUR, the supreme allied commander.

There is nothing which is being done in this bill to which any exception has been taken in NATO. It is up to each country to organize its forces according to its policies, according to its standards, and according to the policies of its government and its parliament. The interest of the collective organization of NATO is that whatever system of military organization is employed is one which will permit the contributing country to fulfil its commitments in NATO. That is being done by Canada.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question of the minister. In the course of his remarks he said that Canada should not unilaterally withdraw forces from NATO. If he should argue that we should not do so without notice to or discussion with our allies, I do not think he would find much disagreement; but I should like to ask him whether there is any inconsistency in the suggestion that our officials at NATO could give notice to our allies that we wish to change the nature or form of our contribution and provide an increased contribution to a mobile reserve for NATO, a course which was approved by SACEUR and the military authorities as long ago as 1960. Is there any reason we should not do that, rather than continue with a militarily obsolete form of contribution such as we now are carrying through?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member for Greenwood has asked me this question, because I had something I wished to say about some comments he made the other night. I did not wish to overreach my time, but I might take a minute or two now to deal with what I thought was the brunt of his speech the night before last, which is involved with the question he has asked now.
Of course there is nothing to prevent Canada doing this. As a result of a Canadi-an-Belgian initiative, there now is under way an examination into the state of the alliance. This examination will give all countries an opportunity to assess the present force levels to determine whether they have overreached themselves, whether it is possible to make reductions, and to what extent it is possible to encourage a program of mutual disengagement in Europe, which certainly must come if we are to see conditions of stability established in that continent.
The other night the hon. gentleman from Greenwood used, surprisingly for him I thought, such adjectives as "useless" and


"absurd" in characterizing our military contribution in Europe. He buttressed his assertion-


Francis Andrew Brewin: The present alliance.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -with quotations from a recent article by Mr. Gellner. I am not
competent to enter into a discussion on strategy. That is something for the military people, including the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. My responsibility is a political one to determine whether or not the military establishment proposed is one which will enable Canada to fulfil its commitments in the field of foreign policy. However, the questions raised by my hon. friend in his speech and again today are being considered as one element, as I said, in the NATO review of strategy which is under way.
The essential consideration when a nation participates in an alliance is that questions of strategy and the role of forces must be worked out jointly. There is no other way to have an alliance. My hon. friend nods his head; he agrees with that. The matters are discussed in the defence planning committee, in the NATO council, by the military committee and with SACEUR.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I want to suggest that our allies, and particularly those in Europe, do not belittle, as I think some hon. members of this house in their speeches implied, the military significance of Canada's contribution to the combined NATO deterrent forces. I thought that my hon. friend, who approaches this question with care and responsibility, perhaps failed to appreciate the extent of our contribution, a contribution that is recognized by SACEUR. In his speech the other night the hon. member also quoted from a statement that I made before the external affairs committee of the other place, but he omitted the essential argument of what I said in the other place. I had this to say, in addition to the quotation from my statement that appears in Hansard, for the day before yesterday:
It will be apparent that changes of weapons of the kind I have listed are of necessity gradual... each national contribution represents only a part of the total forces available to the NATO commanders and adjustments in these contributions must be phased into the over-all plan.
There could be no other way, if an alliance is to function with any measure of efficiency. So, while changes in the alliance, in strategy and in the forces of our allies, may mean there may no longer be a requirement in the

National Defence Act Amendment years ahead for Canadian strike aircraft, the fact is that NATO strategy now requires their presence. SACEUR counts on their contribution, and the plans of our allies are based on their continued existence and presence. So in these circumstances I ask my friend, the hon. member for Greenwood: Would it not be irresponsible for Canada unilaterally to withdraw its aircraft from Europe?
I finally say this. I agree with what my hon. friend said the other night. We must envisage the stage when we achieve the collective security which in 1945 we thought was implicit in the United Nations charter. It is not there now, not because of any fault of ours, but because of a failure to implement the articles of the United Nations charter, because of the failure to provide a pooling of UN member military forces, as was done when NATO was established as an organization for the purpose of providing for the defence of the western powers. But there is a great improvement in east-west relations. There is a detente under way between east and west, particularly since the nuclear missile crisis involving Cuba in 1962. Since that time undoubtedly there has been a great improvement. I saw it myself when I went to Poland and to the Soviet Union in November last year. This is recognized in the NATO council. These days we discuss in the NATO council the possibility of extending this detente almost as much as we discuss problems that have to do with military arrangement.
We must work in that direction, in a direction that will ultimately permit the Warsaw pact powers and the NATO powers to disengage on a mutual basis, thereby encouraging increasing stability and security in Europe. That is the objective. If today we affirm our faith in NATO and in the necessity of continuing to support it, it is because present circumstances demand this. There can be no doubt of what our objective is, the objective of being able to reduce our commitments in Europe just as quickly as the political problems of Europe are resolved in a way which would justify that course being taken, without any prejudice to security and peace.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the minister like to answer another question? He seems to be in good form. Would he explain what he meant when he said I was advocating only police forces for United Nations purposes, because it seemed to me that I did not say just that. I said that the type of work we
14570	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment were doing just now could be done by police forces. Would the minister care to elaborate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I said that the impression my hon. friend left today was that he was suggesting that the peace keeping program outlined by the Minister of National Defence was one that could be simplified. He gave the impression in the statement he made today-I know this is not what he intended, because of his well known military views-that all that was needed for an efficient peace keeping operation was for Canada and other countries to promote the establishment of police forces as a means of keeping the peace between dissident parties, for instance such as in Cyprus. I told my hon. friend that this was not a new concept. I was unwilling to take away my hon. friend's pride of authorship in that idea-I regret to say it is now in existence in some of the peace keeping forces-but it is not sufficient to make an effective peace keeping force operate. If that had been all that had been done in Cyprus, we would not have been able to keep the peace, as the United Nations force has done so successfully for three years. That is what I was trying to emphasize, and to indicate that this was the impression I drew from my hon. friend's interesting, but I thought-and I hope he will not mind my saying this-surprisingly nonproductive speech today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister sometimes
draws incorrect impressions. He does not follow debate as closely as he used to in years gone by.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit me to ask a question? I want to ask the honourable and gallant colonel, the Secretary of State for External Affairs-and I ask this question because the policy of our party is to withdraw from NATO when it becomes a nuclear alliance; our party is opposed to nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadian troops at home and abroad, under any circumstances-whether he considers NATO to be a nuclear alliance, and whether he is in favour of nuclear weapons being used by Canadian troops at home or abroad.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is going to negotiate out of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that there are three NATO nuclear powers. There are two nuclear powers in the organization, and an additional nuclear power in the alliance. Canada is not one of these. No

DEBATES	April 5, 1967
other NATO country has an independent nuclear capacity. Consequently, in that sense there are no other countries in NATO that can be categorized as nuclear powers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Perhaps my question was not quite clear, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister say whether Canadian troops in NATO are provided with weapons of nuclear capacity?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have told my hon. friend that there are two nuclear powers in the organization, and another in the alliance. France does not share in the integrated command structure. There are no other NATO countries that have independent nuclear control. Canada did sign an agreement for the storage of nuclear weapons. Canada does have an arrangement with the United States, in NATO; but this does not give Canada independent national control. Consequently we would not be considered a nuclear power, for instance, under the non-proliferation treaty.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, now that all the questions have been asked and the answers given I have to figure out just how to rearrange my speech. May I say that I can appreciate the eloquence of the minister who has just resumed his seat, but I cannot accept the reasoning he set forth. I hope that in the time allowed to me I can make clear why I cannot accept the propositions he has just set forth.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
When Bill C-243 was first introduced in the house, spokesmen on behalf of this party made it abundantly clear that we thought the bill was of such importance and so complex it should be referred to the committee on national defence for clarification and for the hearing of witnesses, before this house was asked to register an opinion in principle on second reading. That proposal, recommended by spokesmen other than those from this party, was not acceptable to the government. Therefore the bill proceeded through second reading.
Again at that time we made it clear that, while we were prepared to vote on second reading, we would do so with the understanding that the bill would be referred in its entirety to the committee on national defence so it could be studied in detail, so that witnesses could be heard, so that officials of the armed forces could give their views and, in particular, in order that we might obtain a
April 5, 1987	COMMONS
clear enunciation from the minister and the government as to what is to be the future role of the Canadian armed forces. That meant, of necessity, an understanding from the external affairs department, because defence and foreign policy are closely interrelated.
The bill went to the committee and during a period of approximately six weeks 55 meetings were held, many witnesses were heard, and the bill was then returned to the House of Commons. Following that the first statement made in the house in this regard was made by the Minister of National Defence. I should like to quote the minister's opening remarks, which are to be found in Hansard of April 3 at page 14429:
During the last few months the subject matter of the bill now before us has been extensively examined and debated in this chamber, in the standing committee on national defence and throughout the news media. Every opportunity has been afforded those who are opposed to this concept to make their views known.
We heard witnesses both in opposition and in support of this bill. We did not receive a clear indication as to the future role of the Canadian armed forces. We have yet to be informed of any consideration, deliberation or action in respect of the evidence before that committee. With the exception of some technical and legalistic amendments the bill has been returned in principle and basic fundamentals in exactly the same form it was referred to the committee.
Why has this bill involving such a controversial and important matter been returned to the house in basically its original form? In my estimation the answer is related to the arrogant and irresponsible position taken by the minister and the government. The minister has failed to accept even a compromise position or even to give a reasonable and factual explanation why he would not accept a compromise. Because of that failure we today, and for days ahead, will again have to repeat all the arguments.
So far as I am personally concerned, the major aspect of this bill involves the future role of the Canadian armed forces. I do not know how we can accept this bill, which lays down the principle of the reorganization of the Canadian armed forces-the army, navy and air force-until we know what the future role of this reorganized force is to be. I say without fear of honest contradiction that no one in this house, including those on the government side, knows what the future role is,
National Defence Act Amendment or what our foreign policy in respect of defence will be. How can we decide whether we are opposed to or in favour of this bill?
I can prove what I say out of the mouths of the government members. Time after time the Minister of National Defence has said that whether we have a triservice, an integrated service or a single unified service we are going to meet our commitments. A few moments ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs backed up that statement. He said that unification will not affect our commitments and that in fact it will make us more effective. It is obvious that others on that side of the house feel that unification will help us to meet our commitments.
Only a few moments ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs said our commitments were subject to change. He reminded us that negotiations are being carried on with two of our allies in NATO in respect of changing roles, and that in 1968 the ten year contract under NORAD will be concluded. This will necessitate further negotiation.
If this house is to vote in a reasonable, understandable and conscientious manner on this bill, we must know what is in the mind of the government in respect of the future role of our armed forces, and we must know what we are prepared to commit to NATO, or NORAD peace keeping operations or peace restoring functions. That is the situation only in respect of the commitment aspect of our defence role.
The government then suggests, from the other side of its mouth, what will be the function of the defence forces of Canada. Let us go back to 1963 and see what the Prime Minister said at that time about the role or function of our armed forces. He is reported at page 784 of Hansard for June 7, 1963 as follows-and he was quoting his own speech:
The government should re-examine at once the whole basis of Canadian defence policy. In particular, it should discuss with the United States and with NATO a role for Canada in continental and collective defence which would be more realistic and effective for Canada than the present one. This examination would be concerned, among other things, with the necessity of building up NATO's conventional forces and the part Canada could play in this.
During the same speech on the same date at page 791 the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
I would hope that in a re-examination of defence policy we will be able to find a more effective form of defence in coalition than that which has been undertaken by the previous government.
14572	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Those were the words of the Prime Minister on June 7, 1963. We have heard today that we will maintain our commitments without any readjustment.
The government now talks about change. The government spoke about change in 1963 but there was no change. Without going back as far as 1963, let me refer to what the Minister of National Defence had to say in this regard. What did the minister say in this house last Monday? I will quote what he said, as reported at page 14430 of Hansard:
* (5:20 p.m.)
Cardinal to the plan as set out in the white paper was the strategic situation as it existed at that time. On this question there was no difference of opinion whatsoever. The unanimous decision by the chiefs of staff and all the staff members who considered it was that in the world today the least likely kind of war is an all out thermonuclear war. At the other end of the spectrum, the most likely kind of war is a continuation of small wars, riots, insurrections, the overthrow of civil government, namely, the kind of conflict that has been going on almost continuously throughout history and certainly continuously during the 20 years since world war II.
Each side in the cold war, the United States and the U.S.S.R., has sufficient thermonuclear striking power that even after one side had commenced a sneak attack the other would be able to retaliate, from hardened and dispersed bases, with sufficient power to wipe out the agressor's industrialized areas. Therefore this kind of attack would be irrational.
Then on the next page he continues his speech as follows:
Our problem in Canada was to devise and develop a defence policy sufficiently broad and with sufficient flexibility that our forces could contribute to the deterrence of a major war at one end of the scale and through to these peacekeeping activities at the other end of the scale or assist in putting out a small conflagration before it escalated into all-out thermonuclear war.
Let us consider the statement made by the Prime Minister on June 7, 1963 when he spoke about our new defence policy, the conventional role, and a new approach for Canada in collective alliances. Let us consider the words of the Minister of National Defence uttered here last Monday when he spoke about the best that Canada can supply, and when he said that it is irrational to think of a thermonuclear war because if one side starts it the other will be wiped out. In addition let us look at the statements made today, that we should meet our commitments with a new force. I ask the minister: What is the role of the Canadian armed forces? What was it, not only in the past, but what is it now when we are considering this bill and, in particular, what will it be in the future?-because now

DEBATES	April 5, 1967
we are being faced with a complete reorganization of the Canadian armed forces.
I find the stand taken by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence to be completely irrational. A few moments ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that we should keep our brigade and our air division in Europe, and yet the Minister of National Defence has stated previously that any sneak attack might develop into a thermonuclear war. Even if there is a conventional sneak attack, how will our brigade meet it? Will it meet it with the Honest John rocket with a nuclear warhead? How will our air division fly to meet it? Will it do so equipped with nuclear warheads? I am not one who says we should pull out of NATO completely, but in my own view I do not see any purpose in maintaining in Europe our brigade and our air division. If they are going to stay there, then we should think about it in the light of the reorganization of our forces. If they are not going to be kept there, then that might change our thinking on Bill C-243. I believe we should be equipped for anti-submarine warfare, and I believe that this is a vital role which we can play in NATO. That is my own personal view.
I believe we should reconsider our position in NORAD, when the new agreement comes up in 1968. We must adjust to what our position will be in ten years. Are we going to maintain our present commitments with Bomarcs, with nuclear warheads on our Canadian soil, with Voodoos with nuclear war-heads? If so, why? Let the minister state, as he has done so often, that in the case of a war it is not Canada which will be attacked but the United States, and that it will not be an all-out nuclear conflict. What is Canada doing to prepare for such an eventuality? I say, Mr. Chairman, that we should have some knowledge of the future role of the Canadian armed forces. Knowing that, we can then give proper consideration to this bill.
However, I should like to go beyond that. I cannot remember any witness who gave evidence before the committee, whether in the service or retired, who has opposed the policy of integration. I do not believe there is any member in the house who would basically oppose integration. The question is, where do we go from there? Also I cannot think of one witness who gave evidence before the committee who did not say that it would take from four to six years to implement integration, to test it and then to adjust it according to problems which cannot be foreseen now.
April 5, 1967	COMMONS
In view of this it is my own personal opinion that we could have avoided this discourse, and these arguments pro and con a single service, if the government had adopted a more sensible approach to this entire question, if it had emphasized the fact that it would take five to six years to put integration into effect, and if it had not insisted on the legalistic bill now before us authorizing the government to promulgate integration inside of four months.
The minister put himself in a poor position when he announced it will take five years to accomplish the first stage, and now wishes authorization for the next five or ten years. Surely we should go step by step, because if we try to jump all the way we might fall and break our necks. This would mean the disorganization and disruption of the Canadian armed forces. Ultimately our forces may become a single service, but why does the government have to ram it down the throats of members of parliament, of members of the armed services and of the people of Canada? The minister speaks of the single service concept and of full integration, but there will still have to be an army, a navy and an air force; there is no question about it.
If we accept full integration, what is wrong with letting those who honour the traditions of the service they joined to be known as members of the R.C.N., the R.C.A.F. or the army, in the integrated service? The government can have its integration, its command, its control, but what is so wrong with letting the services maintain their units and their designations within the integrated service? Surely that is not a fundamental change, and the government and the minister could have acceded to it, for psychological reasons if for no others.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The same thing applies to the common uniform. It applies also to the one-rank structure. Why should we be the only country in the world-at least of which I know-among our allies, where an admiral has to be a general or an air chief marshal has to be a general? Why should this be so? Perhaps this situation will evolve eventually, yes, but why bring it about now to cause confusion and heartbreak?
It is not good enough to say that the minister is taking the power under which he may make these designations, but that the government may hold it in abeyance. Once you have the power, God knows how it is going to be used. Why is it necessary to bring in this sort of thing? I am convinced that a little bit of
National Defence Act Amendment reason and compromise by the minister would have enabled us to go a long way toward meeting what he has in mind. I do want to reiterate that there is bound to be opposition when the minister says "This is it", and especially when we are not clear as to what the future role of our armed forces is to be. The government has placed many of us in a difficult position. We believe in progress; we believe in integration and we sincerely hope it can be made to work. Ultimately, it may lead to unification, a single service.
Then, we are led to ask, which comes first? From our point of view the policy and the rules come before the structure. If we can get the policy and the rules before the structure, then there might not be any question at all, beyond perhaps an odd change in a clause, and we could go right through this bill. If the minister and the government remain arrogant and say, "Play ball our way, or else," then in the last analysis we will have to decide on our course of action. If you cannot get a policy before a structure, then you must be getting a structure first, because the structure will force you to get a policy and an objective. It has to be one way or the other.
This is the position in which the government is placing the members of this house. We will have to make our decision according to what we believe is best for the armed forces and for Canada. From now until this bill is completed, the members of this party will maintain the principle that was enunciated by the hon. member for Greenwood, and which I have tried to enunciate, that no matter what happens we will vote on each clause according to whether we think it is good, bad or, indifferent in the over-all legislative picture. In the final analysis, we will search our consciences and vote in the way we think is right for the future of Canada.


Mr. Macaluso:: I was a member, Mr. Chairman, of the defence committee and heard the testimony on this bill. The committee heard testimony on all sides of this particular question. I feel it is important to realize that, at least where the opposition is concerned, there are as many sides as there are witnesses opposed to this legislation. When dealing with this legislation and the testimony relating to it, it is necessary I believe to judge the merits of the evidence and the credibility of the individual witnesses who appeared. In so far as this bill is concerned, the committee could group those gentlemen who appeared before us into three categories. The first would be political, the second the
14574	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment serving officers and the third the retired officers.
Now, the individuals in each of these three categories have limitations in their ability to present evidence. The first group, the minister and associate minister, are obviously the most qualified in all areas, except perhaps expertise on specific points. The second group, service officers, complement the minister and associate minister by providing the expertise and opinions on military considerations, but must refrain from making statements on policy.
The testimony of the third group, the retired officers, is possibly the most difficult to weigh. In the committee, Mr. Chairman, we were faced with a very real dilemma, the credibility of this group of witnesses. The minister and the defence staff all gave comprehensive and corroborative testimony. Nowhere, I suggest, was there a contradiction, as will be indicated by the minutes of evidence. However, on the other side one finds it difficult to choose whom to believe, particularly when the conflict arises over what I suggest are the gut issues.
The relevance, credibility and merit of their evidence-I am speaking of the retired officers-is directly related to the positions they had while in the service, the length of time they have been out of the service and any bias that has resulted from their manner of leaving, their present political affiliations and their membership in or association with interested organizations. For the most part, these are men who have high rank and have given long and loyal service to their country.
However, Mr. Chairman, I ask, are they still in touch? We are all agreed that the study of defence matters is exceedingly difficult because of the pace of development and change, particularly in our Canadian setting, as a result of the present reorganization. I submit that these men no longer have available to them the plans, documents and sources of information that they had at one time. The new information they receive after leaving the service-and this came from the witnesses themselves-comes from news reports, which are not exactly the best source, and second or third hand from friends, who are presently serving officers. I might say that these are hardly adequate bases for judgment.
It is significant that many of them had not read the present bill but had prepared briefs on unification, and were quite willing and ready to answer questions on unification. This was their right, of course, and was what they

DEBATES	April 5, 1967
were there to do. Many admitted however they had not read the bill. The many briefs presented, and the supporting evidence, produced certain contradictions which I should like to put forward, Mr. Chairman. General Moncel stated that he wrote four plans for unification, and the one the minister selected was the one he rejected out of hand. This statement appears on page 1212 of the committee evidence.
Later, Air Chief Marshal Miller, then chief of defence staff and General Moncel's direct superior, through whom these plans would have been forwarded stated, in answer to a question I asked, that he had seen no such plans. General Allard, present chief of staff, stated that in so far as he knew, these plans never existed. He had made a search of the department. Significantly General Moncel, referring to his retirement later stated, "I left because I could not write such a plan."
Admiral Brock, speaking about the lack of knowledge on the part of serving officers in 1964 as to what was going on, said as recorded on page 959 of the evidence:
No one seemed for a single moment to believe that the one reference in the white paper could be anything but an odd expression.
Admiral Rayner put it quite succinctly when he said, as recorded on page 2011 of the
evidence:
I had no doubts of what a single unified service meant: I had always assumed it would be one service, with one uniform and a loss of identity to the three services we have now.
General Fleury, however, seemed to agree with Admiral Brock when he stated, as recorded on page 1315:
It was not clear to me and it was not clear to the vast majority of the people in the armed forces what was meant.
However, General Moncel stated-and I read from page 1310:
I was well aware of the fact that the white paper said that unification was the ultimate end.
There you have it, Mr. Chairman. One admiral and one general say they did not know and one admiral and one general categorically state they they did know. It is difficult for me to conceive of a deficiency of knowledge in high ranking serving officers in an issue so fundamental as this. It is my submission they must have known. Regarding communications, General Fleury said:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Communications were very bad within the headquarters and between the commanders in the field.


General Moncel countered by stating that communications could not be simpler, that it is straightforward.
Later on, referring to the testimony of previous witnesses on the proposed reorganization, the hon. member for Edmonton West made this statement, as reported at page 1314 of the committee proceedings:
No serving officers at the time were asked to testify how they felt about this organization.
To this General Moncel replied:
If they said this, it is quite wrong. I sat on defence council and we heard lots of "chaps" giving vent to their views on It.
Admiral Landymore said that the new reenlistment program contained in the bill would be an invitation to trade unions in the armed forces. Again, General Moncel disagreed, saying that he could not believe what Admiral Landymore said would come true. When questioned by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek about Admiral Landymore's suggestion that, under provisions of the bill, the minister of defence could commit Canadian forces anywhere without consulting parliament, General Moncel said, as reported at page 1306:
I cannot believe it.
Many of the witnesses that appeared expressed the view that the troops were opposed to unification. As reported at page 1379, Air Marshal Annis said:
I believe our minister may be correct when he suggested that unification had large popularity within the Canadian armed forces.
To be fair to him, Mr. Chairman, he went on to characterize how this support was divided.
The list of contradictions goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. I have quoted these few examples to demonstrate the degree of the problem. On the one hand, we have the members of the present defence staff who agree to a man on all points in their testimony, including the opinion that unification is the right organization for the Canadian armed forces.
On the other hand, we have some retired officers, whose testimony is fraught with contradiction, who in the main agree on the principle of unification, but who disagree on different specific aspects with either the minister, the defence staff, other opposition witnesses, or in some cases even themselves. The important element in all their testimony is whether or not they agree with unification, regardless of the manner of implementation, and the
National Defence Act Amendment consensus is a resounding vote in favour of unification. But, Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, some of them had not read the bill, nor had they heard or read the briefs of the defence staff. It is also significant that most of the discussion centred on the success of integration. of which of course they were all in favour, as that was the stage in which they were involved. If they were speaking of some of the difficulties which were being experienced with integration, they had solutions to offer.
The world is following our lead in integrating the armed services-


An hon. Member:: Oh?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: -but what of unification? Somebody says "oh", but it is a fact that this is so. We hear comments like: "We should not do it until somebody else does". "It has not been tried and it is not proven". "We are too small to try something like this". "Let the United States or Britain try it first. If it works-and I am certain it would-let us jump on the band wagon and follow their lead".
Most of these witnesses, Mr. Chairman, with one or two significant exceptions, were not opposed to the principle of unification. They were, however, opposed to doing it now, and for the most part their testimony was directed to that end. In effect, they said: Let us wait a few years and then we will go ahead.
General Foulkes, who was, in effect, an opposition witness, pretty well summed up this attitude when he said, as reported at page 1228:
In 1963 when I was here I think I remarked that the attitude of the chiefs was "Yes, we believe in integration but please do not do it while I am here."
He is speaking of integration, not unification. He went on:
"I do not want to be known as the chief of staff who ruined these services". This was the hatural attitude of an officer who had come all the way up through the service, who was responsible for the welfare of the service and not only to those in the service, but to the institutions which supported it. Although they all supported it, they were not so keen to go ahead with it during their tenure of office.
Perhaps these men are not so keen now to go ahead with it during their term of retirement, and I suggest probably for the same reason as that referred to by General Foulkes. But the members of the present defence staff are prepared to go ahead.
23033-922h
14576	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
General Allard stated to the committee, during his appearance before them on February 28 last, that in making his presentation he did so as the man responsible for carrying out the policy of the government, through the Minister of National Defence, for ensuring that the defence forces that we have today are organized, equipped, trained and possess the morale to accept any task they have or are likely to be given. He said he felt absolutely confident that this task can be carried out best by the reorganization of the forces as set out in Bill No. C-243.
I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that a man with the background, experience and service record of General Allard could make such a statement if he did not believe in it.
I would now like to deal with the fallacious statement-and it is a fallacious statement-by some hon. gentlemen opposite and some witnesses that unification is proceeding ahead too fast. When making these completely inaccurate statements, it is obvious that they have not listened to the expert testimony of witnesses before the committee. On Tuesday, February 7, 1967, at our very first meeting, we heard a two-hour brief by Air Marshal F. R. Sharp, vice-chief of the defence staff, and a major portion of that brief was directed to the time schedule for unification. I know it has been quoted before, but I should like to quote one paragraph of the vice chief's brief:
Because this is a very complex job, very thorough and careful planning is required. The department has, on the one hand, been accused of acting too quickly, that is, not doing sufficient planning, and, on the other hand, of not deciding sooner the details of what is involved in unification. Since planning takes time and since the details cannot be decided and divulged until the planning has been completed, it is obvious that the department cannot satisfy both of these criticisms. To take time for adequate planning means that there will be some delay before the details of unification can be announced. To quickly announce the details implies inadequate planning. However, to postpone the decision to unify until all the details have been worked out is contrary to common sense.
Here, Mr. Chairman, we are faced with the most challenging and exciting concept in modern military organization, and what do the opponents use as arguments? They engage in picayune discussion, based on unwillingness to accept the testimony of the only men-let me repeat, the only men-who are in a position to know what the proper time phase is, namely the present serving officers on the defence staff.
DEBATES	April 5, 1967
Air Marshal Sharp told us that planning for unification has been going on since 1964 and that it will not be completed until 1971 at the earliest. That, Mr. Chairman, adds up to a seven year program. Certainly, in this day and age it is time we realized that we can no longer afford to "wait and see" indefinitely; that we cannot simply put off our decisions for three years or five years because of the outcry of a small nostalgic group fighting for the preservation of an expensive, outdated and inefficient system of military organization. They are not looking for a pause for three or five years; they are looking for a permanent halt to the modernization of Canada's military establishment.
The Air Marshal's presentation illustrated with charts the program planning and scheduling. He indicated that to accomplish the aims of unification involved about 500 complex, interlocking stages and that progress or delays in one program had consequent effects on several others.
The minister and the defence staff have continuously stressed one point in the discussions both in and out of the committee, and it is that Bill C-243 is the final phase of the integration-unification cycle. Integration and unification are not neatly defined packages-and this was a point made by many witnesses, even those in opposition. They are not independent entities. Rather they are interlocking and interdependent stages in an over-all scheme designed to give Canada the best fighting force per tax dollar the world has ever seen.
General Allard told the committee that he has had to stop many programs that were impinging on unification, as the armed forces do not yet have the authority to complete their programs without the passing of this bill. To me, and to many of us, this indicates that planning and execution are well on schedule, and that the only part of the program that is behind schedule is the passing of the necessary legislation.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Much ado has been made about something called "instant unification". Some people seem to think that a stroke of the pen proclaiming this legislation will declare the process complete. This utter nonsense, as is shown by the opening statement of the minister. When this bill has been passed and proclaimed, it will do one thing and one thing alone-it will give the men and women of our Canadian armed forces the legal right to continue with

April 5, 1967	COMMONS
the necessary final planning and to begin to implement the plan. Bill C-243 is simply permissive legislation-nothing more, nothing less.
General Allard, chief of the defence staff, said this:
I would refer to the question regarding any suspension or delay in proceeding with the final stage of re-organization-unification. I sincerely believe a postponement or delay in starting this final stage would have a most serious effect on all of us now serving and on our recruiting prospects. What the serviceman is saying to us now is this, "Get on with it", and in my opinion any delay-one year, two years, five years or even a few months-would seriously impair morale.
This proposal is not designed to cope with the past, it is for the present and the future.
It is warming to note that General Worthington in an article published in the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, April 4, says the same thing. I continue quoting General Allard:
I am convinced that not only is it right-but that it will appeal to the youth of today and tomorrow. The idea of a single force, in a single, distinctively Canadian uniform-working, living, training and, most important, thinking together as one entity-is an exciting and challenging idea. After all, it is designed to meet the problems of a modern world-a scientific world-which is growing away beyond the barriers of the past at a speed that cannot stand the slow pace of yesterday.
Now come these important words:
For all this-you know that we do not intend to proceed in haste-but rather in a carefully planned manner which will extend over a number of years. All that is required now is the authority to do so.
Those are the words of General Allard. Air Marshall Annis agreed that he was not opposed to the end result, integration into one single force, one rank, one uniform. General Foulkes said:
The problem can only be solved by complete unification of the three services with one Chief of Staff, one chain of command, one ladder of promotion and one uniform.
General Moncel said:
I was well aware of the fact that the white paper said that unification was the ultimate end. Well, that was fine. There was nothing wrong with it as a name.
I ask you, are these the statements of men who are opponents of unification? Again I reiterate, the important element of all the testimony in opposition is whether or not they agree with unification, regardless of the manner of implementation; and as stated earlier, the consensus is a resounding vote in favour of unification.
National Defence Act Amendment
When we look at the bill in this, its proper perspective, and examine the testimony of the witnesses who have seemingly opposed it, we find for the most part that there is really very little ground for contention. The major theme of these witnesses and of hon. gentlemen opposite has been "It's a good thing, but let's wait a few years before we do it."
Mr. Chairman, that is not a sound argument. The plan will not be implemented fully until 1972 at the earliest. Simple arithmetic shows that 1972 is five years away, and that we have already had three years of planning behind us. The minister and the defence staff are not rushing headlong into this, I submit. They are not moving at great speed as General Moncel said, "on an uncharted course toward a dim destination". I doubt whether he himself believes this. Rather, I submit they are moving at a controlled rate on a carefully planned program toward a concept necessitated by the technological revolution of the twentieth century and, perhaps more important, by the personal needs and welfare of Canada's serving men and women.
What is needed is enabling legislation now, so that they can get on with the planning and erase the uncertainty among our servicemen. It is now mainly the uncertainty concerning whether we are or are not going to unify that is bothering the servicemen, not the fact of unification itself.
We are here as parliamentarians, Mr. Chairman, to carry out the will of the Canadian people and to act in the best interests of our country. In so doing we are always faced with opposition viewpoints. We have long recognized that this is a good thing. Our parliamentary system is composed of two elements-Her Majesty's loyal government and Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and although there are times when members on this side of the house may feel that hon. members opposite take their task of opposing too much to heart, we would still not wish to see the form of our legislative body changed. This is all to say that, no matter what the issue, no matter what the time, there will always be opposition to every proposal because, as the expression goes, "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
With regard to unification, it would be easy for us to say, "Let's wait a few years" and put it off, just as it would have been easy for the present Minister of National Defence to bask in the successes of integration and to leave the more difficult part of the job to his successor. But no one who is a member of this


Business of the House
house will remain so for long if he always takes the easy way out. As members of parliament we must have the courage of our convictions, and having recognized our duty we must carry it out. Our duty now, I submit, is to pass this bill, to make Canada's defence force stronger and more able to do the tasks it will be called upon to perform. Let us get on with it and take our place in the vanguard of forward thinking nations.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I see that I still have some time left-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I had not quite finished.


Malcolm MacInnis: I was
recognized on a point of order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if the hon. member thought I had finished; I was just moving my chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member may have recognized that he had some time left when he resumed his seat. The Chair had recognized me. The hon. member cannot now get up and say that he had a minute or two left.
I wish to draw to the attention of the Chair that the hon. member, by reading word for word from a prepared text for the last 25 minutes, has broken a rule of the house. This is another indication of how Liberal members
think. When in committee the minister and other Liberal members were prompted by advisers from the department, sitting behind them. The hon. members had not the brains to ask their own questions. Here we see an attempt by Liberal members to repeat something that has been put on paper for them by officials from the minister's department.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of privilege-


Malcolm MacInnis: Six
o'clock.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Malcolm MacInnis: Six
o'clock.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I only take cognizance of talk that is talk. An empty seat is like an empty brain.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: What about tomorrow?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate; should it conclude during the course of the day we would take up the bill in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and following that, the consideration of the temporary rules.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 6, 1967