1967-04-17

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house and in accordance with custom I move, seconded by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That the speech of His Excellency the Governor General, the Right Honourable Roland Michener, Q.C., together with the address of welcome made by the Prime Minister in the Senate chamber on April 17, 1967, be printed as an appendix to the official report of debates of the House of Commons, and form part of the permanent record of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's note: For text of speeches referred to above, see appendix.]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the house the establishment of a system of honours and awards for Canada. Practically every sovereign country has such a system which it uses as a means of recognizing merit or gallantry, or distinguished public service. I believe that recognition of this kind can strengthen national pride and the appreciation of national service.
There has been no system of Canadian honours and awards. The Canada Medal was instituted in 1943 as a possible way of filling this gap, but it has never been awarded and is now being replaced. Because Canada has lacked an official system a number of unofficial or semi-official honours and awards have developed over the years. In addition, the professions and the universities have methods of bestowing recognition upon persons they desire to honour.
The government considers that there is a need in Canada for some official Canadian method of recognizing outstanding merit and
public service in many different fields. The centennial of confederation would seem to be a logical time to introduce such a system. Any such system of course, Mr. Speaker, must be distinctly Canadian and include no titles nor confer any special privileges, hereditary or otherwise.
It is my pleasure to announce that on the recommendation of the government Her Majesty has approved the issue of letters patent constituting the Order of Canada. The constitution of the Order provides for the creation of Companions of the Order. Fifty may be appointed in this centennial year and not more than 25 in any year thereafter, but the maximum shall never exceed 150. The principal Companion of the Order, the Chancellor, will be the Governor General. Nominations for the award will not be made by the government but directly to the Governor General by an advisory council composed as follows: the Chief Justice of Canada, chairman; the Clerk of the Privy Council; the Under Secretary of State; the Chairman of the Canada Council; the President of the Royal Society of Canada; the President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Companions will be selected on the basis of "merit, especially service to Canada or to humanity at large".
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The constitution of the Order of Canada also provides for the recognition of acts of outstanding valour. To this end it specifies that there will be a Medal of Courage which may be awarded to a person who "performs an act of conspicuous courage in circumstances of great danger". There will of course be no fixed maximum number of awards in this category.
The constitution also provides for a Medal of Service, to be awarded but for different categories of meritorious service than that for Companions and in somewhat larger numbers. Not more than 50 Medals of Service will be given in 1967 or in any year thereafter.
Any person or organization is invited at any time to suggest names of persons whom they consider worthy of receiving any of these awards. These nominations, which should include particulars of the merits and
14968	COMMONS DEBATES	April 17, 1967
New System of Honours and Awards accomplishments of the person nominated, should be submitted directly to the secretary to the Governor General, at Government House in Ottawa, who will act as secretary to the advisory council and who alone will make the recommendations.
The government believes that these three awards, the Companion of the Order of Canada, the Medal of Courage and the Medal of Service, will help to fill a need in our national life and will enable proper recognition to be given by Canada to its own citizens and to others. By the method of recommendation, careful selection based strictly upon merit for two of the awards and upon conspicuous courage for the other and strict limits on the number of recipients, it is intended to maintain the quality of these awards at the highest possible level.
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table copies of the two orders in council involved, including the text of the letters patent and the constitution of the Order.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter
such as this I would have hoped the Prime Minister would have given notice. Had he done so, it would have been possible to discuss this question in a manner in keeping with the step which is being taken.
All of us realize that in 1919 Hon. W. F. Nickle of Kingston introduced a resolution in the House of Commons to the effect that honours should not be awarded. That motion received fairly general support and remained in effect through the years until Mr. Bennett became prime minister of Canada. During Mr. Bennett's period of office a number of knighthoods were awarded.
Certainly this is a break which must cause deep concern to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), because after all he is the testamentary successor to Right Hon. Mackenzie King. Mr. King did not like decorations, prefixes or suffixes. The only person who has a close link with the past in this regard-a close link with that prime minister -is the Minister of Transport. The Prime Minister of course also has a close relationship, having been under secretary of state for external affairs while Mr. King occupied the position of prime minister.
As I recall it, Mr. King had been given a C.M.G. in 1908, Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. So opposed was he to anything in the nature of awards that I understand he had one of the high commissioners of Canada approach His Majesty the

King to ask for permission not to have to wear the C.M.G. ribbon. He would have been shocked to have been compelled to wear the decoration. It was so totally removed from his ideas of democracy. My information is that the King answered the request by saying that Mr. King might wear the medal wherever he chose. In any event Mr. King did not wear the decoration.
Then in 1948, following notice that he intended to retire which he gave at a press dinner in that year-in those days announcements of that kind were made at press dinners-Mr. King remained prime minister after Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was appointed his successor as leader of the Liberal party.
I do not know what happened to Mr. King's feelings on the subject of decorations, but something abnormal occurred. He went over to London and saw the King. He felt that Canada had never been properly honoured for services rendered by Canadians during the second world war, and my information is that membership as a Companion of Honour was to be made available. Apparently Mr. King did not feel that was high enough an honour.
The Order of Merit is restricted, I think, to some 26 members; I am speaking entirely from memory because I did not receive notice of the intention of the Prime Minister to make this announcement, but as a result of a fortuitous occurrence, the death of a member of that order, Mr. King received the Order of Merit.
He then visited the Queen of the Netherlands and pointed out the services that Canada had given to the people of the Netherlands. There he picked up another decoration; I think it was the Order of Orange-Nassau. I can imagine his feelings, loaded down with two decorations on the one trip. He was used to the situation by then and went to Belgium, where in passing he picked up the order of Leopold. Time marches on. He went to Paris where he became a chevalier of the Legion of Honour. For one trip that was par for any honours course.
I mention this because, as the then member for Prince Albert, he was made honorary president of the Prince Albert Agricultural Society. If you visit Laurier House you will see the five honours all in a row, and I must say that Prince Albert was honoured by having its award included among the decorations. Even the C.M.G. was resurrected.
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
It is well to remember that in 1792 during the famous debate in the British House of Commons, in which Pitt the Younger, Edmund Burke, Charles Sheridan and Fox participated, this whole question was considered. During discussion whether appointments to the legislative councils of Upper and Lower Canada should be hereditary, the attitude of Burke was, as I recall it, if they were made hereditary the preservation of Canada would be assured.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
None of the history books seem to reveal what happened in 1943. The diary of Mr. King is singularly silent on this question. He rushed over to the United Kingdom, he saw the King, he asked for the creation of the Canada Medal. There was a great rush; it had to be done at once. Five copies were struck. Today they have become numismatic curios, and where they are we do not know. Now we are to have the Order of Canada. I have noticed the precautions that are going to be taken to ensure that this award will be of the highest order. There has been some suggestion that appointments to the other place under this government would not have been made if there had been an advisory council.
I say, sir, that one of the unusual circumstances connected with our development has been that following Mackenzie King's lengthy period of service as prime minister with those who followed him holding similar views, we are now in 1967 to have the Order of Canada. I hope this does not mean that decorations for valour by Her Majesty the Queen will be done away with; otherwise it can only be said that this is another of these advances, so highly regarded by members of this government, whereby every vestige of our relationship with the United Kingdom is being swept aside. The latest example is in that caricature that is going to go out to the children of Canada, in the form of a medallion, bearing on its front what is described as the coat of arms of Canada. It resembles the coat of arms about as much as I do Hercules.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will agree that it is a pity the right hon. Leader of the Opposition did not have earlier notice of this announcement-


John George Diefenbaker: Not one minute.


David Lewis: -because if without notice he could enthral us with a history of things no doubt relevant to the announcement by the
New System, of Honours and Awards Prime Minister, I can imagine what he might have done if he had been given notice.
I want to say on behalf of our party that we greet the announcement of a Canadian order and the fact that it is Canadian. I am sure I need not remind any hon. gentleman that there are in every society thousands and thousands of men and women who in their daily lives do a great deal for our community and never become recognized no matter what kind of order exists. I am sure all those who will receive companionhood under this proposed order will remember that theirs is the recognized contribution, but there are always thousands whose contribution is as great and as important who cannot be recognized.
We in this party are also very happy that the government has taken the precaution to make sure that appointments to the order will be made in such a way as to leave out any possibility or suspicion of political interference. Perhaps the same attitude and the same process will be applied to a good many other appointments in our society, which I think would do Canada a great deal of good.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), as well as with the spokesman of the New Democratic Party, to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on the establishment of the Order of Canada, whereby deserving Canadians will be created Companions of that Order and medals for valour and meritorious service will be eventually awarded to a total of 150 persons, 50 of whom in this centennial year of confederation.
Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees that we are living in a sovereign contry and that it was very important, even urgent, to have in Canada an organization designed to recognize the good services of Canadians who have made an outstanding contribution to the common good and to the unity of Canada, as a sovereign country.
We, therefore, thank the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet for having created the Order of Canada.


Mr.  A. B. Patierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, without seeking it for themselves many Canadians wonder just what did happen to the Canada Medals that were struck and just what was the purpose of the government as far as that particular medal was concerned.

April 17, 1967
Questions
We join in welcoming tie announcement regarding the establishment of the Order of Canada. I think we have to remember that ingratitude is one of the greatest sins of our day, and I believe it is good for us as a nation to recognize the great contribution that is being made and will be made by many of our fellow citizens. It will be a recognition of their contribution and a recognition of our appreciation for what they have done.
We also appreciate the fact that some safeguards have been established to keep this from becoming another matter for political patronage. The establishment of this advisory council will, I am sure, do much to preserve this particular recognition as something that is really worth while and something that has vital meaning. Therefore we trust that in the future as these recognitions are given to various individuals they will be an acknowledgement of the fact that they have made a contribution for which all Canada is appreciative.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Muir (Cape Breion: North and Victoria):
What is the number of seals estimated by the Department of Fisheries on the Atlantic coast and in the St. Lawrence basin which, in addition to young Harp seals, were killed in each of the years 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 to date?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1964, 96,217; 1965, 50,985; 1966, 83,619; 1967, season still in progress and figures incomplete.


ALBERTA-TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FOR NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Herridge: Have there been any discussions between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Premier Manning of Alberta or any of their officials, with respect to the possible transfer of an area of Wood Buffalo park to the provincial government in return for an appropriate area of provincial land to be used as a national park?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes. Federal and provincial parks officials have looked at one area in Alberta and negotiations at the ministerial level are expected in the near future.
fMr. Patterson.]


*C.B.C. AUTHORITY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF COLOUR TELEVISION SETS
Mr. Maclnnis (Cape: Breton South):
Where is the legal authority for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to make presentations of coloured t.v. sets to any person, and in any event to persons, whatever their public position may be, who are not connected with the C.B.C.?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the corporation's legal authority is the Broadcasting Act and decisions are made in accordance with this legislation. Colour television sets are not presented to individuals as gifts. They are assigned or loaned to positions or offices and remain the property of the corporation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders on the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of events in the last 24 hours, to which I am not going to allude, will the government introduce as a centennial project before this session ends, a measure to provide that any persons convicted of a crime the result of which was incarceration in a jail or penitentiary, may after a period of years, say from five to ten years of good conduct, have that record erased so the stigma which otherwise results will be removed?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I think I will ask the Solicitor General to deal with this question, if my right hon. friend does not mind, since he has discussed it.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the officials of my department are now in the midst of preparing a memorandum for my office and for submission to my colleagues in the cabinet. In addition I have requested that a private bill proposed by the hon. member for Welland be sent to the committee on justice and legal affairs. This subject matter is now under consideration by the committee and I am awaiting their report.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the minister that time is of the essence in this connection, and that procrastination is no excuse. Everybody knows, or almost everybody realizes, the injustice of the present position. Surely in view of the events of the last two days this parliament should act now.
April 17, 1967	COMMONS


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that there has been no procrastination. It might be of interest to the right hon. gentleman to know that I have given public support to the principle he has enunciated in the house. I have outlined in public one general approach that might be taken to this question. It is therefore clear that it is uppermost in my mind, and I am actively considering it.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister received a confidential report from the Jewish labour committee alleging that some officials in some manpower offices have accepted requests involving racial and other discrimination? Will the minister indicate to the house whether he has had time to study the report, and what steps he is taking to deal with the situation revealed in it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I have not seen any report as yet, but it may be in the department. I just read the news report in the Globe and Mail this morning, and I am very concerned about that. The only thing I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the instructions to the district offices are very strict on that point. I do not say they are followed; perhaps the report of the council is correct, and I am looking into the problem and as soon as I have read the report I will make inquiries. Then I can answer the hon. gentleman.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: When the minister is looking into this matter will he investigate whether the officials of the Ontario human rights commission, the Ontario government agency dealing with this problem, brought this matter to the attention of the officials of his department in Ontario a year ago, and why action was not taken then?


Jean Marchand: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I can inquire into the allegation and reply at the same time 1 give a general report.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is looking into this matter, will he ascertain whether the instructions of the former national employment service regarding this practice were
Inquiries of the Ministry cancelled when the subject was transferred to his department?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman is interested I can read what the instructions are. The instructions to all our representatives in the manpower centres are as follows:
No applicant seeking work will be discriminated against by reason of his or her racial origin, religious belief or political affiliation. There will be no discrimination for any of the reasons stated, and upon proof of any such unfair practice, the officer found guilty will be liable to discipline.
These are the formal instructions that have been given. I cannot tell you this afternoon that they have been followed, but we have this report and I am ready to ascertain to what extent these instructions are followed.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman give us the date of the instructions?


David Lewis: Following what the minister has just read, would he consider issuing further instructions to his officers to the effect that they should refuse to deal with any request coming from an employer which attempts to set down a discriminatory choice?


Jean Marchand: I can assure the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to renew the instructions and insist that they be followed. This is something in which I personally believe very deeply. I will do all I can to prevent what is alleged in the newspaper to have happened. Hon. members can be sure I am going to check into it and see that instructions are followed.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. On what date were these instructions given to the various offices across the country?


Jean Marchand: I do not have the date here, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: How recently?


Jean Marchand: I cannot tell you the date. I can tell you tomorrow. I know these instructions are in the manual manpower centre which is distributed to all the Canada manpower offices in the country. I am going to look into the matter and I will ascertain the date, but I do not have it here.
April 17, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
During his recent meeting with the dairy producers, did the minister state that his department was ready to reconsider the request for a price of $5.10 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk, as long as the total amount of $120 million available to the department is not exceeded?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question, as put by the hon. member, is acceptable.


David Réal Caouette: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs having to do with the decision taken at a meeting of the Organization of American States at Punta del Este to establish a common market among the countries of South America. Can the minister give the house any information as to the possible effect of this decision on Canadian trade with South American countries, and in particular what steps the government is taking by way of representation to ensure that this development will represent an enlargement of opportunities for Canadian trade in South America rather than the development of another trading bloc from which we might be excluded?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: At the recent conference of the heads of state of the Organization of American States, the Canadian ambassador in the Argentine acted as observer for the Canadian government. The proposal at this meeting to establish a common market is to reach a certain stage of acceptance by 1970 and to become fully effective by 1985, so this does open up an opportunity for a full exami-
nation of what the advantages would be for Canadian participation. The government, now that this matter has been formalized in this way, will of course be giving consideration to this and other proposals through the appropriate departments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question. In the light of this development and its implications for Canada, may we expect an early initiative to be taken by the government to ensure Canadian adherence to the Organization of American States, a step which was firmly advocated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was on this side of the house?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: The last observation, of course, is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the conclusion correct, that we may expect early initiative to be taken by the government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, as an experienced parliamentarian, knows that when the government decides policy it is announced in the usual way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question is, has the government got a policy?



VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SUPPLY OF WAR MATERIALS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I do not think that question can possibly be answered without legal research, and I do not feel able to give a legal opinion offhand to the house.']
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises as a result of the severe criticism now being levelled at the government because of its defence sharing program with the United States, through which Canada is supplying war materials to the United States to be used in Viet Nam.
Will the minister for external affairs very shortly consider issuing a clear and concise statement regarding this matter, so there is no conflict between our defence sharing program with the United States and the supply of war materials through the United States to Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, conciseness is, of course, a relative term. I call my hon. friend's attention to the statement that was made in this house by the Prime Minister on January 18, which I think would meet all the criteria of my hon. friend's concept of conciseness.
April 17, 1967



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the severe strain on the emergency departments of hospitals throughout Canada, which is increasing by 10 per cent every year, and in view of the acute shortage of general practitioners across Canada, would the minister indicate whether the federal government has taken any steps to attract doctors from outside Canada to help fill this gap?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to bring this to the minister's attention.


ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ENGLISH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a most important question to the government house leader. Will the house leader explain to the house the reasons for the increasing discrimination against employees who speak only English, culminating in the recent order that irrespective of seniority only those members of the security staff who are bilingual shall henceforth be stationed at the main entrance to the House of Commons and Senate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question relates to House of Commons personnel and should be directed to the Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, sir, I understand that a member could never address a direct question to the Speaker on matters of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Any question can be directed to the Speaker in writing.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusle Choquetle (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport, whom I admire very much.
Another railway tragedy, which took the lives of four people yesterday in Ville Laval, is to be deplored. Here is my question to the minister: In view of the fact that the era of turbo-trains and ultra-fast trains is about to begin, is a policy being developed concerning grade crossings in order to deal with this contingency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe that this contingency is so near that the question can be put now.


TRANSPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Now that the government's two year freeze on maritime transportation rates has been reduced to 19 or 20 months, would the minister advise the house when we might expect the special study into maritime transportation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Soon, sir.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. Might I ask the minister whether by "soon" he means in this present session of parliament?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Soon, sir, is a relative term. [Translation]


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Following a resolution passed unanimously, the Quebec legislature asked the C.N.R. last week to continue its passenger service between Quebec city and La Malbaie.
Does the Minister of Transport intend to make representations to the C.N.R. authorities to get them to withdraw their application to the Board of Transport Commissioners to abolish their passenger service between Quebec city and La Malbaie?


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


Martial Asselin: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
14974	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State, but as I notice she is temporarily out of her seat perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the pending legislation by the government concerning group libel, would the Prime Minister request the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to make an apology to the people of German descent in the area of Kitchener, Ontario. I ask this question in view of a radio program broadcast at 10.30 last Thursday evening on the national network of the C.B.C. which suggested that the persons referred to in the program were disloyal to Canada, were antisemitic and were nazis. These people have been in Canada for many generations and the inferences in this program were quite unwarranted. I hope this matter will be taken up by the C.B.C.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to forward my hon. friend's question to the authorities of the C.B.C.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the latest reports on unemployment indicate that in Quebec unemployment has increased by several thousands, is the minister in a position to say whether his department intends to take special measures to check this constant increase in unemployment in Quebec.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the department is taking general measures against seasonal unemployment applicable to the province of Quebec as well as to the other provinces. If the hon. member for Lapointe wants

DEBATES	April 17. 1967
truly specific measures for the province of Quebec, he could possibly move to the Quebec Legislative Assembly and there present his requests where they would be appropriate and in accordance with his principles and the problems which he is raising.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I would be agreeable to the suggestion of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, would the minister tell us whether he would agree, in addition to transferring me to Quebec, to transfer to Quebec the taxes paid by Quebec to Ottawa?


NOVA SCOTIA-REPORTED PROTESTS RESPECTING TRADES TRAINING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I pose my question to the minister of manpower and ask him whether he would reply today to the question I posed to him on Thursday, regarding a communication which was forwarded to him through the unemployed workers' association at Sydney, expressing dissatisfaction with the selection of applicants for training?
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, having come straight from my office I wonder whether the hon. member would mind if I answered his question tomorrow.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the report of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions has been received, would the minister consider referring this report to the standing committee on labour and employment so the committee can call the board of trustees before it when the report is being considered?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the minister will not only consider the suggestion, but will be very pleased to get in touch with the chairman of the board of maritime trustees and discuss the situation with him, and then will take the matter up with the chairman of the committee in question.
April 17. 19S7

fTranslation]


QUEBEC-ANNOUNCEMENT OF LEASE OF ELEVATOR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell the house whether the government has authorized the leasing of grain elevators in *Quebec and, if so, have steps been taken to guarantee the supply of domestic grain?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government has authorized the National Harbours Board to lease the grain elevator at Quebec. The conditions of the lease include the fullest protection it is legally possible to give for traffic in domestic grain and for those who are engaged in that traffic.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Minister of Transport also consider the possibility of using Quebec grain elevators or putting grain into them during the winter, when shipping is possible on the St. Lawrence river?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the supplementary question is urgent.


ST. PIERRE-MIQUELON-CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO OFFSHORE EXPLORATION RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: In view of the fact that offshore oil rights have been awarded by the federal government to British American Oil in an area south of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, while United States companies have acquired rights in the same area from Newfoundland and France has granted exploration rights in the same area to a company owned by the French government, what plans have been made by the minister to settle the conflicting claims to offshore exploration rights in this area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. member knows, there have been discussions between the
Inquiries of the Ministry French and Canadian governments concerning this matter. These discussions are continuing, and when we are in a position to make a report on their progress I shall be pleased to advise the house.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. At the present time it is my understanding that offshore drilling rigs are being established off the east coast. Will licences for the supply ships serving these offshore rigs be granted only to ships of Canadian registry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that question can possibly be answered without legal research, and I do not feel able to give a legal opinion offhand to the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will clarify the future role of Canada's armed forces prior to his departure overseas. Does the minister approve of the war-making and armed intervention mission proposed for Canada's armed forces by the Minister of National Defence and the vice chief of defence staff under the disguised title of peace restoring?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member and the minister might like to take this up when we move into committee shortly to consider the subject which is before the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The house will be deprived of most valuable advice during the next few days because the minister will be away. He failed to clear up this matter when he had the opportunity to speak. Surely, then, we should have the information now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the minister will be away that long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under the threat of closure we shall not have the opportunity to hear from the minister on this point, and perhaps if he would clear it up closure would not be applied to the House of Commons by the government.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I think it would be a good idea for the hon. member to come with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
April 17, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
CANADA MEDAL	LABOUR CONDITIONS



SUGGESTED POSTHUMOUS AWARD TO LATE GOVERNOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister which I hope will be found non-controversial. Will the Prime Minister, as head of the government, give consideration to the official issuance of the one and only Canada Medal, from its inauguration to its discontinuance, posthumously to the late governor general, General Vanier?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very interesting suggestion indeed, and I will be glad to take it under consideration.



REPORTED PRICE INCREASE FOLLOWING SALES TAX REMOVAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: had a question I wanted to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence Your Honour might allow the parliamentary secretary to take it as notice. Has the minister received, as I have, complaints about increases in drug prices which it is claimed could nullify the promised benefit of the removal of the sales tax?


Margaret Isabel Rideout: I have checked this matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Incidentally, he is convening a federal-provincial conference at the moment. The answer to the hon. member's question is no.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Can the minister tell us whether there has yet been any indication from the Supreme Court of Canada as to the date on which the findings in the case of Steven Truscott will be reported to the government?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am
not able to be of any help to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I have no advance information.



REQUEST FOR MATERNITY PROTECTION FOR FEMALE WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the findings of the women's bureau of the Department of Labour that women workers in Canada lack maternity protection-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway)t
-will the government take steps to provide the legislative measures necessary-oh, he is not to do it single handed-to secure this protection for women workers under federal jurisdiction?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: First I must thank the hon. lady for the assurance that she gave me in the course of that question. May I take the question as notice.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then may I ask a supplementary question. When does the government propose to ratify the maternity protection convention passed in 1919 by the I.L.O. at Geneva?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether that question is very urgent.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer- Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole to consider Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and others acts in consequence thereof. When the house rose on Friday evening, clause 2 was under consideration.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Kennedy:: When I spoke toward the end of Friday's debate on Bill C-243 I was making an appeal to the Minister of National
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
Defence to delay further consideration of this measure until additional studies had been carried out as to its possible effects upon our armed forces. I was referring to the amount of defence which a country such as Canada can afford. What we must strive to attain is the most effective defence possible having regard to the means we have at our disposal; we must seek to strike a balance, and this principle applies not only to Canada but to all countries.
The cost of defence arises almost entirely from the maintenance of personnel and the supply and maintenance of equipment. From the point of view of cost it matters little what type of organization is set up; what does matter is that the force should be organized on the most efficient basis. Major changes should not be undertaken unless there is a reasonable chance of success. When a major change is made such as is contemplated by this bill, it is unlikely that in future years we shall be able to return to what we have now.
Everything has a price, freedom included, and we must be prepared to meet that price if we value our freedom. If we can preserve our freedom by the expenditure of dollars let us get on with it because in the past our freedom was won at a much costlier price, paid with the blood of our young people. If we can avoid paying such a price in the future by having a force which can deter or effectively contain a threat to our freedom, let us get on with it, but I would point out that our forces as at present constituted in three services have a tremendous record under the traditional idea of units raised through voluntary contribution by many people. In times of emergency our men gave all that men could give, and I do not know how any reorganization of our forces can improve on a man who is already giving everything he has.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Traditionally our concept of Canada's armed forces has always been that these forces are of a voluntary nature. We ran into difficulties whenever we resorted to any other way of raising forces. In effect this means that in peacetime we must have regular and reserve forces, particularly reserve forces because we cannot afford a large enough regular force to handle all emergencies. Supporting our regular force we must have an organization which allows quick and efficient mobilization of partly trained personnel.
Recruitment to our forces depends upon some attraction, and the greatest attraction at
National Defence Act Amendment present is the three choices open to those who wish to serve their country. They can go into the navy, the army or the air force provided they can meet the basic requirements of the services. It is no secret that in all our present-day forces including the infantry, which has always been looked upon as the bottom of the barrel, every serving man is a specialist in his own right. Even the infantrymen are specialists today. Nobody should think that the infantry is outdated. In Viet Nam more infantrymen are being used than any other type of fighting personnel.
I wish to deal briefly with the question of morale. It is something which is hard to explain. Morale is something that is within a man himself. Not even the man who possesses it can explain what it is. It depends on many things such as environment and faith or confidence in various things, not least faith and confidence in the people surrounding one. One of the major attributes of morale is esprit de corps. I do not know how greatly unification is going to disturb esprit de corps but I suggest that our present method of organizing forces linked to traditionally famous units is very good for morale. It invites friendly competition and even in peacetime it is a great attraction for those who wish to serve their country by affiliating themselves with something to which they can look with pride.
One of the greatest difficulties I found in service operations lay in the field of communications. There was no difficulty in having various arms of the services. On the beaches of Normandy on D-day it could not have mattered less that a lad was in a naval suit, an army suit or an air force suit. As a matter of fact, on the beachhead many people wore the uniforms of many countries. It did not matter to the infantry coming in on a landing barge that a navy chap piled out first into the water with a rope and went ashore in order to make fast the barge so they could follow with their equipment and reach shore without drowning. There was no misunderstanding. Everyone knew his job and did it.
So far as morale on D-day is concerned, many men went ashore ill from seasickness after crossing rough water, but they had been so well briefed and the organization was of such a standard that the minute they reached land they went into action and were as good as the rest in practically no time. I know of a company during the second world war which started with 110 officers and men. It went through hell to reach an objective
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment and only 18 men survived to reach that objective. You cannot tell me those men did not have morale.
We must be very careful in peacetime not to do anything with our forces that will upset the spirit of challenge and opportunity and security. These are the three most important things which affect morale. We know that at present there are certain people who are "browned off" with the forces and want to get out of them. I have talked to a lot of these people and their principal grievances are about these three things. They do not know where they are going. They become tired of being pushed around without being given a straight course to follow.
I might say that there is also a bit of hypocrisy involved in this issue. During the time of mourning for our late and beloved Governor General I had an opportunity to see the chief of staff, General Allard, being interviewed on television about the famous Canadian regiment, the Royal 22nd, in which both he and the late Governor General had served. He mentioned the terrific esprit de corps which this regiment had created. General Allard said that from this regiment eight generals, I believe, had sprung, and he expressed the opinion that had it not been for the existence of such a regiment many of those people of French descent might never have reached such high rank. That admission shows that an established regiment does a lot for a soldier.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
There is another bit of hypocrisy with reference to the celebrations commemorating the great battles of the first world war. Endless reference has been made to the famous units which took part in those battles and the fact that the men covered themselves with glory in order that the names of their regiments would get into the history books.
In conclusion I express the fear that if complete unification is proceeded with it may bring into the armed forces some type of socialism. It might upset the relationship between officers and men which is so important. It might lead to a complete rotting away of the heart and soul of the armed forces. It might even end up in a type of dictatorship. Furthermore, I believe that unification will lead to compulsory service in peacetime and conscription in time of war. As an old infantryman I know that a large part of the training of an infantryman is concerned with learning how to use the ground. This means that he learns to use the ground to conceal

himself from the enemy, protect himself and get as close to his objective as possible. The objective of the infantryman is to close with the enemy. The only danger is that once he finds a hole in the ground, gets into it and is then shot at, it takes a lot of courage to get out of the hole again. I should like to say to the minister that he has been shot at not only by his own troops but by his enemies. He has perhaps got himself into a bit of a hole. I hope he will have the courage to get out and face reality.


Mr. Rochon:: Mr. Chairman, at the very outset of this debate on integration and unification of the Canadian armed forces, I proposed to take part in it.
Then, having heard the members of the opposition, and more particularly those of the Conservative party, and the lack of seriousness of the arguments put forth by their leader, I felt my intervention would be useless, convinced as I was that they had muffed their strategy and that the house could, the very next day, pass the bill.
Now, however, events having turned out as they have, in view of the partisanship and their obvious obstruction, I have thought better of it; I decided, at the very last minute, to revert to my first intention. Indeed, I felt it was my duty to intervene and protest against the ill will, the lack of understanding and the retrograde attitude which inspired most of those we have heard.
In his speech the official opposition leader (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave us a fine vaudeville act. It was lively, I admit, but not very constructive. He proved that his party had run out of arguments to fight this government project. We realized that he, as much as his members, opposes the bill perhaps not for the sake of opposing it but rather to lead the people into believing that they are, in our Canadian parliament, the true defenders of our traditions.
For almost two months now, Mr. Chairman, either in the permanent committee on national defence, or here in the house, we have heard the same arguments, if that name can be given to a negative and systematic opposition far more akin to sentimentality than to reality.
We have heard thousands of words based on what retired members of the forces have said. They are certainly not incompetent, for they served their country well, they performed their duties nobly, and we are grateful to them for it. But mind you, they are no
April 17, 1967

longer responsible for administration and command and, therefore, they are not as well informed as those who are on active service.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I followed closely the proceedings of the defence committee, I listened to and I studied the evidence given by the experts who paraded in the front of us and I came to the conclusion that the unification problem is, first and foremost, a technical problem.
Indeed, our military commitments, the policy of development of our armed forces and the matters of strategy, are closely related to the very structure of our military system. In that sense, it is normal for the hon. members to examine the policy of the government, and to wonder whether the new planned structures for our armed forces will meet Canada's requirements.
But I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we narrow deliberately the scope of the debate when we completely forget the technical area in order to show that the new format of our forces will reduce our military capabilities and therefore, jeopardize the defence of our territory and our continent.
To look upon unification as a simple matter of adopting a common uniform, eliminating the word royal and making a few other changes, generally of minor importance, compared to the tremendous administrative, economic and military advantages of the government project is to distort the problem further.
A lot has been said up to now about the opposition of some senior officers to the government project.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to emphasize the false impression that the opposition tries to create by implying that all the well-informed military people are opposed to the project when those who support it, are either misinformed or politically committed.
First, we must remember that, by tradition, military people are rather conservative. They do not like structural changes and generally prefer the status quo to innovations. That is, I think, something which can be noticed in all the armies of the world. I do not say that such a stand is wrong in itself. On the contrary, in a sound democracy such as ours, it is precisely traditionally based institutions like the Army, the Navy and the Air Force which ensure the permanency of certain principles which are dear to us.
But this does not mean that we should stand aloof from progress, be wrapped up and
National Defence Act Amendment live in the past, without being aware that the world is changing all the time and that in this atomic age, every year, even every month is bringing something new, as one would have to be blind not to understand that we also in Canada should make it our duty to progress, to change and improve what was good 25 or 30 years ago, in order to adapt it to the needs of modern times, for the greatest welfare of this country.
Mr. Chairman, may I at this stage quote a few lines from the evidence given by General Allard. I quote:
The complexity of modern strategy and the size of forces we can afford to maintain make it essential that our forces be made up of mutually-supporting. flexible and mobile forces. This type of force dictates that in the planning, management and command aspects the whole emphasis must be on unified thinking among all its elements. So much for the changing circumstances under which we are operating.
Much has been said up to now, Mr. Chairman, about the opposition shown by certain senior officers to Bill C-243. Allow me to recall once more some other words on the part of the chief commanding officer of Canada's armed forces-as part of his evidence before the committee on February 28 last. I believe they do reflect the feeling of the majority of the Canadian people:
On the one hand, there are called before you officers of the forces, like myself, who are responsible for the organization, efficiency and morale of the forces for your defence, and who can speak only within the bounds of these responsibilities under the policies set forth by the Government. On the other hand, other people are called before you, who have no responsibilities to anybody but themselves, and therefore can make statements on matters for which they bear no responsibility.
I would like to make it clear, therefore, that in making my presentation before you I do so as the man responsible for carrying out the policy of the government through the Minister of National Defence, for ensuring that the defence forces we have today are organized, equipped, and trained and possess the morale-
-something was said about the morale, Mr. Chairman-
-to accept any task they have or are likely to be given. Since the passing-
General Allard went on,
-of Bill C-90 and my appointment as Chief of Operational Readiness, then as Commander Mobile Command and latterly as Chief of the Defence Staff, I feel absolutely confident-
Here again, these words are from the chief commanding officer of Canada's armed forces,
-that this task can be carried out best by the reorganization of the forces as set out in Bill C-243.
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Following these words, Mr. Chairman, I understood that I could not very well accept the first objection raised, even if it originated from respectable military circles.
I have a great deal of respect for Admiral Landymore, General Fleury or General Moncel, but the fact remains that they are not at present in the armed forces. They served their country gloriously, and we should be very grateful to them, but it is quite another thing to accept their evidence as the integral truth, and we cannot conclude from this that all experienced military personnel are against the program proposed by the government. Even those who, like General Miller, do not accept this program, cannot help but say, as they did before the defence committee: "Perhaps the program will eventually turn out to be a good thing".
Another mistake, Mr. Chairman, on the part of those who are against the program, is that they turned a basically technical problem into a sentimental and political football. Instead of trying to show that Canada will be less prepared to take on military responsibilities within NATO or NORAD or to assist the United Nations, efforts have been made to question the integrity of the chief of staff, to involve royalty in this problem, to arouse the public on a matter of uniforms.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) was brilliantly supported on this point by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who made it quite clear that Canada will not only be in a position to carry out its military commitments but will be in a better position to play its proper role in the defence of the free world.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Instead of insisting on wasting the time of the house, to discredit the parliament of Canada, as was the case with the flag debate, it seems to me that the opposition should once and for all admit that the government may sometimes be right, that the experts of the national defence department are not all incompetent, that the armed forces personnel agree with the project and, finally, that the majority of Canadians have given the present government the responsibility of carrying out this project.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege last fall to visit the Canadian military bases in Europe. Allow me to say how proud I was of being a Canadian. Our servicemen received
[Mr. Rochon.l
the parliamentarians with warmth and dignity. They displayed good manners and reassured members of parliament on their excellent training. I think Canada is second to none as far as its forces' behaviour and their excellent morale are concerned.
If, as Conservative members claim, morale is very low among our forces, this was a perfect opportunity for the officers to say a word about it to the visiting legislators. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we never heard-and here I am certain that the hon. members for London and Queens-Lunenburg (Messrs. Irvine and Crouse) who were in the group will agree with me-unfavourable comments on unification.
But so many favourable comments, Mr. Chairman. Servicemen were happy to talk about the numerous administrative and even strategic advantages, in regard to co-ordination of command, for instance, thanks to the plan now before the committee of the whole.
I do not venture into technical discussions where even experts take divergent views. And that is not new. If generals find it difficult on the battlefield to agree on a plan of attack or defence, as we can see from memoirs of every army chief, all the more should we expect that, sitting comfortably in their offices, they have a tendency to apprehend certain innovations, while others endorse them enthusiastically.
Therefore, if the commanding officers can hardly reach an agreement, how do you expect me to share the views of laymen in this matter, such as the hon. members opposite, who have been attempting to raise a bogey for so many days?
Where did they get they military science, which they believe is so up to date? Where, Mr. Chairman, I ask them?
On the other hand, we keep referring to the evidence given before the committee on national defence. I was a member of that committee, and I followed its meetings with a great deal of interest.
What did I see there? I saw members who came not to find out objectively what the merits and faults of the bill were, but to oppose the minister, and to use every possible means to try to extract from the witnesses a condemnation of this measure.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the people

and what we have seen in the papers for several days is a striking indication of it-have already drawn the line between partisanship and seriousness a long time ago, in this debate.
April 17, 1967

I myself prefer to trust a man like the hon. Minister of National Defence who is not given to putting forward ill-prepared bills or a man like the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs who gave his approval to the bill, rather than the perpetual malcontents opposite, who cannot draw the line between their duty to legislate and their desire to be re-elected by any means.
When the time comes, Mr. Chairman, and I hope it will be very soon, I will wholeheartedly support the government's bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member like to correct his remarks in Hansard and remove the reflection that he cast upon members of the committee, whom he said went there not to gain information about the bill but merely to make life difficult for the minister? Were not members of that committee in the same position as the hon. member? Were they not there for the purpose of performing their duty to the House of Commons?
[Translation!


Jean-Léo Rochon: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that I did not mention the members who belong to the committee, but rather those who attended, as spectators, the meetings of the committee and who tried, on several occasions, to distract by their remarks, the witnesses and the members who wanted them to give some explanations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is casting reflections on members of the House of Commons. He is imputing motives to them in their attendance at that committee. Every member of the House of Commons is entitled to attend committee hearings and is in the same position as the members of that committee with regard to responsibility. But I suggest-this is the question of privilege- that the hon. member is imputing motives to members of this house and he should withdraw that statement.


Jean-Léo Rochon: Mr. Chairman, I do not impute motives to any member of this house, but we must understand that words have their meanings; that is "yes" means "yes" and "no" 23033-947
National Defence Act Amendment means "no". When there is criticism, we can understand what the critic meant to say or do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I raised a question of privilege on which I think you must make a ruling. It is all very well for the hon. member to get up and say yes means yes and no means no, but he made a statement imputing motives to the members of the House of Commons who were in attendance at that committee. It is not within the rules to impute motives and the hon. member must withdraw that statement. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I believe the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Rochon) knows the rules of the house. It is not the practice in the house to impute motives to other members as far as their attendance in the house or in a committee is concerned. I trust that the hon. member did not intend to impute motives to hon. members of the opposition who attended meetings of the committee on national defence, either as members of the committee or as spectators; therefore, I would ask him to withdraw his words.


Jean-Léo Rochon: Mr. Chairman, if my words have been misinterpreted, I shall give in to your request and withdraw them.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, like several other hon. members who spoke in this debate, I had also decided not to speak but to listen to the views of the members of the standing committee on national defence, for most of them were particularly knowledgeable in this field, either because they were former ministers of national defence or because they had served in the armed forces, or because they had closely followed the committee proceedings and heard the evidence and comments of various witnesses who appeared before the committee.
For my part, not having had any of these experiences, I did not think myself competent to participate in the debate. However, it was the very weak speech made last Tuesday, on April 11, by the minister himself, which led me to change my mind and gave me self-confidence.
As it can be found in Hansard of that day at page 14792, the minister stated the following on April 11:
Of course the chiefs of staff were predominantly opposed to the unification of the armed forces. Chiefs of staff all over the world are opposed to the unification of the armed forces.
April 17, 1967
14982	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
So in the light of their experience, their knowledge, their studies and their research, the chiefs of staff are opposed to this experimental measure concerning unification, which has already been rejected by all major countries of the world, after long and careful studies.
For this reason, our officers have been summarily fired or forced into early retirement, because the views of the little corporal must prevail.
So, in his view, experience no longer counts. Wisdom and prudence have little meaning any more and if that is a worthwhile principle, it should find some application elsewhere, in industry, in the teaching profession, in the cabinet, as well as in the House of Commons.
Therefore, I have no fear in putting forth my opinions since the minister encourages me to do so, and under the same principle he must admit that I speak with greater authority than he, inasmuch as he has more experience than I, and experience does not count.
I take part in this debate for the simple reason that little by little, as it becomes more protracted, public opinion is beginning to awaken and to take an interest in the matter.
I fully realize that by prolonging the debate, we take the risk of being charged with filibustering, but I am quickly consoled for I realize that those reproaches come almost exclusively from narrow-minded persons, from blind supporters of the government, from servile followers who contributed to Hansard prepared speeches, delivered unconvincingly and without much imagination.
They also come from those who take particular pleasure on every occasion in making fun of those procedures-


Mr. Bechard:: On a point of order. A little earlier the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Rochon) had to withdraw certain remarks because it was claimed that he was trying to impute motives to some hon. members. Well that is what the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is now doing in his speech.


Roger E. Régimbal: Whoever feels stung should scratch himself. But, if one listened attentively, I said: for I realize that those reproaches come almost exclusively from narrow-minded people. Therefore, if the hat fits, wear it.
They come also from those who revel on every occasion in making fun of the procedure of this institution.


Besides, I realize more and more that the public, the people in my riding as well as in others, and the editorial writers practically everywhere, are beginning to see the dangers inherent in that unification adventure, as stated earlier by the hon. member for Laval; that adventure into the unknown.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
An ever growing concern is being felt in all segments of the population because of the uncompromising attitude of the minister who is left alone to defend himself. Only two ministers have come to his rescue, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgi'll) who admitted himself the weakness of his arguments, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who soon fell back upon a diplomatic jargon, remaining silent about the direct implications of unification on our commitments to various military alliances.
At the beginning, the population in general would have supported the minister, because he had carefully started by speaking about integrating the general staff and unifying command for purposes of effectiveness, of co-ordination and economy.
It has only been realized in the last ten days that the intention is to develop a kind of international police force, made up of handymen, interchangeable from one occupation to another, but unable, according to expert evidence, to ensure our own national defence.
The people are concerned by the fact that not a single allied country came and testified for that project. They realize, from day to day, that once it is over, that change will oblige us to depend on our neighbours to the south for our own protection and even to allow them to occupy strategic points in our country.
They fear that if a foreign country thus occupies those strategic points, it will try first of all to protect and defend its own territory, and we will be expendable.
In addition, a good number of our citizens may have noticed that the unification of the armed forces, to such an extent as to completely remove the means of identification of the various services, or units, does not exist in any other field.
Then, why did we not unify social clubs whose common goal is to help? Why not just one social club? Why do we have the Richelieu, the Lions, the Kiwanis, the Kinsmen, the Rotary clubs? Again, why not a single group of university graduates, a single
April 17, 1967

association? Why have doctors associations, lawyers, engineers, sociologists and teachers associations?
In all these areas, at all times, it has been found that the identification with a particular cause or task has been an efficient, stimulating and progressive way of increasing one's skill and achieving full development, Why should it be different with the armed forces? The evidence given by the experts has been practically unanimous on this point.
Mr. Chairman, there is another matter on which nobody has insisted very much and which will certainly recur when the house examines clause 6 of this bill. I refer to this at the resolution stage of the debate and some hon. members opposite have called this a childish point. Still, it was stated that to fulfil the contemplated tasks properly, it will be necessary to have at least 100,000 people in the forces. It is a fact, moreover, that the number of resignations is increasing and that there are fewer enlistments. It is feared, and rightly so, that young people will more and more hesitate to enlist in a common force, rather than in a definite service, such as the air force, the army or the navy.
What will happen if the number of our men becomes less than the required minimum? There is only one answer, and indeed, the minister did not deny it, that is conscription. I can hardly imagine how some members opposite and members of other parties, especially members of the Ralliement Creditiste, will manage to explain their attitude to then-constituents?
Yet, the result is unavoidable and the first signs can already be seen. In fact, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Now-lan) pointed out to the house last Friday, April 14, the objections put forward by five of his constituents who are in the armed forces at the present time and who were refused permission to retire so as to return to civilian life, notwithstanding commitments to the contrary made to them when they enlisted. This is conscription.
We were also told that the men in the armed forces at present will have to accept transfers due to unification. Again, this is conscription. It is obvious that if future commitments force us to bring up the strength of our forces, there will have to be conscription, and this, as I say, the minister has not denied and cannot deny.
23033-947J
National Defence Act Amendment
Still, the present system is fully adequate in terms of our obligations. So, why the transformation? To gratify the ambition, the idea of one man who, once again, stands alone in his stubbornness.
This leads me to the last point, Mr. Chairman, which has been mentioned repeatedly: the whole armed forces system, the whole system of national defence must be closely related to the external affairs policy; it is obvious that the unification the minister proposes cannot meet the demands of our commitments with NATO or NORAD, for instance.
No co-ordination is possible with the armed forces of our closest allies, namely the United States, Great Britain, France, or the western countries, for the simple reason that they have not adopted the same defence system. We are bound to be completely alone and we shall inescapably become an international laughing stock. Last week, the minister candidly asked us to give up the discussions and to put the question immediately.
My hon. friend from Sainte-Anne (Mr. Loi-selle) repeated the same request saying: We are willing to take our responsibilities, and if we are mistaken, if this undertaking is disastrous, the people can always vote against us. What candour! What arrogance!
The security of the country is involved, not the security of the party or the Liberal government; we do not care about them, we do not give a hoot about them. Our national sovereignty is involved, so is our international prestige; also involved is the confidence of our allies, in short our maturity. We are not concerned about the minister's future but about our own future and that of the whole country.

We must admit, Mr. Chairman, that many
points have been repeated in the course of this debate in order to try to get our feelings, our doubts and our objections across to the minister. I also admit that this has been the most futile and frustrating experience of this whole session. The minister will not listen to reason. The minister insists on going ahead with his own little game of Russian roulette. If he wants to commit political suicide, I suppose that is his business, but trying to prevent this nation from committing suicide is our and everybody's business. This is why I do not agree that we should get back toother government business. What is the hurry? What more important business is there;
April 17. 1987

National Defence Act Amendment than the security and the defence of our nation for years to come? We have been on this subject for nine days. No one should mind spending 90 days when our future is at stake if we can avoid suicide or having to rebuild our defence system if this pipe dream proves to be the failure which we expect it to be. It is not time to stop the debate; it is time for the matter to be taken out of the minister's hands and for us to hear a greater authority on the subject than he is. It is more than time for us to hear from the Prime Minister himself.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, there can be no question of putting an end to the debate until the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself tells us in this house that he takes full responsibility for that measure, explains what he means by unification, what it will cost the nation, what our allies think of it.
The minister has very clearly lost the confidence of the opposition, the general staff, or a good number of them, newspaper writers and commentators, and a large number of citizens. It is time for the Prime Minister to step in; the Canadian people have the right to expect explanations, either his full approval and his reasons therefor, or his disapproval and his decision to postpone consideration of the matter, after thinking it over and consulting all the parties concerned, in Canada and abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the Prime Minister should take the floor.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member mentioned the absence of the Prime Minister during the whole course of this debate. Is the hon. member of the opinion, in view of the threatened resignation of the Minister of National Defence and the absence of the Prime Minister during this debate, that the Minister of National Defence is really the most powerful member of the Liberal cabinet?


Roger E. Régimbal: It would seem so, without a doubt. He feels very much alone, and we have constantly underlined the fact that he is sitting alone.


Mr. Hellyer:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question? Would he indicate to the house who wrote that speech, because it certainly did not sound like him?


Roger E. Régimbal: I have a witness in the house who can prove it was written by me. Even the most reasonable people in this house are unanimously of the opinion that unification is a bad move.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I was proud to be a witness this morning in the other place to the installation of the new Governor General, His Excellency the Honourable Roland Michener. I am sure that all hon. members will permit me at this moment to say on their behalf as well as mine that we were all proud to be there at this fine ceremony which brought home to us once more the importance of our system of government. We are proud also of His Excellency and of his gracious lady and the part they played this morning. Canada can take great satisfaction, Mr. Chairman, from her long line of illustrious Governors General. The late incumbent so dear in our memory, Hon. Georges P. Vanier, brought great prestige to this office. I know that the outstanding man Canada recognized and installed in the office this morning will in turn bring his great discernment and knowledge to that high position. The great magnanimity of this outstanding Canadian will bring honour to this position and to his service to Canada as Her Majesty's representative. As the program progressed I thought, as I am sure other hon. members did, of our political system of responsible government under a constitutional monarchy. Like many others in that great chamber I concluded that in this year of our centenary of confederation this system has stood the test of time. May it continue to serve our country far into the many centuries of our future.
Having permitted me to mention the events of the day, Mr. Chairman, we must now get on with this debate. I have listened carefully to the proceedings thus far. Last year I spoke in protest against unification of the armed forces and my remarks appear in Hansard at page 9793. I spoke on behalf on the Napanee and Picton militia units in the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox. The policies of this government have annihilated these militia units so they no longer exist. I protested the closing of the armouries in my constituency and in other constituencies. At that time we put forward logical arguments on behalf of the volunteer system, on behalf of the well tried and proven militia system which has been the defence of this country in the past.
The maintenance of these services, the persons who manned them, their methods and
April 17. 1967

their great principles, have been part of the policy of the Conservative party. We do not believe in abandoning methods and systems that bring to the fore the enterprise of the individual. We do not believe in abandoning productive and reliable existing services that are now and have been employed for the protection and defence of the individual and of our country. We will not sit here passively and submit to the passage of Bill No. C-243 because we believe it is our duty as Canadians to offer constructive criticism to this, the worst military legislation that has ever been presented to a Canadian parliament.
I have been awaiting with interest the rumoured lawsuit the Minister of National Defence said he was going to bring against the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona if he repeated certain utterances outside the house which he had made within the house. The minister has, through his minions in his department, fired all those who would dare offer any opinion against the unification scheme. Through the Prime Minister, the cabinet and party discipline he has been able to silence most of those on the Liberal benches. However, there are bound to be many supporters of the Liberal government who are against the unification policy. Of course, party discipline has a far greater influence on their minds than the happiness or welfare of the members of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have used this nomenclature, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force because they still exist. However, if clause 5 of this bill passes those names will pass forever into obscurity and oblivion, which they certainly do not deserve.
I have another point to make. The minister has contended that a man's attitude toward unification has no bearing upon his service with the Department of National Defence. When I was at Trenton the other day I found this statement was not borne out by the facts. An example is clearly evident in Trenton. Air Commodore Diamond, the commander of air transport command at Trenton, who was never an advocate of unification and who had been uneasy about it, was recently retired prematurely. He still had a couple of years to serve. Recently he was replaced by Air Commodore Hull, an advocate of unification who, as of last Friday, was promoted to air vice marshal in charge of the same command.
National Defence Act Amendment


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Air Commodore Diamond retired I believe about three months ahead of his normal retirement time at his own request in order to take a position with private industry. He was a fine, dedicated and gallant officer. There has been a request outstanding for many years to recognize the important part that air transport command plays in the over-all operations of the Canadian armed forces. It was never given the recognition it deserved and I accepted a recommendation of the staff that we promote Air Commodore Hull in a long overdue acknowledgement of the excellence of air transport command and the important part that it plays in the overall effectiveness of the Canadian armed forces. I have no hesitation in saying that there is no connection of any kind whatever between the beliefs of these two men, because I do not personally know their beliefs, and the recent promotion which took place. It was simply, a long overdue recognition of the relative importance of that command and the excellent air and ground crews who serve under it.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I thank the minister for his effort to explain the glaring coincidence that nevertheless continues to exist. I also thank him for correcting me on the length of time that Air Commodore Diamond would have been able to serve. I said that he retired prematurely and the minister has borne that out; there was still time remaining that he could have served. However, the people in the Trenton area as well as the servicemen at the air station there could not help but be aware of the inequitable policy of the Minister of National Defence and of the present government.
What is the reason for this, Mr. Chairman? I have been watching this situation for some time and I contend that the minister and his staff have betrayed the services. I am sure we can all see now what is taking place, something which has been mentioned before. What we are witnessing is sweeping socialism, or perhaps we might better call it creeping socialism. Socialism has now crept up on these three services with the assistance of the minister and the present government.
The government today is not a Liberal government which is carrying on the time-honoured traditions of Liberalism. This government is nothing but a socialist government, consisting of a minority of the members
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment of this house who are supported on the government benches by the splintered crutches of socialism. This sickly body of members is ready to vote yes at the first opportunity without debating the matter in order to pass this bill and to further additional socialistic policies and legislation which will stifle and stultify individuals in this country.
This is all too evident today, Mr. Chairman, as we watch the actions of this government. They took away one good and distinctive flag and gave us two or three others in its place. In many cases they have removed the coat of arms as a distinctive insignia. Wherever the government could disregard or remove any of Canada's traditions they have done so, especially our Anglo-Saxon traditions.
I wonder what explanation the government will have for a little incident that occurred in the other place this morning when only six bars of the royal anthem were played. The same thing occurred in front of the peace tower.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Could I ask the hon. member a question? I understand that six bars are played for the Governor General, nine bars for the Queen's husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, 12 bars for Princess Margaret and the entire anthem for the Queen. That is why six bars were played this morning.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: 
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: No, Mr. Chairman, I think I have been very generous in giving the minister time, but I will permit a question when I am finished.
Last year I remember accusing this government of following a policy of nihilism, of being interested in nothingness. In face of all of the honour which has been won by our soldiers, sailors and airmen we are proposing to take their trophies away from them. We are going to lump them together in a nondescript, common and unidentifiable cloth shorn of honours and indicative of nothing. Up to now one could identify a serviceman on the street and the honoured occupation of his choice by his uniform. This will not be the case if this bill passes. The minister, the Prime Minister and his cabinet-this cabinet of socialistic nihilists-will have done their work of consigning the three individual defence systems to oblivion.
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
I suppose that of the three services the navy will be the hardest hit. The uniform of our seamen is the oldest and least changed of the three throughout the years, and it lacks for nothing in the pride with which it is worn. What could possibly replace our naval uniform, Mr. Chairman?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I have a further point to make in opposition to this bill. Certain sections of opinion in this country are against the coercive measures which the minister is proposing. At some time in the future these could lead to the impressing of our youth into the monolith which the minister is trying to build. I have in mind the conscription measures which could result from this legislation.
A great many men joined one or another of the three services because of difficulty in finding civilian employment, or they had dropped out of school. At present they exercise a degree of freedom to the extent that they can enter the service of their choice. Recruiting from this source is one of the mainstreams which has fed our volunteer system, and it has been found good. Unification might well damage this system. A man might wish to join the air force. Under this unification plan he might find himself serving in the navy or in the air force. This is tantamount to conscription.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member but that is not going to happen.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I wish to make a further point. What is it that attracts visitors to the spectacles at Old Fort Henry, Fort York and other historic places where the old drills and formations are reenacted by platoons of men in the direct tradition of those who took part in those engagements long ago? What about the colourful changing of the guard ceremony which is held right here on parliament hill-a tremendous attraction to tourists who come to our country as well as being of tremendous benefit to culture? During the summer months this ceremony is performed by the Canadian Guards, one battalion of whom is stationed at Picton in my own constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox. One is bound to agree without hesitation that on these occasions the colourful and distinctive uniforms are the chief attraction. By what strange process do we reason that the three services cannot work together as an integrated force unless they are dressed in the same uniforms?
National Defence Act Amendment
Amphibious landings on a gigantic scale were successfully carried out in the second world war. I think particularly of the landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944. One of my brothers who took part in that operation said: "Thank God for the blue-clad navy which made it all possible and for the air force which secured the air over our hard-pressed troops as they found the land beneath their feet."
One is reminded that centuries ago it was the custom to deprive a regiment of its unit badge or some other insignia as a punishment for having retreated contrary to orders or for committing some other piece of gross misconduct. Today we are doing the same to the Canadian armed forces and debasing them for no better reason than political expediency. One of these expedients is the removal of Anglo-Saxon traditions from our services.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nonsense.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: That is glaringly obvious. It is so obvious that it cannot be anything else but deliberate. If there are any other reasons they are as yet obscure and denied to the knowledge of the Canadian people. Regiments of marching men, men who man ships at sea and submarines beneath the sea, men who fly our aircraft and who service them on the ground have their separate distinctions even within the pattern of their individual services and to insist on driving them into one common mould is to deprive the nation of the efficiency which has arisen because of their pride of service in their separate organizations.
What does our youth think about this question? I quote an excerpt from a first-prizewinning address made by Mr. Glen Davidson of Flinton, Ontario, a student of North Addington high school, at an oratorical contest held at the town of Napanee last week. His subject was unification and I quote one powerful paragraph from the address which this intelligent young man made:
We now have a volunteer army of men who choose to join either the army, the air force or the navy. If these men are now to be railroaded into the new system, their contracts torn up and themselves forced into a unified force, then their preferences are trampled upon and this can demoralize them as defence men. Moreover, it kills all competition among the three forces and hence will hurt morale.
Mr. Chairman, that is the youth of Canada speaking, and speaking very eloquently and sensibly.


Mr. Nowlan:: He won the contest.
14988	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I warn the Prime Minister and the government that they should pay attention to the youth of Canada and govern themselves accordingly.
I also wish to quote from the Globe and Mail of April 13. This passage may have been quoted earlier. In any case I believe it is timely to mention it. These words appeared in the column headed "Just what was said" and the newspaper quotes Admiral the Earl Mountbatten with reference to the reorganization of the armed forces in Britain. He said:
In the British reorganization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale. It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary. Unified command at the appropriate level is exercised by an officer from any one service, wearing his own uniform and using his own service rank (assisted by an integrated staff) who commands all units of the three services placed under his command.
I am sure Earl Mountbatten's naval record will commend this quotation to the administration.
There is one other point I wish to make. The Minister of National Defence has not made out a good case for unification. He has tried to be a Hitler or a Mussolini or a Napoleon by firing all those who disagree with him and lionizing those who agree. Those who occupy positions of power can always find plenty of Allards during a contentious issue such as this but the invaluable Landymores do not come forward in very great numbers.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I quote here from an editorial which appeared in the Napanee Beaver of April 12, a newspaper in my own constituency:
Neither Defence Minister Heilyer nor any serving officer has been able to make a good strong case for creating a single service with a common uniform and rank structure.
Mr. Heilyer has never been anxious to specify exactly what kind of role he sees for the unified Canadian force. If the defence committee succeeds in clarifying that, even if it fails to stop unification, it will have served a useful purpose.
The Canadian people, all of whom are interested in the preservation of the defence of this country, do not require the Minister of National Defence to be taking any cues from or listening to the admonishments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or even of the Prime Minister. I say this to him because the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are pacifists who
[Mr. Nowlan.l
DEBATES	April 17, 1967
will do anything for peace, such as the selling out of the interests of Britain and France by the Prime Minister in 1956 of the Suez Canal question whereby he put Colonel Nasser of Egypt in the driver's seat which Nasser has occupied ever since.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: This won the Nobel peace prize for the Prime Minister in 1957, and it is also sponsored by a socialist and pacifist organization. I say now to the Prime Minister, in the light of the latest happenings in Aden, Arabia, that he should admonish his protege, Colonel Nasser, to stop fighting the efforts of Britain, so beleaguered at this time in trying to keep the peace in that country to which, I understand, Colonel Nasser has sent upwards of 50,000 troops. I would think the Prime Minister's influence might go a long way with these ruffians.
To return to the Minister of National Defence, I simply ask him to pause for a minute. He should forget about this grandiose plan and forget about playing with those things that are dear to the hearts of the men who serve this country. He should think about his own personal duty in the position of power that he occupies. He should think about his duty with respect to the defence of Canada. The minister of defence of this or of any other democratic country is not supposed to be a pacifist. It is the duty of the Minister of National Defence to see that the most effective war making instruments and devices are available at all times to the people of this country through their armed forces, no matter what the international situation is, no matter what the Prime Minister tells him, and regardless of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs informs him is the state of NATO, NORAD, the United Nations or any other international defence organization.
I remind the Minister of National Defence that he does not perform duties such as his with normal and expected efficiency by tearing down the morale of the men who have to fight for Canada. In any and all eventualities the minister might better resign than force this bill through by closure at this time. The people of Canada are watching again, as they did before, and the Liberal parliamentary pedigree is running true to form: pipe line debate-closure; flag debate-closure; and now unification of the armed forces into the same pants and jacket-closure. I admonish the minister to think twice before he proceeds with legislation that is going to be so injurious to the men who defend our country, so
April 17. 1967

injurious to their morale, and does nothing for the defence of Canada at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the question I was going to ask the hon. gentleman is this: Does he really believe that the other ranks, particularly in the air force and the army, are proud of their summer uniforms?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that all ranks are proud of their uniforms.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the hon. member not aware, that the cloth is so bad that after they wear the uniforms on the parade ground three or four times they look like they have not been pressed for days or weeks, and is he not aware that they can hardly wait to get a decent cut and decent cloth so they can be smart on parade and wherever they go?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I would refute that statement with the suggestion to the minister that if the cloth is inferior, if it will not stand up to normal use in all normal weather, then that is a matter for him to investigate. If it is inferior that is his fault.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is what we are doing.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The remedy is to change-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are doing something about it.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: -the cloth, not change the uniform.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this bill in committee of the whole. I spoke on it before it was referred to the defence committee which held lengthy hearings that were most instructive. I have not changed my mind one iota in the interim. In fact the committee hearings and the evidence which came from them have pointed out more and more that this bill should not be proceeded with.
I heard the hon. member for Laval speak today and on April 7 I heard my hon. friend from Chicoutimi speak on this bill. In that connection I refer to page 14675 of Hansard for April 7 where the hon. member for Chicoutimi is recorded as saying:
Opposition to this bill on emotional grounds is understandable but I cannot condone it. Opposition on logical grounds indicates a lack of information, but opposition to this program when hon. members have had as much information and evidence as has been presented to them by the standing committee on defence is nothing short of obstruction and is a reactionary attitude.
National Defence Act Amendment
He went on to say:
The same members who opposed the flag are now opposing the unification of the forces, and for the same reasons. They are rooted in the traditions of a foreign country-
To this I reply that I attempt to be and am broadminded on matters which go on inside this house and outside it. I enjoy getting together with members like the hon. member for Chicoutimi and singing many French songs, "Le Regiment" and so on, and in turn I expect French Canadian members, from the province of Quebec and other parts of the country to have some idea of my feelings in matters of tradition.
If I am accused of being emotional at times, I do not care. I am of Scottish descent. If I feel a bit of emotion when I hear the skirl of the pipes and the swish of the kilt, or when I sit back on Sunday at home and listen to Sir Harry Lauder, then I say I am proud of my heritage just as I know the hon. member for Chicoutimi is proud of his, as he has every right to be. I say to hon. members, no matter what your heritage and nationality have been, you have the right to be Canadians. That is not the leading factor. The leading factor was the evidence so very aptly brought out in the defence committee, which very amply points to the fact that this bill should not be proceeded with. I shall go into details with respect to that as I go along.
I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Colchester-Hants. He is a man who is close to the people, a man with extensive military experience and a lot of good common sense. One thing which he emphasized so well this afternoon was that if we proceed with this bill at this time we cannot turn around in the future and make changes. I believe it was the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres who said, when he was asked by opposition members to show a little self-control, that if the government was making a mistake in respect of the bill the voters will pass judgment and turn out the government at the next election. This matter was referred to by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes. This legislation is not ordinary legislation; it is legislation which has to do with the defence of Canada.
I believe there is ample reason for not proceeding with this bill. The first is the defence of Canada. We know that at the present time there are three armed services and I believe they are most necessary. Then there is the matter of our international commitments. I liked the way in which the hon. member for
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Qu'Appelle put the situation when he spoke in the house. He set out the various matters in respect of national defence which must be looked at. He put forward what I would call a legal brief. I may be jumping around in making my presentation, but this is the way I like to set out things. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle outlined the situation very well. He went into the matter of the defence of Canada, our international commitments in respect of NATO and NORAD and our role with the peace keeping forces throughout the vorld.
Other members on this side of the house have gone into the evidence which was given before t-he committee. I do not intend to spend any time on this. In my opinion the evidence given before the committee by such distinguished witnesses as General Moncel pointed out that with a unified force our role can be only that of peace keeping. We know that the principles of NORAD and NATO piobably will be renewed in 1968 or 1969.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As I have said, we cannot turn back. I relieve we should hesitate now, pause to see what our rol; will be internationally and then i :ut out our defence suit to fit that role. The policy of the New Democratic Party, of course, is one of peace keeping. I see the hon. member for Kootenay West sitting there. General Moncel said in effect that if unification were ;arried out peace keeping would be the only cole for our defence forces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Correct.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I stated that I would not go iully into the evidence given before the committee and I do not intend to do so. However, (here is one matter mentioned by Admiral Rayner to which I should like to refer. This is something which is most important especially to areas such as mine on the Atlantic coast. On page 2006 of minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 31 of the committee on national defence for March 13, 1967, Admiral Rayner said:
The Minister assumed office in April 1963. Here is what has happened to the navy since that time:
(a)	It has been run down by nearly 4,000 men.
(b)	The numbers of ships in commission were reduced from 64 in July 1963 to 34 in July 1966. Now, in 1967, we are informed there are only 28 ships left, of which a mere 16 are immediately available.

He goes on to mention the matter of experienced officers being prematurely retired and then states:
After nearly three years nothing new and substantial seems to have been added to the naval equipment program except for gas turbine propulsion in the helicopter-destroyers. All the principal items were either under way, or in the planning stage, before the present minister took office. At least three years have been lost in the ship replacement program and every day that passes without ordering the helicopter-destroyer widens the gap.
Last week I asked the minister about this. He said that he understood tenders would be called for these in March. The minister did not say definitely this would be done but that he expected it would be. Now he says it will be later in the year. In the Chronicle-Herald of March 16, 1967 there is an article headed "Nagging Doubts".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In what paper?


Howard Russell MacEwan: The Chronicle-Herald.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is the only one.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The minister says it is the only one. I will refer to another in a moment. The article reads as follows:
Doubts about whether the Royal Canadian Navy's anti-submarine role is to be maintained, or expanded, under the defence department's unification program continue, notwithstanding Defence Minister Hellyer's protestations.
The latest to express such doubts is Captain P. B. Ryan, U.S.N., former American naval attache in Ottawa, who has written an article which asks whether the minister and his aides are "relying on the U.S. Navy to assume the burden of antisubmarine warfare operations for both countries?" Presumably, Captain Ryan is worried about the possibility that a future emphasis on peacekeeping operations might reduce the Canadian navy to a troop transport role.
The article points out that the minister denied this. Then it continues:
Why, he asked-
The minister.
-would the government continue a military procurement program, including destroyers and submarines, if that were its sole intention?
The reason for such doubts as Captain Ryan expresses undoubtedly is that the navy's antisub ship replacement program appears to be of a magnitude which can only increase the average age of fleet ships, and thus their eventual reduction in numbers. In short, not enough new ships are projected to keep the fleet at its present, and reduced, strength.
In line with that I quote from a second paper in the Atlantic area, the New Glasgow Evening News. This paper has reprinted a letter which appeared in the Toronto Globe
April 17, 1967

and Mail. It is from a very distinguished Pictonian, a man who served his country well in the last war, Rear Admiral Leonard W. Murray. Rear Admiral Murray comes from an area in my constituency known as Granton and now lives in the United Kingdom. In respect of the officers he points out the following:
-it will be difficult for their NATO counterparts to be able to realize that their old friend Lieutenant-Commander Huggins who is the C.O. of H.M.C.S. Chaudiere is now some sort of a peculiar major in command of the C.A.F. Chaudiere or that the captain of the C.A.F. Bonaventure is a brigadier. It is all so darned silly and to no good purpose.
He points out that the navy takes a pride in being able to show how smart a Canadian can be. He says:
They are sailors and wish to be recognized as sailors and they do not relish the task of putting Canada across in a nondescript green uniform of the Canadian Rangers.
He calls the force the Canadian Rangers. I do not know whether that is the name. When speaking on second reading I pointed out what the native people in Halifax had to say about the jolly green jumper. I do not know whether I can find the quotation again but it is worth rereading. One sailor said a couple of years ago he would not have thought of wearing his dress uniform on the street because it was very worn. He said, however, that he would not buy a new one because he knew the jolly green jumper was coming. With the jolly green jumper coming he did not think it seemed to matter.
A saltier colleague put his feelings in more colourful language. He said:
I'll be flipped if I'm going to wear the Jolly Green Flipping Jumper regardless of what Paul Flipping Hellyer flipping well says.
I do not know whether the uniform is going to be the green uniform of the rangers or the jolly green jumper, but I do believe that nothing can be gained by having this new uniform. The minister did not answer the hon. member who asked whether this will be the uniform used at Expo. We will have to wait and see. I would not be surprised. Perhaps there will be a guard of honour outside one of the pavilions and we will have to go and watch it perform.
Rear Admiral Murray, a man who served his country well, said-I think this is most important and it goes along with what the hon. member for Colchester-Hants had to say

that he does not believe any economy 23033-9481

National Defence Act Amendment would be achieved by unification. He went on to state:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Anyone can save money on the fighting services by the simple expedient of not spending it. This has been done frequently with the Canadian forces in the past, but it has always shown up very quickly in the value of the end product...
In the case of the fighting services, since the lives of your sons may some day depend upon its efficiency, no efficiency can be considered satisfactory which is less than 100 per cent. Any money saved at the expense of the end product is not a saving at all. It merely means that the remainder which has been spent is spent to no avail in building up a fool's paradise. It cannot but fail the nation in the hour of need.
The minister has set out various points and it has been argued that most of the objections to unification and this bill have come from admirals, generals and so on. Let me point out that two O.R.'s from the air force came to see me a few days ago to place before me their feelings in respect of unification. Some of their senior officers, one of whom was due for re-engagement soon, interviewed them and said: "Do not worry, have faith". Those were the exact words. The senior officers did not spell out what unification would mean to the future of these young men. I was glad to talk with these O.R.'s from the air force as I had talked before with a number of junior members of the navy but none from the air force. These young men do not know what unification will mean to them. They feel the navy has been let down and they have reached the end of their careers.
Many young men in our forces will soon have to decide on re-engagement. If many of them have this attitude they are not likely to re-engage. I suggest this will leave the air force and army in a similar position to that in which the navy finds itself, unable because of a lack of personnel to man its ships. Soon we will not have men to fly our aircraft.
Not only are top ranking and retired officers of our forces complaining about unification but many O.R.'s are concerned about what will happen. They feel that something is in the air; yet all they are told by their senior officers is to keep faith. I should like to ask to what they are supposed to be faithful.
The hon. member for Halifax and the hon.. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings spoke very forcibly on the situation in respect of the naval recruiting and training base at Cornwallis. One hon. member pointed out the necessity of having such a base located close to the coast. Surely trainees should be trained
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment to sail ships. The evidence of Admiral Rayner to the committee made this very clear.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Halifax, I believe these bases are extremely important to the economy of the Atlantic area. They are also tied in with our anti-submarine role in NORAD and NATO. If we keep retiring ships without building new ones with adequate crews, we cannot perform that role. So far as our naval force is concerned it well end up with a transport function. That is not good enough.
If we take the step of unification I believe, like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, that we will regret it very much. That hon. member made a suggestion to the minister last week to the effect that we stand the contentious clauses and deal with the remainder of the bill. In this way we could have the opportunity to discuss other parts of the bill. Apparently the minister has decided to reject that suggestion and proceed on the same basis.
Many members on this side have argued that we should move forward very slowly with unification. The defence of Canada is the most important feature of our national defence organization. We realize that because of the size of this country and its population we cannot carry on alone. Let us go ahead with integration. I have always agreed that the administration and service corps of our services should be integrated. In view of the fact that the renewal of two international agreements relating to NORAD and NATO will be coming up soon we should not take the step of unification.
Many people feel that in order to be progressive we must have change. I believe it was the hon. member for Laval who said that this step involved only a technicality and meant nothing else. Apparently he is in favour of change for the sake of change. Edmund Burke once said:
People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.
The immortal Burns, for whom I have a soft spot in my heart, said to the masses.
The best laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft a-gley;
An' lea'e us nought but grief and pain.
For promis'd joy.
Let us go back even farther to the Greeks. I think the following can be related to the minister and this bill:
Men having often abandoned what was visible for the sake of what was uncertain have not got what they expected and have lost what they had- being unfortunately an enigmatical sort of calamity.


Mr. Siewart:: Who was the author of that statement?


Howard Russell MacEwan: That is from Aethenaeus, 200 A.D., Austingave Demetrius Phalerius.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He was a Conservative too, was he not?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I think it is so appropriate the minister should take that statement from the Greeks and have it framed. Perhaps if he hung it in his office or put it under his pillow and slept on it he might withdraw this bill.
Our anti-submarine role is not only important to the defence of this country on the east coast but it is important for another reason which came to light during a trial which took place in Ottawa. A young chap was accused of taking certain maps from the former department of mines and technical surveys. An article appeared in this regard in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on April 8 of this year. A witness was being asked about the operation of Russian trawlers off our coast. He apparently refused to answer questions on the grounds of security. After a short recess he went back into the stand and was asked:
Is It suspected they are doing a hydrographic survey?
Commander Norton then replied:
Among other things, yes, sir.
That is another indication of the importance of our anti-submarine role. Surely we must have an adequate navy in view of situations such as the presence of this large trawler fleet off our coast.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There are other matters which I could go into but I shall not at the moment. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that have been put forward except to say to the Prime Minister of this country: Tread softly for our good internationally and especially nationally. For the good of the defence of Canada, withdraw this bill.


Mr. Chatterfon:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words with respect to the unification bill. My objective will be to debunk some of the propaganda being spread from the other side of the chamber. The minister has been quoted so often as an authority that I thought I might bypass him and confine my remarks to the people on the other side who are supposedly most knowledgeable in this area, namely, the two chairmen of the defence committee, the hon. member for Victoria
April 17, 1967

(B.C.) and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
One of the first pieces of propaganda being spread from the other side is that the debate now going on is adversely affecting the morale of the armed forces. I quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) as reported at page 14775 of Hansard:
I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that this house is in the process of creating, if it has not already partly created, a problem of morale in the armed forces which requires active consideration by all of us as members of parliament.
Again I quote from the speech of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) as reported on the same page:
For example, were the armed forces of Canada to become demoralized by protracted debate and ridicule lightly heaped upon this new idea by this house, we would all suffer.
Then we get the echo from the hon. member who was later chairman of the defence committee. It is to be found at page 14715 of Hansard there the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is reported as having said:
It is necessary that we finish the work of reorganization now, get off the back of the chief of staff and let him get on with his work. It is essential that these men should know what to call themselves if they are to have pride and a sense of esprit de corps as members of the new force. It is essential that this be done now and that we cut out this ridiculous debate.
To my mind this argument is one of desperation. The theme of hon. members opposite is that by our continuing this debate we are in effect causing morale in the armed forces to drop. This is an argument of extreme desperation because there has been ample evidence that a number of separations from the armed forces occurred long before this debate started. From listening to the opinions of members of the armed forces, certainly those in the greater Victoria area which includes the base at Esquimalt, the fact of the matter is that morale is so low that the arguments we are presenting are offering a ray of hope at least to members of the navy.
So much for the first piece of bunk, namely, that this debate is affecting the morale of the armed forces. I come to the second piece of bunk, namely, that unification and integration are the same thing. For many months propaganda has issued from the Ottawa office of Mr. Leaky Lee to the people of Canada that integration and unification are the same thing. Reams of propaganda material have been issued showing the savings affected by integration. The obvious implication was that similar savings would be accomplished by
National Defence Act Amendment unification. The minister has recently devised the term "the integration-unification cycle". The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), at page 14774 of Hansard, tries to continue the spreading of this false propaganda when he says:
My personal definition or view, which incidentally is the same today as when I started considering the matter many monthe ago, is that when we speak of unification we are talking about taking integration as far as it is practical to go.
We on this side of the chamber have not said that integration has been wrong although we may have differed with some of its aspects. But there is an obvious attempt not only by the minister and the two chairmen of the defence committee but by other hon. members on that side to try to confuse the Canadian people as to the difference between integration and unification. If I need any support for my argument I can quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 4, 1967, as follows:
It is beyond comprehension that Mr. Hellyer, by insisting on total unification, should ask parliament now to endorse a completely new defence structure, entirely foreign to both British and U.S. defence organizations. Unification, and elimination of service identities, despite Mr. Hellyer's statements to the contrary, have been openly rejected by Britain after much study-as declared in the white paper of 1963. A check with Washington would also reveal that the U.S. has no intention of unifying its combat units. To the contrary, the present purpose is to build up the proud reputations and esprit de corps of individual fighting units, whether it be the "Green Berets", the Marines, or the First Cavalry Regiment. For Canada to launch into a radical experiment which will make our defence organization incompatible with the U.S. and British organization constitutes the most drastic step ever taken with the defences of this country. It could, in large measure, destroy our existing defence structure.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The first argument to which I would like to refer is that put forward by hon. members on the opposite side of the chamber that those people who oppose the unification bill are, so to speak, old fogeys, sticks-in-the-mud, people who do nothing but look backward and do not look to the future. The Minister of National Defence has given the impression that the uniforce he is going to create will be a modern force which will accommodate the requirements of a modern society. I quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), a man who has had distinguished service in the Royal Canadian Navy. In the speech he made in the house on May 10 he gave examples of how in the past the-navy had resisted changes. The first of these1 changes was when it was suggested that naval
14994	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment men should be allowed to mix cola with a tot of rum. I can do no better than quote from an editorial in the Victoria Colonist of April 14. It is headed "A Rum Business", and reads as follows:
When Canadian sailors were allowed to mix cola with their rum tots, former R.C.N. captain Mr. David Groos, M.P., said in the Commons, "you should have heard the uproar" from some of his "overly conservative" one-time naval colleagues. Whereas, he added, Admiral Nelson would have liked the mix because he was a very progressive admiral.
One hopes Mr. Hellyer was listening, for a year or two ago he was reported as telling local naval officers when pressing his unification theme that they weren't living in Nelsonian days. And he didn't mean this as a compliment to the world-renowned admiral of history.
But speaking by the way how does Mr. Groos know that Nelson would have liked to have his drink diluted with something else? He may have preferred it straight and true, the stronger the better.
What Lord Nelson wouldn't have liked, one feels sure, would have been to see his navy downgraded and its proud title absolished. Mr. Groos should have been more careful in his allusions to famous men. For he is decidedly in favour of Mr. Hellyer's plans.
So much does he support the unification bill that, he told the Commons, he would return to the navy willingly tomorrow.
What "navy", one may ask? When the bill goes through there will be no formation of such designation; there will only be one composite armed force, under a name yet to be chosen.
Next there is a reference to me which, being very modest, I will omit. However, I will read the last two paragraphs of this editorial:
If one is to judge by Mr. Hellyer's advocacy on the subject, there is to be no limit to the extent of military unification. The defence minister in fact claims that as far as military organization is concerned Canada "will be leading the world".
It would be interesting to hear what defence staffs of the major military nations think of that chauvinistic boast. And Mr. Groos also.
The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) tried to convey to the house the idea that the armed forces, and in particular the navy, have always been too conservative, have never wanted to face the facts and have always looked at the rear view mirror. I received a letter from another naval officer in Victoria who said that the only reason the navy personnel objected to the Canadian volunteer service medal being worn was that it was made of compressed cardboard and it split at the seams at sea. Furthermore, the same medal was awarded also to conscripts. The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), in trying to show how outmoded and backward the navy
[Mr. Chatterton.l
DEBATES	April 17, 1967
was, also gave the example of the painting of the maple leaf on the funnels of Canadian warships. This officer told me that the maple leaves were ordered removed from the funnels by order of the admiral in charge of the various ships because it could be used as a mark to aim at.
The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), also used as an example of how backward-looking the navy was the fact that during the last war navy personnel objected to wearing the Canada flashes on their shoulders. The officer from Victoria to whom I have already referred wrote to me as follows:
We didn't need Canada flashes. We could tell a Canadian by the cut of his jib. The word "Canada" was on our buttons, so why the shoulder badges?
It seems to me that the examples given by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) were the poorest examples that could be used by an ex-officer of the Royal Canadian Navy, one who gave distinguished service while in the navy, to illustrate that the navy was always behind the times. Even if his arguments that the navy refused to wear shoulder badges and certain medals, that it refused to have the maple leaf painted on the funnels of warships and so on, were correct, how can they be used as reasons for the major step being proposed by the minister and the government for the reorganization of our armed forces?
The idea that any opposition to change is being advanced by people looking to the past was promoted also by Major General F. F. Worthington in an article in The Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, April 14, 1967. The headline of the article was: "Annihilation Could Be Result Of Keeping Old Generals". That is an eye-catching headline. The article reads in part as follows:
Unification of certain trade structures and professions cannot help but be beneficial in achieving efficiency and economy in such branches as medical, pay, communications, transport, police, mechanical engineering and so on.
So even General Worthington, the great advocate of annihilating all the qualified and expert people in the armed forces, admits that only the unification of certain services would be of advantage.
The most ridiculous argument I have heard from the other side came from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. By this time no doubt the hon. member and many others and possibly many members of the cabinet have heard from people all across Canada. They are becoming worried. I know full well that last October and November there was very little
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
interest across the country in unification. As a result of the very clever propaganda put out by the minister's office, people accepted the statement that unification and integration were the same thing. The minister quoted reams of figures to show how integration had saved the taxpayers' money. Of course, the obvious implication was that more money would be saved by unification.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
When the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and others started to hear from people across the country that perhaps unification and integration were not the same thing and that they were perturbed about the possible destruction of the identity of the three fighting forces, the chairman of the defence committee came up with a most ingenious idea. He told the people that the only thing involved in Bill No. C-243 was a change in the name of the armed forces. I should like to quote from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra as recorded on page 14714 of Hansard:
Only one thing of any real importance remained to be done and that was to give the new single force which we had created in 1964 a name.
On page 14715 we find these words:
I repeat that this bill asks us to do only one thing of consequence. It asks us to give our forces a name: "The Canadian Armed Forces."
How desperate can those on the other side get when they will say that the only effect of this bill-this statement was made by the chairman of the defence committee, one who supposedly has the confidence of the government and the endorsation of the Minister of National Defence-is to give the forces a new name. I should like to hear from the Minister of National Defence before long as to his reaction to the interpretation of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra of this bill. All it seeks to do, according to the hon. member, is to give a new name to the forces that already exist.
If that is all this bill does the question arises, why the hurry? Why is there this pressure? The minister has said that after the passage of the bill it will not be proclaimed for four or five months. Why the rush if the only effect of this bill is to change the name? Why the insistence by the minister that the morale of the armed forces must be preserved and we must proceed immediately to approve this bill during this session? He says that the department cannot get on with the reorganization until the unification bill has been
National Defence Act Amendment passed. In my opinion this is an argument of the utmost desperation.
Let me point out the difference between the old sections 15 to 18 of the National Defence Act and the provisions of this bill. The old sections of the National Defence Act read in part 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.
There shall be a component of each service of the Canadian forces consisting of officers and men who are enrolled for continuing full-time military service: and those components are referred to in this act as the regular forces.
The fact of the matter is that the main effect of Bill No. C-243 would be to destroy the identity of the three fighting services of our armed forces. Yet the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra dares to say that the only significant change that would be occasioned by the passage of this bill would be to change the name of the armed forces as already created by Bill No. C-90. No wonder the Liberals are not putting up any more speakers; they have obviously run out of even the most desperate arguments.
I believe this would be a good time to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Wednesday, April 4:
In his initial position on "integration" Mr. Hellyer's statement indicated both wisdom and a broad-minded approach.
I do not completely agree with that statement. We were in agreement with the general idea of integration, although we believed the minister committed many faults in bringing it about.
Seemingly when he raised the matter of total unification, however, he was unable to accept the fact that his most experienced officers, both outside and within the service, advised strongly against it. This qualified and considered advice was interpreted by Mr. Hellyer as interference and personal opposition to his will, an attempt to obstruct and thwart his own ambitions. In this context, Mr. Hellyer has apparently determined to plunge blindly ahead regardless of any harm done to himself, the services, his government or the nation.
Surely by now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence and the government must have some inkling of the serious opposition to the proposed unification measure. I have received a great number of letters on this question. Incidentally, I would venture to say that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is out of touch with the people at the Esquimalt base. Judging by the letters I have received and by
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment the telephone calls I received when I was home for Easter, there is great concern amongst the members of the navy at Esquimalt. Quite a number of these people are afraid to let the way they actually feel be known. This letter is typical of the ones I have received from junior officers and describes some of the penalties that are involved. I should like to read from this letter:
We have seen statements by the Minister of National Defence which imply that dissatisfied personnel may resign with notice-but with no other benefit. Although there have been opinions expressed as to the legality of compulsory conversion from the old services to the new, there has been little emphasis on obtaining for those who do wish to resign, some recognition for services rendered.
To give you a specific example of some of the economic effects presently involved, a 31 year old lieutenant with a wife and three young children would receive: no pension; no rehabilitation leave for 13 years' service; no interest on pension contributions returned (less income tax); no portability of pension beyond the civil service; and no relocation expenses. Since in my own case I should wish to return to the west coast, the cost of moving family and effects would be about $4,000-a little more than returned contributions. Thus at the very outset of a fresh start I should be in debt.
This is part of the price to be paid for a resignation by a junior officer on a point of principle.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I would ask the minister to keep this in mind. To my knowledge there are a great number of cases of members of the Royal Canadian Navy who would not wish to continue once the unification bill is passed. However, leaving the ranks would make things so difficult for them that they have little alternative but to stay in the armed forces. In effect, Mr. Chairman, this amounts to compulsory service. Surely the minister will realize that people who continue to serve against their will because they are forced to do so for economic reasons cannot give of their best to the navy or to other branches of the armed forces.
The Prime Minister has been strangely silent in this debate. He did make a brief press announcement following Air Chief Marshal Miller's evidence, seeming to be impressed with that evidence. Consequent upon the statement of the Prime Minister we had hoped that he would make a speech in the house. This is a matter of great national importance possibly affecting the security and sovereignty of Canada. Certainly it is causing great doubts in the minds of people across the country. Therefore I feel it is time for the Prime Minister formally to associate himself


one way or the other with the policy announced by the Minister of National Defence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Louis Chatterton: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is mentioning the Prime Minister. Has the hon. member any reason for the Prime Minister's complete indifference to this debate? Is it because the Prime Minister is afraid of the Minister of National Defence?


George Louis Chatterton: This is why I mentioned in the first place that questions are being asked not only by the members of the opposition but also by people across the country. They are asking where the Prime Minister stands on this question. This is a government bill dealing with a matter of great importance to Canada. Yet the Prime Minister has not spoken on it with the exception of an indirect reference to the bill when he had read the evidence given by Air Chief Marshal Miller. Certainly we had hoped the Prime Minister would speak.


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


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, in closing, if I can just urge-


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee unanimously agree to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Louis Chatterton: If hon. members on the other side listen they do not understand, or what they hear they do not want to hear.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Why don't you make a contribution then?


George Louis Chatterton: Why does the hon. member not stand up and make a speech? A great number of members on the other side remain silent on this question. How many of the ministers on the front benches have stood up and made a speech? The Minister of Transport made a contribution, and I have never heard such a lame defence of any government measure as that made by him. He did not even refer to the subject matter of the bill. But how many other members on the front benches have spoken, Mr. Chairman? After all, this is an important measure. The Minister
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
of National Defence says that it will be a great thing for Canada, that it will create a force to serve Canada in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Louis Chatterton: Why do hon. members opposite not support the minister and make a speech? Are they afraid?


An hon. Member:: Let us bring it to a vote.


George Louis Chatterton: They are trained seals. Why does the Prime Minister not make a speech?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let us take a vote and then we will find out who has support.


George Louis Chatterton: That is the old, arrogant attitude of the minister-we know we are right so let us vote. That has been the attitude of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) as well as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Why does the Prime Minister not stand up and say where he stands?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let us vote on the matter; that is the attitude of democracy.


George Louis Chatterton: Surely this house is entitled to hear from the Prime Minister of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Time up.


George Louis Chatterton: -and leader of the government as to where he stands on the question of unification, a matter which a great number of people in this country feel could affect the very future and sovereignty of this nation. Why is the Prime Minister not in the house listening to the speeches? May I call it six o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I would ask hon. members for their customary indulgence, so that I may read the different questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight.
It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette): Public buildings-Ottawa-inquiry as to contracts for demolition; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow): Housing-inquiry as to possibility of meeting economic council
National Defence Act Amendment target; the hon. member for Charlevoix: discontinuance of passenger service between Quebec and La Malbaie.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, my constituency could not be described as a military constituency or one that has a direct economic interest in the ramifications of the bill under consideration at the present time, but I should like to participate at this point in the debate to emphasize one or two matters that I think are important. I also wish to prevail upon the indulgence of the committee in order to move into an allied area and say one or two things which I think are of equal importance.
With respect to the unification aspect of the present bill, if the various regiments and corps of the army are intended to survive the unification procedure I wonder whether it is possible to make the assumption or to reach the conclusion that the mere disappearance of the army as a service will not make much practical difference to those serving in it. The permanent nature of the army's subdivisions, corps and regiments means that a soldier's first loyalty is to that subdivision to which he belongs-his corps or regiment. His loyalty is there, and this is why soldiers have been known to attempt every trick and to use any procedure in the book to avoid being posted to another unit.
However, I suggest that the disappearance of the navy and the air force as separate entities compares with the disappearance of the army as a separate totality is a very different matter. Sailors and airmen are going to be deprived of a permanent institution to which they feel a loyalty of their own. If this were the case with the army it might be possible in the end to overcome this weakness by building up a single loyalty on the part of all three services to the new combined service that is proposed. However, one questions the possibility and the likelihood of that being done if the individual corps, regiments and units of the army continue to exist. The soldiers will continue to have a sense of belonging to the artillery, the Black Watch, the Royal Engineers and so on, and within these groups they will feel at home. The sailors and the airmen will have nowhere to feel at home; they will be permanent outsiders and their morale is bound to suffer.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
This could be avoided, theoretically, by widening the army's corps structure to include all three services. Thus, all gunners
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment could be put into a single artillery corps. One doubts, however, that this would work. Techniques of gunnery on land are so different from those at sea that it would not be practical to exchange gunners between sea and land, and unless this could be done the corps would never develop the cohesion which is so essential, nor would it develop the loyalty which is so necessary to the proper fulfillment of its functions.
What the effect of all this will be on the navy and the air force is hard to say. It is possible that it may not have much effect on the air force. This is because the air force does not fight as a force. It is unique in that the actual fighting is done by a very small proportion of its numbers. The fighting members of an R.C.A.F. squadron are so few that they can, and do, build up a squadron loyalty in a very short space of time. The vast majority of air force personnel are required to keep planes flying and to put them into the air. The pilots are the men who go to fight. It must be exceedingly difficult to create and maintain any esprit de corps within the ground staff of the air force, and this includes all its non-commissioned ranks.
One would expect the effect on the navy to be catastrophic. Warfare in the navy is total, even more so than in the army. Even in an infantry battalion there are some men who are not in the front line. But in a ship everyone is in the war. If the ship sinks all hands sink with it. A high state of morale among the whole crew is essential aboard any navy vessel and it is difficult to see how this can possibly be achieved unless the sailors who man the ship are proud of being sailors, and they will not be proud of being sailors unless there is some recognizable organization of sailors to which they belong and with which they can identify themselves. This is the organization we now know as the navy.
The minister's answer to this argument could take one of two forms, as I see it: First, that the separate regiments and corps within the army could be abolished. If the hon. gentleman is planning to do this I suggest he should do it before doing anything else and see whether he can run an army without any regiments and corps. The present time would seem to be the logical point at which to undertake such an experiment-an experiment on a small scale rather than on a large scale. Or he might say, in the second place, that we could if necessary create a naval corps within the unified force. But this would make nonsense of unification, would it not? He would

just be recreating the navy. Nothing would have been achieved except for the change of uniform and rank structure.
On the subject of rank one cannot help notice that the two lowest ranks in the new force are to be corporal and private. This gives rise to two interesting questions. In the artillery, as most of us know, corporals are called bombardiers. One wonders whether it is intended to change this practice and call them corporals. In the rifle regiments privates are called riflemen, in the engineers, sappers, in the armoured corps, troopers, and so on. Are we to assume that all these ranks and titles are to be changed and that all the men serving in these capacities are to be identified as privates or corporals? If the answer to these questions is yes, there will of course be howls of protest from various parts of the army. If the answer is no, then why is a seaman to be called a private while the troopers' title is to be left alone?
Another potentially dangerous result of unification in my view is that the tactical thinking of the numerically strongest arm, the army, will come to dominate that of the navy. If we call an admiral a general we are half way to thinking that a sailor is merely a soldier who fights on water. There is a great myth about unification, it seems to me, the myth that this is a forward thinking and progressive concept whereas in reality, historically speaking, it is retrogressive to the extent no less than four full centuries. Contrary to what is being said, the idea of a unified fighting service is not a new one. Far from being progressive in his thinking, the minister is putting the clock back 400 years. Before that time all fighting was done by soldiers and all armed forces were commanded by generals. The English were the first to realize that fighting at sea was a different art from fighting on land. So they organized a separate navy. This happened during the reign of Elizabeth I. When Philip II of Spain decided to attack, he put his army on a fleet of ships commanded by his best generals and sent them off to England. This fleet was, of course, the famous armada. The naval battle in the channel was the last ever fought by a unified service and the armada was destroyed just because it was a unified force. The men who commanded it were soldiers and their object was to fight a land battle on the water. The English fleet was commanded by sailors who knew how to fight a naval battle. And they won.
The lesson was not lost on the men of those days and soon every nation separated its navy
April 17, 1967

from its army. It would seem, however, that the present government does not care to take cognizance of this lesson of 400 years historical standing and is planning to make the same mistake as was made during the period of Philip II, thus putting naval and military organization back at least four centuries.
These are some of the thoughts I have had on the question of unification and the bill before us. There are one or two other arguments which are set out in an excellent series of newspaper articles written by the publisher of the Winnipeg Free Press, Mr. R. S. Malone. The former colonel makes his points so eloquently and well that I would not presume to try to improve upon them and I ask the indulgence of the committee to put one or two of his conclusions on the record. Mr. Malone was the author of a series of articles which appeared on the editorial pages of the Winnipeg Free Press during August, 1966. In the course of preliminary articles in the series he drew attention to two or three of essential errors in the program of unification now being undertaken by members of the government. In one of these articles toward the conclusion of the series he wrote:
It is considered by many qualified observers that by sacrificing regimental spirit and identification Canada will lose far more than she can gain in dollar economies or efficiency by forcing integration down to the level of combat units, either army, navy or air force.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
As indicated in although adopting a degree of integration after a serious study of the factors, has stated that regimental identification of combat units will be preserved as an absolute essential to morale.
Recently New Zealand has also considered this subject and come to the same conclusions regarding combat units. In a white paper this year
That would be 1966.
-it states that while they accept the fact of unification of such facilities as supply, personnel, administration and other support areas and standard procedures, in supply depots separate identities will be retained in the combat units.
The same situation exists in the United States where an increasing effort is now being made to create and expand on regimental identification. To quote the U.S. Secretary for the Air Force, "men have functioned most effectively as members of an identifiable group. The spirit of unity ... of brotherhood ... is enhanced by tradition, pride in one's organization and by a distinctive uniform which is a mark of membership.
The value of esprit de corps cannot be measured with precision. No price tag can be placed on it, yet we all recognize its intrinsic contribution in the quality of our armed forces. It is the heart of the true fighting force.
We should not tamper with that precious esprit de corps, that sense of identification, by immersing it in a vast agglomeration of a single service."
National Defence Act Amendment
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, these points are made in what I and many others consider to be a profound series of articles on the question of integration and unification. I know that the minister himself considered it a profound and reasoned series of articles, although obviously he and Mr. Malone take different points of view. But I felt it valuable to place one or two contributions from Mr. Malone's editorials on the record and in the context which I have offered them because I think they state the case for retention of individual identity at the combat level far more eloquently than I could do myself.
That brings me to an allied subject which I presume is covered under the aegis and umbrella of the debate in which we are involved at the moment. I want to say one or two words about the area of our international commitments which is inextricably tied to our defence posture, defence planning, and defence deliberations in this committee. With respect to the change in our defence system and the make-up of our armed forces being contemplated by members of the committee, I would ask whether or not this country, in the view of the Minister of National Defence and of the government, is embarked on a path for Canada of professional neutralism? If we are embarked on such a path are we sure we are right in going in that direction?
The question of collective security in the world and of our commitments under collecproposed legislation. It seems to me that the legislation as drafted and proposed envisions some kind of world where there will never be another conventional war, at least not one in which Canada will be involved. It seems to me that it takes for granted that the era of war in the classical sense, in the historic sense, war as we have known it so painfully in the lifetimes of all of us in this committee, has come to an end, and the only kind of war with which we may be confronted in the future is one of two types, either a total thermonuclear holocaust which will not permit of any kind of protracted hostilities, or a type of brushfire war, the type of police action war in which many of our troops and units have been engaged in recent years under the flag of the United Nations.
I hope that if we make that decision, sir, we will have considered all the possibilities for the future. I hope we are possessed of a
the earlier articles, England, tive security accords into which we have entered must be paramount in our consideration and reasoning as we address ourselves to this
April 17. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment certain omniscience in coming to that conclusion because, should we be wrong, the pain and the agony that will confront us as a nation involved in any kind of conventional war in the future will be severe indeed. It seems to me we move too hastily if we assume we can take for granted that we will not be involved in a conventional type of war and conventional type of defence of our country. The proposed legislation which we are now considering assumes just such a development.
We have moral commitments under the collective security arrangements and agreements into which we have entered around the globe, and I submit we owe a debt and discharge of a fulfilment to our allies that requires the maintenance, improvement, development and, if necessary, the expansion of conventional forms of fighting arms, conventional forms of fightings units, that can fit into the over-all pattern of defence envisioned by those allies who, with us, belong to those collective agreements and collective arrangements. Therefore, as many a speaker preceding me in this debate has pointed out, we come to the vital question of foreign policy and the more crucial question of whether or not our foreign policy is being decided and determined by our defence policy. Sir, I wonder whether Canadians are satisfied in coming to the conclusion, or having the conclusion developed for them, that in the future we are merely to be the bearers and operators of an international fire brigade? This is what we would be reduced to being with the unified force proposed in this legislation.
As I asked a moment ago, what of our allies with respect to this question? What do they expect of us, what do we expect of them? Can we fulfil the commitments and the pledges we owe if we make such a drastic, revolutionary and convolutionary change in our military posture and establishment? With respect to the possibilities of a major conventional war, will we not have our traditional responsibilities as partners in the free world alliance? I submit it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fulfil those responsibilities if we proceed with the revolutionary change proposed in this legislation, at least before much fuller consideration has been given to its development in the context of the collective arrangements to which we belong and in the context of the threat to freedom in the world today.
We owe much to our allies. In my view we owe much in particular to our brave allies in 
the United States whose sons are dying in Viet Nam today to keep the world safe for democracy. President Johnson said with respect to that struggle, "We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there is no one else."
I was in the Pacific a few weeks ago. I was fortunate enough to have a few days in Viet Nam and Henry Cabot Lodge, the outgoing, widely loved and respected United States ambassador to South Viet Nam, told me, "It is not a choice out here between war in Viet Nam and the broad high road to peace. If it were such a choice we would take the broad high road to peace, but this is a dangerous world in which we live, and this is a particularly dangerous part of that world, and the choice out here is between different dangers, between a broken arm and a broken leg. That is always the choice in a dangerous world. We are making a stand in Viet Nam which we would have to make somewhere."
My own personal view of the situation and of American involvement there really turns on a statement made by Thomas Jefferson many years ago when he asserted that it is sometimes necessary for men to fight small wars in order that great wars can be avoided.
I think this is the moral fulcrum on which American involvement in Viet Nam turns, and I believe in the essential correctness of the American involvement at this time in that place. I also believe in the essential correctness of criticism, but not distortion, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that criticism in this country of our American allies has grown out of all proportion and now amounts in many cases to nothing more than incontrovertible distortion of the role that the United States is playing in world affairs.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
There is a cult of anti-Americanism being formed in this country which is unworthy of us as Canadians and destructive to the causes of friendship, freedom and peace. This is an imperfect world. Together, we and our historic friends and allies can make it better. We debase the dreams of all North Americans of good will, Canadians and citizens of the United States, when we demean ourselves by stooping to the practice of mean and petty criticism of our friends, encouraged by those who have no care for the dangerous game they are playing. This is a practice which is based on half truths, untruths, rumour and a misguided form of so-called patriotism. I deplore the widespread denigration of the American effort. We should do all we can to
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
contain this run-away criticism before it does both our countries irreparable harm.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take part in this debate again for two reasons. The first is that a number of questions have been put to the government during the course of this and previous stages of the debate which have not been answered. If any answers have been given to most of the questions with which I will deal, they have been given either in a vague way or with equivocation. One reason, and I believe the main reason despite what some members of the government may think, that this debate has gone on so long at the different stages is that there is a genuine desire on the part of the members on this side of the house to find out what exactly are the implications of this bill.
I do not think there is any member in this house, whatever his party, who really would wish to jeopardize our defence effort. All of us are interested in the future safety of our country. Some of us are worried about the course the government is taking. Until we have adequate answers to many of the questions which have been asked I do not believe we will be in a position either to approve or disapprove of this bill. The reason I am making further remarks at this time is that I hope to elicit answers from the minister. I sincerely hope the minister will give us these answers before the debate on this stage of the bill is completed.
The second reason I am taking part in the debate again has to do with the tactical handling of this bill by the government. I believe this to be a matter of very great concern not only to members of this house but also to people outside the house. I suggest that the government has not handled the bill well from its inception. I realize I cannot refer to matters previously passed on by the house and I do not intend to do so. I do wish to refer, however, to the difficulty we have had in acquiring the information we need.
In this regard I suggest it would have been better had the government in the first place sent this bill to a committee, perhaps at the resolution stage, so that the matter could have been gone into at that point. At that stage we might have learned about the nature and content of the bill. Then, at a later stage when the bill came back to the committee of the whole it might again have been referred to the standing committee as was done after second reading. It is quite evident now from a reading of the evidence before the defence
National Defence Act Amendment committee that many questions are still unanswered. Had there been two sets of hearings,
I believe that some of the points which are still unanswered might have been answered and clarified.
If I may use a favourite expression, this is water under the bridge. This is something which I believe the government should have done. The government has embarked on a very strange course indeed, the course of closure. I know it may be said by my friends on the government side of the house that it is not closure on which the government is embarking now. There is an old expression, "No matter how thin you slice it it is still boloney". This new rule in some ways is a much more severe form of closure than the old closure rule because under the old rule closure had to be applied to each clause of the bill whereas under this arrangement the whole bill has to be dealt with summarily in a very brief period of time. It seems very strange that the government should have embarked on this procedure in dealing with this bill.
As of last Thursday afternoon when the government house leader mentioned it was the intention of the government to allocate time-I believe that is the term which was used-25 members of the official opposition had spoken on this bill and 29 members of the government and its allies in this house. I have been a member of this house for quite a long time and it always has been my impressoin that when closure or any form thereof was invoked it was because one group in the house was greatly protracting the debate or was holding it up by what sometimes is referred to by members of the government as filibustering. If one wishes to be very technical about this, I might point out that up to the time of the announcement by the house leader 29 members supporting the government had spoken and only 25 opposition members. One might ask who was filibustering.
It seems very strange indeed that this type of procedure should have been adopted. However, that is the government's responsibility. I believe these matters should be clarified. Closure of any form should be used only if a matter is of great urgency -or import. I do not think anyone would claim that this subject is not a matter of great import; of course it is, and very much so. However, it certainly is not a matter of urgency, to say the least. The other day the minister told us that if the bill should be passed right now it was not his
15002	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment intention to have in declared law until another six months have passed and the regulations have been drawn up. Therefore it would not seem that there is any urgent necessity to get this bill through the house at the present time. That argument seems, as one might say, to have been knocked into a cocked hat. There just is no reason for doing it.
I believe this government has its own reasons for invoking closure. From the government point of view I think the reasons probably are rather good. The minister, and when he is not here his associate minister, either cannot or will not answer questions. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has developed quite a reputation in this house for some time as a master in circumlocution, but the Minister of National Defence when he does answer questions makes the Secretary of State for External Affairs seem informative and concise by comparison. I think his failure to answer these questions adequately, has been the source of considerable embarrassment to the government. This has been pointed out very well by editorials which have appeared in a number of prominent newspapers in this country, including the Montreal Gazette of last Saturday, the Globe and Mail, the Winnipeg Free Press and others. They have all pointed out that the purpose of this bill and everything connected with it is unclear and murky. This is not surprising in view of the minister's failure to answer questions adequately.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
For that reason I think the government wants this debate to end as quickly as possible. It has also taken this point of view in respect of the desire, as announced by the Prime Minister, to have this session end and the centennial session commence. We have been told that this session should conclude by the end of this month. The centennial session would then begin and last through to the end of June or the early part of July. I am sure most members would like to see that happen.
But whose fault is it that we are again faced with a critical situation-if it is critical? I suggest this situation is the result of mishandling of the business of the house of the government.


Mr. Robichaud:: Be serious.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the Minister of Fisheries would like to know the reasons behind that remark I will be glad to give them at this stage. It is quite clear that one might say the cabinet is made up of a number of prima

DEBATES	April 17, 1967
donnas who have pet projects they want pushed through the house. One cannot know the reasons because he cannot look into the minds of members of the government to ascertain their motivation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare threatened last year that he would resign if the medicare bill was not put through. That was an important measure, but certainly there was no urgency because it will not become law until 1968.
Last summer we dealt with the Canada Assistance Plan. That also was a very important measure but it was pushed through this house under the threat that we would have no vacation and that hon. members would not be able to return to their constituencies to carry out their normal duties. It was also suggested that we were holding up the extra assistance to be given the needy. That measure was passed last July, but it has not been put into effect anywhere in Canada, except in the province of Ontario, and even there only as of April 1 of this year. There was no great rush in that regard.
We are now faced with this measure which the minister said will not go into effect for at least four to six months. On the basis of the evidence given before the defence committee it may not be put into effect for two or three years. What is the hurry?
In my submission the business of this house has been mishandled by the government. I do not blame the government house leader because I should not like to have his job; it must be very difficult to arrange parliamentary business in an orderly way when this sort of thing is taking place. In any event those are the reasons for this lengthy session. The minister wants the bill put through in a hurry so the centennial session deadline can be met. It is no one's fault but the government's that this deadline cannot be met in an orderly way.
Another very strange development in relation to this bill now before us was the suggestion in a letter by the chairman of the government caucus to his constituents that undoubtedly it was going to be necessary to use closure. That suggestion was made before we had commenced this stage of consideration. Surely that is a strange way of doing things. Had the statement been made by a backbencher on the government side, or someone with little responsibility, I would not have thought much about it: But it was made by the chairman of the government caucus.
As a result of that statement coming to light the chairman of the caucus was taken to
April 17, 1967

task by an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail, which stated that a great many things should be brought to light before any kind of closure was brought in. Certainly before closure has been brought in by any government it has been the accepted practice not to use such a procedure unless the government has overwhelming public support for its legislation, and that it involves a matter of urgency. Certainly there is not overwhelming public support for this bill and on the basis of the admission of the minister, there is no urgency. We view with great concern the course of action the government is now following in the handling of this bill. There is no reason for that action and no explanation, except those relating to the government's embarrassment and the desire to commence the centennial session.
One can find a clue to the government's action in pushing this bill through from the statement made last Thursday by one of the minister's fans in the press gallery. A public affairs commentator said in reference to questions posed by the opposition to the minister that they had not found out the answers either. I think that situation provides another answer as to why the government wishes to terminate this debate.
Many of us have found something else very strange in relation to our unanswered questions. I refer to the rather odd but detached manner the Prime Minister has taken not only in respect of this debate but on the matter of unification itself. He has had a lifelong concern for the subject of foreign affairs and foreign policy. Defence measures are really the strong arm of foreign policy. It is startling to most of us to note that the Prime Minister is apparently disinterested in this matter. According to information revealed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre earlier during this debate, the only time the Prime Minister discussed this question with the former chief of staff, Air Marshal Miller, was in 1964; and at that time the major discussion was integration, not unification.
Certainly before this debate concludes we should hear from the Prime Minister about this very important matter of unification. Unification will have an effect on the whole defence future of this country. I hope because of the interrelationship between defence and foreign affairs we will hear from the Prime Minister, who has been associated with and has o great reputation in the field of foreign affairs.
National Defence Act Amendment
Let me now refer to the questions which have not been answered-and it is my submission that if the minister will provide some answers he will find it much less difficult to get this bill passed, thus creating a more amiable atmosphere in the house. To date he has not done so, but I appeal to him to reconsider his position in the interests of putting this bill through in an orderly fashion.
Let me remind the minister of the example set by one or two of his colleagues. When the highly complex transport bill was before this house it was examined carefully-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member permit a question? Will he indicate the specific questions I have not answered?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, I was just going to do so. I have them enumerated and I will be very glad to bring them to the minister's attention. I would suggest to the minister that he look at the results achieved by his colleague the Minister of Transport with regard to the transportation bill. That was a very complex, technical matter. The bill went to committee and was carefully studied. A great many amendments were made to it, some 70 of which I believe were accepted by the minister. This was referred to by many writers and observers of parliament as being parliament at its best.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Then there was the Bank Act, an equally difficult and complex matter. The Minister of Finance, again, accepted many suggestions that were made. Many people thought that bill would be a matter of great controversy. There were some controversial aspects in the bill, but generally speaking it was not controversial. The minister listened to suggestions and accepted them when he thought it wise. Of course no one expects a minister to accept all suggestions made, but at least he should be prepared to accept some. In this case the Minister of National Defence has not shown an inclination to accept any of the suggestions made.
A few moments ago the minister asked what questions I have in mind that he had not specifically answered. The first question is: Who was the author, who conceived this plan of unification? Was it one of the senior staff officers; was it the minister; was it one of the minister's advisers? Who was it? I think we should know the answer to this question because this is a very important matter, one of the most important that has
15004	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment come before the house. I think therefore we are entitled to know whether this concept of unification was a matter thought up by some people with a great deal of military expertise, or was it thought up by persons lacking this expertise, however well intentioned they may oe? I am not suggesting that it was thought up by persons lacking military expertise, but we would like to know who was the author of the plan.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman agree that Lieutenant General Weeks, a former vice chief of general staff in the United Kingdom, would be a good author for this kind of program?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister is telling us that he is the author of this program.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say that, but I would like to know whether the hon. gentleman would have confidence in his judgment, in view of his experience in the second world war and the fact that he conceived a plan which is almost identical to the one we are proposing for this country. Would the hon. gentleman, in view of those facts, consider him to be a proper authority?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought Terence Robertson was the author.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would be very interested to see the plan of the gentleman mentioned by the minister. I should also like to see the general's qualifications. But again, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister, who was the author of this unification plan? In reply to what the minister said earlier, Earl Mount-batten does not seem to have the same view as General Weeks. I take it that General Weeks was one of the indirect authors of the plan, but we would be very glad to hear from the minister who else he got the idea from. The next question concerns the purpose of this unified force. Unfortunately we have heard various explanations on the functions of the force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I told you in my speech on second reading.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, and I will be coming to that shortly, if the minister will contain himself for a minute. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said in effect that the purpose of the force was to fulfil more effectively our present military commitments. Unfortunately the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not place before us one whit of

DEBATES	April 17, 1967
evidence of how this was to be done. In his customary genial, bland manner he said that is what the force was going to do and he was satisfied that it would more adequately and effectively fulfil our present commitments to NORAD, NATO and the United Nations. He did not say how, of course, but he said the force would fulfil these commitments.
The Minister of National Defence has denied categorically in this house-this is one thing about which the minister has been very specific-that the new, unified force is designed only for service with the United Nations. This matter has been raised on many occasions by many hon. members, and the minister has categorically denied that this is the purpose of the force. Newspaper comment and editorials have been to the effect that the force is intended to fulfil more adequately our commitments to that organization. However, somebody very close to the minister, who I think is really in a position to throw some light on this point is the present chief of staff, General Allard. I have read part of the evidence he gave before the defence committee and I shall put it on the record again. His evidence was quite contrary to what the minister told us. The question with which we are faced is, whose evidence are we to accept? We should accept the minister's explanation, of course, because he is in charge of this department; but his own chief of staff says something different. Where do we go from there?
I again put on the record General Allard's evidence given to the defence committee on Tuesday, February 28:
Canada now wants, while remaining faithful to its existing commitments, to decide itself on the part it wishes to play in the new international society. This is not only its right, it is also its duty. It is its duty to participate, to the best of its ability, in keeping the peace by supporting the organization which has made itself the champion of the smaller nations, the United Nations organization.
In short, that is the transformation proposed by the white paper. That is what we are trying to do. My duty is to organize the military forces in accordance with government policy.
When you read that statement and the minister's statement, you find that the two are as far apart as the north and south poles. This makes it very difficult for members of the house to decide just what the answer is to the question as to what is the purpose of the force. I hope the minister will make a further attempt to clarify this matter, or perhaps he will get his chief of staff to give a further explanation of what he meant when he gave that evidence to the defence committee. It is
April 17, 1987	COMMONS
confusing to people to have these contradictions.


Mr. Maiheson:: What is the next question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, what is the hon. member for Leeds asking now?


John Ross Matheson: Is there any other question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, there are several more questions. I would ask the hon. member to just contain himself. I might add, in the same vein, that after his speech in the house on the purpose of this force, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us that the whole purpose of the force was that we could more effectively carry out our present foreign affairs commitments, the other day in the external affairs committee he made the announcement-it was really more a statement to a press conference than to the committee-that he was going to offer troops for Viet Nam, should they be required, for peace keeping.
In view of what General Allard has said, and editorials which have appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, which is often thought of as the spokesman for the government-and for good reasons-editorials which have appeared in the Globe and Mail and other prominent newspapers, and the fact that the Secretary of State of External Affairs mentioned this offer of troops for peace keeping, it is not unreasonable that people would think that the new force is designed only for United Nations service. What else could a person think?
The next question concerns the matter of saving money. I agree that when it comes to the country's safety the saving of money is not the all-important factor. It is important enough, certainly, but it is not the all-important factor. The saving of money has been one of the reasons the minister has given for wishing to have this bill passed.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Air Chief Marshal Miller said in effect that there was no particular financial advantage to unification. Then we find in the estimates for the present fiscal year, starting April 1 of this year, that $115 million more is being spent on the armed forces. These estimated expenditures are based on the assumption that the unification bill will go through. Various government members have tried to explain away the $115 million. The explanation of the hon. member for Peterborough as reported at page
National Defence Act Amendment 14630 of Hansard was most entertaining when he said:
Hon. members should consider lor a few moments the effects of inflation upon a relatively constant budget over a six year period.
This just goes on to show the problems one can sometimes get into in the house by trying to make excuses for one action of the government, and blunder into a rather unfortunate admission regarding other activities of the government, in this case in the field of the control of the cost of living.
But despite all the explanations-and I know some hon. members have said that it might be more expensive if we did not have unification-we have not had an adequate explanation of the $115 million increase. Hon. members can say that the ratio of defence spending has decreased in proportion to the total government expenditure, and other such explanations can be made, but the fact is that defence is still costing more. I do not think it is a matter of all importance, but it is certainly a matter of some importance.
Then there was one question which the minister has not answered, and it is this: Will this new unified force have to be trained in all three services? I think General Allard referred to them, rather unfortunately, as finks, that is flying infantrymen with naval knowledge. How in these days of specialization are these people suddenly to carry out purely army type duties with our NATO allies? This has never been explained. I believe some months ago a question was put to the minister asking whether there could be an interchange between army and naval officers, and he replied that there is no reason that a gunnery officer in the army could not take on general duties in the navy. Superficially this looks possible, but there are certain duties that naval gunnery officers have to carry out, such as shiphandling and navigation, which an army officer could not perform.


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


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I am prompted to make a few comments at this time because of the attempt by the hon. member for Oxford to denigrate, besmirch and generally tarnish the provisions of standing order 15-A. He advanced the most amazing argument I have ever heard. He tried to argue that because he did not receive satisfactory answers, and I presume agreeable answers, to the questions
15006	COMMONS DEBATES	April 17, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment
he has put to the minister, he and his col- Mr. Olson: We know that some of them leagues have the right to deny every other have spoken on clause 2 as many as four or member of this house the right to make a five times. Surely it follows that if any of the decision. As hon. members know, this has other 70 or 71 members of that party wanted been going on in the committee for the past to make a contribution to the debate they 10 or 12 days in the discussion on clause 2. would have full and ample opportunity to do However, that is not all. We have also had a so. Therefore no member in the house has repetition of thoughts which had already been been denied the right or the opportunity to advanced in the house previously-	speak; and I contend-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Prove that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -respecting the same matter, during about four days on an interim supply motion in November of 1966. We also had the same arguments advanced on second reading of the bill earlier this year. In addition there were about 40 meetings of the standing committee on defence-I am not sure of the exact number-where the same ground was covered.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: We have heard that also.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is repeating himself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It seems to me to be a complete contradiction for anyone to subscribe to the provisions of a democratic institution and at the same time argue that he has a right to prevent members of that democratic institution from taking a decision, after all the points of view from all those who want to be heard have been put forward. The only argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Oxford this afternoon to support the continuation of this filibuster was that the members of his party have not received satisfactory answers from the minister.


Donald MacInnis: Does not the hon. member realize that the Minister of National Defence just denied him an answer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not arguing at this time whether or not I agree with the answers given by the Minister of National Defence, but if hon. members wish to be reasonable they have to extend to the minister the same privileges as to any other members of the house. They cannot force him to say something he does not want to say. The minister has a right to his opinions, the same as members in the Conservative party have a right to their opinions, and have a right to express them. The hon. member for Oxford said a few moments ago that only 25 out of 95 or 96 members of the Conservative party have taken part in the debate.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I never said that.
tMr. Olson.]


Roger E. Régimbal: Seven o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: It being seven o'clock, pursuant to an order made on April 6, the committee stands adjourned until 8 p.m.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the committee rose at seven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was making a few comments on the amazing argument advanced by the hon. member for Oxford as to the justification for this filibuster that he and his party have been carrying on for the last few days on clause 2 of this bill. It seems to me that it is a disservice to this house and to the standing orders-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Why didn't you bring it up at the time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
Gordon Minto Churchill: You are speaking a second time.


Mr.   Oslon@: I know, Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has indicated that members who have not spoken in this debate should participate before members speak a second time. He is now speaking for the second time, so I think you should ask him to sit down and surrender his place to someone who has not participated in the debate.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member-


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. If you were to work out the ratio I would have to make 50 speeches in order to make the same representation for my party as the hon. member is for his.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is consistent in his usually confused way in trying to imply that I said something I did not say. I did not say that any member of this house does not have a right to speak a second time in committee. I said that the presiding officer in this committee has meticulously, in my opinion, given
National Defence Act Amendment precedence to those members who have not spoken if they indicated a desire to speak.
Once more, for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, may I say I believe this is a proper precedence to be given? The fact is I would not be surprised if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is not one of those who have spoken more than once. In fact, I believe he has spoken four or five times since we went into committee on clause 2. He also made a contribution, for whatever it was worth, to the debate, on second reading. He made several contributions, perhaps five or six, on the supply motion back in November, 1966, on the same subject matter. I presume he has exhausted himself in so far as bringing up anything of value is concerned. If he has been unable to persuade other members of this house, surely there ought to be a time when we can vote on whether or not we have accepted these arguments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a general demand for me to speak again.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not what they are trying to do. What they are trying to do is to prevent a decision being taken by the majority of the members of this house. I do not mind this sort of tactic for a while. In fact this house has had to put up with it on a number of occasions in various previous debates. But then to come along when they are faced with standing order 15A, which was agreed to by this house, and to try, as the hon. member for Oxford did, to denigrate, besmirch, tarnish and generally defile the provisions of the bill before this standing order can be used, is in my opinion doing, a great disservice not only to democracy but to the proper functioning of this house. They have violated the rules all through the debate; and what is more, they have admitted as much.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since the hon. member for Medicine Hat has been imputing motives, which is clearly out of order and unparliamentary, as I think the hon. member, who prides himself on being an expert on the rules, should know-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What is your point of order?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My point of order is that the hon. member, as he says, was in this chamber while I was making my speech. Since he is so concerned about the rules of this house, I
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment would point out that at no point did he raise a point of order during the course of my remarks. It is only since then that he has decided to do so. I think he should have raised this point at the time, not now. We should like to know why the hon. member is raising the point now instead of at that time, when he should have raised it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Okanagan-Revelstoke has just whispered to me that I am long suffering, and I think that answers the hon. member's point. The answer is that there was no valid point of order, as I am sure the hon. member knew when he rose.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Now you have no valid point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What I was trying to explain, Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted a few moments ago, was that the members of the Conservative party who have participated in this debate have admitted that they have been violating the standing orders of this house. If the hon. member wants me to quote to him chapter and verse from the standing orders I will do so. Standing order 34(2) says:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak-
-Mr. Speaker is authorized to take other action. The hon. member for Oxford admitted that he was asking the same questions over and over again, and that in itself is a violation of the rules. He is not supposed to repeat his remarks or the remarks of any other hon. member.
So it seems, Mr. Chairman, that a new definition or concept of our parliamentary and democratic processes is being foisted upon this house by the Conservative members at this time. First of all, they argue that if they cannot have their way they will continue the debate interminably and impose some kind of perseverance test.


Mr. Danforih:: Who said that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is precisely what the hon. member for Oxford tried to convey. He said that unless and until the minister gives satisfactory and agreeable answers, they are going to carry on and on with the debate. These are not his words, but that is the essence of what he was trying to say. It was not even necessary for him to say it, Mr. Chairman, because

it has been completely obvious to us all for the past week or ten days.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I should like members in all parts of the house to know that the terms of standing 15-A of the standing orders of this house do not have any stigma attached to them as far as I am concerned. I think that we, as members of parliament elected by the people of Canada to conduct essential public business at the federal level, have the responsibility to move from one piece of legislation to the next. We know very well that because of the tactics which are now being employed a lot of essential legislation and public business is being neglected. We are not getting to it.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I agree that these members have the right to be heard. They have been heard over and over again. I think it is now time for these half dozen or dozen Tories to respect the rights of the other 200-odd members of this house and let the members of the house come to a decision on a matter that has been occupying their time for far too long now.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, in spite of the homily from apparently the self-appointed guardian of the rules of parliament, I would point out that I have yet to speak on this issue. The hon. member may not wish to hear me, and I am sure that most of the government benchers will have no interest in what I have to say.
Of course the problem created by rule 15A is the government's problem. The committee that suggested it-I was a member of the committee and was very glad to be a member of it-envisaged the business committee meeting more or less constantly. It is too bad that the government has waited until this highly suspect and controversial bill is before parliament before having the courage to invoke the formula that was provided by the rules.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order. The matter before the committee of the whole for discussion at this moment is clause 2 of this bill. Standing order 15A is not before the committee.


Mr. Ricard:: Why didn't you say that a while ago?


George James McIlraith: I should like an opportunity to be heard and to raise my point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a proper request.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Why didn't you speak up before?
April 17, 1967	COMMONS


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I show respect to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, though I admit there are times when it does test one's patience.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is nothing but hypocrisy.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, it is quite improper for the hon. member to charge me with that. If he will read the rules he will see that what I say is the case. If the hon. member were a different type of member I would ask him to withdraw that charge-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Don't worry about me.


George James McIlraith: -but since he does not have that kind of nature and background I will not make that request of him.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is sheer hypocrisy.


George James McIlraith: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order, and I started a moment ago to do so. What is before the committee is the clause by clause consideration of this bill. We are now discussing clause 2. The hon. member who has the floor is seeking to debate one of the standing orders of the house. With great deference, that standing order is not before the committee of the whole house at the moment, and therefore his remarks are out of order.
I think the hon. member, who has a good appreciation of the rules, will agree on reflection that the rule in committee of the whole house is that hon. members should stick to the clause of the bill under discussion. Admittedly clause 2 is quite wide in scope and gives the hon. member latitude to debate the question of the armed forces; but it is not-


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Would the minister on reflection agree that he ought to have raised this point earlier?


George James McIlraith: I was not in the house at the time. As soon as I came in-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: I am sure hon. members noticed when I came into the house.


Mr. Nugent:: Would the minister accept a question?


George James McIlraith: I will in a moment. Had this rule been debated earlier in my presence I would have raised this point of order. It was not debated in my presence, I am sorry to say.
National Defence Act Amendment


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, since the minister says that he was not in the house and the entire speech of the hon. member for Medicine Hat was devoted to this particular rule, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Royal was only going to take a few minutes to answer the hon. member, does the minister not think that he should withdraw his point of order so that, in fairness, a short answer might be made to the lengthy and completely hypocritical tirade of the hon. member for Medicine Hat?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: No, I would not agree to any such proposition. When I came into the house a moment or two before the hon. member for Medicine Hat had concluded his remarks, he was taking the official opposition to task for their conduct during the last number of days-for repetitious debate. That is what he was discussing.


Donald MacInnis: That has nothing to do with clause 2.


George James McIlraith: In any event, I have raised the point of order and I respectfully ask your ruling on it, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: I must say that the Chair allowed a certain latitude when hearing the hon. member for Medicine Hat on the subject, and maybe we could hear the opinions of the hon. member for Royal on the subject raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. However, I would ask that, having heard the hon. member for Royal, hon. members of the committee should confine their comments to clause 2.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: There is one difficulty. It is only fair, and indeed it is my obligation to point out, that the business committee of the house for which provision is made in rule 15A has not yet reported; it is still active, and until it reports its work becomes impossible if the proceedings under the standing order are to be debated in the interval.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order: Two or three members of the committee have stated that it was I who raised the matter of standing order 15A. I should like to point out that it was the hon. member for Oxford who raised this question and tried to decry the provisions of that order. This prompted me to make my comments.
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Now that we have followed the perambulations of the leader of the house with regard to points of order and so on, I should like to assure the hon. gentleman that I was on the committee which recommended rule 15A to parliament. I support the rule. But I feel it is too bad that the government did not have the courage to use the business committee throughout our proceedings in parliament, and has resorted to it only when a bill as controversial and as badly conceived as this, is before us.
I have one or two other things to say about the rule which I intend to get off my chest, in spite of spurious points of order. As was pointed out in the Montreal Gazette on Saturday last, closure or a form of closure should be used in connection with legislation which has evident, urgent and imperative aims. The bill before us fulfils none of these requirements. We have the minister's own evidence and his speeches before this committee to support that statement. The questions asked by the hon. member for Greenwood remain unanswered. He said on April 3:
Mr. Chairman, what we in Canada need in the field of defence is a clear defence policy. In all the mass of words spoken by the defence minister and his aides on the subject of unification, there has been complete failure to clarify or justify our defence roles, a failure to say what the future of the armed forces is to be, what purposes they are to serve, what sort of hostilities we expect to be involved in.
As the Gazette points out, a fundamental weakness in the government's position is the lack of clarity, the cloudiness surrounding this bill.
It is unreasonable for the government to push ahead with dogged determination on such an issue and expect the opposition (among them many who are friendly to the principle involved) to go along for the ride. It cannot drive ahead on a cloudy issue, except by driving into the clouds.
We have been treated to a good deal of editorial comment on this issue in the last few months. As many speakers have pointed out, one of Canada's great newspapers, the Winnipeg Free Press, has dealt with this matter, and its distinguished editor Mr. R. S. Malone was undoubtedly the editorialist who wrote the article which appeared on April 4, from which I take these words:
Members must surely recognize the grave responsibility they bear as individuals when voting on this bill. This is a question which far transcends both politicking and party.
It is in this spirit that I wish to say a word or two about the bill before us, in spite of the

fact that some people object to an issue taking up ten or 12 days of the time of parliament. I make no apology for adding a few minutes to the length of this debate. I happen to be worried because the defence structure of this country is being dismembered without either the minister or his department really knowing what the alternative will be. By using the technique of public relations and hard sell it is easy to smother the committee and the country with statistics and with figures. Nowhere, however, have I seen a clear exposition of Canada's role in defence for the next decade, or for that matter for the next three decades. I believe we are entitled to this information as we study a matter of such crucial importance.
Nowhere have I seen any real evidence of substantial savings-one of the great boasts made by the minister in the early days of the hard sell-as a result of this new proposal. Nowhere have I seen any evidence that the efficiency of our fighting forces would be increased. I myself, for what it is worth, favour integration at the command level, for logistic support, in the administration and in the ancillary services. Our forces must be so organized that they may continue their ready integration with United States and United Kingdom forces-that word "integration" is a dangerous one to use in this debate, but the use of the word integration is all right in this context because, obviously, no matter what may happen in the world in the next two decades, those two countries will remain our closest allies.
I am not one who is against radical experiments if they are made to reform situations or overcome problems of such pressing urgency and importance that ordinary time-tested methods will not do. But I am against having a concept forced upon the country for no other reason, as far as I can see, than to advance the minister's ambitions.
The hon. gentleman has become, I suggest, the captive of his own propaganda. He has become, I maintain, a handmaiden-if that is a possible concept-of the technocrats whose thrills are obtained by listening to the whirring of computers and whose excitement is the result of flashing lights and figures disgorged in steady and unrelenting streams.
May 1 return to quote a paragraph or two from the editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 4?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That has been read into the record seven or eight times already. There is
April 17. 1967

a rule against repetition, of which I am sure the hon. member has heard.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: If the rule of repetition were enforced in this parliament we would have been home four years ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think that if we all had
to plead guilty to the breach of such a rule the place would be emptied forthwith.


Thomas Miller Bell: The truth is always the truth, no matter how many times repeated.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Quoting the editorial:
In Mr. Hellyer's white paper on the subject of integration two years ago, he forecast that it was experimental, that we would have to feel our way, that errors might be made. Surely the time has come for honest acceptance of the fact that it would be a major error to force 'complete unification' and destroy all service and unit identifications.
In his initial position on 'integration,' Mr. Hellyer's statement indicated both wisdom and a broad-minded approach.
That is an historic statement, part of the history of the development of this bill, and I am sorry that part of its history has been forgotten.
Seemingly when he raised the matter of total unification, however, he was unable to accept the fact that his most experienced officers, both outside and within the service, advised strongly against it. This qualified and considered advice was interpreted by Mr. Hellyer as interference and personal opposition to his will, an attempt to obstruct and thwart his own ambitions. In this context, Mr. Hellyer has apparently determined to plunge blindly ahead regardless of any harm done to himself, the services, his government, or the nation.
It has been said, and I must admit there is truth in this statement, that the country is bored by this debate, and that the issue is not one which interests the majority of Canadians. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that this fact, if it is true, makes it even more important that we here, as representatives of the public, reach a right conclusion after careful and exhaustive consideration of this proposal.
As Air Vice Marshal Miller told the defence committee-and by the way, I am sure the minister will be disappointed that I shall be quoting him for a paragraph or two, because undoubtedly others have come across his evidence and placed portions of it on the record-
-that unification, while it might wel be the end result of integration, would not at present be timely, that more time was needed for the orderly development of the integration process. "I felt
National Defence Act Amendment that a lot of careful planning was necessary and probably time to educate people was required before the next step of unification."
He said that he saw no significant financial or military advantage in unification over integration.
What I have quoted, Mr. Chairman, is part of an editorial in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, March 22.
Surely if there are neither military nor financial justifications for this measure, then there is no other reason for it.
Presumably the charge will be made that we who are in the opposition should have some alternative proposals, and because I like to dabble in the somewhat cloudy ideals of defence and international affairs I am going to dare to make a suggestion or two to the minister. Where we should use the word integration is in the formation of our defence and foreign policies. Here we need an integrated if not a unified approach. As I said a minute or two ago, our relationship with the United States is crucial.
We have been warned recently through a very interesting series of articles in Canadian newspapers about the build-up of the debate in the United States concerning a program costing $30 billion for antiballistic missiles. The debate is going on between the Secretary of Defence in the United States and his military advisers, and will soon be joined by the United States Congress. Mr. Chairman, Canada cannot be drawn into this arms race under any pretext and I assume that we- "we" meaning the government of Canada and the country-have already served notice on Washington to this effect.
The west can continue on its present course of repression of social problems and effective action on them through global military commitments and continuing "far off wars"-to use an expression from that interesting book titled "1984". These will involve a direct racial conflict and will keep the world precariously on the edge of an arms race and nuclear war, and will involve a continuing drain on men and the morality of the empire to maintain the frontiers-that, of course, is the empire of the west-or the west can embark on a full program of dealing with the root problems of developing areas in a "helping the people to help themselves" manner which will promote international co-operation and intercultural exchange, eventually bringing about world law, if not world government.
Perhaps I will be accused of idealism, but perhaps it is time, in a debate that has gone on for 10 days, for a few minutes of idealism.
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Of course the second of the alternatives I outlined is the one that I espouse.
What might be in order, then, to use a phrase coined by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, is the employment of the "walking into the beverage room backwards" technique, and we might be using this technique with our good friends the Americans. Perhaps these suggestions may have some merit. At least they will take the house leader's mind off standing order 15A which seems to trouble him a bit.
The first suggestion is-and here of course I speak for myself and not my party, something which will be obvious in a minute-that the Canadian armed forces might be reduced to a mobile brigade group on United Nations standby. Canada would also supply UN training cadres for international forces and the Canadian militia, if there is such a thing any more.
Second, a specific function in the total North American defence network would be assigned to us, this function to be in a nonarms race sector, and preferably to have civilian application, that is, application in the field of communications, medical services, radar warning, transport, or what have you.
Third, there might be a year of compulsory national service for all Canadians at age 18 in one of the following areas-I digress to say I see my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot look at me with alarm, but I would repeat that this proposal is only my own-the first of the areas being the militia or reserve forces. Second, and of equal importance in this catalogue would be the Company of Young Canadians; third, an adjunct to that, a youth conservation corps; fourth, hospital work; fifth, work in our northern areas, the choice in each case to be up to the individual. This, I am advised, would amount to about 400,000 people a harnessing of youthful idealism, and if I can still claim youthful idealism I shall do so. In any event, this is the number of people who could be enlisted each year.
Another suggestion is that $1 billion of the $1.6 billion we now spend on defence would be used for foreign assistance programs for developing areas. My suggestions are that this could be used through integrated economic development programs for total regions and nations. There would also be what I call personal service, because I do not like the word personnel, covering the provision of teachers, doctors, technicians, etc. some of whom might be drawn from the corps of 400,000 which I have mentioned.

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Also included would be capital assistance to individually owned farms of up to a certain acreage, to small industries controlled by the workers and minority shareholders, to cooperatives, and to all popularly controlled enterprises which would promote true free enterprise rather than perpetuate a basically feudal system. Then there would be grants for specific jointly planned projects such as universities, schools, plant and so on which would be returned in trade, or not at all, depending on the facility. Surely in respect of any subject such as this it is important that we in Canada help other countries train their people in those countries, and not rely so much on bringing them here to Canada thus creating the additional problem of their forgetting their homelands. I believe Canada could perform an invaluable service to the United States and the world in general by taking the lead in dealing with root problems. Canada has all the advantages of the United States, such as wealth, technology, and so on, and less of the disadvantages such as civil rights problems, colonies, size of population and so on.
A lot of this no doubt is highly idealistic, but I must say that as a result of what I read and study I become a little tired when I hear experts tell me that the solution to the problems of man rests in alliances such as NATO, NOBAD and so on. I think that somehow, once we get into these alliances, we become so inflexible in our policy that detachment from it becomes increasingly difficult. NATO obviously was an important instrument of policy when it was initiated some years ago. I for one feel that its days are numbered, and the sooner we in this country recognize that fact the better it will be. I am not thinking in a miserly way of the dollars involved: I just believe, in my humble opinion, that the need long since has been overcome by events.
Now, if I may-still not committing an infraction of rule 15A-I should like to place on the record two paragraphs from a book written by one of the truly great men in the world, Lord Boyd Orr. I believe that if we spent more time listening to idealists such as Lord Boyd Orr we would have less trouble over matters of national defence. In a book entitled "As I Recall The 1880's to the 1960's" he said:
The most important question today, when the terrific advance of modern science has shaken the economic systems of the twentieth century, is whether man has attained the wisdom to adjust the old systems to suit the new powers of science and to realize that we are now one world in
April 17, 1967


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I have never spoken previously in this debate, but after hearing the hon. member from the neighbouring constituency of Medicine Hat I felt prompted to enter into the debate for two reasons. First, I wish to answer his argument and, second, I wish to set forth some of the points of view which I, as a Canadian in this day and age, feel should be set forth at this time in respect of the matter of defence. There was a suggestion made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat that we were carrying on delaying tactics with reference to this bill. I would say to him that anyone who has been reading the newspapers-
National Defence Act Amendment


An hon. Member:: Liberal minded.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes; I know he is very Liberal minded on occasion, and at the right times. I should like to say to him that if he wishes to project himself forward as the representative of a small divided group and say to this committee that the main opposition in parliament is delaying this legislation, this is a good way to project his personality, get the necessary propaganda back home and say "I am the great man from Medicine Hat and I am saving parliament". He has tried those tactics on many occasions since I have been a member of parliament. I know them well and do not intend to answer them any further. I do, however, wish to show the House of Commons once again the motive and nature of the man from Medicine Hat, who is Liberal minded at the right and proper time to save the government from embarrassment.
As I have said, I have not spoken previously in this debate, but I am happy now to enter into a debate such as this which concerns the security of this nation. If I may be personal for a few moments, let me say that only last week I had my fiftieth birthday. Twice during the past 50 years the freedom of the western world has been threatened. Had it not been for those countries of the western world who can work together, although sometimes they fail to do so, perhaps the freedom I enjoy tonight to speak freely and have members on the government side listen would not be possible.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Before entering into the main theme of my remarks tonight I should like to say that young Canadians, and I used to consider myself among them, would realize how important it is not to rush through parliament, measures on the important matter of defence and security, had they witnessed German sol-ciers goosestepping down the streets of Canadian cities and had there been that destruction in Canada which occurred overseas as a result of bombing. Surely these young Canadians, had they seen the suffering of civilians during the last war, would realize how important our defence forces are, not only to the security of this nation but to the very existence of the western world.
If this country is to have influence, we must be prepared to take our place alongside the nations of the western world. The world is becoming smaller, as has often been said, but the various camps are becoming larger. We now have the camp of the western world on the one side, with communism on the
April 17, 1967
15014	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment other. It has been my belief for some time that even had we not been victorious, because of our combined and dedicated services toward the maintenance of freedom, that way of life which best suits man would have survived.
Let me come to my next point in reference to delay. I joined with members of the Conservative party in asking that this matter be sent to a committee for study before second reading in order that we could hear the evidence of experts. Had we been allowed to do so I am sure this debate would have been shortened. The minister on that occasion, because he is a stubborn man, was as unyielding as he is tonight. He would not move because he is inflexible. His attitude has been one of stubbornness. He has said we intend to do certain things and they must be done his way without compromise. In this regard let me first say that had the minister been prepared to compromise and allow this matter to go to the committee in order that the bill could be examined clause by clause before second reading, we would have saved time. For that reason I make no apology for taking part in the debate at this time.
I have thoroughly read the only speech made by a member of the executive on the government front benches, other than the minister of defence. That speech was made by the Minister of Transport, whom I have always respected for his intelligence, though never for his intellectual trickery such as that exemplified by the change in his position on the Crowsnest Pass freight rates, in the transport bill. I never thought I would, either as a Canadian or a member of this parliament, read a speech of the nature delivered by that minister. Let us look for a few minutes at what he said. Many of the things said by that minister should be exploded before this debate concludes. I hope the hon. member for Medicine Hat has read his speech and will be able at the appropriate time, and place, and with the appropriate audience in Alberta, to endorse his words.
Some of the things the Minister of Transport said are very unusual. In reference to the question of unification he suggested this was not something for experts to decide. He said there was no point in calling the chiefs of staff and high ranking officers because we had never before attempted unification, and to do so would be a waste of time. He said he did not put much faith in that kind of evidence because it was worthless. In the event that anyone doubts my analysis of what he said in this regard let me quote briefly from
[Mr. Woolliams.l

his speech. I know the rules in this regard and if anybody objects to what I intend to do let me say that I am familiar with his words and can readily paraphrase them. This is what the Minister of Transport said, which was so shocking:
The point I am making is that in so far as the progress on integration is concerned, that has been going on for three or four years and the evidence of military experts is, of course, of great relevance.
Apparently this evidence was of relevance in respect of integration. As pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North, we have realized for a number of years that integration must take place and has been taking place. This is true of Canada as well as of other nations. Then the Minister of Transport said:
-in so far as unification is concerned it has no relevance whatever.
Let me point out that the fight being debated in parliament tonight is not in respect of integration but in respect of unification. I have heard on television and read in newspapers the use of the two words as meaning the same thing. A distinguished British officer, and I do not intend to mention his name, was being interviewed on a C.B.C. program. Twice during that program I heard the words "integration" and "unification" used as meaning one and the same thing. Surely that was done for the same reason the minister uses the words in this way. It was done to confuse the people. Even the Minister of Transport followed the same course in an attempt to indicate that there was no difference between integration and unification.
I intend to define these two terms by quoting the definitions of those experts the Minister of Transport feels should not pass an opinion. The Minister of Transport then said, as reported at page 14667 of Hansard for April 7:
I want to repeat that. The evidence of experts is of no relevance whatever because there are no experts. There never has been, under modern conditions at least, a unified military force. It is like every step forward, and I believe this is a step forward; it is a step into something in which nobody has any experience.
In other words he is suggesting that the air marshal and the chief of general staff and other high-ranking officers are not qualified to speak on unification.
Who are the two Canadian experts on the question of unification? Apparently they are the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport. That being the case,
April 17. 1967	COMMONS
why did the minister bother calling the committee together? Surely that was simply a waste of time. The Minister of National Defence is the same man who boasted when on this side of the house that when he became minister he would set up a special defence committee to hear evidence and expert opinion. The Minister of Transport, I am sure with the support of the Minister of National Defence, said that the opinions of these men would be worthless because we have never had unification. Let me draw an appropriate analogy. Apparently the evidence and expert opinion of a top medical practitioner would be worthless in respect of a new treatment because it was new and had never been used before. That is the pith of the argument used by that intelligent Minister of Transport and, of course, endorsed by the Minister of National Defence. If what they suggest is true, then the defence committee wasted its time.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Let me pause here for a few minutes without taking too much time of the committee-and I am sure this is relevant. I have come to the conclusion, in my 10 years as a member of parliament, that in many cases-I do not say all, because I want to be fair -committees of the House of Commons are a farce because the government controls committees. I will draw an analogy. I know more about the general subject of committees, because I was not a member of the defence committee, but I have read the reports and will quote from them. Take the committee on northern affairs. That committee heard evidence for a week. The government members were in the majority and were hand-picked by the minister. They whitewashed the whole picture as far as our national parks are concerned. This sort of thing went on in the defence committee and goes on in every committee in the House of Commons. Hon. members opposite talk about the great intellectuals on that side of the house and how they will improve our committees system. They know as well as I do the extent to which politics are played in our committees.


An hon. Member:: Committees are loaded with government members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: An hon. member says committees are loaded. They are loaded in more ways than one. The government members on committees whitewash the reports of committees. If there are politics in the subject before the committee, it is swept under the rug. I would think that the hon. member for 23033-9491
National Defence Act Amendment Medicine Hat, because of his length of service, experience as a parliamentarian and as a rules expert, would have seen through this subterfuge. Listen to what the Minister of Transport had to say, as reported at page 14667 of Hansard:
It is like every step forward, and I believe this is a step forward; it is a step into something in which nobody has any experience. I suggest that generally we are apt to get the most imaginative views from young people who have a sense of adventure and not from people who fought the last war-
I say to the minister that I have a great deal of respect for our youth, those in colleges and universities, and always have, because the strength obtained through knowledge is the strength of the nation. I recall that in 1935 to 1939 the Oxford Group wandered around the western world preaching and selling peace like insurance agents selling insurance policies. One by one the freedoms of the western world were drained to the depths by these people. If it had not been for Winston Churchill and other great leaders of the western world I would not have had the opportunity tonight to express my views, which this government does not want to hear anyway. I agree with a former minister of national defence of our government, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, when he said, as reported at page 14667 of Hansard:
I am fed up with this stuff from non-combatant people who are making fun of fighting men.
I am a red-blooded Canadian and I am glad the former minister of national defence had this to say and put it on the record of Hansard for others to read. He had this to say about the great debate in which we are engaged-and it is a great debate:


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the minister very much. But when I spoke in rather a personal fashion I was not speaking for myself, because I do not care much what is said around here. However, I am disturbed about the attacks that are made upon men who served much better than I did in both wars. People are making scurrilous remarks about them, talking about them as being out of date and all the rest of it. They are attempting to pretend that these men were not good servants of their country, and that is what I object to.
That is what I object to in reference to this debate. I object to the standard of debate that we have seen from the front benches, the executive, of this government. In my opinion the speech of the Minister of Transport is, in plain, ordinary English, a disgrace. I am sorry to see the Minister of National Defence endorse that type of drivel, particularly in view of the ambitions he had, about which I have read in many periodicals in the last few
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment years. With the greatest respect to the Minister of National Defence, and he knows that I have respect for him, I do not think his image as potential leader of that party has been enhanced by that kind of drivel.
What went on in the defence committee? We heard the Minister of National Defence time and time again-as we have heard him in the last two or three years-criticize the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in respect of defence matters. The minister has said he can save the country money. He has said this right across our nation. This has been his great sales talk. He has said, "I can save the taxpayers of this country money because I am an expert and can streamline defence."
Even though the Minister of Transport does not agree with Air Marshal Miller, Air Marshal Miller had something to say about the saving of money in the area of defence. Let us look at page 2297 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee on national defence. Air Chief Marshal Miller was asked this question by a former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Calgary North:
Do you, yourself, see any financial advantage accruing from the proposed scheme of unification?
What was the answer? Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
There are no significant financial advantages whatsoever as far as I can see.
Naturally the Minister of Transport had to say that we cannot accept the evidence of these experts. He asked, who are they to pass opinions? They only served 30 or 40 years in the services. Then the Minister of Transport said that they pushed aside these men of experience in the first war and put in young people in the second war. When the former minister of national defence asked him to name the great generals of the second world war, he could not name them. His argument fell flat on its face, as have his words across this nation. What else did he say about that subject? As reported at page 2302 of the committee proceedings, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked this question:
In fact, sir-I am going away out on a limb here-was there any thought in your mind or did you have any evidence on which to base an opinion that unification itself had any hope of achieving any sort of substantial savings in itself, at all?
Once again Air Marshal Miller said, "No." How, then, can the Minister of National Defence continue to peddle that sort of drivel
[Mr. Woolliams.l

across the nation and say that this program, no matter how dear and close it is to his heart, will save the taxpayers' money? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The estimates of the minister's department have been published, and the budget for defence is up by $150 million.


An hon. Member:: It is $115 million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says it is up by $115 million. I see that the minister is laughing. What is $115 million to him? If he thinks an increase of $115 million is a lesser sum than $150 million, in this context, he and I went to different schools. Then we have the great cross-examiner, the hon. member for Kootenay East. I would never want the hon. member to be beside me in the defence of any case, because if I were defending he would be the most powerful prosecution attorney one could imagine. If you are defending and want to make a point for the prosecution, you put Byrne in. Listen to this one. This is a dinger. This will be quoted in our law schools across Canada for time immemorial. He really brings this matter to a head for the Liberal government. I congratulate him, because he has put this matter in the proper perspective. This is the kind of cross-examination I have always dreamed of but hoped it would never happen to me. The hon. member for Kootenay East asked this powerful question:
Then, do you believe that the implementation of Bill C-243 would result in significant demoralization of the various forces?
This was most potent cross-examination of Air Marshal Miller:
Then, do you believe that the implementation of Bill C-243 would result in significant-
I like that word.
-demoralization of the various forces?
That has been our argument. That is the great question. What did Air Chief Marshal Miller say when answering that question put by the prosecution? He said:
If rushed, I would think so.
What a question, and what an answer. This is where I rest our case, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see the chairman of the defence committee, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, wave at me from across the way. He made a great speech. He said that this bill, with all its clauses, means nothing. He said it merely changes the name of the forces, and that the feelings of the serving men and their morale are nothing. The hon. member says we
April 17, 1967

are really debating nothing. It is something like medicare, we will merely pass this measure to gain influence and for window-dressing.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
So I say to the minister, first, it is not saving the nation money, and second, it is demoralizing the army. He may say, as did Air Chief Marshal Miller, that he cannot predict whether or not there will be less recruits. But I cannot believe that a man will join a force in the belief that he will serve at sea, and end up as a footslogger in the jungles. The minister denies now the charge that he cannot get the necessary recruits for the air force and the navy. I say the minister is a failure.
Tonight we are making history because when the present government occupied this side of the house-and I believe this is the very seat the minister occupied-the defence policy of our government was attacked and we were defeated. At that time the hon. member for Medicine Hat and other members in his party, which was much stronger at that time, voted with the government and turned out the Conservative government on account of its defence policy.
If ever there was a climax and a mess created by the Liberal party and the Liberal government, it is that government's policy on defence. I will remind the government that its record in that regard is consistent tonight, and in looking back at the history of that party with regard to military affairs I should like to hang an albatross around their necks. I am referring here to the scandal of Hong Kong. It was a week before Christmas when the Liberal government sent our ill equipped force there. I should like the minister to visit one hospital in Calgary and to look at some of the human wrecks who are there now as a result of the decision taken by those great experts on defence, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, all Liberals. This is the albatross I would hang around their necks when they speak about defence matters. What I am saying may seem a little tough, but it is true and true facts cut deeply.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat says we should not debate this subject any further. Yet I am still convinced that in working together with our neighbours we can keep peace and security but, as the late President Kennedy said, we cannot negotiate from a weak position. We can never negotiate from
National Defence Act Amendment fear but we must not be afraid to negotiate: A weak force means we would be negotiating with other nations from fear. If we allow ourselves to be weakened, the communists will run all over us. That is no way to secure peace. The policy of appeasement has failed in the past and we have seen the loss of freedom which it has brought about.
I should like to conclude with the words of Winston Churchill when he spoke about defence, with reference to world affairs. He made the speech at Harry Truman's birthday party. At that time the western world was afraid of the Russian communists, just as now it is apprehensive about China. Let us hark back to those times. I do not remember the exact words which Winston Churchill used, but he said in effect that the United Nations, which he hoped to be the majestic centre of world security, has been reduced to a mere cockpit where ancient states and mighty nations hurl reproaches and recriminations at one another to prepare for what would seem a third world war. He said at that time that Russia dreads our friendship as much as our hostility. Then he offered a solution. He said that that is why he believed in strength, and that in working together as friends we can save the world. He said that if the iron curtain were lifted so that millions of good hearted human beings on either side could have free intercourse one with the other, the 14 men in the Kremlin who control millions of good hearted people would soon be undermined and peace and security would be ours.
I direct these words to the minister because I believe that in bringing about unification of our forces against the opinions of our military experts and of experts all over the world -because nowhere else is it being tried out in the face of such opposition-we are weakening Canada's endeavours to maintain peace and security in alliance with the western world.
I make one appeal to the minister, and I think it is a worth-while one. I ask him to reconsider his position on unification. The Prime Minister said in Calgary that it will take a few years before unification is brought about. He, the Prime Minister said he had some doubts about unification, after having heard the statement made by the deputy minister. Surely if it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister not only to govern this country but to work for the safety and security of the world, then the Minister of National Defence should cease to be so arrogant and should withdraw unification from the bill.
15018	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to participate in this debate but, in so doing, I have no apologies to make since it is a privilege shared by everyone of us, members of this house.
I have no objection to anyone in this house expressing an opinion, but I would not take it kindly if someone were to try to prevent me from speaking out.
It is not on account of some military experience that I rise to speak in this debate tonight, for I have none at all. But I have followed attentively the various speeches and it seems to me that some important points need clarification.
Many questions have been put to the minister and all or most of them have remained unanswered. Another reason for taking part in this discussion is to protest on behalf of the voters of my constituency against the government, once again, trying to gag us. They may be using a method different from the one they previously resorted to, but with the support of our friends opposite, they would fain prevent us from expressing our views.
Every time a measure is introduced to prevent us from speaking, I shall make it my duty to rise and protest, on behalf of those I have the honour to represent in this house. All we want is a clear and definite explanation of what the hon. minister wants to have passed by this house, and nothing else.
Mr. Chairman, we are accused of filibustering. What else can we do? When we ask the minister to give the information we need, the information our electors request, he refuses to give it. I feel that we cannot honestly be blamed for renewing our request; on the contrary, the minister should be blamed for his uncompromising attitude, his arrogance, his stubbornness in failing to give us the information we are entitled to.
I would hope that if we repeat this often enough to him he will come to understand at last and will be willing to make half of the way and give us at least some, if not all, of the explanations we require, if we are to feel justified to exercise the rights which are ours in the house.
Mr. Chairman, if there is one important question for a country, it is the question of defence. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) will be the first to admit this and he will also agree with me that it is every

DEBATES	April 17. 1967
member's business to know as much as possible about this country's defence.
Who, both in this house and outside, would want to depend upon a foreign country for the defence of our land? This country belongs to us; it is ours, and we must take all available means to provide for our own defence. We simply want the minister to tell us how he intends to discharge his responsibilities as Minister of National Defence.
When he introduced this bill, the Minister of National Defence led us to believe that unification would save the taxpayers a lot of money. If one looks at the figures, one cannot but notice that over the last few years defence expenditures have gone up steadily. In fact, they climbed to $1,658 million and, this year, they increased by $115 million.
How can the minister blame us for taking a little time on such an important matter, on such heavy expenditures and for asking him to account for them? In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we are only doing our duty as members of parliament and the remarks made by an hon. member opposite prove what I am saying. I refer to the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois) who stated the following, as shown on page 14676 of Hansard:
As members of parliament we have a direct responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent in the most effective way.
I suggest that to ignore the advice of experts as to ways to save money and make this country's armed forces more effective is a very serious dereliction of duty.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the present minister has completely disregarded the views of the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois). He does not seem to pay any attention to the amount of the expenditures. He seems also to reject or ignore the advice of at least a dozen experts, who do not approve of his proposal. And they are career men, who have devoted the greater part of their lives to the armed forces. They have told the minister that his unification proposal was not appropriate for the country.
But the minister, in his obstinacy, remains set on imposing a plan which he conceived himself and, in spite of the wish of experts in this field, he still wants to implement a plan which, according to these experts, would not answer the needs of our armed forces.
It seems to me the minister should not be surprised that we ask him questions. It is his duty to give us information. There are also other reasons why our attitude should not come as a surprise to the minister.
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
Hon. members will remember that a certain piece of evidence of one of the senior officers in the army was tampered with to meet the current needs. How can the minister be surprised now to see that we do not accept all he tells us without reservation? Furthermore, he accused an admiral, Admiral Landymore, of having betrayed his country. He accused him of treason and then presented his excuses. Nevertheless, he has left this admiral, a high ranking military officer who gave his best for many years, under a cloud- that of treason. How can the minister today be surprised to see that we do not accept all he tells us without reservation? It seems logical to me that we should ask ourselves whether he tells us the truth. We are justified in adopting this position by recent events.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister has no reason to think that we are acting otherwise than according to our conscience.
We heard him say the other day that he was trying to carry this plan into effect because he was convinced that this was in the best interest of the country.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence given by experts, by people who know our armed forces, we are convinced of fully performing our duty by refusing to let the bill pass before we get all the required evidence or information.
There are, in my riding, people who occupy very enviable positions in society-I am speaking of lawyers, even judges-who held high ranks in the armed forces during the last war. All those with whom I have discussed unification unanimously agreed that some degree of integration, of unification can take place, for instance, with regard to medical, legal, supply, mechanical repair services, etc. However, as far as the air force, the army and the navy are concerned, they think that those who served in the armed forces generally believe in keeping their own identity.
It is in the light of this information, Mr. Chairman, that I urge the minister to reconsider his position, because I think he is going astray.
Every year, I take part in the ceremonies on Armistice Day, November 11. We find in those ceremonies the evidence that servicemen prize the uniform in which they served. In fact, very few are those who do not wear their uniform for those ceremonies on November
National Defence Act Amendment 11. It is noticeable how sailors stick together, as do infantrymen and the other members of the armed forces, while the airforce boys join together to share memories on feats of arms when they were at the front.
Mr. Chairman, our soldiers do care, even in peace time, for the uniforms in which they served. This means that the minister does not recognize, or want to recognize the requests of those who served in our armed forces, that he still insists on getting them all to wear the same uniform, to gratify his own wishes, his own ego. To my mind, there is no other explanation for his attitude.
I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, at the reluctance of the Liberals, mainly those from Quebec, to take part in this discussion and to raise objections, particularly with regard to clause 6 of Bill No. C-243, for this clause is the equivalent of conscription. After seeing the Liberals make their campaigns on the conscription issue for 25 years, it is odd to see to what degree they remain silent on a matter they talked so much about, to scare the people.
However, after thinking it over, Mr. Chairman, there is practically no reason for being surprised, if for instance one goes over the position taken by the hon. members opposite during the 1962 and 1963 election campaigns when they went around the province of Quebec in particular promising their constituents that they would oppose nuclear weapons.
Yet, only a few months after their coming to power, we saw them rise to a man to indicate that they were in favour of nuclear weapons which they had denounced so vigorously during the election campaign.
But they had been elected. They had what they were looking for: power. And when they are in office, their attitude is somewhat different from what it is when they sit in opposition or during an election campaign.
It may also be advisable to remind my friends opposite that in 1942, they devised that plebiscite in order to evade their obligations. Because, as you surely remember, Mr. Chairman, some people claimed to be strongly opposed to conscription in the province of Quebec.
You also remember that during the campaign preceding the plebiscite, the fathers of my good friends opposite, at least some of them, campaigned for the negative side in the province of Quebec, whereas in the rest of the country, other Liberals were campaigning for the other side.
15020	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Two policies, one for one part of the country, and another for the other part, according to the votes that could be gained for the Liberal party.
Well, Mr. Chairman, all those things have been prejudicial to Canadian unity and have given rise in the mind of Canadians to the idea that Quebeckers were not willing to assume their share of responsibility for the defence of the country.
The facts are the opposite, and I am happy to point out that during the 1914-18 war as well as during the 1939-45 war, Quebeckers fulfilled their duties.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I would like to appeal to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). I want to tell him that he is wrong in not accepting the advice of experts on defence, and urge him to reconsider his position.
I know that he is anxious to discharge his duties but if he really wants to serve the country, he will have to accept the advice of the admirals, the rear admirals and all those who try to talk him out of his project. If the minister continues on his course, then the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will have to take the matter in hand and simply withdraw this bill, so that we may have more time to study it and obtain the information which we need to enlighten our constituents.
I think that the hon. minister should think it over and not rush on with this, because the decision he is making now will certainly be against the best interests of the country.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could be so bold as to place before the committee once again the suggestion which I made last Friday morning, as set out in Hansard at pages 14925 and 14926. My proposal then-and I offer it again now-was to the effect that we agree some time soon, possibly tonight or tomorrow, to let clause 2 stand and go on to some of the other clauses of this bill. May I make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that I am not trying to close off debate on clause 2. I am not suggesting that a vote be taken at this time. Indeed, if we let the clause stand it will not have been passed until we come back to it at some later stage of our proceedings.
I am positive that my suggestion does not prejudice the work of the business committee.
I happen to be one of the members of that committee; therefore, I shall not report on

DEBATES	April 17, 1967
what it is doing. But I am sure that if we were to go on from clause 2 to other clauses, that would not clash with anything which the committee might report or fail to report.
I should like also to make it clear that my proposal should be considered as one which does not seek to strengthen the position of either the government or the opposition in this debate. I put it forward because it seems to me that at some point members will want to discuss other clauses. There has been a suggestion of that in the speech made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot who found himself discussing clause 6 of the bill; I believe this is one of the clauses which a number of hon. members wish to debate at considerable length.
And I said, my proposal does not strengthen the position of either side; it simply makes sure that whatever time we do spend on this bill we will divide among clause 2 and the other clauses in which hon. members are interested. I plead with the government not to bring in my suggestion in the form of a motion. I hope this is something we may agree on. It will not make sense if we spend all our time on clause 2 and then, because of the application of a rule, or whatever else may happen, the committee has to let the other clauses go by without debate. On Friday morning I thought Monday night would be a good time at which to agree to this course. That is why I have been bold enough to take the floor at this point in the debate, hoping that hon. members will consider what I had to say.
Incidentally, if there are members who feel they have anything to say which relates to clause 2 and which has not yet been said-I make no comment on that-it seems to me there are other clauses which are just as general as clause 2. For example, clause 5 states that the services now known as the three we have shall be embodied in the new single force. Surely this clause is wide enough for any discussion or for any contribution members may want to make.
I offer this suggestion in good faith. I do so without taking sides as between the two main contending groups at the present time. I do so in the hope that whatever time we spend on this bill we may apportion reasonably as among the various clauses. That is my proposal, that either tonight or some time tomorrow we agree to allow clause 2 to stand, without voting on it, and go on to clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6 as the committee might wish.
April 17, 1967


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I want to say a few words tonight, principally because of the intervention made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat-not that he said anything about the bill, but certainly his attitude echoed the prevailing sentiment on the other side of the house. Several of the things he said found an echo there because as usual the hon. member was following the line which he knows will please those who dominate him in this house-the Liberal party.
He said, in essence, that the committee had heard enough speeches-that it was the democratic thing, now, to vote. Hon. members, he said, wanted to vote on the issue and had the right to vote, now. It seems to me this illustrates several fundamental errors in the thinking of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, errors shared by hon. members who sit opposite. They are not sure enough as to the duty of members of this house or, at least, their idea of their duty does not coincide with mine. They have no conception as to the seriousness of this legislation and they do not understand the duty of a member when he feels that a course proposed by the government is basically very wrong. I refuse to accept the proposition that the minds of hon. members are so settled that they cannot be reached by some of the facts which have been so clearly brought out before the committee. I feel that when, presented in the proper light, the evidence is so clear that some of those who sit opposite will come round to our point of view.
I cannot comprehend the attitude taken by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He seems to believe that when carrying on a fight the only question to be considered is whether you are likely to win or lose. I do not know whether it is my Irish ancestry or not, but the only thought I have is that when something is bad, you fight it. And when the results are likely to be very, very serious, you must fight it with every weapon you have. Any other concept is unacceptable to me. The hon. member's attitude-"It looks hopeless so why don't you give in?"-is one I can neither accept nor understand.
It seems to me that part of the democratic process consists of an attempt to persuade. That process includes making sure that the people of this country understand the issues. As members of the opposition we have the right to attempt to convey the facts to the people so that they may understand-to awaken their comprehension of what is going on. In consequence they might express themselves in a way which would have its effect
National Defence Act Amendment on members opposite, so that we might even intimidate them-if I may use that word-to the point at which they would go slow with this measure. And that is the most which has been asked by so many defence critics.
I would point out to hon. members that of the time taken on this bill in the committee and in this house, about half has been spent in discussion of the method adopted by the government in bringing forward its legislation on this subject-something about which the utmost concern was expressed by the ministers senior advisers who critized the unseemly haste which the government was adopting, despite the fact that there is no logical reason for its passage at this time. There must be a suspicion in the minds of the people of this country that perhaps there is a reason for this delay and for our belief that the longer this takes the better the people will be educated as to the facts. Once they know the facts they will realize what the government is doing, and the government will be found to be in the wrong. If this indeed be the situation, I suggest that hon. members on the other side are being political when they tell us that now is the time to take a vote. They are worried about their political skins and are scared to death that the people will awaken to the truth of what the Liberals intend to do in this country. They fear the people will give us their support in time to stop them. We hope it will come to that.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I was amazed at the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, for one, who suggested, "This is democracy. We want to vote now. Our minds are made up." Apparently the wish to speak on this is antidemocratic. The hon. member for Leeds and other hon. members opposite used somewhat the same argument by saying, "Let us get on with the job," as though only the vote is the job, and the consideration and the right of persuasion is not part of the job.
I would point out that those who labour under this apprehension of what democracy consists of certainly have a strange idea of democratic functions in this country. I loathe that tone of unctuous righteousness with which the hon. member for Medicine Hat puts forward his idea of, "Vote. Let the majority rule, and that is democracy." Of course if one belongs to the Social Credit party one must learn that tone of unctuous righteousness because this is the way they always talk.
April 17, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
As the hon. member demonstrated in his speech, he had nothing to say about unification. I do not think he has read the evidence of the committee. I do not think he knows anything about it; but he undoubtedly knows how to make one of those typical Social Credit speeches which reveal to us the limitations which Social Crediters believe exist on democracy-that the majority have the right to vote and that is democracy. Certainly rule by majority is the cornerstone of democracy; but don't forget that majority only indicates the power, the balance of power, and that the right to rule by power is held by every other form of government. Any form of dictatorship, if you have the power, gives you the right to rule. It is the way we get the power that makes our way of ruling by power the better. But ruling because we have the power is not the crowning glory of democracy.
It is time that Social Crediters, especially in this house, who are fundamentally lacking in this knowledge, should understand that the crowning glory of democracy is respect for the rights of minorities and individuals. It is this which gives us the right of free speech. It is not the rule by majority that is so important to us. It is that protection which individuals and minorities enjoy under our system that they do not get under those other systems which rule by power, that makes democracy worth while; it is the right to use that freedom of speech to persuade. That is the basis of our democratic and parliamentary system of government, and that is the system we are using now.
There have been suggestions from the other side of the chamber, echoed by papers across the country, that now is the time to stop this debate, that now is the time to take the vote because all the evidence has been heard. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that only a small fraction of the very valuable evidence before the committee has been brought before the house, that there are many good, sound arguments to be heard, and certainly no one can deny us the right to that last resort of every politician in this country who feels he is fighting for what he must fight for, the attempt to try to get the time to educate the public on this very complicated and important subject, and to ask the house to allow a time for public knowledge to spread so that public opinion can make itself felt.
I certainly realize the risks I run, Mr. Chairman, if, being one of those who has spoken, as my opponents would say, to an excessive length of time in the house, my

electors should feel I have been wasting the time of the house, and they come to the conclusion I was wrong. Certainly while it is human nature to allow someone to make a mistake, if you make a mistake and press vehemently on with it, and in that course of action continue to waste the time of the house and fight as hard as I intend to fight, then I presume the penalty one would pay would be extra severe. I am quite prepared to take that risk. Of course I am convinced in my own mind I am running very little risk, but they always say the person who is crazy is the last one to know it, and it could be that I am. However, I have studied the evidence and I do have tremendous respect for the witnesses who appeared. I am convinced in my own mind that, given an ample opportunity, the result of public opinion on this subject is going to vindicate my stand and the stand of my party. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear again that the points I am making are simply to illustrate the approach to this debate.
Last Tuesday, the last time I had a chance to get the floor, the minister took umbrage at my reference to the technique of the big lie, but there was something in an Ottawa paper, the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday, which is such a beautiful illustration of this technique that I must touch on it.
To begin with, to understand what I mean by the technique of the big lie, it is not necessary for someone to tell a direct lie. In fact some of the most skilful methods employed in the technique of the big lie do not use a lie at all, although certainly they use half truths. The whole idea of the technique of the big lie is to make sure the facts are hidden, or at least to make sure that if the facts are revealed they are either confused or swamped under false arguments.
I have time tonight to give only one illustration. In the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday there appeared an editorial, which I presume was written by Chris Young, headed "The Nugent Case-What's the Limit on Privilege." Anyone who read it would be led to believe that there is something wrong with the privileges of parliament, because I somehow was able to get protection outside the house and the minister was not able to get at me. This would be a distortion or false use of the rules.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, nothing could be farther from the truth in this case. The man who wrote that editorial knew very well I said outside the house exactly what I said
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
inside the house without any question of parliamentary immunity or privilege whatsoever.
I think that if I tried to ask for parliamentary privilege for what I was repeating outside the house it could not be extended to me, but I made it plain I was not reading from Hansard. I left Ottawa Wednesday morning before Hansard was available. Out west I was trying to use the exact words I had used in the house so that there would be no suggestion that I backed down on what I said. But the truth has not bothered the editor of the Ottawa Citizen whatsoever. He writes this editorial to cover up the facts with a smokescreen. It is perfect example of one technique used to perpetrate the big lie. We are used to that in the Ottawa Citizen, and I hope tomorrow I can continue with a few other illustrations of the classic use of the big lie in this debate.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of getting on with the business of the house and of the country, since there are some other things we would want to do later this session and next session after this bill has passed, if the committee would agree to extend the sitting beyond ten o'clock tonight?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: We have received little cooperation from the Minister of National Defence in this debate. I can understand his tender susceptibilities about time but I believe the minister had his tongue in his cheek when he said he was making that suggestion in the interests of getting along with the other business of the country.
It is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I come back to a matter I raised a few weeks ago, the tearing-down of public government buildings, namely the old printing bureau and the Roxborough building in Ottawa.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, the point is to decide whether a serious investigation is necessary to unveil the truth about the adjudication of demolition contracts to companies that seem to be in collusion. In fact, a comparison of the tenders submitted to the Department of Public Works on two occasions, first for the old printing bureau and second, for the Roxborough building, reveals that the same contractors who missed out on the Roxborough demolition job, had all the chances to recoup themselves with the old printing bureau demolition job.
When the time came for the demolition of the old printing bureau, which is under way at present, the department chose to call on some contractors. Instead of calling for public tenders, where everyone would have had a chance to tender for this contract, where all contractors would have competed, they preferred to call six companies: Cohen & Cohen, Hugh M. Grant, Teperman & Sons, Green-spoon Bros.-who had not done any demolition in Ottawa for many years-Palmer-Levitan Ltd., in Hull and Hurdman Bros, in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, at the time of the first call for tenders to wreck the Roxborough building, in October 1966, Cohen & Cohen tendered for the job with Teperman & Sons-another company, which was supposed to be a rival, but they joined forces-for a total sum of $138,000, while Beaver Demolition tendered for $143,600, Panzini Ltd. for $164,000 and Palmer-Levitan Ltd. for $169,000.
Now, honest officials of the department stated that the cost of such demolition could not go beyond $25,000 or $30,000. Tenders were called for and then, Panzini Ltd., for instance, having first tendered for $164,000, now tendered for $57,000, a difference of 107,000. On the other hand, Palmer-Levitan Ltd. of Hull tendered for $68,000 or a difference of $101,000 between the two tenders.
I understand that high officials of the department, having taken a position, the companies were slightly embarrassed not to tender again at a price lower than previously quoted. But when the small difference is noted between the first tenders, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe there was collusion between the companies. The same situation occurred in connection with the demolition contract for the old printing bureau, when the two same contractors again tendered, but this time, in order that other people may not tender at a lower price, public tenders were not called for.
15024	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, my attention has been called on this matter not by people who want to play politics, but by people who want that justice be respected and applied.
The minister would be wrong in seeing in that any kind of political considerations, because the person who first has brought this matter to my attention, Mr. Thibault of Thibault Lumber, does not belong to my political party. In fact, he is well known in Liberal circles and I think the minister knows him too.
Financially responsible companies, such as Thibault Lumber and others-not only this one but others also-could have saved the Department of Public Works about $50,000 according to their own statement, in the demolition of the old National Printing Bureau.
Mr. Speaker, it is against this injustice, against this apparent collusion between a few important companies wishing to assume "control" of the contracts which the government or the Department of Public Works wishes to grant, or must grant, that I raise my voice.
I ask the minister to keep a close eye on the tenderers in future, so far as government contracts are concerned, whether for demolition or construction works.
We do not have the right to play with the Canadian taxpayer's money, with the people's money. We must operate economically and allow contractors and businessmen to have an chance before the law, before the government and particularly before the Department of Public Works.
I rise to protest against such things, Mr. Speaker, and I call the minister's attention to these anomalies which lead some newspapers and even some radio stations to accuse the government of favouring collusion between some companies trying to "fool" the government instead of serving the Canadian people.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Ville-neuve on the subject of awarding contracts for the demolition of the Roxborough apartments and the old printing bureau. I should like to point out one fact in respect of his earlier remarks. The two contracts were not comparable because of the nature of the structures, and that element of demolition contracts regarding the amount of material capable of being sold at the site. In respect of the Roxborough contract this element was an
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	April 17, 1967
important factor, whereas in the case of the old printing bureau it was a very small factor, if a factor at all. These facts relate to the entire remarks of the hon. member.
The hon. member for Villeneuve then referred to the method of calling for tenders from a selected list. In respect of the Roxborough it is interesting to note that as a result of the first public call for tender the lowest tender was $138,000 and the highest was $169,000. Because of the fact that even the lowest tender far exceeded the estimated cost of the job the contract was not awarded and tenders were again called. The specifications were changed slightly in respect of two things.
As a result of the second public advertisement calling for tenders, we received 14 bids varying from $19,000 to $88,000. It was clear that the $19,000 bid was not realistic. Therefore the contract was awarded to the second lowest bidder. That contract was never fulfilled. Because the job was partly under way, and in an effort to terminate it, bids were invited from a list of contractors to complete the job. The low bid was $29,985. That was the actual cost of that particular job.
Tenders were invited from six firms in respect of the old printing bureau demolition job. This occurred because the time available was exceedingly short and the job had to be done quickly to provide space for the centennial exhibition to take place at Nepean Point and Parliament Hill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time alot-ted to him has expired.

HOUSING-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF MEETING ECONOMIC COUNCIL TARGET [DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, for months now people interested in meeting the needs of housing in this country, newspapers in every city including those which support the government, such as the Toronto Star, have been devoting pages almost every day to the tremendous housing crisis which our country is facing. The chairman of the Economic Council, Dr. Deutsch, when appearing before the parliamentary committee dealing with prices estimated that this country needs to build houses at the rate of 170,000 per year in order to meet its minimum requirements in this field.
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), who is in charge of housing, how close we would come this year to meeting the target suggested by Dr. Deutsch. The minister replied that we were now building homes at the annual rate of 170,000. It was only when the leader of the New Democratic Party asked a supplementary question as to how many houses it was expected would be completed this year that the minister admitted that the number of houses completed this year would be between 150,000 and 155,000; in other words, between 15,000 and 20,000 less than Dr. Deutsch said we needed.
This is not a new situation. In early March, Central Mortgage and Housing reported that housing starts had sagged by 38J per cent. They said that in the month of January the number of single, detached dwellings started had dropped by 38.5 per cent compared with the same period last year; that apartment starts in January had decreased by 17 per cent; that row housing had decreased by the fantastic amount of 78 per cent. Of course the minister has been telling us that things are getting better, but the Toronto Telegram reported on April 15 last that housing starts in Toronto in the month of March went down by 33 per cent compared with the year before. It is not surprising, then, that one reads the kind of report which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 14 last, which says:
Half the families in greater Winnipeg are living in houses or apartments that are overcrowded, or substandard from the point of view of construction or sanitation.
Or else they are living doubled up-two families in a dwelling designed to be used by one family; or they are paying more for their shelter than they can afford.
This article in the Winnipeg Free Press goes on to illustrate the tremendous shortages in housing which have arisen. The Minister of Labour has been so busy with labour problems that he has had little time, if any, to devote to housing. The minister was responsible, for example, for the increase in the interest rate being charged on houses. This policy was intended to enable more houses to be purchased, but it ignored completely the fact that the increase in the interest rate has increased the cost of housing. For example, a house selling for between $20,000 and $25,000 will cost the purchaser, over 25 years, an additional $2,000. The result is that it is becoming increasingly impossible for people, not only in the low income bracket but in the middle income bracket, to purchase houses.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
When one looks at the statistics published in the annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, he sees that the number of houses purchased by people with an income of up to $7,000-and the vast majority of people in this country do not earn $7,000 a year-amounts to only 20 per cent of the total number of houses purchased through N.H.A. financing.
What is required is a government and a minister who realize that housing is important, that it is not something which can be turned on and off like a tap simply because we need or do not need jobs. What is required is a housing policy which has an objective of building houses for the people who need them. I hope the government will agree shortly to the proposal which has come from all sections of the country and from all groups interested in the needs for housing, namely that we have a minister of urban affairs, one of whose major concerns would be the provision of adequate housing for the people of Canada. I would hope that such a minister would get on with the job of providing public housing apartments, row and low rental housing which the ordinary people of this country can afford.
In every city of this country it is easy to rent an apartment if you are prepared to pay $200 or more a month. But for the ordinary people who earn $60 or $70 a week this kind of rent is completely impossible. For them the minister and the government have done virtually nothing. We need to get on with the job of urban renewal.
There was nothing more depressing for me than to attend the conference on housing called by the minister, held in my city of Winnipeg, and to hear the minister excuse the fact that he has done so little in housing by saying that of course we cannot expect the moneyed people of this country to put their money into housing when they could make more money building factories and high rise office buildings on which they could charge a very substantial rate and make much greater profits. That is the kind of program which has led to disaster, up to now.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I think he will agree with me that the problem of housing is world-wide. Let me point out that in the great socialist haven of Sweden one has to wait six years if he is
15026	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion lucky and has enough influence, to find a home of any size or dimension.
Dr. Deutsch set a target of 170,000 starts in this year. I am sure that the latest statistics which I have been able to procure from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be of encouragement to the hon. member, who is so objective. As I have only three minutes I will simply point out that the number of starts will reach 170,000 by the third quarter of this year, and there is a very good indication that this rate will continue to rise. In other words, by the third quarter of this year the housing starts in Canada will have reached the target set out by Dr. Deutsch and recommended by the Economic Council of Canada.
The question of low rental housing, as is known to the hon. member, who belongs to a party which respects the constitution of this country, comes under provincial jurisdiction. The housing act puts housing at the disposal of the municipalities and housing corporations of the different provinces, and it is up to the provinces to show a little more initiative and to take advantage of the very enlightened legislation which is available, and the huge sums of money which go untapped and unused year in and year out because of the lack of initiative on the part of the provincial authorities.
In so far as the interest rates are concerned, I think again the hon. member will be pleased to know that it has been reduced from 7.25 to 7 per cent.
In conclusion I wish to say that I am very proud of the fact that because of a series of circumstances, the initiative of the minister in generating spring starts by providing 20,000 loans, the reduction in the interest rate from 7.25 to 7 per cent, and the initiative of the government in permitting the banks to reenter the mortgage field, we will meet this year-not at the end of the year but at the beginning of the third quarter-the target which, as stated by Dr. Deutsch, is in Canada's best interests.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-QUEBEC- PROTEST RESPECTING PROPOSED REDUCTION OF SERVICE

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised today is not new, as I dealt with it when the minister introduced in the house the new bill concerning the transport commission.
[Mr. Mackasey.l
DEBATES	April 17, 1967
If I am renewing my attempt today, it is because since this new bill was passed by the house, immediately afterwards-and I could say even before it was passed-the Canadian National Railways applied to the Canadian Transport Commission for permission to discontinue its passenger service between Quebec and La Malbaie. This service has existed, as the minister knows, for about 50 years. It began during difficult times in order to meet the economic needs of our area. Now, the Canadian National Railways are applying to the Canadian Transport Commission for its discontinuance.
Obviously the minister is not at fault but since he assumed his office, my area suffered from certain decisions of the Department of Transport.
Hon. members will recall that last year, I also raised a question concerning the discontinuance of cruises by Canada Steamship Lines between Montreal, La Malbaie and the Saguenay. I had asked the then minister to intervene, to bring pressure to bear on that company in order that that service be continued. The minister may have made representations, but the company nevertheless discontinued its service between Montreal, the north shore and also Pointe au Pic in my riding, and that brought about a loss of employment for 200 persons and caused significant losses to the tourist industry.
This year there is another problem: the C.N.R. has decided to discontinue its passenger service between Quebec city and La Malbaie.
I must tell the minister that his decision raised a wave of opposition and protests from businessmen, boards of trade, intermediate organizations and pressure groups; immediately, the county councils met with all mayors sitting on the county councils to hire economists to study the situation. Municipalities of eastern Quebec were also called upon. The minister should know that Quebec city passed a resolution calling on the Department of Transport to exert pressure upon the Canadian National Railways so that a decision may not be rendered by the Board of Transport Commissioners. The authorities of the cities of Villeneuve and Charlesbourg, near Quebec, have done the same.
Recently, and. this was the subject matter of the question I put this afternoon, the Quebec legislature passed a resolution asking the C.N.R. to abandon the proposed elimination of the passenger service between La Malbaie and Quebec.
April 17, 1967	COMMONS
The minister, with such data, can appreciate, I believe, the fact that all these people who have their hearts set on the economic development of this particular area, stood up and asked him, as well as the Canadian National authorities, to endeavour to study the matter more closely and to postpone the abandonment of the passenger service between Quebec and La Malbaie.
Evidently, the minister will tell me that a deficit exists. There is a deficit, no doubt. However, I am personally convinced that a public service is not a company that must register profits, but rather an organization that must serve the population. That, to my mind, is public service.
If the Canadian National Railways want to talk about losses when it comes before the Board of Transport Commissioners, we will also talk about the tremendous profits it made with its freight train between La Malbaie and Quebec city.
Mr. Speaker, ours is part of an area which has been designated, which is under-developed. Now, nothing is more important in such an area than adequate means of transport or communications.
The C.N.R. has done everything possible to prepare the abandonment of passenger service between Quebec city and La Malbaie. Rusty old cars were placed at the disposal of the public. The service was not publicized, and the hours were not adapted to the needs of the travelling public.
Today, of course, after five years of study, we are told: There are deficits. If the C.N.R. has deficits it is simply because it planned that deficit to be able to go before the Board of Transport Commissioners and say: There, gentlemen, we have no more money and we have to give up the service.
I make a very special plea to the minister. Our area has economic problems. It has a historic past. Particularly during centennial year, when we expect to welcome a great number of tourists, which will help considerably our tourist industry, I think it would be economic ruination if the minister did not recommend to the C.N.R. to give up its idea to discontinue its passenger service between Quebec city and La Malbaie.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I think the minister is aware of the problem, because he has the picture. I trust his sense of fairness and I thank him for having come this evening to listen patiently to the grievances of people who claim to be distressed by that decision of the C.N.R. I am convinced that in the face of all those facts, the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martial Asselin: -will honestly appeal to C.N.R. authorities and ask them to give it a try for at least two more years, to adjust the schedules-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has now expired.

Hon. J. W Pickersgill (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I can very well understand the feelings of the population served by the railway between Quebec city and Murray Bay, which feelings have been put so feelingly by the hon. gentleman. He knows what the population there perhaps do not all know, namely that this is a matter that parliament saw fit to appoint a board to consider. I have no doubt that the board will consider all the representations that have been made by the municipalities, by the legislature of Quebec, by the city of Quebec and by all those other interested parties.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will draw to the attention both of the C.N.R. and of the board the representations that he has made this evening. He will realize of course that it would not be proper for me personally as minister to attempt to bring any pressure on the board one way or the other. There is an appeal from the board to the governor in council, and it would be inappropriate for me to take any part in this process, when later on there might be the need to exercise judgment upon the judgment of the board.
However, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have every sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman, and anything I can properly do I assure him I will do.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

April 17, 1967



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Your Excellency, it is my privilege as Prime Minister, and it is indeed my pleasure, to extend to you on behalf of the people and the government of Canada our warmest good wishes as you assume the high and honourable office of Governor General of Canada.
May I respectfully request, Your Excellency, as your first official duty as the Queen's representative in Canada, that you convey to Her Majesty a message of loyalty and devotion from the Canadian people. Please assure her how delighted we are that our Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will be with us on the 1st of July to celebrate the centennial of our Confederation.
You begin your office, sir, at an historic moment. Throughout the one hundred years of our history as a Confederation, the post of Governor General has been filled by men of distinction who have all contributed significantly to the development of Canada and to the achievement of the proud position which we are celebrating throughout this centennial year.
(Translation)
We have been made more aware of the opportunities and the burden of your great office by the unexcelled contribution which your immediate predecessor made to the lasting benefit of all the people of this land. His memory will be treasured and his service to Canada will never be forgotten and I am sure that his life and work will be an inspiration to you as you take up your heavy duties.
(English)
We all realize, sir, how especially heavy these duties are in our centennial year. It is yet another evidence of your willingness to serve your country that you readily consented to become Her Majesty's representative in Canada knowing that you and your wife would immediately be faced with a most demanding programme of engagements. We have no doubt, sir, that you will meet the challenges of this great office with the same skill and wisdom and calm good humour that you have met the other challenges that
have faced you throughout your varied career; even, if I may add, going far back into the years when I used to pass a puck to you on the right wing, or was it the left wing, and you were expected to score a goal.
We remember well your distinguished performance when you occupied the chair in that other place and "never sold the truth to serve the hour". Although tradition will now bar you from attending there, I assure you, sir, that your reputation is secure as one of the very best and most honoured of our "first commoners".
You were, of course, no stranger to public service. It has been in the tradition of your family. Your father is remembered as a member of this very Chamber where we are now gathered. You yourself, until a few days ago when you received the Queen's summons to represent Her Majesty in Canada, were serving half way around the world as the High Commissioner of Canada to India. There you have been able to test the strength and fabric of our Commonwealth of Nations. At the same time you were the Canadian Ambassador to Nepal and in the clear light of the far Himalayas, you may have seen your country, its problems and its future in a new and different perspective.
Tennyson's lines, I believe, fit well your career,
"Much has he seen and known; cities of men,
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Himself not least, but honoured of them all".
Through all this you have been accompanied and aided by your wife whose qualities of heart and mind have earned her an enviable reputation and the esteem of all who know her.
Your Excellency, you begin your term of office as Her Majesty's representative in Canada with the best wishes of us all. We welcome you with great goodwill. Que Dieu vous garde. May God's grace and help be with you.
April 17, 1967
[Stage Direction]
1S029

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister,
So quick has been my transition from New Delhi to Ottawa that I have the sensation of having run all the way, and arrived here amongst you, somewhat out of breath-but as you can see, that does not leave me speechless. On the contrary I am full of ideas and emotions some of which I hope to be able to express to you at least in a preliminary way.
First, I am filled with gratitude for the generous words with which you have welcomed me and my wife and with appreciation for your earlier words, even more consequential, in which you gave to Her Majesty the advice upon which she acted in naming me as her representative in Canada. The honour is great and greatly valued, however awesome the responsibility.
[Stage Direction]
Notwithstanding your encouraging expression of confidence that my wife and I will be equal to the task, I am all too well aware, and here I speak for myself alone, of the gap between my qualifications and the potentialities of the office of Governor General. These potentialities have been amply demonstrated by my predecessors. The Right Honourable Vincent Massey, the first Canadian Governor General, gave the office a new significance for Canadians. Their Excellencies the late Georges Vanier and Madame Vanier in the last seven years have so fully represented all that is good in the whole Canadian community, that they have justly won the respect and affection of everyone. His courageous efforts to complete his task in failing health confirm his place among the noblest of our public men.
With other Canadians we have mourned his loss and offered our sympathies to Madame Vanier with a full realization that no other couple would be able to begin at the high level of excellence and esteem to which they had elevated their public responsibilities.
[Stage Direction]
However, we are greatly heartened in entering upon our term of office by the thought that the Governor General has come to represent the Canadian people as a whole and that in addition to his necessary and important constitutional functions he now symbolizes for Canadians the stability and continuity of
their national life and institutions. In consequence all Canadians have a personal interest in the office and in helping the incumbent to reflect their hopes and aspirations for the future. Already we have been encouraged by the good wishes of many of those whom we shall serve, and we hope to earn and deserve such encouragement from all. It will make our task possible and our lives happy. In any event, Prime Minister, I shall not fail through lack of effort nor of will to serve.
I gladly undertake to assure at once to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of Canada, as you have requested, the loyalty and devotion of the Canadian people and our delight that she and The Duke of Edinburgh will soon be with us to join in our Centennial celebrations. May I add to this message my own humble duty to our Queen and my profound gratitude for the trust which she has entrusted in me.
[Stage Direction]
Canadians look forward as well to welcoming other royal and distinguished visitors from Commonwealth and friendly nations who will be honouring us with their presence during this momentous year. We are grateful for their esteem and respect which will remind us that our birthday celebrations have significance beyond our own boundaries. 1967 is a time to assess our past achievements in the society of nations and to seek means of extending our contributions to the peace and happiness of the whole family of man.
To my friends in Quebec I should like to say that we look forward very much to the pleasure of living amongst them for a time each year at The Citadel. From there my wife and I shall be able to look down the river to the lie d'Orleans where we have spent many happy days.
[Stage Direction]
We now see in French Canada a renaissance of that creative vigour and intellectual brilliance which have long been a mark of French civilization. All Canadians may well take pride in the achievements which are taking place in Quebec for they will stimulate and strengthen Canada as a whole. We are fortunate to possess two mighty currents of civilization: French and British. To these first mainstreams of our national existence have been added the diverse and notable contributions of settlers from other lands and races who have ventured to our shores. They have
[Stage Direction]
April 17. 1967
provided Canada with additional sources of strength and richness.
We look forward, in due course, to visiting all of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Arctic, not forgetting Alberta, where I was born and raised, Manitoba my wife's birthplace, and British Columbia, her former home, as well as Ontario, the centre of my public and professional activities.
Having set ourselves the goal of representing what one Canadian has called "la collectivite entiere qu'on appelle le Canada",
we shall seek to meet and know Canadians in their home communities. In Government House we hope to welcome Canadians of all walks of life, to provide a neutral and friendly environment for the discussion of differing points of view, and a centre for the encouragement of excellence in all worthy fields of Canadian endeavour.
In concluding, may I add my prayer to that of the Prime Minister that God's grace and help may direct us all in our common efforts to sustain and strengthen Canada, our Home.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 18, 1987