1967-04-10

Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minisier of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the house appointments to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and its advisory committee.
Mr. Roger Perreault, of Montreal, Que., will act as president of the board, whereas Mr. Charles W. Huffman, of Harrow, Ont., will be the vice president. The third member will be Mr. Willard D. Dernier, of Moncton, N.B.
The advisory committee will be made up of seven members including Mr. Lyall A. Currie, of Cloverdale, B.C., who will assume the duties of president; the other members will be Messrs. Delmer W. Bennett, Foresters Falls, Ont.; William G. Tilden, Harriston, Ont.; Albert Allain, Rochebaucourt, Que.; Lu-cien Bolduc, Compton, Que.; Arthur R. Hill, Onslow, N.S.; and Charles H. Yeo, St. Eleanors, P.E.I.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Latulippe: From the date on which the House of Commons voted for the retention of capital punishment (a) how many persons were sentenced to death in Canada (b) how many were executed (c) how many sentences were stayed (d) how many sentences were commuted to life imprisonment (e) how many prisoners hanged themselves?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: (a)
10; (b) 0; (c) 0; (d) 5; (e) 10.
Note: That of the 10 persons mentioned in (a) one was granted a new trial by the Court of Appeal and subsequently convicted of noncapital murder; another was granted a new trial by the Court of Appeal and has not yet been retried; and the other 8 cases are still 23033-9291
before the Courts of Appeal. Thus the case referred to in (d) are not cases coming within (a). The cases referred to in (e) relate to the entire penitentiary population and one such person at the time of his suicide was being detained in a provincial institution.


SUPERANNUATION OF RURAL POSTMASTERS
Mr. Caouette: What is the age at which rural postmasters are eligible for superannuation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Rural Postmasters who contribute to the Superannuation fund are eligible for Superannuation: (a) because of ill health after five years of service, (b) with an actuarial allowance which would commence at age fifty after twenty years of service. Cc) voluntarily at age sixty, (d) at age sixty-five, unless employment is extended, (e) compulsory at age seventy.


RENTAL OF SPACE IN JULIANA APARTMENTS, OTTAWA
Mr. Coates: Has the government rented space in the Juliana apartments, Bronson avenue, Ottawa, and, if so (a) for what department or agencies of the government (b) when did the government enter into a contract for the space in question, how much was obtained and what is the annual rental (c) who are the principal shareholders in the company who owns the Juliana apartment building?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Department of Trade and Commerce as follows: (a) Department of Trade and Commerce, (b) (i) One 1-bedroom and one bachelor apartment leased for a period of two years effective May 1,1966. Total annual rent $7,800. (ii) Three bachelor apartments leased for a period of 1 year effective January 1, 1967. Total annual rent $12,960. (c) Not known.


VETERANS PENSIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What is the average length of service of all administrative level personnel serving on (a) the Canada pension commission and its divisions (b>
April 10, 1967
Questions
the veterans bureau (c) the veterans welfare services branch (d) the war veterans allowance board?
2.	In each of the above cases, what is the maximum and the minimum length of service per division or branch?
3.	How many medical doctors are employed on the various boards or divisions under the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and how many branches or divisions of the department are involved?
4.	When a veteran's pension is increased as a result of examination, to what maximum length of time is the increase made retroactive and if, as a result of appeal or re-examination, it is discovered that an error was made in determining the eligibility of an applicant for pension or for veterans allowance, what recourse does the applicant have as regards obtaining payment for that period of time which elapsed between original application and final acceptance or acknowledgement of eligibility?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) 11 years; (b) 10 years; (c) 17 years; (d) 19 years.
2.	(a) minimum three months; maximum 34 years; (b) minimum two months; maximum 27 years; (c) minimum five months; maximum 28 years; (d) minimum one year; maximum 37 years.
3.	Treatment services, 145 full time doctors; 774 part time doctors.
Canadian pension commission, 52 full time doctors.
4.	When a veteran's disability pension is increased as a result of medical examination, such increase may be made retroactive to the date of complaint, or even earlier if supported by medical evidence. The recourse with regard to obtaining a retroactive payment of pension is through section 31 of the Pension Act which limits the dates from which disability pensions are payable.
Awards made pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act may be paid from the effective date of application, depending on the applicant's financial circumstances. Allowances may be awarded or increased retroactively to the effective date of an adverse decision when such a decision resulted from a mistake of fact or an error.


COMPARISONS BETWEEN ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What Is the present ratio of total numbers of personnel in the Canadian army relative to that of the R.C.A.F.?
2.	What was the total number of promotions in 1966 in (a) the army (b) the air force?
3.	What was the total number of promotions to .date in 1967, in (a) the army (b) the air force?

4.	With respect to parts 2 and 3 above, what was the ratio of promotions within the army to that within the air force?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. On 28 February, 1967 regular force strength was army 42,429; air force 44,307.
2.	(a) 7,868; (b) 13,656.
These figures include 3,491 army and 10,095 R.C.A.F. promotions to corporal as a result of the 1 October, 1966 pay revision.
3.	As of 14 March, 1967.
(a) 473; (b) 1,599.
These figures include 65 army and 169 R.C.A.F. promotions on an automatic basis from second lieutenant to lieutenant (or equivalent) from 1 October, 1966.
4.	1966, 1 to 1.7; 1967 to date, 1 to 3.


ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO TRANSAIR LTD.
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What assets were transferred by either the government of Canada or Air Canada (Trans-Canada Air Lines) to TransAir Ltd. in any of the last six years?
2.	For what price or consideration was this transfer made?
3.	Have the services provided to date by TransAir Ltd. been in accordance with the agreement made at the time of transfer of these assets?
4.	Has the government of Canada entered into any supplementary agreement with TransAir Ltd. relative to the above?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. In 1963 Air Canada transferred to TransAir one Viscount aircraft, one Rolls-Royce Dart engine, 12 first class seats, eight ground power units, four cargoveyers, two DC-3 aircraft, miscellaneous DC-3 components and spare parts, miscellaneous DC-3 ground support equipment, miscellaneous ground radio equipment and office equipment and furnishings located at Medicine Hat, Swift Current, Brandon, Yorkton and Prince Albert.
2.	In consideration of agreement by TransAir to commence a class I scheduled commercial air service on the southern prairie and the Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert routes and to operate for a period of three years on such route pattern as may be approved from time to time by the air transport board.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
April 10, 1967


LINK BETWEEN CIGARETTE SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is there statistical evidence linking cigarette smoking and lung cancer?
2.	How many deaths from lung cancer occurred In Canada during 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?
3.	Has a decision been arrived at regarding the advisability of regulating cigarette advertising in the interests of public health?
4.	Is the matter under consideration?


Mrs. Margaret Hideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to the first part of this question, Mr. Speaker, is yes.
The answer to the second part is, lung cancer deaths in Canada were as follows: 1962, 3,034; 1963, 3,246; 1964, 3,387; 1965, 3,592; 1966, not available.
The answer to the third part is no, and the answer to the fourth part is yes.


OPENING OF PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: On what date will the new young offender's penal institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia, be placed in operation from an institutional point of view?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The
young offenders penal institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia is expected to be placed in operation during August 1967.


ARDA STUDY RESPECTING BLUEBERRY FREEZING PLANT
Mr. Laprise: What is the present situation as regards the ARDA technical and economic study No. 24017 on the possibility of establishing a blueberry freezing and storage plant in Lac St-Jean and Abitibi?


Maurice Sauvé: The study has been completed and received. The province of Quebec has built such a blueberry freezing and storage plant in St-Bruno, Lac St-Jean West. The total cost for the study was $19,500. The federal share amounts to 50 per cent, $9,750.


CONSTRUCTION OF FISHERIES RESEARCH LABORATORY, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: Is it the intention of the government to build in Newfoundland-Labrador, a laboratory for the Fisheries Research Board of Canada and, if so (a) where will it be built (b) when will construction begin?
Questions


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Yes.
(a) Memorial University of Newfoundland campus, St. John's, Newfoundland, (b) 1968.


DEFENCE ESTIMATES FOR UNIFORMS
Mr. McCleave: With regard to the estimates of the Department of National Defence for 1967-68, were the amounts based on a program incorporating unification and, if so, what would have been the amounts had unification not been so incorporated?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The reply to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is no. However, the development program includes provision for the procurement of 450 uniforms of new design for user trial purposes.
The reply to the second part of the question is "not applicable".


CHANNEL DREDGING, BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the plans of the department concerned for the redredging of the inner mooring and the entrance channel at Bay St. Lawrence, Victoria county. Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the depth of water at low tide in the entrance channel at Bay St. Lawrence at the present time?
3.	On what date is it intended to carry out dredging at this location?
4.	Will this dredging be carried out by a departmental dredge or will tenders be called for this project?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): 1. The plans of the department are to redredge the entrance channel and mooring basin in 1967.
2.	Due to continually changing conditions the depth of water in the entrance channel at the present time is unknown. A sounding survey carried out in June 1965 showed that the minimum depth at low tide was 2.8 feet.
3.	It is expected that the dredging will commence before July 1, 1967 and will require eight weeks to complete.
4.	This dredging will be carried out by a departmental dredge.


MEETINGS OF NATIONAL WELFARE COUNCIL
Mr. Enns: 1.	Since the appointment of members to the national welfare council on December 23, 1964, how many meetings has this council held and on what dates did the council convene?

April 10, 1967
Questions
2.	Have such meetings been at the call of the minister or have members of the council initiated meetings?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The National Council of Welfare, since its inception in 1965, has met on three occasions: (a) April 5 and 6, 1965; (b) October 18 and 19, 1965; (c) A meeting was proposed for November 24 and 25, 1966, or alternatively December 1 and 2, 1966. However, it was postponed because of the uncertainty of the transportation situation at the time and the inability of some members to attend on the dates proposed. This meeting was subsequently held on January 19 and 20, 1967, the earliest that a generally acceptable time could be agreed upon.
2. Meetings are convened at the call of the chairman, the deputy minister of national welfare. It is expected that the council will meet once or perhaps twice a year. Since it is a newly established advisory body, there has not been any lengthy experience with respect to the frequency of meetings. It is anticipated that these meetings will be convened at regular intervals and that the council itself will be able to determine how frequently it should meet. If any member or members of the council or if the minister want a meeting convened, it will be arranged as soon as a suitable time can be worked out with the members. At the last meeting of the council in January, there was a concensus that the council hold its next meeting in September.


HALIFAX CITADEL RESTORATION
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Will there be a program of restoration work for the Halifax Citadel this year?
2.	If so, of what will this program consist?
3.	How many people will be employed?
4.	How much money will be spent?
: 5. How many persons are presently employed on Halifax Citadel and other related Halifax county projects in other than administrative jobs?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
2. (a) Remove escarp revetment wall between postern No. 3 and No. 4 and also remove fill between revetment and courtyard wall, (b) Reconstruct verandah on Cavalier building, (c) Rebuild top of north reservoir and filter beds, (d) Construct storm sewer and moat drainage system to lower water table, (e) Regrade and seed moat area, (f) Apply seal coating to courtyard, (g) General landscaping.
[Mr. Enns.l
3.	Between 25 and 35.
4.	$159,300.
5.	32.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	What are the functions and duties of the checking and refunds branch of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	How many persons are employed in the said
branch?
3.	Of the persons so employed, how many have had their positions converted to each of the new classifications, showing the number in each new classification?
4.	How many employees were "redcircled" in the original classification review, showing the number converted to each new classification who were "redcircled"?
5.	Have any of the persons so "redcircled" in the original classification review been removed from this status as a result of subsequent reviews or transfers and, if so, how many, in each new classification?
6.	How many persons are still "redcircled", showing the number in each new classification?
7.	With what other classifications or positions in the public service were the positions formerly known as principal customs excise checking clerk compared in order to determine their new classification?
8.	What consideration has been given by the Department of National Revenue and/or the Public Service Commission to the problems arising from "redcircling" in this branch and particularly to the decline of morale resulting therefrom?
9.	What further action is proposed by the Department of National Revenue and/or the Public Service Commission to meet the complaints of employees of the branch?
10.	Has the government any plans for increased regionalization of the work of this branch?
11.	If so (a) why have such plans been developed (b) what precisely is the nature of such plans (c) has the government satisfied itself that such plans will not lead to further decline in morale within the branch and to possible loss of efficiency?
Return tabled.


CONTRACT FOR STUDY OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has a contract been awarded by the Department of Transport to Northern Electric Company for the study of satellite communication?
2.	If so (a) what is the date of the contract (b) what is the total amount of the contract and when are payments to be made thereunder (c) what are the purposes and objectives of the study and, in particular, what are the terms of reference set
April 10, 1967

forth in the contract (d) is the contractor required to make a report and submit recommendations and, If so, when are such report and recommendations due?
3.	Is the contractor entitled to subcontract any part of his duties or obligations under the contract?
4.	If so (a) has he done so (b) what part of the contract has been so subcontracted (c) to whom have subcontracts been let (d) what is the amount of each subcontract?
5.	Has the prime contractor any previous experience in such studies or work as is required to be performed under the contract?
6.	If so, for what person or persons did he carry on such previous studies or work?
7.	Did the Department of Transport invite, solicit or entertain any proposal from (a) agencies or other departments of the government of Canada or (b) private Canadian firms or organizations, to undertake the study or work for which a contract was let to Northern Electric Company?
8.	If so (a) what agencies, departments or firms (b) with what results?
9.	Does the Bell Telephone Company of Canada have any commercial or other interest in the result or outcome of the studies and work to be performed under the contract?
10.	If so (a) what is the nature of such interest (b) was this considered before the award of the contract to Northern Electric Company?
Return tabled.



EXPO '67 REPORTED THREATS TO DESTROY CUBAN PAVILION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: In the absence of the Solicitor General possibly this question should be directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with-


An hon. Member:: He is here.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I did not notice the promotion. I see he is getting closer and closer to the Prime Minister's seat. Then I shall direct my question to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the threat that has been made regarding the Cuban pavilion at Expo. Has he a report to offer in this connection, and at the same time will he advise whether press statements are correct, namely that the Cubans who are now en route to Canada to look after their pavilion include 60 security personnel? Does the government not feel that the importation of their own police by countries who are going to be present at Expo is not in keeping with the security that we in Canada maintain, and that they ought to be told to leave their armies of security personnel at home?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, as the newspaper report indicated there is very close liaison between members of the law enforcement agencies in Canada, both the R.C.M.P. and the agencies in the province of Quebec, and the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies in the United States. I believe the press report also stated that certain information had been forwarded to Canadian authorities regarding the visits of people from parts of the United States with interests adverse to Expo.
So far as the presence of security personnel in Canada is concerned, this matter is now being discussed with my colleague the Minister of External Affairs and I will take notice of that part of the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Is consideration being given by the government to telling these nations to keep their security forces at home when they visit Canada?


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What terms of possession were given to nations which set up pavilions at Expo '67? Are the agreements on a rental basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering
whether the question is not much too general to be asked and answered at this time. Perhaps the hon. member wishes to rephrase the question.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I do not know whether I can rephrase it satisfactorily, but I should like to know what consideration has been paid by each of the nations setting up pavilions. Was any consideration paid to us in return for setting up these pavilions at Expo '67?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is the minister who has jurisdiction over this matter, as far as any minister has, and I will be glad to discuss the matter with him.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Would the Prime Minister also convey to the Minister of Trade and Commerce our anxiety to know what security guarantees were given by Canada or the province of Quebec to those who set up pavilions at Expo? Are they guaranteed absolute security or must they provide their own?

April 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry NATURAL GAS



ACTION OF U.S. COMMISSION RESPECTING PROPOSED PIPE LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of press reports that some $200 million worth of industrial construction will not be commenced unless there is assurance that facilities for gas transmission will be increased this year, can the minister give the house any information as to when we may expect a final decision from the federal power commission regarding the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there should be an oral argument before the federal power commission on April 21 between the interested parties. I do not know when the federal power commission will make a decision, but we hope it will be soon after that debate. If it should not be on time to use the 1967 construction period, there is no doubt that later this spring a decision will have to be taken with regard to an alternative project. Trans-Canada Pipe Line has been instructed to prepare that alternative project for introduction before the National Energy Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has set any deadline for the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company to begin the twinning of the line along the northern Canada route in the event that there is no final decision by the F.P.C.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that there is a deadline about the F.P.C. decision but I can say that there is a deadline for the Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company to introduce its application before the National Energy Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister say what that deadline is?


Jean-Luc Pepin: At the end of this month or early next month, I would think. There is no specific date because the National Energy Board makes the decision on the hearing of applications and of course other companies in Canada might want to intervene either in favour of or against Trans-Canada's alternative project.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend a welcome to the Minister of Fisheries on his return from his trip abroad. I should like to ask the minister whether the question of the participation of the Soviet union in the north Pacific fisheries treaty was discussed during the course of his recent talks with the minister of fisheries of that country.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minisier of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind words of welcome. I can assure him that in the frank exchange of views I had with the minister of fisheries for the U.S.S.R., Mr. Ishkov, the question of Russian participation in the north Pacific treaty was discussed. However, the hon. member will understand that no decision could be arrived at because this is a matter which also concerns two other countries, Japan and the United States.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING RESPECTING MARINE PLANT PROCESSING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should also like to express my pleasure at the safe return of the Minister of Fisheries after his 12 day visit to Russia. In this he was more fortunate than a former hon. member for Coast-Capilano who also visited that country while in the position of minister of fisheries.
While the minister was absent representatives of the federal government met at Halifax on April 5 with representatives of the five Atlantic coast provinces along with marine plant processors from Canada, the United States and Europe. Has the minister any report on the decisions made by government representatives and scientists to step up the development of the Canadian Atlantic marine plants industry, a matter which was discussed at that conference?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minisfer of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that such a meeting took place on April 5. A report is being prepared, but as yet it has not reached me.
April 10, 1967



INQUIRY AS TO FRESH WATER FISH MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Have the minister and his officials now completed their study of the Mclvor commission report of inquiry into fresh water fish marketing? If so, will legislation be introduced at this session to implement the recommendations of this report, namely that a fresh water fish marketing board be established under federal legislation?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, in reply to similar questions addressed to me some time ago in this house I made it very clear that the implementation of the Mclvor commission report came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. An interdepartmental committee is studying this report. Meetings have been held with representatives of the provincial governments concerned and the industry, but no final decision has yet been reached on whether the recommendations made in the report should be implemented.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence I wonder if I could direct it to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to consider at the earliest possible moment-for example, tomorrow-making a full statement on motions concerning the negotiations carried on under the cereals committee of GATT on the price of wheat? I use as my reason the tremendously alarming headlines which have proliferated in the west during the last two or three days to the effect that the western farmers' wheat is going to be put on the open market.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a short statement on Thursday or Friday, I think, on this matter. I shall be glad to discuss with him the proposal made by my hon. friend, but I need
Inquiries of the Ministry not remind him that the discussions are still going on.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is urgency here in that it was these questions and answers in the house that caused the panic in the west, and that is the reason for the question.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have not become quite adjusted to the greater distance existing between us now.
In view of the general support in Canada for the building of a trans-Canada electric power grid for the development of Canadian industry, and in view of the concern expressed in some quarters about proposals for the development of a continental power grid, would the minister make a statement at the first opportunity outlining government policy in this respect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it should be known that my recent physical move away from this end of the house is no indication of a lack of affection for the hon. gentleman who has just asked this question. On the subject he raises I simply wish to say that the policy of the federal government has been to encourage the development of a national power grid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood the question was only whether the minister would make a statement. I suggest this is not the time to make it.
[Translation1



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
The minister was supposed to announce last week the names of the members of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Since he has failed to do so, does he think he will be in a position to make that announcement this week?

April 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Sauvé: 
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I simply wished to further emphasize that the minister had deferred that announcement for several weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, the question is out of order.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I know that he, in common with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, wants to do everything possible to unite this country in centennial year. My question is about the anticipated visit of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) to Quebec, to debate with the separatist member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I ask this question in a non-partisan way, to clear up the matter. Will the right hon. Prime Minister assure the house that the hon. member for York-Humber is not making the visit to Quebec with the approval of his party or of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question cannot be asked in this form of the right hon. Prime Minister.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct my question to the Postmaster General. I ask him whether, in view of the visit of the Queen of Canada to our country this summer, his department is considering issuing a stamp with the Queen's head thereon, surmounted by the crown? Has the minister no answer?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I have already announced that in honour of the Queen's visit this summer a stamp will be issued.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the stamp have on it the Queen's head, with the crown on it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought you were abolishing the Queen.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. May I express the hope that because he has moved one seat farther from the Prime Minister that that is not to be taken as a demotion. I ask the minister about the status of the long awaited and long promised departmental study of a merchant marine for Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and to the hon. minister that this question is much too general to be asked on orders of the day.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the meetings announced last week by the minister with several farmers' associations, is he in a position to tell us whether he is ready to reconsider the price of manufacturing milk, in order to guarantee the farmers $5 per hundredweight of manufacturing milk?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question of the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is similar to those put on several occasions last week.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Last week I asked the minister if he planned to meet the farmers, and he answered me last Wednesday, that as a matter of fact, he was due to meet them on Thursday and Friday.
April 10, 1967

I should like to know whether anything developed from this meeting with the minister and if he is now considering the requests made by the farmers?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I met the farmers but I have nothing new to report to the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the hon. gentleman soon be in a position to make any announcement about the meetings of the nuclear planning group in Washington last week?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think there is much I can usefully add to the communique issued at the end of the meetings. It may be that at some subsequent time, after the possible success of the negotiations between the United States and the U.S.S.R. with respect to the future development of the anti ballistic missile system is more clear, there would be an opportunity for some debate on this question. In the meantime, I think there is not much I can usefully add to what is already public knowledge.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Justice; I would have sent him notice, but I had a little difficulty locating him after the game of musical chairs last week. Because full fledged divorce reform later this year will throw a heavy burden on the courts, would the minister ask his government to consider an interim measure now to give relief to the neediest class of cases, that is, husbands and wives who have been deserted for three years or more?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now making a representation. It is not a question in a form that can be answered at this time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Then, Mr. Speaker, probably the simplest thing to do is to invite the minister to join me at ten o'clock, and I so do.
23033-930J
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, again I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I refer to the question I posed to him oh Monday, April 3, and which I reiterated for the acting minister on Thursday, April 6, with respect to the charges and accusations that bed space was not available for pensionable overseas veterans at Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, while at the same time beds were being occupied by merchant seamen from Canada and other countries. Is the minister now in a position to reply?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentle1-man supplied me with information on a spet-cific case which I am now having investigated. As soon as the answer is at hand I will forward it to the hon. gentleman.


Robert Muir: As a supplementary question, is the minister aware that Dr. C. J. MacDonald, director of the hospital, has completely refuted any such criticism, and will the minister hurry up his investigation as much as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now making an argument.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence and in the absence of his parliamentary secretary I shall direct it to the acting minister or to the Prime Minister.
Because of the severity of the winter which the Gaspe peninsula just went through and which has greatly delayed the implementation of the winter works planned by the municipalities, would the government consider the possibility of extending this period to May 31?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: On behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I will take this question as notice.

April 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour who is responsible to parliament on housing matters. Because the interest rate on C.M.H.C. direct loans is based on the cost of short term treasury bills, namely l'i per cent higher than that cost, is the corporation giving consideration to lowering the interest rate below the present 7 per cent?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the policy in this respect was announced some months ago. There is no fixed rate. It is in line with the return, the long term yield on government bonds and, as previously forecast, it has already dropped to 7 per cent. It is the government's hope that there will be a further drop before long under the formula announced last December.


James Russell Keays: As a supplementary question, does the government intend to give consideration to changing its policy and not waiting the full three months as mentioned in its original policy statement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That, Mr. Speaker, involves a question of government policy. It also involves legislation, and if any such change were decided upon it would be announced in the usual way.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I would ask her whether the government has made any decision regarding the appointment of a president and vice president of the C.B.C.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, no, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: That is a well thought out answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I compliment the minister on that answer. It is like saying yes and no in the same answer, and only a good lawyer

could achieve that. Now I ask her whether it is a fact that Mr. Jules Leger has been appointed president and Mr. Chris Young of the Ottawa Citizen vice president?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the question as asked cannot be accepted.


John George Diefenbaker: Why, Mr. Speaker, similar questions were asked of me when I was on the other side of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -by these hon. gentlemen who now object. I can understand them objecting to the mention of Chris Young. The Prime Minister was the first to object.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was not in the
chair in those days.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compfon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Could he inform the house of what his position will be on bankruptcies in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec where they are increasing at an alarming rate?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question, in its present form, is too general, hence out of order.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the intense human suffering involved, will the government protest to the United States government against the use of the anti-personnel fragmentation bomb in Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on the exact situation. When that is received I will be in a position to reply.
April 10, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
TRANSPORT	CRIMINAL CODE


SECOND FERRY BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW ENGLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he now give the people of the maritime provinces the assurance that a supplementary ferry will be put on the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor run this summer, in order that the tourist business and the fisheries exports of those provinces will not be restricted but will be permitted the development of their full growth potential?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should limit his question to the first part of his speech. I suggest that the second part is not in order.


John Oates Bower: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, on February 24 I asked a question of the Minister of Transport on this matter of a needed supplementary ferry on the run I have mentioned. Your Honour said it was out of order and suggested that I take it up in the adjournment debate. This I did on February 27-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Oates Bower: Now, with respect, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the facts to which the hon. member is just referring I hope he will notice I did not rule the question out of order, just the supplementary comments which I thought were superfluous. I recognize the validity of the question itself which was asked in the first part of the hon. member's comments.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared to answer the hon. gentleman's question, and still am. I regret he is not going to be any more pleased than I am with the answer, but I am sorry to say there is not a ship available to my knowledge and therefore I could not give that assurance. But if some suitable vessel should become available I would be very glad to consider the possibility of adding to the service for the summer months.


James Russell Keays: As a supplementary question, I wonder would the Minister of Transport give consideration to taking the Grande Hermine out of Expo and helping the people of the maritime provinces with it.


POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FAMILY PLANNING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In reply to a question last week he said that legislation to amend the Criminal Code concerning birth control would not be introduced until the fall. In view of the announcement made on the week end by the Ontario provincial minister of health that that government is going to urge its county public health units to provide family planning advice, and will give the necessary money, can a simple amendment not be brought in earlier to bring the government of Ontario within the law?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see amendments of this kind, which I have already spoken about in the house, introduced into the house as quickly as possible; but if this session goes on, for instance to the end of June, it might be difficult to start the new one before the fall.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING CHANGES IN FISCAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give to a minister embodying the brilliance and dynamism of youth, the opportunity to reply to his first question as a minister. So, I am putting this question to the Member of the Administration attached to the Department of Finance.
I should like to ask him whether following the talks held this morning, a redistribution of taxes is to be expected soon?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase the question I directed earlier to the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche, Member of the Administration. I should like to ask him if he had discussions this morning in Ottawa with the Quebec finance minister, Mr. Dozois, what was the purpose of those discussions and if he can report on the conclusions which were reached?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot direct a question to a minister unless the subject matter comes under his administrative jurisdiction. I do not

April 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry know whether the question is asked in that way, but since .there is a doubt in my mind, I shall ask the hon. member to let his question stand for the time being.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST THAT DAIRY PRODUCERS BENEFIT '	FROM PRICE INCREASES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the minister will agree with me that because the Canadian Dairy Commission is a new agency there is some question in the dairy industry as to the responsibilities of this government agency. Because of a contemplated increase in the prices of dairy products to consumers may I ask the minister whether the Canadian Dairy Commission, the government and the Stabilization board will be able to direct that the increase in prices, or any portion of it, will be passed on to the primary producers?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission announces the support levels of various products, and I believe an announcement in this regard will be made very shortly.


POTATOES-REQUEST FOR SUBSIDY TO MOVE SURPLUS
[Stage Direction]
>
On the orders of the day:
' Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the matter involves one or two depart-ihents of his government. In the light of the fact that the surplus of potatoes in the maritime provinces, particularly in Prince Edward Island, has depressed the price to the farmers, has the minister received any request for a subsidy either for a starching process or in respect of the export of these potatoes? I should like to know which departments of the government are engaged in seeking a solution, arid how soon we may expect an announcement.
Lester Bowles Pearson: lyir. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and I have discussed this matter. The minister will be making a report very shortly, possibly this afternoon.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, a support program in this area iii respect of starch plants was announced over a week ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am referring particularly to additional assistance which has been asked by the farmers of the maritimes and by the legislature of the province of Prince Edward Island to meet this particular surplus. They ask also for an export subsidy to enable them to drain these surplus potatoes off the market.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the question of exports was considered. I believe export sales in the past year were the largest in history, and it was not thought that an export subsidy would be helpful to the farmers. However, the support subsidy was announced and further considered after representations from the province. I believe the procedures we are working out will be more satisfactory than that of the original plan.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will he give further consideration to a more satisfactory diversion plan which will meet the needs of the growers in this regard, especially in the light of the fact that he has been so kindly reminded of the problem by the gift of a bag of potatoes from Prince Edward Island which I understand was shipped to him by centennial iceboat transportation.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that every consideration will be given to the problem of the potato farmers, irrespective of any bribery or corruption which may have been involved.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Is it the hon. minister's intention to have the majority decision of the House of Commons enforced with regard to capital punishment?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Quite often when I ask a question you do not even allow the minister time to answer. I put a question on capital punishment to the hon. Minister of Justice earlier, and you immediately changed the subject.
April 10, 1967



Now, I put a question concerning capital punishment on the order paper, question 2,541, on January 27, 1967, and I have not yet received an answer. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether justice can overrule the decisions of this house, the decisions of parliament?
The majority of hon. members have decided that capital punishment should be maintained, but justice has not been done in that direction since that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will admit that his intervention is a suggestion or a representation rather than a question of privilege, and I must therefore rule that his original question of privilege is not in order.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister whether he would reconsider for 1967 the limitation on the use of Caribbean labour on Ontario farms, particularly in the market gardening areas, by extending the period from November 1 to December 1.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and discuss it with other ministers who are involved.
tTranslation]



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege because I believe it is the privilege of every member to obtain as accurate a reply as possible when information is sought from a department and the officials of such department are required to give a reply.
Question No. 2,721, which I put on the order paper some time ago about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation followed a question asked a few weeks previously to find out who were the notaries writing the contracts for the purchase of houses in Lebel-sur-Quevillon in the riding of Chapleau. The answer at that time was that the services of notary Real
Inquiries o] the Ministry Caron of Senneterre and notary Joseph Morin of Val d'Or were being used. I was asking for additional information and I was refused for instance data on the amounts paid to each of these notaries while given to understand that both wrote notarized contracts.
To question No. 2,721, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), replied that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had approved 335 loans for an amount of nearly $5.8 million in Lebel-sur-Quevillon for 378 units of housing. Of these, 92 loans have been cancelled, and 243 are active loans for 286 units.
To the direct question: How many of these loans required the services of Mr. Real Caron of Senneterre, the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation replied: none. Yet, two or three weeks previously, I was told that notary Caron of Senneterre had drawn up contracts for houses at Lebel-sur-Quevillon.
To the third part of the question:
How many of these loans have required the services of Mr. Joseph Morin?
The answer was 243; that is the total number of the loans.
Mr. Speaker, the reason is not given why the services of notary Caron were not used. I should like to observe here after securing the information, that notary Morin-and I do not want to play politics-was the Liberal candidate in my riding at the last election and these contracts bring him $250 each which amounts to $70,750.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe my question of privilege is quite in order and I should ask the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before the house to state clearly whether this corporation has been established for political patronage or to give justice to the citizens of Canada wherever they may be.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. I doubt whether it would be in order to allow the minister to reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Villeneuve. I suggest to him that this really is not a question of privilege; it is perhaps more in the nature of a grievance than a question of privilege. I think if he will consult Beauchesne, citation 181 (3), he will ascertain that this type of objection, which as I have said is more of a grievance than a

April 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry question of privilege, can not be raised in this way.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Referring to the question raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve a moment ago, I would not want an erroneous impression to be left. I think Your Honour is quite right in your ruling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is very difficult to let the minister make a statement when the Chair has ruled that there is no question of privilege. On the other hand, I understand the importance of allowing a minister to make a statement to correct what he considers to be an erroneous impression. But I doubt that this can be done at this time in the present circumstances in view of the ruling I have made that there is no question of privilege.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question of immediate importance to the Minister of National Defence. It has to do with the transfer of some 300 families from St. Hubert to the area surrounding North Bay in the township of Widdifield. This township has asked for assistance because of the added expenditures the municipality will have to make in order to meet this influx. Indeed, their tax rate has gone up by some 14 mills already as a consequence of this movement.
The municipality requests that this area be declared immediately to be a non self-contained unit which would enable the Department of National Defence to provide a grant under the Municipal Grants Act. I understand this matter has been looked into, and I should like to ask the minister whether he will once again give it consideration, because of the injustice that will be done as a result of this added taxation which has been brought about by these large numbers who have moved into the area.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for his question. This morning the hon. member for Nipissing phoned me and came to see me in my office in respect of this matter. As a result of his representations I already have asked the departmental officials 
to examine the situation, with instructions to report back within 48 hours to see whether there is some way we can meet this problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister aware of the fact that the officials were there on Thursday and Friday and indicated that it would be impossible to give any assistance unless an alteration was made in the description of the particular unit?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the matter is being inquired into by the oflflcials of the several departments involved. I have asked my deputy minister to co-ordinate the investigation and make a report to me as soon as possible.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State related to one asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. Will the government be in a position soon to name a permanent head of the National Film Board?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I expect so, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer- Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole to consider Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof. When the house rose on Friday evening clause 2 was under discussion.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Chatterton:: Mr. Chairman, we on this side advocated all along that the unification bill should have been sent to the defence committee before second reading or approval in principle. I wonder how many hon. members, particularly on the other side of the chamber, would have voted for second reading if they had heard the evidence given in
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
the defence committee. Speaking of the evidence given in the defence committee, I quote from a publication of the Tri-Service Identities Organization:
It is noteworthy that not one recently retired senior officer no longer having any attachment to the department of defence has supported the program which will be carried forward if Bill C-243 is enacted and everyone of any stature outside the services or government whose military opinion would command respect who has testified before the defence committee has expressed criticism or reservation on the proposed reorganization of the defence establishment.
I wonder, particularly, how many hon. members opposite have carefully read the evidence given by Air Chief Marshal Miller. In referring to Air Chief Marshal Miller I quote from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 22. The editorial is headed "An Unseemly Rush To What?" It reads as follows:
When Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller retired last July, he did so quietly, without any comment about differences over unification then roiling the armed forces. Until that point, as the first chief of the integrated defence staff, he had been defence minister Paul Hellyer's right hand man-how significantly so is indicated by the fact that he had been persuaded to stay three years past the normal retirement age of 55.
The testimony which Air Chief Marshal Miller gave to the Commons defence committee this week is, therefore, of peculiar importance, for it is the testimony of a man who had the regard of the minister, who personified integration, and who studiously observed the duty of an officer not to comment publicly on matters of public policy.
I will not quote at length from Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony but merely give his reply to just one question. I quote from the Gazette of Saturday, April 8:
Air Marshal, you have indicated in answer to Mr. Harkness that you saw no advantages to unification. Did I understand you correctly when you said you could list several disadvantages?
Here is the answer:
I said I did not see any monetary return for unification, nor did I see any significant military effectiveness. I said I saw some unanswered questions associated with unification that perhaps should be spelled out before you could really get out and attempt to sell it to people-Gentlemen, could I say thank you for your courtesy and understanding.
And so on. Then Air Chief Marshal Miller said:
I feel the next step that was forecast in the white paper, that of doing away with the services, will cause the loss, against this business we have been discussing recently, of a lot of people we cannot afford to lose and that we will not get very much of a benefit from this single service proposal.
I wonder how hon. members opposite would have voted in favour on second reading had
National Defence Act Amendment they had that advice from Air Chief Marshal Miller. I wonder, for example, how the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) feels after having read the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller.
I know that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) was not there at that time-incidentally we are all very happy that he has been able to return to the chamber-but I am sure that he has since read the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller and I hope that he has not changed the position he took last October. I should like to quote the following from a letter he wrote dated October 20, 1966:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
On the subject of unification, I understand your views and my position at the moment is that I am awaiting the introduction of the government's legislation on unification. Complete unification is of course not practical, nor is it contemplated. The degree of unification the government proposes will very largely influence my own position.
Yours sincerely,
David W. Groos,
M.P. for Victoria, B.C.
The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) made a speech on unification in the house on January 31. However, all he said on the subject matter of the bill was the following, as found on page 12468 of Hansard:
I have purposely refrained, Mr. Speaker, from entering into the subject of the debate because, as chairman of the defence committee, I feel it is my most important duty, if this bill ever does come before us, to help resolve the differences during the clause by clause study in committee.
The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is no longer chairman of the defence committee but it is my belief that, based on his distinguished record in the Royal Canadian Navy, he will be anxious to let his true thoughts on unification be known, and we look forward to his speech in the near future. I know that his constituents are anxiously waiting to hear from him. I myself was not able to become a member of the defence committee. I asked to be placed on the committee but that was not possible, and since I was a member of five other committees it was not possible for me to attend many of the meetings. However, I believe I read all the evidence given before the defence committee.
It is true that mostly as a result of the form of questioning of witnesses some of the evidence was conflicting. But that does not justify hon. members on the other side, who are no doubt making speeches for consumption in their home ridings, taking quotations completely out of context so that the people reading their speeches may be led to believe that a
14710	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment certain person who gave evidence before the committee was in favour of unification even though that was not necessarily so. For example, I will quote part of the speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton West on April 5 as it appears at page 14577 of Hansard. The hon. member quotes General Foulkes as follows:
The problem can only be solved by complete unification of the three services with one chief of staff, one chain of command, one ladder of promotion and one uniform.
This is the only part of General Foulkes' evidence which the hon. member quoted. The obvious intention is to lead readers of his speech to believe that General Foulkes is completely in favour of unification. That quotation was taken from an article written by General Foulkes in 1961. If the hon. member had wanted to be fair he might well have quoted from a subsequent article by General Foulkes which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, October 13, 1966, in which he wrote the following:
One of the aspects of integration, which is relatively unimportant but which is causing some resentment in the services, is the announced intention to force the servicemen into a neutral uniform by 1967. Perhaps this is to be part of the "centennial" celebrations to show that Canada still maintains what a pundit once referred to as "the best dressed, best fed, best paid, but poorest equipped force in the west."
Again I quote from this article by General Foulkes:
Since any acceptable integration scheme calls for the continuation of regiments of soldiers, squadrons of aircraft and flotillas of ships, the servicemen in these combat formations must continue to wear the appropriate combat uniform.
Again I quote from the article:
We should not be mesmerized by the idea that a common uniform will ensure a happy, contented and efficient integrated service.
I quote further from the article:
The minister has not been forthright in informing the services and the public of the true and real extent of the integration plot.
Continuing on the same lines the hon. member for Hamilton West quoted General Moncel as saying the following:
I was well aware of the fact that the white paper said that unification was the ultimate end. Well, that was fine. There was nothing wrong with it as a name.
If read out of context that quotation certainly gives the impression that General Moncel was in complete agreement with the minister's plans.

DEBATES	April 10. 1967
I should like to quote briefly from the evidence given by Lieutenant General Moncel as found on page 13304 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on national defence. The following exchange took place:


Mr. McIntosh:: Would you tell the committee, General, why then you made the decision to leave your position as vice chief?


Mr.   Moncel@: The conditions which I specifically refer to are as follows. At this stage of the operation, the lines were pretty well drawn and it was abundantly clear to me that we were going to force ahead with this process of unification which, to me, appeared to be moving on an uncharted course at a very, very high speed toward a very, very dim destination, and I did not think that I could produce the staff work necessary at that speed to keep the thing on the rails.
There are many such instances of quotations being taken out of context by hon. members opposite to mislead the people who would normally read their speeches. An effort has been made by the minister, by some of his officials and by informed persons in his department who write the press releases to give the impression that this wonderful scheme of the unification of our armed forces is being studied carefully and might be followed by other countries. The senior officer in the navy told me that in March of 1964 the Minister of National Defence called together at the medical services theatre all the officers from headquarters and told them that Great Britain was very interested in the program and that Lord Mountbatten was in favour of it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise on a question of privilege. I do not think I should let this statement go unchallenged. Since there is no verbatim record of that particular meeting I cannot recall in precise detail what I said at that time but I do know I have never said that Lord Mountbatten was in favour of all the things we are doing. I know he is not. I have discussed and corresponded with him over the months and I have talked to him several times. What he certainly said when he was here a year ago was valid, namely, that whereas previously they were ahead of us, now we are ahead of them and they will go further in our direction because it makes sense. I would not want my hon. friend to give the impression that I said something I did not say in respect of Admiral Mountbat-ten's point of view.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


George Louis Chatterton: I happen to know the person who wrote this letter very well, and I can assure you there is no credibility gap there.
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
The letter from which I am quoting is dated March 14 and was written by Commodore Harold V. W. Groos, R.C.N., retired. It reads in part as follows:
Probably the last thing you would choose to become involved in is Canadian politics, yet you are now in them deeply.
Yesterday, Monday, 13th March, 1967, our last chief of the naval staff of Canada, Vice Admiral Herbert S. Rayner appeared before the Canadian House of Commons defence committee to advocate the continuance of a navy in a distinctive uniform and with a titular head to speak for it and to set standards of seagoing fighting efficiency. Under cross-examination by Liberal party politicos who are out to submerge (i.e. destroy) the Royal Canadian Navy as an ^identifiable sea force, Admiral Rayner quoted you as being in favour of retaining navies with titular heads.
Last night the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's national news summary referred to Admiral Rayner's testimony and then there was a two or three minute presentation of an interview with you which had been held at government house, Ottawa, last autumn. In your interview you supported strongly both integration and the unification of our armed forces.
Undoubtedly the television camera interview with you had been held in reserve by the Liberal politicians to discredit Admiral Rayner and in this it has succeeded admirably.
I have before me the original of the letter sent by Mountbatten of Burma, dated March 28, 1967 and commencing, "My Dear Groos". I should like to quote one paragraph from the letter:
You are quite right in saying that the last thing I would choose to become involved in is Canadian politics and I am indeed sorry that use has been made of the views I expressed during two visits to Canada which appear to involve me.
Then Lord Mountbatten encloses a statement which explains his position and I quote from this statement, of which I have the original signed by Mountbatten of Burma:
I have been asked for an explanation of my views on the integration and unification of the British services as they are said to have been misunderstood in Canada.
Then I skip part of the statement and quote this pertinent passage:
In the British reorganization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale and those traditions which help to maintain this in the services and fighting units. It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary.
There was some talk of taking the uniform and ranks of one service and imposing this on the others but the idea of a man in say army uniform with an army title arriving at a foreign port in command of a warship was generally felt to be so ludicrous that it was not pursued. The general cut and colour of naval uniforms are internationally so well known
National Defence Act Amendment that a sailor from any one country can readily be recognized as a sailor in any other country. Sailors the world over take great pride in this and so in their own services do soldiers and airmen. No compensating advantage could be seen in attempting to impose so unpopular a change.
The last paragraph of Lord Mountbatten's statement, dated March 28, 1967, reads:
These were the views X expressed or intended to convey when I was asked to explain them to the Canadian press, radio and television. Nothing has happened to change these views.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman, having now referred to the letter and the accompanying memorandum, would agree to table the letter and memorandum so that hon. members will be able to peruse them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is not under any obligation to do so.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It will not be possible for the hon. member to table the documents in committee.


George Louis Chatterton: I am quite agreeable. I have no objection and I have the permission of Mr. Groos to use these letters.
The Minister of Transport made a rather interesting speech last Friday and at one point seemed to imply that we should now vote on this matter, that we should let it come to a decision. The fact is that this is the first chance I have had to speak since the bill was returned from the standing committee and I certainly insist on my right to express my views. The Minister of Transport also made an appeal to members to stay away from personalities. I wanted to ask him a question but his time had expired and I did not have an opportunity to do so. The question I was going to ask him was whether he thought a remark such as the one I am going to quote now represented dealing in personalities. I am going to quote from the Globe and Mail for Monday, April 3, which contains an article concerning an address the Minister of National Defence gave to a group of young Liberals in Toronto. The article reads in part as follows:
The questioning, by about 60 young Liberals, ended with:
"Mr. Hellyer, is there any truth in the rumour that William Landymore may be our next Governor General?"
Mr. Hellyer pondered the question a moment.
"Wuen the admiral retired last year he said he was going back to the farm to pitch hay-but what he's been pitching isn't hay."
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Perhaps the minister can deny that statement and I will give him an opportunity to do so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, that is exactly what I said, Mr. Chairman. Throughout this whole episode I have been trying to keep a sense of humour. I think it is necessary in public life and I recommend to my hon. friend that he do the same.


George Louis Chatterton: If that is a sense of humour, then in my opinion it is the grossest perversion of humour I have ever heard, particularly after the statement the minister made to the effect that Admiral Landymore had been disloyal. This is a man who has given eminent service to Canada. This prompts me to quote from an article which I did not intend to use. However, the minister's reply has convinced me I should use it. No, I do not think I will. I shall merely refer to a column in the Victoria Colonist, for March 1, 1967, which is called "Bill Thomas' Notebook". I am not going to sink to the minister's level by quoting from it but I suggest to the minister that he read it.
The article to which I have just referred appeared after the minister's statement that this man who had given loyal service to Canada had been disloyal. The point that was raised consistently by members on this side during the debate on second reading was that the minister had not fully explained to us what integration or unification means. The minister and his vast propaganda machine have consistently tried to confuse integration with unification. This process is still continuing. The minister cites ad nauseam all the economics and other wonderful things that have been effected through integration, all the time implying that the same results will be achieved by unification.
I should like to quote Air Chief Marshal Miller again as found in the Gazette for Saturday, April 8:
I did not see any monetary return for unification, nor did I see any significant military effectiveness.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The minister made a speech last Monday, I believe, in which he gave what he considered to be the advantages, as he saw them, of unification. I do not want to go over the same ground because I think the hon. member for Calgary North did an excellent job in destroying the validity of every one of the points that the minister tried to make in his attempt to sell the advantages of unification.
[Mr. Chatterton.l
During the debate on second reading we consistently asked that the minister give a clear and concise explanation of his plans for unification. Every one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, that is, the witnesses I referred to in my opening statement from the Tri-Services Identities Organization, said that there was no plan. Air Chief Marshal Miller was asked, this question:
Have you any knowledge as to any plan that was produced In regard to unification, say at the time the white paper was produced or shortly thereafter?
He replied as follows:
No, there was no plan.
Then he was asked this question:
Do you feel that the single force concept would adversely affect the over-all security of this country?
Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
I really do not know. I am unhappy about the implications of a single force because it has not been spelled out and I do not know what it is going-
There was some suggestion by hon. members opposite to the defence committee that perhaps the plan was prepared after Air Chief Marshal Miller has retired. I believe he retired about August, 1966. The unification bill was placed on the order paper on October 31 so if a plan had been prepared for unification surely it must have been prepared before the bill appeared on the order paper. The chief of the defence staff stated that in August that he did not know of any plan, and I suggest that between August and October the minister hurriedly had a plan for unification prepared. If the minister did have such a plan prepared he certainly has not disclosed it yet to any members of this house. None of the officials of his department has been able to produce a plan for unification. There I can only hope that sufficient members on the other side, at least those with special interests in defence perhaps because of their service in the armed forces, will urge the minister to listen to the advice which has been given, and, if he listens to no one else, that he listen to Air Chief Marshal Miller.
I should like to conclude with an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail for Wednesday, March 22 dealing with the subject of unification. It is headlined: "An Unseemly Rush To What?" The last paragraph reads as follows:
It remains too big a pig-in-a-poke for any parliament to ask Canada to buy, and the Commons defence committee, for all its questioning, has not been able to trace out its shape. What is
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
needed is a complete re-examination of the whole defence apparatus, and of the job it is intended to do. What is not needed is a guns-blazing rush to get unification through the Commons to accommodate the government's desire to have done with the current parliamentary session.


Mr, Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, before I turn to the subject of the bill I want to say a few things about the standing committee on national defence which I had the honour to chair through the latter half of its sittings. It was like being a spectator at that famous Arctic poker game that Robert W. Service told us about at which all the men around the table simultaneously drew their revolvers on each other. Unlike that story, however, the committee members did not stay in that pose until they all froze to death. They held a total of 55 meetings between February 7 and March 21. They examined 28 principal witnesses and published 2,000 pages of briefs and verbal evidence. They examined and passed the 65 clauses of the bill and its lengthy schedules. Moreover, they wound up their work in time for everyone in this chamber to go home for a well deserved Easter holiday. None of the members of the committee missed more than a meeting or two and I am sure only then because of real necessity. We always had a full quorum and we had no problems getting started although as chairman I frequently had problems in getting people stopped. What we proved by our actions in that committee was that you can unify anything.
I want to say a word about the services of the committee. We were never without the services of an interpreter throughout all our hearings. We had the unfailing services of Mr. Hugh Stewart, the clerk of the committee. Despite competition from several other hard working committees, the committee reporting branch produced 5,000 folios of evidence during the hearings. All of this evidence was edited by the committees branch and then sent to the printer. Then the printing staff worked overtime through Easter to see that we received it back in time for the commencement of the committee stage of the bill in the house. Moreover, all the evidence was translated into French and the whole thing printed in French and English in time for us to use it in the house after we returned from Easter holidays.
Finally, Dr. Ollivier and the Judge Advocate General's staff incorporated all the amendments into the bill, saw that the French and English matched and produced a newly printed version for the house in time for our use. We do not often say things about the
National Defence Act Amendment servants of the house and how they serve us and I thought, Mr. Chairman, you would like to be made aware of these things at the outset of the few remarks I wish to make on the subject of the bill.
A few years ago Professor Northcote Parkinson became famous as the author of a satirical book called "Parkinson's Law". He observed that while the number of British warships had decreased by 67 per cent between 1914 and 1928, the number of admiralty officials had increased by 78 per cent. The officials, he said, would have multiplied at the same rate had there been no actual seamen at all. The fact is, he told his readers, that the number of the officials and the quantity of the work are not related to each other.
In case anyone felt that he had chosen an isolated incident on which to base his theory he noted that the colonial office, in the period of British colonial decline from 1935 to 1954, had increased its staff from 372 to 1,661.
Speaking at the University of Alberta in 1963 in the Henry Marshall Tory lecture series, Professor Parkinson threw in a couple of extra observations on his theory. He said that a correspondent had pointed out to him that an organization which has a headquarters staff of a thousand can be regarded as administratively self-sufficient. It can keep itself entirely busy on its own internal problems. Then he spoke of a certain German industrial group that apparently had a headquarters staff of 2,000 persons. All its factories were destroyed by enemy action during the war but the administrative staff went on working as hard as ever though there was nothing to administer. I mention this because Bill C-243 deals with reorganizing a big headquarters staff, big enough to be entirely self-sufficient according to Professor Parkinsons' terms.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Before we become too dazzled by military science, let me make a few observations in the Parkinsonian manner about some of the things witnesses brought up before the defence committee. In the past there have been numerous examples of integration, some workable and some not. Always these integrations took place in the field at the command level, never at headquarters. Not until the present minister came along had anybody attempted to integrate the headquarters.
If you turn to the evidence of General Foulkes you will find very interesting reminiscences of integration attempts stretching back to the time when Hon. Brooke Claxton
14714	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment was minister of national defence. He brought together the three defence ministries of wartime days. He started the idea of unifying all three services but gave it up. He set up studies and committee work in connection with integration, studies which were later pursued and developed by some of the very men who appeared before the defence committee as competent officer witnesses. General Foulkes told us in an amusing way about efforts to unify the chaplain services. During the tenure of office of Mr. Pearkes as minister of national defence the matter had ended with the addition of a brigadier to the chaplain services but with no apparent amalgamation of services.
No one will say very much if the forces are integrated at that level. I am speaking of naval or air force units, for example. The local air force commander may not want to be put under the authority of the local naval commander but he will tolerate it and the system will work after a fashion because each commander believes that the arrangement is not permanent and that he will not have to put up with the other fellow forever. The air force commander may even take comfort in dreaming that he may one day be in charge of the integrated command. That is why the minister and other ministers have been able to get along with the business of reorganizing at the command level without causing significant political flurries.
When the minister integrated his headquarters a number of things began to happen that could not happen with integration at the command levels. First, the chiefs of the three services found themselves without jobs. They had gone from the organizational structure. At the same time the three services found themselves without chiefs above the level of the command structure. There was now a new chief who represented a consolidation of the three services. The new chief of staff now stood alone at the top of the structure and had to turn his back on the old three-service organization that he had known and grown up with. He had become the chief of the new integrated commands. All this happened when Bill C-90 was passed in July, 1964. This is what Bill C-90 did. All the important operative legislative and organizational steps which we have been discussing and which were necessary to create a unified force were taken when we passed Bill C-90 in July, 1964. Let me check this out with hon. members again.

DEBATES	April 10, 1967
First, the old chiefs of the three services were retired. Second, a single chief was established in their place. Third, the officers and men of the three old services were reorganized into new functional commands or components. As I say, this is what we did through Bill C-90. Only one thing of any real importance remained to be done and that was to give the new single force which we had created in 1964 a name. Bill C-243 asks us to do that. No clause in Bill C-243, other than clause 2 before the committee now, is of any real significance. I say that because clause 2 gives the force a new name.
The clause concerning the ranks of officers has been thoroughly amended. I invite hon. members of the committee to read clause 4 and note how it has been amended and what it means now. The power to regulate how officers shall be referred to has been withdrawn from the minister and placed in the hands of cabinet. It is only possible through an order in council now to change the designations of officers or the titles by which they shall be called. By no stretch of the imagination will the bill give landlubbers' titles to seagoing men. This was one of the major complaints made, and one of the complaints raised by my hon. friend from Esquimalt-Saanich a few moments ago. He has not studied the bill. He does not know what is in it. He has not read the testimony of General Allard. He has not looked at the evidence given again and again by the minister. Yet he stands up and says the same thing that has been said many times before though the committee diligently went about its business of attending to the very point complained about.


Mr. Nugent:: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deachman:: The words of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich were completely irrelevant.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is not in his seat now but I am sure he would object, as I now object. The hon. member now speaking has said that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich did not read the evidence. I think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich would take issue with that.


Grant Deachman: It is very kind of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to intervene on behalf of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich who is sitting behind the curtain, out of sight, listening carefully. The
April 10, 1967

hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona cannot see him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: I hope hon. members opposite will give him a round of applause, as have hon. members on this side.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Am I to understand that the hon. member implies that I have not read the evidence given before the defence committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is what has been said.


George Louis Chatterton: I wish to state that to my knowledge, though I may have skipped a few pages, I have read from beginning to end all the minutes of proceedings and evidence which have come to my office. I have read every volume of the minutes of evidence of the defence committee.


Grant Deachman: I will not dispute that, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member may have read the evidence but it is apparent that he did not understand it. I will not dispute that he did not read it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A smart-alecky remark.


Grant Deachman: The rest of the bill consists entirely of consequential or editorial changes that had to be made to the National Defence Act and other acts affected by it. 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." It asks us to stop pretending, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has been pretending this afternoon, that the men in the armed forces will experience some new, dramatic experience if this bill is passed by the house. It asks us to cease protesting that there is any real doubt about the effect of this bill. This bill is very simple indeed. It asks us only to give the force which was created by Bill C-90 a name. It asks us, in heaven's name, now that the baby is born, to cut its umbilical cord and let it live. I see the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich trembling on the edge of his seat so I will sit down.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


George Louis Chatterton: If the only purpose of this bill is to do that, then why all the haste to force it through? Why not let it go? It is causing great dissension throughout the country so why not defer it as recommended by Air Chief Marshal Miller?
National Defence Act Amendment


Grant Deachman: Is the hon. member pleading with me not to give a name to the Canadian armed forces?


George Louis Chatterton: I am appealing for some common sense from the other side.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then address your question to someone else.


Grant Deachman: Let me go over again with hon. members opposite the points which have been made clear so many times. The men will remain in their units. They will not be taken from their units and sent somewhere else as hon. members opposite have suggested time and time again. That is a sham and a shibboleth. The officers of the Royal 22nd will still march out of the Citadel with their men. The officers aboard H.M.C.S. Fraser will still be there to greet the sailors when they go aboard and they will still call the men by the same titles. This was guaranteed by the committee in its work, and the hon. member who is rising now was a member of that committee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Since the hon. member says that all this bill does is change the name of the force, I gather he disagrees with the Minister of National Defence who tells us the legislation is necessary in order to complete the process of integration.


Grant Deachman: 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.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: A great many questions are being asked; there seems to be a good deal of interest in my speech. Apparently points are being raised which so far have not come to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite. But I will hear the question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the hon. member not feel concerned lest by some mistake the Minister of National Defence should throw out the baby and simply keep the umbilical cord?
14716	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment


Grant Deachman: Well, the hon. member's remark will be recorded for posterity. Members of the armed forces may find themselves with greater scope as a result of unification because they will be able to move freely across the whole width of the force. Young officers of competence will find broader opportunities available to them. The names of the units, as I have said, will not be changed. The customs and traditions of the units will not change.
One of the hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Vegreville, went to considerable pains in the committee one day to examine General Allard on this point. He did an excellent job of drawing from the general recognition of the fact that the traditions and customs of the regiments would remain and that there was no danger that these things would be taken away. I am sure he was well satisfied with the situation. Indeed, I am sure the general satisfied everyone present. Yet we still find people saying that these regiments and their traditions will be destroyed. This is nonsense, and members opposite such as the hon. member for Vegreville who have taken the trouble to find out the facts know very well that this is the case. Nevertheless the opposition has perpetuated this sham, believing that somehow or other it will have its effect upon the Canadian people who will eventually accept it as the truth. I do not believe this will ever happen.
The most radical thing which will happen to the man in the Canadian armed forces after the passage of this bill is that in due course he will get a new suit. I want to remind hon. members who have spent a considerable amount of time discussing this point that it does not require Bill C-243 in order to make that possible. The bill before us does not effect the cost of operating the forces. This was taken care of by Bill C-90. The savings to be made will result from the changes in materiel command and training command as those changes evolve. All this was provided for in Bill C-90 which was passed back in July of 1964.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are asking that we pause, that we kick this issue around like Chicago's garbage until we lose it. We do not intend to do this. The bill before us does not affect the composition of the forces. The composition of the forces was affected by Bill C-90 and those changes have now been made.


An hon. Member:: Tell the minister that.

DEBATES	April 10, 1967


Grant Deachman: This bill has nothing to do with morale. The morale of some of those serving in the ranks reflected for a time the very low morale of their senior officers. Those were the men who got out because they did not believe that a minister should have the right to reorganize a headquarters. That is what this debate is about, basically. The Tories do not believe that a minister of the crown should have the right to reorganize a headquarters, only to tinker with the structure underneath. These are not the facts of political life. Great changes of this kind must be made at the political level. Hon. members opposite cannot evade this issue.
Finally, let me say a word to all those who say we should pause. It is necessary now to create an organization with a headquarters under a single chief responsible for functional commands working in the field. He is struggling to project a new spirit into this new organization, to teach the men new loyalities and a new esprit de corps. It is not an easy task and we do him no service by prolonging argument here for the retention of a military system which we voted out in this house when we passed Bill C-90 in July, 1964. We have said everything that can possibly be said about this matter ten times over, Mr. Chairman. It is time we stopped procrastinating. It is time to pass this bill and to give this force a new and honourable name and not leave it as a nameless child on the doorstep, something which hon. gentlemen opposite would like to do.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question? He just said something about giving the force an honourable name. Is there something dishonourable about the name "Royal Canadian Navy"?


Grant Deachman: No, sir, but I would make a suggestion to the hon. member. If he believes in unification like I do, let us put them all into the Royal Canadian Navy. This is one way to achieve unification. You could take army, navy and air force units and put them under one single name. The Royal Canadian Navy will do; the Canadian Army will do; the Royal Canadian Air Force will do. It just happens that the bill we have before us has suggested a first class name which does not give offence. Instead of all those others names it simply calls the service the Canadian Armed Forces. I think it is a good name. I think it will look marvelous on the shoulder flashes. I think the armed forces will be proud of it and I ask the
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
hon. member, a former distinguished and gallant officer, will he not assist these men by seeing that this new name is born?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In answer to that question, I will do everything in my power to prevent the government from forcing this change on men who are now serving in three very honourable services, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, during the past week we witnessed strange happenings on the other side of the chamber with Liberal members, one after the other, standing up and reading from prepared texts contrary to what the rules provide. I wonder whether they were reading for the very simple reason that they have joined the minister's propaganda team and are not allowed to express one thought of their own lest they might say something not in agreement with the minister's propaganda.
The other day the hon. member for Lamb-ton West speaking or, I should say, reading his prepared text made reference to my attitude while serving on the defence committee and said that when the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona and myself joined the committee it became partisan and we began insulting serving officers. At that time I asked him how many serving officers appeared before the committee while I served on it and he said he did not know. I draw his attention, the attention of the minister and that of every Grit opposite to the fact that I was not on the defence committee for the complete examination of one serving officer. This, Mr. Chairman, will give you an idea of the approach of the Liberal party when we have one of its members standing up and accusing me of something which I could not possibly have done. Furthermore, the implication that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and I joined the committee at the same time is entirely wrong.
Despite what the Minister of National Defence may think I wish to tell him that he does not have the support for his unification bill within his own party that he would like to have. Some of its members have different opinions from his and that is why each and every Grit who stands up has had to read word for word from a prepared text, with one exception. The exception was the Minister of Transport who became exercised on Friday afternoon, jumped into the debate without the permission of the Minister of National Defence and, without notes, put his foot in it. I
National Defence Act Amendment shall refer to what he said later, but he was the one exception and it was a mistake on their part to allow him to speak because he got excited.
Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs read word for word from a prepared text. Granted, he was dealing with foreign policy rather than with the unification bill. The minister is shaking his head. Before I am finished he will have a lot of shaking to do.
Since the hon. member for Lambton West saw fit to criticize me perhaps the best thing I could do would be to review the committee hearings to see what his attitude was. But I will have to forego that. He did not have an attitude in the defence committee so I cannot criticize something that was non-existent. The hon. member referred to the membership of the committee. How can the Liberal members who participated in the defence committee have followed what went on? Reference was made to the fact that I and other members in this party were involved in changes in the membership of the committee. For every Conservative change in membership on the defence committee there were at least six Liberal changes, a total of 41 changes on that side of the chamber. How could they have kept up with the evidence? They were shuffling in and out day after day. Not one of them liked to spend too much time on the committee.
We have just heard from the man who said he had the honour to lead the defence committee in the last half of its sessions. I repeat he said he had the honour to lead it. All I can say is that it is too bad he could not have turned that around and led the committee with honour. He did not lead with honour because on March 3 in this house, the first day he participated in the committee, he came into the house and made a report from the committee which was far removed from the truth, and the House of Commons spent the greatest part of the afternoon on a question of privilege in reference to his action as defence committee chairman.
I suggest to hon. members, and especially to the Minister of National Defence, that they look at page 13702 of Hansard for March 3 and read there what the defence committee chairman said. I would then call the minister's attention to the March 3 committee hearings, page 1960, where he will see for himself a complete denial of what was said by the chairman of the defence committee in the house. The chairman of the defence committee came into the House of Commons and reported something that had never happened. It is
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment recorded in Hansard and the denial is recorded in the evidence of the defence committee hearings.
Since I am talking about the defence committee hearings I would point out that there have been a few other changes. I would request now that the Minister of National Defence hold available for the committee of the whole house the tape recordings of the hearings in the defence committee so that the written record as we have it now can be checked against the voice record of what was actually said. I will use those tapes as against the prepared evidence provided to us to prove again that there has been some tampering done.


Some hon. Members:: Prove it.


Donald MacInnis: The
proof of it is in the minister's hands. Produce the tapes. We have the evidence of the committee. Produce those tapes. I have already proven, I think to Your Honour's satisfaction and to that of the minister, that the chairman of the defence committee came into the house on March 3 and reported incidents in the defence committee that never happened. Again I call attention to page 13702 of Hansard for March 3 and to page 1960 of the March 3 defence committee proceedings. The denials are recorded there for everybody to see.
What Liberal members have been trying to do in this committee and would like to do is to push something through the House of Commons, push something down the throats of the people of Canada, and especially push something down the throats of the serving personnel of this country. Why do hon. members day in and day out receive anonymous mail and newspaper clippings strongly denouncing unification? I believe many of these are coming from servicemen who, according to the rules, are not permitted to write to members of parliament objecting to this sort of thing. Again I repeat that the hon. member who said he had the honour to lead the committee did not lead it with honour. He has used the word "shame" and has said we should cut out this ridiculous debate.
This is another indication that hon. members on that side of the chamber are still trying to push something down our throats despite the fact-and I refer to what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona brought out very clearly-that serving officers could only give evidence to the defence committee based on government policy and could not


express an opinion outside that policy. The rule forbids them to go beyond that so they could express opinions only within that given policy. It is strange, however, that every serving officer who has recently retired and is now free to speak has expressed the opinion that he is against unification.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I should like to go back to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of National Defence will realize that the Minister of Transport jumped in because he was excited. He jumped in even though he did not have the benefit of the propaganda which has been available to the Minister of National Defence. He still made some strange statements. When I asked him whether he would permit a question, in his usual rude way he refused to give me that opportunity. Mr. Chairman, you and I know that over the years the matter of courtesy and rudeness between the Minister of Transport and I has been a debatable issue. So far rudeness and courtesy between the Minister of Transport and I are concerned, I believe we are almost even. He is away ahead on rudeness and I am ahead on courtesy.
I do not have the words of the Minister of Transport in front of me but at one point when he was trying to justify a unified force he said that there never has been a unified force. I do not know whether the minister realized it, but he was contradicting many members on the Liberal side of the house. Liberal members have held up the United States marines as an example of a unified force, which it is not, and in general have stated that it was the government's idea to pattern its force on the United States Marines. This statement has been made by members of the Liberal party and contradicts the statement made by the Minister of Transport.
Hon. members will remember also a rather strange statement made by the Minister of Transport not too long ago. He turned to the Prime Minister at a time when Conservative and other opposition members were accusing the government of backpeddling and retreating and said to his own Prime Minister that as usual he would have to backtrack. This was a very amazing statement. I did not think it could be improved upon until the minister spoke in the house on Friday. On Friday the minister made a statement which I think should be given some attention. As found on page 14668 of Hansard, the last paragraph, the minister is reported as having said:
If the minister accepts the wrong advice and adopts the wrong course, of course he should be defeated.
April 10, 1967

I will be much more generous and say that if he should not be defeated he should at least resign his portfolio. The former minister of finance resigned his position because he had given the Prime Minister the wrong advice. According to the Minister of Transport, we should have the resignation of the Minister of National Defence.
I should like to turn now to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who in support of the Minister of National Defence last week made a few strange statements. He read his speech and spoke entirely on foreign affairs. In answer to a question concerning a statement made by General Allard and later published, the Minister of National Defence stood up in the house and said that he had confidence in General Allard and that General Allard did not have to clear his statements with him. Apparently the Minister of National Defence does not know the rules. Not only does the minister have to clear such speeches but he also has to give permission for them to be made.
This matter was brought up earlier by the hon. member for Kootenay West. At that time he asked a question in respect of a German who was to speak before a group in Winnipeg. The answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was that he had no intention to interfere with freedom of speech. Last week the Minister of National Defence implied that General Allard can go wherever he wishes and say whatever he likes. The minister was entirely wrong and the Secretary of State for External Affairs was also wrong when he answered the hon. member for Kootenay West. The German in question was not allowed to speak in Winnipeg, or at least did not speak. The Minister of National Defence not only has erred but in addition he has received incorrect advice as is evident by the mistake made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence to the Queen's Rules and Regulations. The latest edition available to me is one I obtained from the Parliamentary Library. I should like to refer this to the minister as recommended reading. He should know at least the basic rules which apply to serving personnel in this country. Paragraph 679 reads as follows:
The publication or disclosure of any form of unpublished official documents, or of their contents, or of official information to unauthorized persons, or the use of such documents or information in personal controversy or for any private purpose, without due sanction from superior military authority, is forbidden.
National Defence Act Amendment
The paragraph 680 (a) contains the following:
An officer or soldier is forbidden to publish in any form whatever, or communicate, either directly or indirectly, to the press, any military information, or his views on any military subject, without War Office authority. He is further forbidden without first obtaining War Office permission, to deliver any lecture or discourse, or to answer questions, on any military subject, either publicly or by means of broadcasting or television, or to prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public. He will not prejudge questions which are under the consideration of superior military authority by the publication, anonymously or otherwise, of his opinions, and he will not take part, in public, in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by his superiors.
There it is in black and white. The Minister of National Defence does not know the simple rules which apply to serving officers. This brings us back to the fact that the ultimate authority over the military in this country is a civilian one. It is about time the minister re-examined his position and looked carefully down the road he is leading the forces of this country. The evidence contradicts what has been said by the Minister of National Defence in the house and supports the statements made by other members of the government in respect of certain adverse remarks which have been made. As I have pointed out, the Secretary of State for External Affairs found himself out in left field in respect of questions pertaining to freedom of speech when military matters are involved.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Minister of National Defence apparently thinks he has the support of his members and believes that unification is a good thing. I come back to what I have stated before in the house on the question of unification. Canada has always been proud of the fact that we have had volunteer forces. In the committee the Liberal members voted against the opportunity to re-attest being given to every serving man in our forces. In other words, as I said before, what they have been doing is voting for conscription. It is nothing more nor less than conscription because every man serving in the forces today will be serving under compulsion unless he is given the opportunity to re-attest. It will no longer be a volunteer force.
I suggest that the hon. member in the back row keep quiet for a little while because we will get around to him during this debate. I say to the minister that he is not in a position to stand up in this house and sanction the action of Liberal members in the house
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment and his staff. In fact, I defy the minister to stand up now and say that he supports the action of the members of his party in this house and his staff. Would the minister care to stand up and say that he supports their action?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, perhaps while I am standing I could ask the hon. gentleman the source of the Queen's Regulations from which he was reading.


Donald MacInnis: If the
minister reads my speech tomorrow he will find the source. If he wants the Queen's Regulations I suggest that he go to the library.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman can tell us if they are the Queen's Regulations for this country?


Donald MacInnis: The
Queen's Regulations that are available-here again this involves another criticism of the minister-in the library are the British regulations on which the Canadian regulations are patterned. I ask the minister whether he would care to stand up and say that the regulation I have read from the British Queen's Regulations does not apply also to the Canadian forces. Does the minister know enough to say that what I have quoted this afternoon from the Queen's Regulations does not apply to the Canadian forces? Will the minister stand up now and say that he sanctions and supports the action of the Liberal members of this house and his staff? I put the direct question to the minister: Will you stand up in this house and say that you sanction and support the action of the members of your party in this house and your staff?


Mr. Foy:: Regarding what?


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member raises a question; he asks, regarding what? That carries the inference that there are certain things the minister does not support. I am surprised there is an admission by a Liberal that there is something going on that the minister does not support or that all those in his party do not support. I ask the minister wether he will stand up in this house-in fact I defy him to stand up in this house-and say that he gives complete support to the action of the Liberal members in the House of Commons and his staff with respect to the unification bill.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not want to interrupt your speech.


Harold Warren Danforth: I bet you don't.


Donald MacInnis: I notice that the hon. member for Lambton West is back in the house. He did not stay around earlier so that I could point out to him the fallacy of his remarks last week. I would draw attention to the hon. member's actions in the committee. He has now come back into the house and is trying to make interjections. He should be ashamed of the fact that he stood up last week in the house and made the references he did regarding the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and myself. They were far removed from the truth. I should think the hon. member for Lambton West would at least want to tell the truth in respect of the committee proceedings. When on March 3 the minister was given the opportunity to support the chairman of the defence committee he would not support him. The hon. member has said that he had the honour to lead the committee but I say he did not lead it with honour. He did not get the support of the Minister of National Defence on March 3. He reported to the house matters which he said took place in the committee but which in fact never did take place there.
The hon. member for Lambton West has not told the truth in respect of what happened in the committee. The hon. member who led the committee for the last few sessions came into the house and tried to impose upon us the will of the Liberal members in that committee, without backing up the statements he made with the truth about what actually happened. The hon. member has stood in the house and referred to this debate as a sham. It was a shameful thing that he did. He should not come into the house and refer to members on this side and say that what they are doing is a sham and that this is a ridiculous debate. Nobody has performed his duties more shamefully than the hon. member who represented the minister on that committee during the last half of its sessions. This is the hon. member who says this debate is a sham so far as we on this side of the house are concerned. He made a sham of the defence committee. If he wants to know what kind of a chairman he proved to be during the proceedings of the committee I will quote a couple of sentences from the committee record. I start on page 1960.


An hon. Member:: I will send you over a couple.


Donald MacInnis: If the
hon. member were to send something over to me I would have to have cross-references because I would not believe it when I received
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
it. Anything the hon. member puts in writing or says requires a lot of checking before we can finally get at the truth because the original will not have a speck of truth in it. Take note of the chairman's competence as demonstrated by this quotation from page 1960 of the committee proceedings for March 3, 1967:


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am always at the disposal of the committee and I will call for a vote on that from those who will meet here this afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. no, you cannot call for a vote, sir. You have to have a motion.


An hon. Member:: I move that we adjourn until 2 p.m.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We have a motion. Now gentlemen, we have business to do.
This is all in one portion of the defence committee's proceedings. Having said that, in the very next sentence the chairman said:
I have no motion in front of me, gentlemen-
1 would ask hon. members to look at page 1960 of the proceedings of the defence committee on March 3 where they will see for themselves the kind of leadership we had from the chairman of that committee. In the same breath he said:
We have a motion. Now gentlemen, we have business to do. I have no motion in front of me, gentlemen-
This will give hon. members an idea of the competence with which the committee was led. It will show them the lack of competence of the chairman who tried to lead the committee and who led it without honour.
I have indicated that Canada has always prided herself on the fact that we have a volunteer force. All that is required to continue in that way, rather than having the men in the services continue under compulsion until the time of their retirement, is to have them re-attested into the Canadian forces at the time the bill is proclaimed, if it ever is. I have on a number of occasions quoted from the official records to the effect that such attestation should take place. I have pointed this out to the minister and proved that during the war years, in time of national emergency, the Canadian government always thought enough of its servicemen to give them the opportunity to volunteer for service in whatever branch of the forces they wished to serve. But today we have the Minister of National Defence during peacetime refusing to give the servicemen of this country the same opportunity that was given to them during wartime by a former Liberal government. I have put this proof on record on a number of occasions, but for the
National Defence Act Amendment benefit of the minister I will again draw attention to the Official History of the Canadian Army. On page 43 of that history it is stated: "Government decided to place militia on active service in Canada (mobile force). Although all submissions to council were ready and all plans made, we were horrified to hear"-
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the babble on the other side of the house indicates that the Liberals are changing their minds.
-"the cabinet decided at the last minute to change the name of the mobile force from Canadian Field Force and Canadian Active Service Force. The result being many changes, torn up stencils, and $65,000 worth of mobilization forms almost useless. Very hectic day-but we managed to get the general order 135/1939 issued and in the mail to all districts." General order No. 135 announced that the governor in council had "authorized the organization of a Canadian Active Service Force" and had "named as Corps of the Active Militia" and "placed on active service in Canada" certain specified units. The accompanying schedules listed nearly 300 individual units and formation headquarters, including the headquarters of "1st Corps C.A.S.F.", the whole of the 1st and 2nd Divisions, C.A.S.F., and quotas of corps, army and lines of communication troops. In addition, this order incorporated in the C.A.S.F., the units and details of the non-permanent active militia which had been called out under general order No. 124 to guard vulnerable points and man coast defences. Some additions were now made to the original list. The N.P.A.M. soldiers on duty were attested into the C.A.S.F., except for those not wishing to enlist, who were released in due course.
This is a clearcut precedent which shows that even during wartime the Liberal government gave to every serviceman in the country the opportunity to serve his country as a volunteer and not have to come under the compulsion which the minister is trying now to impose on the Canadian services.
There are many other precedents. I should like to quote from page 63 where the following description appears:
Very few men took advantage of the opportunity to leave the service which the new order afforded. The war diary of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment for 30 September describes the order's reception in that unit. It was probably typical of many:
"During the afternoon parade at Picton the terms of the 'Supplementary Declaration', form M.F.M. 2(x) were read and explained to Picton Coys., and they were told that they might have a short time in which to discuss these terms and deliberate over them. However one strong voice called out: I don't need any time on mine! Bring on the declaration! I'm all set to sign! This was the signal for quite an outburst of enthusiasm, and there was a period of shouting and cheering. The upshot was that when the Coys, were called upon to sign for overseas service "D" Coy. turned out to a man, but five members of "C" Coy. refused to sign and were heartily booed as a result."
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
In all, only five officers and 532 other ranks of the C.A.S.F. declined to re-attest and were struck off the strength, "services no longer required".
The minister and hon. members opposite would leave us with the impression that if one were to be re-attested into the Canadian armed forces, that is, the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, chaos would result. If it is the opinion of the Minister of National Defence that to re-attest the men would bring about chaos, then may I remind him that during the war only five officers and 532 men in other ranks refused to sign the re-attestation papers and were struck off strength. The minister tells us that he is confident unification is the proper thing-


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief remarks on this important bill but I must say at the outset that I am not an expert on military matters; in fact my military experience is very limited. I was a member of the Church Lads Brigade. I have been a boy scout and a scoutmaster. I have been a member of the Arrow Lakes Rifles affiliated with the Rocky Mountain Rangers, and I served with the 54th Kootenay Battalion in the first world war. Later I graduated from the School of Guards which was operated in France during the first world war by the Brigade of Guards. Therefore you see, Mr. Chairman, that I am not really knowledgeable enough with respect to military strategy and tactics even to write a book.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit me a question? The hon. member is pretending he did not see active service overseas although I believe he did. Was the hon. member not wounded at the Somme? Was he not in the trenches serving with the other members of the Canadian forces at that time and was he not honourably discharged after having performed his duty to his country?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in reply I will give the same answer I gave to the old lady who visited me in hospital in London. I told her I was bitten by a German wasp on five occasions.
I said that I do not profess to have sufficient knowledge of military strategy and tactics even to write a book. All I have done in this respect was to write a script for the local

dramatic society which dealt with the well-known Bairnsfather character, Old Bill, and Colonel Blimp. That was the only production in the literary sense with which I have had anything to do. So I trust all hon. members will realize that I am speaking as an amateur on this subject and from a somewhat different point of view to that of my hon. friends to my right.
However, I do want to say that I know people feel very deeply on this question. They have strong feelings on both sides of the question and they express themselves very vehemently on occasions. I must say I do not like personal remarks in a debate of this kind. I think we can take a dig or two and make certain cogent references now and again as long as we retain our sense of humour, but if we are to maintain a certain standard we must present our views, in regard to policy as if we were gentlemen. I remember that my mother always said a gentleman was a man who always acted properly and never did anything wrong in public. I wish that members of this house would take my mother's advice in that respect.
The attitude of the New Democratic Party to the unification of the armed forces is based on our policy with respect to foreign affairs, the United Nations, and our defence policy with respect to NATO, NORAD and nuclear weapons. So there will be no mistake with respect to our policy I wish to place on the record the resolution adopted by the New Democratic Party at one of its national conventions. I wish to refer to the program which was adopted at our convention of August, 1963 held in Regina. Of course this program has been carried forward to this date. I wish to emphasize the rather different approach we have to this problem from that of hon. members on my right. Let me say before I go any further that I do not think any of us has any objection to integration but there are different and varying reasons for opposing what is termed unification. I should like to quote the resolution which reads as follows:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
NATO has played its part in the maintenance of west European security. However, it has concentrated on a military role and has failed to adapt its policies to the growing importance of the economic and social front in the present world struggle. The New Democratic Party believes that we should seek a reappraisal and change of NATO's policies and objectives.
The New Democratic Party believes that the extension of nuclear weapons to any further states and alliances threatens disaster to the world. It therefore opposes Canada's troops being supplied with such weapons at home or abroad.
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
At present, except for those nations which have independently developed atomic capacity, neither NATO itself nor its members individually possess or control nuclear warheads. Should they do so, Canada must make it clear that it cannot remain in the alliance. To relieve tensions, Canada should press for a demilitarized zone in central Europe and for the simultaneous disbandment of the Warsaw and NATO pacts.
I must remind the house that in reply to a question of mine addressed to the Minister of National Defence some time last year he said that NATO was a nuclear alliance. Therefore, according to our national convention resolution we propose that Canada should withdraw her forces from the alliance. This was the basis upon which this resolution was supported by our convention.
I go now to our attitude to NORAD. In this respect I wish to quote from page 51 of the New Democratic Party program. I want to be exact in this respect because possibly some members actually do not understand our resolutions.
It is questionable whether NORAD ever made any significant contribution to the defence of Canada, and in any case it has outlived its usefulness.
Furthermore, there is every danger that the Bomarcs will be equipped with nuclear warheads. The NORAD agreements should therefore be terminated.
That is the attitude of the New Democratic Party with respect to NORAD.
I might say I had a most interesting experience when I visited NORAD, and I think the minister got some of the backwash from it. We were there for three days and were lectured by the United States officers in charge of these installations. They treated us very well indeed. Just as we were leaving the gentleman in charge said to one of the members, what is your politics, sir? He said, I am a Liberal. The same question was asked of the next member and he said, I am a Conservative. The next member said he was a member of the Social Credit party, and when asked I said I was a revolutionary socialist. When we returned to Ottawa people had heard all about this and wanted to know what I had been up to. I had really made this comment in a sort of a humorous vein but it was taken seriously and resulted in an inquiry about me so far as security was concerned.


Walter Frank Foy: Was your own party upset when you said this?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, I would not do anything of that sort, you know. We stand united except when we are apart.
Our policy with respect to NATO and NORAD is supported by other groups in Canada,
National Defence Act Amendment including the Voice of Women, and in that connection I wish to quote a statement issued by that organization:
Following the publication of the white paper on defence, Voice of Women notes that the government recognizes that Canada's defence policy cannot be dissociated from her foreign policy.
Voice of Women acknowledges the usefulness and efficiency of the integration of the armed forces but notes with concern contradictions and discrepancies between the declaration of Canada and her representatives at the United Nations and Geneva and the contents of the white paper.
I am going to give a few examples because I have a lot of correspondence with various ladies in the Voice of Women and all my life I have taken a great deal of pleasure in pleasing the ladies.
The question of nuclear weapons for the Canadian armed forces is subordinate to that of Canada's political possibility as a member of a nuclear armed alliance.
When Canada joined NATO in 1949 NATO was not a nuclear alliance. When NATO became a nuclear alliance in December, 1957, Canada could not withdraw in view of article 13 of the North Atlantic treaty which prevents withdrawal before 1969. On the other hand, it is a fact that some countries, members of NATO, have refused all nuclear weapons while remaining in the alliance.
According to the white paper, the first objective in time and in importance of Canadian defence policy is collective measures for maintenance of peace and security as embodied in the charter of the United Nations, including the search for balanced and controlled disarmament. I am very pleased to note the discussions that have been taking place in recent months at Geneva in this respect.
On January 5, 1964, the Prime Minister said that he believes Canada's future military role will require a diminution of nuclear arms and equipment. How, therefore, can the white paper recommend nuclear arms for a nuclear role for Canada's armed forces? This is a question asked by the ladies in the Voice of Women.
The white paper states that the alliance must continue to possess nuclear weapons in the absence of controlled disarmament. The greatest obstacle to controlled disarmament at the present time is precisely the possession by NATO of nuclear weapons in ever-increasing quantities.
Our position with respect to NATO is being supported by an increasing number of people with some knowledge of the circumstances. For instance, recently Hon. Howard Green,
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment former secretary of state for external affairs, was quoted in the Vancouver Province as saying that Canada should consider dropping out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization when the present treaty expires in 1969. I might say that Mr. Green was in the same company as me for several years. I always had high regard for him. He is not a person to make a statement just to catch the press. He is a most serious-minded person and I knew him as such in civilian life, in the army and while he was secretary of state for external affairs.
The present Leader of the Opposition was quoted in an article in the Nelson Daily News of December 18, 1966, entitled "Diefenbaker Urges Cut In Canada's Force In Europe", as follows:
Opposition Leader Diefenbaker has added his voice to the growing chorus seeking a Canadian troop reduction in Europe.
I may that we in this party are very pleased indeed that the Leader of the Opposition is commencing to march in our direction. This is not the only case in which he has commenced to march in our direction. He has done so on several other occasions in recent months. Numerous editors across Canada are also beginning to realize that the defence policy of Canada must be altered to meet changing circumstances. It is for this reason the hon. member for Vancouver East said, when speaking in the house on January 30 last:
Canada should think not just of renegotiating its position in NATO but of getting out of NATO.
Later in the same speech he said:
No reasonable explanation can be given why, in regard to defence co-operation and our relations with the United States under NORAD, we should have nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadians and on Canadian soil.
Later he went on to say:
The policy of integration seems logical and reasonable to us, but the House of Commons should not be asked to endorse the principle of unification until the government has clearly outlined its attitude to existing military alliances and its reasons for the same, and the anticipated role for Canada's armed forces.
Later the same day the hon. member for Greenwood supported this point of view in similarly vigorous language. After this bill received second reading it was referred to the committee on national defence. A good many witnesses were heard both for and against the bill. I have not had the opportunity of reading all the evidence carefully, but I have picked out the evidence of those persons who received particular attention in the press or whose evidence was discussed by members in

conversation. I was particularly impressed by the evidence given by General Moncel and by Air Chief Marshal Miller, who was Canada's chief of defence staff until his early retirement last summer. I was particularly impressed with some of the questions put to him in the committee and I should like to quote one. This is a man of authority and knowledge, and he was asked this question:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Air Marshal, you have indicated in answer to Mr. Harkness that you saw no advantages to unification. Did I understand you correctly when you said you could list several disadvantages?
Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
I said I did not see any monetary return for unification-
Which in effect means no savings.
-nor did I see any significant military effectiveness.
When dealing with this type of legislation I think we have to pay particular attention to the opinions of one who so recently was Canada's chief of defence staff.
Passing from the evidence brought before the committee, I was interested to note an editorial in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, March 25, entitled "Where Are We Going". The article commenced:
Two New Democratic members of parliament, Andrew Brewin and Harold Winch, have at last put the dispute over unification of the armed forces in its proper context. Unification makes sense, they pointed out in a statement after the defence committee reported the bill back to the Commons, only-
The word "only" is the key word, Mr. Chairman.
-if the government intends to make drastic alterations in its present NATO and NORAD commitments. They would not, they indicated, support final passage of the bill until the government agreed to these alterations.
That is pretty definite.
Had NATO developed into some form of economic community, as once foreseen by Louis St. Laurent and Lester Pearson, there might be reasons for maintaining our part in it. It did not. We should bring our forces home. We can fulfil any responsibility to our European allies through treaties that could, for example, commit forces to their assistance in time of need.
There is also another purpose served by our armed forces: the preservation of peace in Canada itself. However much as we resent the thought, it has been necessary at times for them to play that role, and could be again.
Beyond all of this, of course, is the peacekeeping role, at which Canadians have distinguished themselves and which is undoubtedly, so far as most Canadians are concerned, the role we would wish our armed forces to play.
April 10, 1967

The military correspondent of the Globe and Mail is writing, I think, with considerable balance and thought in using these arguments. The editorial continues:
In fact, most Canadians are much more interested in preserving peace than preparing for war. Making larger forces available to police duties is one way of achieveing such an objective. Another is through ever-increasing amounts of foreign aid to underdeveloped nations. Abject poverty feeds international unrest. Could Canada shift its defence emphasis from the manifestations to the causes of unrest?
I thought that quotation from the editorial in the Globe and Mail was very interesting indeed.
During the present debate the hon. member for Greenwood placed some interesting information on the record with respect to the evidence given by General Moncel. Later the hon. member made these remarks, as reported at page 14447 of Hansard April 3:
In my view, Mr. Chairman, this reveals the essence of the matter which is facing the house today. General Moncel put his finger on precisely the real issue. However much it may be obscured by the discussions of unification, the real issue is that unification makes sense if the concentration is to be on a single mobile force which will be available for peacekeeping and other activities, but if the present roles are to be continued then it does not make sense.
The members of our group agree wholeheartedly with this point of view.
On April 5 the hon. member for Vancouver East made a very interesting speech in which he clearly indicated that it was the responsibility of the government to inform the House of Commons of the role of the armed forces, and that this party would have to make its decision on this bill according to what we believe is best for the armed forces and for Canada. In concluding his remarks the hon. member said, as reported at page 14573 of Hansard:
In the final analysis, we will search our consciences and vote in the way we think is right for the future of Canada.
According to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whose speech I listened carefully the other day, Canada has no intention of getting out of either NATO or NORAD. With respect to NATO he said that Canadian forces contributed to existing stability in Europe and that unilateral withdrawal of them could have significant political consequences. In effect, he said that the role of the Canadian armed forces was to continue as at present. In saying this he failed to meet the suggestion put forward by our party when this bill was first discussed before it went to
National Defence Act Amendment the committee, as well as during the committee hearings and in the course of this debate, that the role of the armed forces should be to defend Canada and provide peace keeping forces for the United Nations when required.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, in another respect this debate has been somewhat disappointing in that it has not given the Canadian people any clear idea as to the cost of defence in the future, and I think they are entitled to know this. General Moncel, the former vice chief of the general staff, told the defence committee that Canada will require a budget of $2 billion to meet her commitments. I am informed that the associates of the minister have not confirmed or denied this statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They have denied it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear the minister say that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If they have not, I do now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear the minister say that because I want to be as accurate as possible.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller on this point is more accurate, I think, than that given by General Moncel.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his explanation in that respect and I accept it.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the role of the armed forces as outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is completely unsatisfactory from the point of view of the members of this party. We again affirm our belief that Canada should withdraw from NATO and NORAD, and we again express our opposition to nuclear weapons being placed in the hands of Canadian troops at home or abroad. Our view is that we should let Canada make a positive and constructive contribution to the development of peace in the world, first of all by the provision of peace keeping forces to the United Nations and, second, by the provision of funds, material and technological know-how and skills for underdeveloped nations.
That, Mr. Chairman, is our point of view, and we shall do all we can to support such efforts. I might say that I have heard people mention contributions of the order of 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent of our gross national product. I believe we should all be men enough, and ladies enough, to support the taxation that is necessary to pay for this because no government can undertake any program of this sort at home or abroad unless it
14726
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment takes some money away from somebody. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that when it comes to voting on this bill this party will, as usual, exercise its conscience.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat would he permit me to ask him a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I want to be perfectly clear about his standpoint with regard to his remarks on NORAD. Is he saying that it is his view, whether or not it is the view of his party, that Canada should not be party to any joint defence arrangement with the United States with respect to the defence of the North American continent?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, what I put on the record was the view of our party as expressed at the national convention, clearly indicating that Canada should withdraw from NORAD, as I have said previously on the resolution stage. This is the view of this party, not the view of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I am always very careful on those points.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Eric Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few comments on Bill C-243, commonly known as the armed forces unification bill.
I have had the privilege of serving on the defence committee in the past but I did not serve on the committee when it considered this bill. Personally, I felt it was desirable to have personnel on the committee who have served in the armed forces of Canada, particularly as we are concerned about the defence of our country and the defence of freedom everywhere.
This parliament has many such distinguished members. On this side of the house in our party there are many such members who served with dedication and distinction during world war I and world war II. These men gained personal and practical knowledge of the structure of our armed forces, the structure of our defence philosophy and the structure of actual combat. Many of us do not have this experience. As one who did not serve in the armed forces of Canada I felt that a wise course for me to follow was to listen to the views of those with experience and practical knowledge. I also feel that a wise minister of national defence should follow a similar course.
I have followed the proceedings of the defence committee in the examination of the bill


now before us. It is disturbing to me, as I am sure it is disturbing to Canadians everywhere, to read the testimony of so many former senior officers who have come out squarely against the principle of the bill and who in fact maintain that the present bill, if passed, will destroy the effectiveness of the armed forces of Canada. These are men who have dedicated their whole lives to the service of their country in peacetime and in war. These men are not seeking glory or personal gain but are expressing their views based on many years of experience. There sole aim is that our country be provided with the best and most effective defence force possible. They have no ulterior motives nor axes to grind. They have the welfare of their country at heart. We as members of parliament also, I hope, place the welfare of our country first.
It is most disturbing to see the long list of senior officers who have taken early retirement or who have been fired for expressing views different from those of the minister or opposing the intent of the bill before us. The calibre of the men who have left the army, navy and air force is exceptionally high. With so much opposition to this bill and with so much doubt expressed about any beneficial effects from it, I would think that the minister would be wise to go slowly and to take a closer look at all aspects of defence. The testimony of men like Lieutenant General Moncel, Air Marshal Annis, Lieutenant General Fleury, Air Chief Marshal Miller and many others has left doubt in the minds of many about the value of the bill and about where we are heading.
There are those, including the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres who spoke on Friday, who say that this debate has taken too long. They forget that parliament is a place for discussion. Hon. members on this side have been participating in discussion, in a debate. Hon. members have been expressing their doubts and have been giving their views about this matter.
Everyone has agreed that integration is a good thing and I congratulate the minister for bringing it in because I think it was a forward step. Integration, however, had been under study for many years. The department had considered it for a long time and had carried out, as I have said, extensive studies. The minister implemented those studies. He also explained that integration was experimental, that errors would be made and that we shall not have the full benefits for some time to come. In that context I would think it would be better to wait until we can see the full
April 10. 1967
effects of the integration program before proceeding farther. It was said when integration was introduced that there would be a saving of many millions of dollars. I do not doubt that some savings were effected but they were not as great as Canadians had been led to believe.
Coming from an area in which there are two defence establishments and living in a town in which there is an R.C.A.F. station, Gimli, now known as Canadian Forces Base, Gimli, I have been over the years and am still much interested in the defence of our country. I might say in passing that we have had exceptionally good commanding officers throughout the years. We have been very fortunate in the high quality of these men and we have always enjoyed excellent public relations in our district between servicemen and civilians.
People in the services have expressed many doubts about this bill. Some, in common with some hon. members here, are in favour of it; others, in common with other hon. members here, are opposed to it. We are reaching the point where many in the services are afraid of saying anything against the bill as too many have been fired for speaking against it. Surely both views ought to be heard particularly from the minister's department. Everyone ought to be allowed to speak freely.
I do not agree with senior officers making speeches and statements to the public, as reported in this morning's Montreal Gazette. The article is headed "Unification Defended". The text reads as follows:
Vice-Admiral R. L. Hennessy Friday night delivered a spirited broadside at critics of armed forces unification in an address to the Navy League of Canada.
"The myth that unification will destroy the navy isn't borne out by the facts," he said.
"It verges on being insulting to the fine men of the navy."
Those who say navy morale is low are either "ill-informed or misinformed."
The evidence before the committee showed that morale in the navy is at an all-time low; yet here is a senior officer saying that is not so. One of the reasons for hurrying this bill through is that if it is not passed morale in the armed forces will sink. As this officer says morale is high, there is no need to rush the bill.
While referring to freedom of speech I wish to read from an article in the Winnipeg Free 23033-931J
National Defence Act Amendment Press of Thursday, April 6, 1967. The column is headed "Who Can Speak?". It says:
Defence Minister Paul Hellyer's staff play under some peculiar ground rules when it comes to speaking out in public.
In Parliament on Monday, when opposition members questioned some statements that General Jean Allard, the chief of staff, was alleged to have made in a speech in Montreal, Mr. Hellyer sprang quickly to his defence. (The fact that General Allard was misquoted has no bearing on this particular point, as Mr. Hellyer admitted he did not know what the general had said.) What Mr. Hellyer said in the House was, "Mr. Speaker, I did not know of the speech, but I have complete confidence in the chief of the defence staff and he is at complete liberty to express himself publicly as he sees fit."
Does General Allard have this privilege because he is the chief of staff? Or does he have it because his views on unification coincide with Mr. Hellyer's? If it is proper for the general to express himself publicly as he sees fit, surely this should be extended to other senior military officers. But what happened to Lieutenant General Moncel, Rear Admiral Landymore, Lieutenant General Frank Fleury, Vice Admiral Kenneth Dyer and other senior officers when they questioned Mr. Hellyer's policies? They were fired out of hand.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nonsense.


Eric Stefanson: Nonsense, says the minister? I hope that those senior officers enjoy that freedom in speaking that we enjoy in parliament.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The Minister of Transport told us the other day that it was important to hear both sides of the question. I hope, therefore, that this freedom exists and that the promotion of men who expressed their views will not be prevented. If this has taken place it is certainly cause for a great deal of alarm.
Canada is a member of NORAD and NATO and it is important that her military role should be integrated with defence and foreign policies. In addition, I certainly think that Canada's military organization should be able to fit in with the military arrangements of allies such as the United States and Britain. Last fall I had the opportunity to visit defence establishments in the United States on a NATO trip. Most of the information we received was classified and I will certainly not refer to it here. I will merely say that at all the bases we visited, whether navy, air force or marine corps, the commanding officer was always a four-star general and in every case, I would say, he was roughly 50 years of age. The minister said we should not be listening to senior officers such as these but that we should be paying attention to the younger men. Nevertheless these are the people upon whom Mr. McNamara relies for his ad-

April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment vice-the senior officers at these bases and at the Pentagon. I think it is indispensable that any minister should have the benefit of advice from people who have made the defence of their country a lifetime job.
I have put forward the view that our forces should be similar in structure to those of the United States and Britain. I found no indication that the United States was contemplating any change in the present constitution of its services, that is, an army, a navy and an air force. I should like to quote part of an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, a paper which is a strong supporter of the Liberal party though it has often come out with editorials directed against the present government. This editorial says:
As members of parliament cast their votes in support or rejection of Mr. Hellyer's bill, they must surely recognize the grave responsibility they bear individually. It is a question that ^ far transcends both politicking and party. Canadians will not lightly forgive or forget if our defence structure is thoughtlessly dismembered. This ill-advised step could, by a single act of parliament, sponsored by an inexperienced minister, tear down and destroy proven services which have been built with the sacrifice and efforts of Canadians in the past hundred years and more.
The reputation, character, efficiency and traditions of Canada's regular and militia units have been won and tested in action in battlefields in Europe, Asia and Africa, in the sea lanes of the North Atlantic and in the bombing and fighter missions in the air. They have been carefully designed and organized to work in the closest possible harmony with our two major allies, Great Britain and the United States.
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 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.
Bearing this in mind, I say that the minister should be extremely careful, when contemplating changes in the defence structure of Canada, to see that our forces fit into the defence structures of the United States and Great Britain.

Furthermore, the NATO agreement is to be reviewed in 1968 to arrive at a basis for the coming ten years and the indications are that great changes will be brought about. At this point I should like to read from another article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 4:
In the course of the next year, Canada will be reviewing and renegotiating her military commitments under NATO. Common sense, at least, should dictate delaying any major revision of our defence forces until these revised undertakings become known.
Regiments, air squadrons and ships' companies are not simply constructed by bookkeeping statistics, mechanical devices, theories on paper, or by inexperienced guesswork. Canada has much practical experience to draw on. It should not be ignored. A far more cautious and realistic approach should be adopted before risking the destruction of such matters as confidence, harmony, pride of service, esprit de corps and proud tradition which every great commander in history has recognized as the vital qualities in any fighting service. Such things, when destroyed, cannot easily or quickly be restored.
In considering this bill in parliament, members should demand some explanation of the effect of Mr. Hellyer's program on Canada's important commitments under NATO and NORAD. These continuing responsibilities should not be ducked or diverted to buy support for Mr. Hellyer's unification program.
As has been pointed out, if Canada's role is to be merely one of peacekeeping, unification could perhaps be justified. But if we are to have a force of the kind which has existed in the past there can certainly be no justification for such a drastic step. I notice that even though integration was begun some two years ago the estimates for 1967-68 are roughly $115 million higher than the defence estimates for 1966-67. The total estimates of the department for the present year amount roughly to $1,600 million. This is an enormous amount of money. Members of this committee are entitled to know, as are the people of Canada, exactly what the defence forces of this country consist of. Most of the editorials which have appeared in the press are strongly opposed to the bill we are now discussing. Last night I listened to a television program in the course of which Charles Lynch said he felt the debate in this house was justified because in his opinion this was a dangerous bill and one which should be opposed. I am sure the minister has read editorials in papers right across Canada, every one of them condemning the bill before us and suggesting it would be most unwise to move hastily at this time.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In conclusion I wish to propose some questions to the minister. Will the passing of this
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
bill save the people of Canada money, or has the minister some doubts about this? Will the passing of this bill assure Canada of an effective defence force, or has the minister some doubts about this? Is insistence on a single uniform not likely to have an effect on the morale of the forces? If it does affect morale would it not be better to allow the three services to retain their identities by retaining their respective uniforms? Has the testimony given by many qualified personnel as to their doubts about the bill not been a shock to the minister and left some doubts in his mind?
I find myself having serious doubts about these points, and if the minister has any doubts I hope he will proceed with caution and take another look at what this bill may achieve. He has indicated that it will take many years to implement the provisions of the bill. Therefore there does not seem to be any need for rush. Why not wait until the full effects of integration are felt and then perhaps the minister and all concerned will be in a position to assess the merits for or against unification? I therefore trust that if the minister has any doubts about the value of the bill he will request that it be stood so that consideration can be given either to scrapping it entirely or amending it.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate as another member who was not a member of the defence committee. Having served on a number of standing and special committees of the house I realize that the members of the defence committee have acquired specific and better knowledge of the question we are debating than those of us who were privileged only to sit in on committee hearings and to read the evidence as it was published. However, the purpose of a committee is to report to the house assembled in committee of the whole so that all hon. members can consider the evidence and the report and look at them in perhaps a more broadly based fashion than a committee itself is capable of doing. Therefore I have no apology to make for rising at this time to make some general remarks on the whole question of unification.
There has been a considerable amount of comment about whether or not this or that member served in the armed forces, for how long, and in what service. I do not feel that this is essential to an ability to debate the subject. However, I feel no modesty about standing here because I did serve as an infantry commander for some time in the front lines on European battlefields. I do not feel
National Defence Act Amendment that gave me any special knowledge about the larger organizational problems but I do think it gave me some knowledge on the question of the identity of individual fighting units and the importance that these units bear to the whole force.
We have used the words, esprit de corps and morale. These qualities are very essential. I shall deal with them a little more deeply in a few minutes but, regardless of all the other matters that have been discussed, fundamentally the question is, are we going to have an effective force for the defence of Canada's shores? That is the question we have to face. I feel that the answer is in the negative and that by unification we will not assist the morale of our fighting forces nor improve the over-all-picture.
There are a lot of questions that have not yet been answered. The whole weakness of the minister's position arises from the assumption that there is something difficult about the matter of unification which only the experts can understand. The understanding which the public has got is probably more important than anything else, because we cannot run that far ahead of public opinion and get away with it. I believe at this particular moment we are running ahead of public opinion, and running so far ahead of it in this effort at unification that the public will neither understand nor support unification.
Public reaction, both from those who had a smattering of military knowledge and from those who wanted to save money, was favourable to integration. People agreed in general with the fact that we could integrate support, supply and command services and thereby produce a more effective national fighting force at more modest cost. This was the first thing which the public approved, but I am going to submit that the public's view has changed and that the minister cannot ignore this change or, if he does, it will be at his peril.
The second thing the public felt was that unification, the second step of integration as they saw it, was not really understood by any civilian. However, they felt the minister had assurances from his experts that everyone in the services knew what was involved and everyone in the services approved. On this basis the public went along with the question of unification believing that though they could not understand it everybody else did. There was no effective vocal opposition across the country. But that public reaction has changed.
14730	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
I find that people who talk to me as a private member of the house are now a little bit confused because they have learned that the experts did not know exactly what was involved and in large measure did not approve what was taking place. This has made a considerable difference in the minds of the public. They are now asking if the experts did not know, if the heads of the services did not know what unification meant, if Air Chief Marshal Miller did not know, then who does?
Until quite recently people thought the Prime Minister probably knew but then he said, "My, I am really surprised at what Air Chief Marshal Miller said. I will have to look into this again." All this is quite surprising to the public. They figured that at least the Prime Minister knew what unification was and what was involved. Now the public are beginning to wonder. So am I, and so are a lot of people who admitted they did not know what was involved but thought everyone else did.
As I read the committee proceedings I found that time and again expert military witnesses stated they could not define the meaning of unification. Some even said they could not understand the difference between integration and unification. Time and again witnesses stated that unification would not provide an increase in the efficiency of the services.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
They stated that it is not clearly understood even by the members of the services and, finally, that unification would not improve morale and esprit de corps in the services.
I believe the government of the day is prone to ignore the individual. Everyone is treated in the way a mass of people would be treated. This is my criticism of much of their legislation. In respect of unification they are now going beyond that; they intend to abandon battalions and units which have been historic for centuries. They intend to abandon corps and even services-the navy, the air force and the army. Individual units are now to be abandoned and absorbed into an anonymous group where the personnel have no interest whatsoever in the others who are serving in the same service.
There is to be a green uniform. I think a grey uniform would be more suitable. In this way we would have a grey mass of indistinguishable persons, units and services.


Mr. Winkler:: With black armbands.

DEBATES	April 10, 1967


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to say, from my own very limited experience, that morale and esprit de corps are very intangible things. They cannot be photographed like a uniform; they cannot be counted like individual members of the service; they cannot be valued like equipment. They are, however, eminently more important than any of these things. The absence of a willingness to work together with another group, the absence of a pride in one's own unit, and the absence of pride in one's own service, take away all the desire of a fighting man to do a little better. All the great stories of military adventures have arisen because some member of a unit has done something which has brought that unit to the attention of others and has given it a special importance. The unit perhaps has led an attack or held the line and many of the personnel in that unit receive medals. These are the important things which are involved in morale.
Medical men tell us that shock often is the cause of death of persons who are involved in an accident. It is difficult either to define or distinguish shock. It can be caused by loss of blood or by injury. Sometimes it is caused by a combination of several things. The result of shock, however, can be death just as definitely as decapitation. In many cases the real cause of death never can be defined. I am attempting to establish that shock easily could cause the death of the Canadian armed forces if the fighting men should lose their morale and esprit de corps.
There seems to be a feeling that unification is based on some changed concept in respect of the defence of Canada or in respect of the methods of waging war. This new concept has not been defined by the minister and therefore we are left guessing as to what is behind the need for unification of the forces. Some people believe that the advent of a most horrible means of mass destruction will eliminate the likelihood of a conventional war or conventional battles. Of course, all the evidence is to the contrary. The battles which are going on at the present time are in the conventional war field.
I can remember that in the 1930's, prior to the second world war, we were told that if there should be another world war it might be the end of mankind. People gave as an example all the various types of gases which were available in great quantities. They told us about the germs which were being incubated in thousands of places. It was said that if war broke out these germs would be released and everybody would be wiped out. This did not
April 10, 1987	COMMONS
happen. When members of the armed forces went into battle in the second world war, for months they carried respirators or gas masks and then later these were abandoned. In fact, even in his death throes and his final instability Hitler did not authorize the use of mass destruction.
I do not believe we should assume that there would be no conventional attack on this country, that there would be no conventional war, or that we would have nothing to meet of a conventional standard. I believe this is what we are doing and that we are laying a false basis, but I am not sure in what direction the minister is moving because this has never been explained. We really cannot tell in what direction the government is moving.
I should like to conclude my remarks with a word of advice to the minister. He may not wish to take it but I think he should. I know he has received much advice in the past few months but he has not received any from me previously.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: He has taken none of the advice.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is rumoured, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is attempting to push this project through because he has his eye on the leadership of the Liberal party.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You must be kidding.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He wishes to show himself as a forceful minister. Be that as it may, whether he has his eye on the leadership or just wishes to be a forceful and effective minister is not of the slightest importance to me. I suggest he might show himself to be diplomatic. He could do this by backing off a little in the face of the recent and effective opposition to the program of unification which he has outlined.
In respect of greater men in the past it has been shown that intransigence has been the downfall of many politicians. The salvation of manv others has been their ability to recognize criticism when it is well established and has a proper basis. In this instance I believe the minister would be well advised to reconsider his position, look at the opposition which has been raised, look at what the public has been saying in respect of his judgment, and then act like a statesman.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


The Deputy Chairman:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the committee that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are
National Defence Act Amendment as follows: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Canadian Centennial-Castlegar, B.C.-request for presentation of air force performance; the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), Canadian Pacific Railway-night train between Montreal and Quebec city; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Justice-interim divorce measure.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I am not
seeking to re-enter this debate because 1 am anxious to prolong it. If it is any satisfaction I can assure the minister that when we reach the individual clauses we in this party will not be intervening very often or at great length because the clauses have all been gone over in committee and most of them are merely consequential upon the main principle.
I am entering the debate again because the Secretary of State for External Affairs took part in the debate on Wednesday last and said some things that I think go to the root of the matter of unification and deserve very careful examination. He reiterated the government's contention that unification would not affect the carrying out of our present commitments. He also said that the government proposed to maintain our present commitments, particularly to NATO. It appears to me that on the surface we have here an absolute contradiction.
It seems to me to be as clear as a pikestaff that unification makes sense if some of our present commitments are to be abandoned but that we cannot maintain all our present commitments and concentrate on the mobile role. No one in this debate has attempted to contradict General Moncel's evidence; indeed, his evidence was plain common sense. He said that unification would be inappropriate if our present NATO roles are maintained. He said that the brigade group and the air division are not susceptible to unification and would not be affected by it. He said that unification would be meaningless as far as they are concerned. That is the view stated by General Moncel.
On the other side of the picture, Air Vice Marshal Sharp, vice chief of the general staff, says that there is to be a new emphasis on a mobile role. Mr. John Gellner, a writer, in an article which received the imprimatur of General Allard, chief of the general staff, said that a new mobile, intervention force of 15,000 is to be created, or if not created at least re-equipped and made effectively mobile within three years. I say it is as sure as day
14732	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment follows night that this involves a very considerable added expenditure and it will blow the ceiling right off our present defence budget, now fixed at roughly $1.6 billion a year, if at the same time as we re-equip this mobile force we continue our present NATO roles. No one has answered General Moncel's estimate that the creation and fitting out of this mobile force, together with the maintenance of our present roles, would cost at least $2 billion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend recalls that Air Chief Marshal Miller did deal with this point later and said that in his opinion those estimates were not valid.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He did not say they were not valid.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The Minister of National Defence is correct, but he did not himself give any details. I would point out that the minister himself was questioned in the defence committee on this matter. What he had to say appears at pages 1592 and following of the committee proceedings. When the minister was questioned about what General Moncel had said in this regard he said that in fact no estimate had been made of what it would cost to produce the mobile intervention force. His statement was that perhaps we would need so many helicopters and until it had been decided that we needed so many the cost could not be estimated. He also said it would depend upon the timing, that is, at what rate we were creating the force and how quickly we did it. But he did not deny-and how could he deny-that if it were to be done in any reasonable time span at all it would mean substantial additional expense.
I do not think the minister is to be taken seriously when he suggests that no estimates have been made of the cost of this new policy upon which, I remind the committee and the minister, Air Vice Marshal Sharp said the major emphasis was to be placed. He said that the whole business of unification was centred around a new emphasis to be put upon the mobile force. I think it is quite incredible that no estimates were made. Admittedly, estimates may involve a series of variations, namely, whether you do it in so many years, whether you have 50 helicopters, 500, or whatever may be required, but to assert that the cost has not been taken into account, which is what the minister said, seems to me to make no sense at all. 1 think it would be more reasonable to assume that the government was not grossly negligent in this respect 
DEBATES	April 10. 1967
and has made some sort of estimate of the cost. If it has made such an estimate, I suggest such an estimate would make it perfectly obvious that we cannot create a mobile intervention force and maintain our existing roles, within the budget ceiling that we now have.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if we cling to the existing roles in NATO, unification makes no sense. There is an inevitable conclusion to be drawn from this, and in this respect I agree with the official opposition although not with their ultimate conclusion. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that the government does not mean what it says when it asserts, on the one hand, that it is going to proceed with unification with all speed and, on the other, that it is going to maintain its present roles.
It is my view that the explanation of this matter is to be found in a careful examination of the speech last Wednesday, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is a disciple, and a very apt one, of his former leader, the late Mr. Mackenzie King. Mr. Mackenzie King, when he spoke on external affairs-some of us are old enough to remember his speeches and to have looked at them carefully-was able to keep everyone happy. This was done by studied obscurity, by never saying clearly what course of action or what school of thought the government favoured. Included in his speeches in the house was one section which seemed to favour Canadian isolation from European wars, another support for the commonwealth, and another devotion to the ideals of collective security exemplified by the League of Nations. No doubt if there were any other significant elements of opinion they would be found duly recorded, rather vaguely and hazily perhaps, in the speeches made by the then prime minister. Every significant trend of Canadian public opinion would find its views somewhere contained in the announcement of Canadian policy. Then the experts used to get to work and analyse the different, inconsistent streams of thought that appeared in Mr. King's utterances, try to determine which predominated and guess Canadian policy therefrom.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I think that the ghost of Mr. King still rules the government which has adopted his style. Therefore I do not find it so surprising that the intentions of the government with regard to its future relations with NATO are wrapped in obscurity. It is quite prepared to adopt a
April 10. 1967	COMMONS
sweeping organizational change in the Canadian armed services, which would only-make sense if we were to change our roles in the future, and at the same time to assert stoutly its devotion to the maintenance of its present roles in NATO which do not at all fit into the new organizational structure.
However, in this light I studied the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs very carefully and I may claim by now, having been in the house five years and having followed the words of the minister very carefully, to be an expert Martinologist, if I may coin a word. As a result of my studies I think I have resolved the mystery. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs in one part of his speech does indeed appear to assert firmly the intention of maintaining unchanged Canada's present role in NATO. But then I find at the top of page 14565 of Hansard the following statement:
I do not exclude the possibility that in the future it may become feasible, and indeed I hope it will, to withdraw our forces from Europe and to make our entire contribution from bases in Canada. But such a course of action is neither feasible nor desirable at this moment, and certainly not by unilateral decision.
It is my suggestion that the key words in this utterance are "at this moment". The organizational structure of our armed forces must not be considered in the light of what is current at the moment but in the light of the future, and in the light of the future can there be any doubt at all that the government intends to change its role in NATO? I suggest that is the key to this seeming conundrum of a government which proposes a sweeping change in organization and at the same time refuses to announce policies which would make sense of this sweeping change. I think it is quite right for the government to consider the future. What I think is wrong is to conceal from the people of Canada its true intent. No responsible government can propose the continuance of roles which are no longer militarily useful, necessary or sensible.
Once again I call to the attention of the committee the statement made by General Allard in his evidence. After all, he is chief of the general staff and the main military adviser of the government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred us to an article written by Mr. Gellner in which the latter described our roles in NATO as clearly lacking validity. He said that nobody in NATO believed in them. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not refer in his speech to what the chief of the general staff 23033-932
National Defence Act Amendment said but simply referred to what Mr. Gellner said. Mr. Gellner is a commentator and writer. We are not obliged to accept his advice or views. He may quite easily be wrong. However, the point is that General Allard said perfectly clearly, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Simcoe North: "I do not disagree with this article". The meaning of this to anybody who wants to consider the matter carefully is perfectly clear, namely, that the chief of the general staff is saying that these roles make no sense militarily. If one reads his evidence carefully, the only justification for these roles is political.
Neither the Secretary of State for External Affairs nor the Minister of National Defence nor any other member on the government side has attempted to answer the challenge which I offered in the debate more than a week ago to discuss whether these roles had any military value at the present time. They simply keep saying: We must not change them at the moment; we must not rock the boat.
In excusing the government's silence on this matter the Secretary of State for External Affairs puts up a straw man and knocks him down. In his speech on this issue he said repeatedly that we must not proceed unilaterally to reduce our military contributions to NATO. So far as I know no one is advocating that we do so unilaterally. As long as were are part of an alliance it is our responsibility not to make any changes without consultation with, and notification to, our allies, but it is part of the practice of the alliance for each country to assume the role most appropriate to it. This was made clear by the Prime Minister himself when he spoke in 1962 before the election and when he spoke again in 1963 after the election and announced it to be the policy of this government and of his party to negotiate for a new role in NATO. This issue is coming to a decisive and conclusive point in the very near future.
During the course of his evidence before the defence committee the Minister of National Defence was questioned about the extent and the duration of our commitments to NATO. He explained that they were based upon an annual reconsideration but that now it was proposed to decide the basic roles to be undertaken for five year periods.
At page 1593 of the committee's proceedings the following exchange took place. The Minister of National Defence said:
In so far as the future is concerned, we will have to indicate this to NATO, if my memory serves me correctly, in December of this year, assuming that all of the other nations agree to this procedure-
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


Francis Andrew Brewin: But you have not as yet taken any steps to alter these commitments?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are not required to reveal our intentions or to discuss our future plans and commitments except at that time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is the government giving consideration to this question, or is it a closed question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that during the course of the year, Mr. Brewin, we will have to decide what we plan to do for the following five-year period and indicate to our NATO partners what they can count on.
I would point out to the committee, and it is crucial that the house should be aware of this fact, that some time before December of this year the government-and I hope it will consult the house about this-will have to make up its mind on what it is going to do about these various commitments to NATO for the five year period in the future. I say to the government that if it proposes to make a change, and I think it should do so, then it is its duty to consult this house and to inform its allies in advance of the contractual date in December that it proposes to change Canada's roles.
As I have said, we have the assertion from the chief of the general staff that militarily speaking these roles are no longer valid. Of course we have this assertion by indirection because he was agreeing to a statement made by someone else. I suggest to the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government as a whole that they should come out into the open and say whether in December they are going to commit us for another period of five years to the continuation of roles which their own chief of the general staff has said, indirectly it is true, no longer have validity and which indeed, on a careful examination of the facts, are militarily indefensible at the present time.
It seems to me it has become part of the natural style of this government to avoid facing these hard choices and to refuse to announce necessary changes when it decides on them. We in this party particularly view this tendency in connection with the whole issue of unification with very grave regret because in our view the whole process of unification would be easier and would be more acceptable to the services and to the Canadian people if it were made very clear not what the government thinks at the moment, which is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us, but what it plans for the future. If the government does intend, not in the immediate but in the foreseeable future, to propose a complete change in the nature of Canada's

military contribution to the security of the world, it should say so.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Much has been said in this debate about morale. I believe that if there is one thing that undermines morale more than anything else it is uncertainty as to the future, uncertainty as to the purposes which are being carried out. Every man if he is to do his best, not only in the armed forces but everywhere else, must believe that what he is doing is useful and necessary. The evidence of many of the witnesses pointed in that direction. In fact, Air Vice Marshal Sharp, if I have his title correctly, made this clear to us. One of his main arguments in favour of unification was an argument based upon morale. When it came down to asking what he meant by that, it was clear that he meant the dedication of the Canadian armed services to roles which were meaningful. In his opinion, this was the reason unification would lead to better morale.
I want to quote one other witness before the defence committee, Lieutenant General Si-monds, former chief of staff and a very distinguished soldier. I asked him if he agreed With previous testimony that one of the reasons he put emphasis on peacekeeping as being an important role-certainly not the only one -was that it gave to those concerned a morale that was built on thinking they were doing something vitally important. To this General Simonds replied:
Yes, I agree with that. There is nothing in that to contradict the statement I just made.
I do not believe there was. So, Mr. Chairman, it is quite certain in our view that Canada is going to concentrate in the future on a military contribution which will be a complete change from its present contribution. It is bound to get out of obsolete and inappropriate roles. The failure to state that Canada is going to concentrate on a unified force which can make a vital contribution to world security undermines the very basis of the argument for unification. We believe that unification is a necessary and proper development but a development that is based upon a recasting of Canada's military role. It is necessary to get up and say so, to indicate that the far reaching changes in organization we in this house are being asked to approve are part of an imaginative proposal to recreate a new and more significant role for Canada's armed forces.
The Prime Minister himself indicated that his government is proposing such a reconsideration, a new approach. I hope before this
April 10, 1967

debate is over the Prime Minister, who has a vital reponsibility on security matters, will put this matter in perspective by telling the house that, whatever may be the momentary intention with regard to the maintenance of roles in Europe, the government contemplates as the most effective future role for Canada participation in a mobile intervention force and that unification is necessary to this and such a declaration is necessary to the building of morale and support for unification not only amongst the armed services but for the people of Canada generally.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, few debates ever held in this chamber have had more critical significance for Canada's future than that in which we are engaged. Yet at this stage it is not easy to present any novel or original arguments. For myself, I have never professed that knowledge of defence or matters military which would qualify me to speak with confident authority. On the other hand, sir, that very lack of expertise may have enabled me to approach the issue of unification of our armed forces with a completely objective view. I have been able to examine the evidence given in the standing committee without preconceived bias, and I have certainly done so without political partisanship.
To the study of that evidence I have given agonizing care. This detailed study of the evidence before the standing committee on defence has convinced me that this bill ought not to be enacted and has convinced me that if it is enacted it will irreparably damage the national interest. Indeed, sir, I fail to see how any objective person reading the evidence could come to any other conclusion. While I have spent many hours analysing and annotating the evidence before the committee, I see no particular point in spreading it further on the record. I will abbreviate my speech at least in that respect.
Nor do I think it is necessary or desirable to attack the integrity or bona tides of any witness. Most of the evidence presented to the committee was opinion evidence, and any experienced barrister knows how widely such evidence may differ even when tendered by equally sincere witnesses. But, sir, overwhelmingly the weight of evidence tendered by those who were free to speak without any inhibition was in opposition to this bill. I say to you, sir, that for parliament to act in the face of the opinions which were expressed by Air Chief Marshal Miller, General Guy Si-monds and General Robert Moncel would be irresponsible and foolhardy in the extreme. It

National Defence Act Amendment is all very well to say that there are other opinions of a contrary nature and to assert that the government and parliament have a responsibility to act.
My submission, which I want to make tonight directly to the Prime Minister, is simply-I make it to the Prime Minister because in my view he is the only man who can save Canada's present armed forces from annihilation-that administration and no parliament can properly disregard such expert opinion as that of Miller, Simonds, Moncel, Curtis and many others. No administration and no parliament should jeopardize the safety and security of a nation in the face of the opinions of such men.
I say to the Prime Minister that the task of statescraft is to achieve a national consensus, and where there is not a reasonable national consensus upon a fundamental issue affecting the very life of the nation then no action or at least delayed action is to be preferred to hasty and indigestible action. That is the very essence of statescraft. I assert to the Prime Minister that in my view this nation is not ready for unification and he should draw back before irreparable damage is done. This is not a matter merely of someone winning an argument. This is not just a case of the majority in parliament having its way. This bill is a blow at the very heart of our future as a nation. As Prime Minister the right hon. gentleman from Algoma East has a positive and unequivocal duty to all Canada to reconsider this hasty and ill-conceived measure. He was not sworn in as Her Majesty's first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of Canada's armed forces.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Sir, no one here doubts the desirability of what has come to be described as integration-integration of support services and a measure of consolidation of command. However, the destruction of service traditions, the dynamiting of all unit loyalties in order to create a single force, is another matter. In my view it ought not to be done. It certainly ought not to be done without the clear, unequivocal mandate of the Canadian people. I assert that only the Canadian people have the right to take the chances with the survival of the nation which are implicit in this bill. The Minister of National Defence claims to be leading the world on the road to unification. Personally, I would feel a great deal happier if other nations showed any disposition to follow; I detect none. In fact, the minister is leading a one-man parade. His attempts to
14736	COMMONS DEBATES	April 10. 1967
National Defence Act Amendment gain the support of Admiral Mountbatten backfired over last week end and the explanations made by the minister this afternoon were totally unrealistic. Informed opinion in Britain, the United States and throughout the world indicates, I think, total disenchantment with the proposals that are implicit in this bill.
On Thursday last, Mr. Chairman, as reported at page 14592 of Hansard, the Associate Minister of National Defence professed to speak for all servicemen. He went on to say that he believed the forces are convinced that the goal of unification is correct. I believe that few statements ever made in this house have infuriated more people. Since that statement was made, Mr. Chairman, I have literally been besieged by messages, both identified and anonymous, from servicemen in my riding protesting against the arrogance of the associate minister in professing to speak for all servicemen, and asserting with what I believe is constitutional propriety that only the member that they elect can profess to speak in parliament for any citizen, civilian or serviceman.
The associate minister may profess to speak for the servicemen in the constituency of Terrebonne, but he has no mandate to speak for the servicemen in the constituency of Carleton. I would remind the committee that only the members for Halifax and the hon. member for Russell have as many service electors as I have in Carleton. From the representations made to me, I am convinced that the overwhelming number of my service constituents and their dependants share the views that I am expressing tonight.
However, sir, I do not believe that it is a matter of counting service heads. It is a matter of judgment. My judgment and my submission is that the Prime Minister should intervene now to withdraw this bill, and I plead with him to do so. My observations, both of my service constituents and otherwise, are that the operational efficiency of our armed forces has been brought to its lowest point. Destruction of service loyalties and abandonment of historic units cannot help but lower morale, and that is precisely what has happened. The situation today is that our armed forces are being used as a pawn in the struggle for the Liberal leadership, and the Prime Minister should put an end to it at once.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this bill constitute a direct breach of faith with all serving officers and men. They enlisted upon one basis; this bill shifts the ground

rules completely without any right of election to the servicemen. Legally of course this can be done. Morally it is indefensible. When we come to the particular clause in the bill I shall have more to say on the subject.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I venture to direct my words immediately to the attention of the Prime Minister. Into his hands, the fourteenth man so privileged in 100 years of confederation, has come the chief responsibility for the safety and integrity of the nation. I submit to him that the issue before this parliament is too basic, too essential, to the national future to be determined over the protests of the outstanding Canadians who have given their lives to service in the armed forces. In fact, this bill has reached its present stage only by the purge of almost all senior military advisers to the nation, a purge more ruthless than anything ever attempted by anyone anywhere since Stalin's purge of the red army.
I repeat with all the emphasis at my command that the essence of statescraft is to give leadership in the achievement of a reasonable national consensus. This the bill cannot do. Normally the task of parliament is to exercise judgment and to make decisions. This bill transcends that and ought not to be implemented, in my view, without the direct mandate of the people.
If the Prime Minister persists in enacting this bill, then let at least clause 65 be amended to provide that the bill shall come into force only 90 days or 120 days after the next election. In saying that, Mr. Chairman, I am not advocating an early election. Indeed I believe that a bitterly fought election on the eve of our centennial celebrations would be undesirable. But no harm would come about if this bill is postponed a year or two or more. Indeed, I am convinced that much good would result from delay.
The Prime Minister was prepared, Mr. Chairman, to delay medicare, even at the expense of losing the Minister of National Health and Welfare from the cabinet. Despite the risk of his losing the Minister of National Defence from the cabinet-and may I confess to believing that the loss would be a heavensent blessing-let the Prime Minister agree to delay this bill. Then whenever the next election comes-be it one year or two years away, or whenever it may be-the people will have the opportunity to pass upon a proposal which in its present form, in my view, now endangers the very life of our nation. The people of Canada can take the risk of endangering the survival of the nation: My submission is that this parliament cannot.
April 10. 1967


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, my first words in opening the second part of a speech that I began a week ago are helpful to the morale of the minister. I want to assure him right off the bat that in any conflict between statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the Minister of National Defence I would go along with the Minister of National Defence.
The second compliment I should like to pay him is to thank him for the continuation of the hydrofoil program. I think the announcement that he made in answer to a question I raised a week ago has done a considerable amount to help the morale of the armed forces in the constituency of Halifax. It does show there is some hope that the minister, no matter what his shortcomings-and heaven only knows they have been combed over from right to left and from north to south in recent days in this chamber-means to keep the Royal Canadian Navy in business.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I referred to the statements made earlier today by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra because he would have us believe that anything going on here is but a simple exercise in name changing, that we were really spending an extraordinary amount of time bringing about this change in name. The hon. member also had unkind words to say about certain hon. members on this side, suggesting they had not really read the minutes of the defence committee he headed. Having heard his speech I suggest that he neither heard nor understood what was said in that committee. I refer to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, in which he deals with what he considers an imperative need to get along with this bill. On the second column of page 14438 of Hansard the minister said this:
The passage of this bill does not mean instant unification. The passage of this bill is a statement of the intention that the ultimate goal is a single service and all the men and women in the forces will be managed in a single personnel stream. This must be known in order that the kind of detailed staff planning required can proceed on an orderly basis.
Comparing that statement with the utterances of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra one would think that there was more to this bill than a mere change of name. Indeed, should the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra look at the bill-and I invite him to do so-he will find that in clause 2 a change is to be made to section 15 of the National Defence Act, setting up one service to be known as the Canadian Armed Forces. That of course
National Defence Act Amendment is a change of name, but it involves the process of unification. In clause 4 there is something dealing with the naming of ranks, and in clause 6 the members of the armed forces will become members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Here again there is more than just a change of name.
Clause 7 softens part of clause 6, removing the possibility that a person who has entered service in the army, navy or air force will be conscripted to duties which were alien to him in a single service. Having said these things, I think we can safely dispose of the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that all we are dealing with here is a change in name.
I also wish to be kind to the minister, though briefly. I shall not change my nature entirely. A very good suggestion, appearing at first blush to support the minister, comes from Major General F. F. "Fighting Frank" Worthington, who said this:
As one of Canada's oldest generals it Is my opinion that at the end of any large war the existing generals should be thanked, decorated and pensioned off.
Put up statues if you like, but don't let them meddle with the future organization of the services. Hand that responsibility over to the young, fighting colonels who had to fight the war with the existing weapons.
It seems to me, as one reads between the lines, that the Minister of National Defence ought to pay attention to the views of the fighting colonels, the hon. members for Calgary North and Winnipeg South Centre, two excellent and knowledgeable persons to whom I hope the minister pays attention.
The strongest indictment of the minister's proposal is that it asks us to do something, and we do not really know what it is. We suspect the minister does not know either. Nevertheless he is asking for parliament to give him carte blanche to bring about some new process involving the national defence of the country.
Earlier in the debate I quoted extensively from the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller. Passing over some significant portions dealing with my point, I turn to page 2300 of the committee minutes, where the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is asking this of the air chief marshal:
If I have your testimony correct, unification had been talked about but you had never seen or heard the implications of it spelled out. Is that accurate?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: We never had tentative unification plans submitted and agreed to.
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment The air chief marshal was chief of the defence staff, a position he held for two years covering a large part of the present minister's ministry. The air chief marshal perforce, one would think, would be the minister's closest adviser, and privy to his thoughts. He would be in the position of an adviser to the minister. The air chief marshal vacated that post in July or August of last summer.
On November 4 the Bill C-243 is presented to us in its present form. That bill has not just one page, as one would expect if it dealt only with a change of name, but has 48 pages in all, including the various schedules. It was not prepared overnight; as a lawyer I know that it would take weeks or months of preparation. The inference I am trying to draw-and I do not think one can be drawn to the contrary-is that the unification bill was prepared in the Department of National Defence without the leading officer of the department, the chief of the defence staff, having had an opportunity to know what it would deal with. If he had any inkling, there was no exchange of opinions between himself and the minister about the different parts of the unification concept. I find this almost unbelievable.
Any other minister bringing in something as radically new as this bill would have had an exchange of views with his deputy minister and leading officials of the department. Papers would have been prepared; the subject would have been discussed around the water coolers in various government departments. Why did this not happen here? I will repeat that part of the testimony where at page 2300, the air chief marshal says:
We never had tentative unification plans submitted and agreed to.
I think those words were amplified in other parts of his testimony.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Here we have a massive 48-page bill dealing with unification, produced a few months after Air Chief Marshal Miller had left that office. It defies all common sense and all logic that any minister of the crown should proceed in such a fashion. Even trying to give the minister the benefit of any possible doubt, I find it impossible to believe that there could have been any thinking going into the unification concept which lies behind this measure. It could not have grown up overnight in the month or two before Bill C-243 was drafted. I hope I live long enough for somebody to write a book and explain just how this miracle could be possible. I hope it will not be the [Mr. McCleave.l

gospel according to St. Paul but that some independent observer will explain this miracle to my satisfaction.
There are one or two points which puzzle me in connection with the specific details of unification. One of them is the failure to spell out in simple form, or even in complicated form, the ordinary day to day life of a serviceman so that it would be understandable to those who are trying to grapple with this concept.
For example, nothing has been said about the type of uniform he will wear, the type of living quarters he will occupy, the possibility of his being taken from one kind of duty, in a tank, for instance, and put on another kind of duty, perhaps supporting those who are operating in an air environment. Boiling it down in my own mind, take the case of a young fellow who wants to be a cook in the services. He goes to an integrated recruiting station, which of course exists at the present time, and may be cajoled into going to sea to cook, when all his instincts are against this; he would much prefer to cook at a stationary base, or even for a field unit serving in a ground environment-and I apologize for using some of the older terms. But who on earth would want to be served food at sea by a seasick cook?
There are other examples. I am advised that in the Royal Canadian Navy they do not want men much over the age of 40 to embark on vessels, life at sea being what it is. They feel that only the rare person over 40 who has good physical stamina should be allowed to continue a career which would keep him in a sea environment. Again-and I am relying on advice given to me by professionals-this is not the case with those serving in the air force or the army. They may not want senior officers or older men to handle planes, but I understand that the age requirement is not so restrictive. On this point I should like the minister to tell us just how unification would take into account the different approaches which the services use toward their personnel.
Last week I mentioned the case in Halifax of a person who under the present integration process could not find out who his immediate superior was. Other cases have come to my attention in the Halifax area. The transportation services of the three armed forces have been integrated, and this seems to have quadrupled the number of people engaged in transportation, most of them occupied in writing memoranda to each other without any
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
increase in the number of motor vehicles being driven about. I suppose this is inevitable; it is bound to happen when you take a large department and attempt to reorganize it. I do not minimize the problem the minister faces on this regard, because he has a $1.5 billion operation to look after, and it is difficult to make changes in it. But seeing the Parkinsonian laws in operation following the integration of transportation facilities for the armed forces in the Halifax area, one wonders how effective these plans are and how quickly any bugs can be ironed out.
Finally, I should like to make four points concerning the course which I respectfully suggest the minister should follow. I see it is almost seven o'clock, so perhaps I could wind up my speech at 8 p.m. and make them then-it will take about five minutes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the pleasure of the house that pursuant to an order of the house made last Thursday, April 6th, this sitting be suspended until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks before the dinner hour I had indicated that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, chairman of the defence committee during its final sessions, appeared to have been there in body and not in mind, and was unaware of the implications of Bill C-243 which we are now considering. I suggested to the Minister of National Defence that at some time an attempt be made to spell out as simply as possible, so that even he could understand, just what was meant by his concept of unification, and what it would mean in the practical day to day living of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Also before the dinner hour we heard an outstanding speech and plea by the hon. member for Carleton, mainly directed to the Prime Minister who has the paramount interest and authority with regard to this matter. I could only very humbly second the very forceful, eloquent and wise words of the hon. member for Carleton. I hope that the Prime Minister, who seemed to grasp the nettle a few weeks ago by expressing surprise and interest at the remarks of Air Chief Marshal Miller, will
National Defence Act Amendment again come to grips with the subject and exercise the responsibility that is his.
Finally, sir, I would like at this time to make four suggestions to the Minister of National Defence as to the course he could follow. The first is that I think it is necessary that integration be made to work. Integration is the expressed will of the parliament of Canada. There has been considerable evidence given before the defence committee about the snafus, the bugs, the serious problems that have cropped up in the Department of National Defence, and I understand most of these relate to the process of integration.
If the first step, integration, is not a completely successful one, why on earth should we in this committee expect that the further step of unification should be a successful one? The Minister of National Defence makes the point that it is necessary to have something on the statute books so that integration can be carried a step further into the area of unification. If this be so, and I take the word of the minister that it is so, then I suggest this step as a corollary to point No. 1, namely an amendment to section 18 of the present National Defence Act which would permit units of one service to join other services. I think in this way experimentation of a useful nature could be carried out, and the minister could iron out the bugs and develop his concept with a small unification scheme, rather than starting in with over-all unification.
I have made my second point in a previous contribution to this debate so I will not dwell on it at any length, but I wish to say I was very much impressed to see the service battalion in operation at Camp Gagetown a number of years ago. I think the minister and the officials of his department would be taking the right course were they to continue to fit the non-combatant units and non-combatant services together in support of the three services. My third point, dealing with unification, has to do with my first point concerning making integration work and attempting unification on a more humble scale. I think we should have some proof, and probably evidence given before an all-party committee on national defence, before the full plunge into unification is made.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
My fourth and final point is in the area of high speculation and opinion. However, in this debate everyone has entered into this field. As other hon. members have so well pointed out, we are largely in the field of opinion when we deal with this matter.
14740	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
It seems to me that if the minister's philosophy is correct and if all the developments in national defence here and in other countries are to be assessed correctly, we have had a significant move in this century, probably as a result of the nuclear age. It may be that the days of large-scale citizen armies are over. We have gone through a period of approximately 200 years when countries as a whole have been at war; and now, because of the nuclear age, we are coming into a period when small, professional and highly mobile services are necessary. Perhaps this is illustrated by the fact that the minister has closed down a number of the militia units which had been in existence in Canada for a long time.
I suggest to the minister, that, keeping in mind the holocaust a nuclear war would bring, the logical extension of what he has been doing would be to take even further steps in developing a closer bond between the services and those who are not in the services.
I believe the thinking today would suggest that the civilian population could become more involved in emergency matters than in military matters; that is, we would still rely on the small professional force, but the citizens who are not members of the services would have to carry out the measures which are necessary for the survival of the population.
This type of development, horrendous though it might appear, is consistent with the realities of the nuclear age. I do not believe we should continue to think in terms of the 1914-1918 and the 1939-1949 era. The Emergency Measures Organization should be further developed in order that it will be in readiness to step in instantly, in a time of emergency, so that the people can be mobilized-not in the military sense-in an effort to survive.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make an appeal to the minister to pay some heed to the advice which has been offered and the questions which have been asked from this side of the chamber. National defence really is too important a matter to be either a partisan issue or one which develops as a result of one person's style of thinking. As other hon. members have pointed out, heretofore unification itself had never come before the retired chief of the defence staff in a tangible form and in a form which would have entitled us to raise questions concerning exactly what the minister had in mind. Until we have knowledge of what he has in mind we are entitled to ask questions on behalf of all the people of Canada.
[Mr. McCleave.l
DEBATES	April 10, 1967


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I was happy to hear the hon. member for Halifax wind up with a reminder of the importance of this debate. I thought the hon. member for Carleton brought that very forcibly to the fore. It seems necessary to comment on some of the incredible speeches made in this house by hon. members across the way. I found the remarks made by the Minister of Transport on Friday remarkable in more ways than one, and I intend to get around to them later. Also the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra made an incredible speech this afternoon, for one who was chairman of the committee. During the committee hearings I did not think he had any realization of what was going on, but I did not expect such a frank expose of the depth of the ignorance he had concerning what was involved as he exhibited this afternoon. I will also comment on that.
One suggestion which was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood I think should be developed by what is possibly a logical extension of his reasoning. I found myself quite unable to disagree with the arguments he put forward when he mentioned what the government is trying to do, so to speak, through the back door. He pointed out that the only way in which anyone could find a logical pattern in what the government is doing is to suggest that secretly they seem to have made up their minds that Canada must change its role in defence and world affairs. If I judge his remarks correctly, he has found this to be in the peace keeping role; that is, that the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs can be interpreted to mean only that Canada's commitments will be changed later this year, and that the present unification bill, the shape of the forces and the speeches made by the Minister of National Defence all form a pattern which indicates that Canada intends to drop or drastically change some of its commitments in respect of NATO and so on. It would seem that we are intending to put more emphasis on peacekeeping and that our foreign affairs policy in the near future will follow this pattern.
The hon. member for Greenwood deprecated the fact that the government was not being more frank with the members of the house and the people of Canada in revealing its intention. The only thing about which I quarrel with the hon. member is that I believe he may be counting too much on this government following a plan because certainly from what the Minister of National Defence has been doing it is obvious that the lack of a plan has
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
been the most disturbing thing to the members of the armed forces and to the nation in the last couple of years. Therefore perhaps the first mistake we make is in expecting to find some logical plan which the government is following.
It may be that the action they are taking makes so little sense that they are just as misguided and undirected as they appear to be. Certainly the hon. member for Greenwood is the only one who has attempted to search out what the government may be doing. I should like to point out that if he is right, then it occurs to us that our policy in respect of foreign affairs is being decided now by a change in our armed forces.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am one of those who have always felt that the armed forces of Canada should be able to respond to the support of the policy of the government on external affairs as that policy may exist or be formed from time to time, that the only policy that makes sense is to keep our armed forces in such shape that they do not interfere with the ability of the country to be able to formulate or change its foreign policy, and that the armed forces should be able to give as much weight and credence as possible to the external affairs posture that we adopt. Therefore I am most disturbed at the thought that the hon. member for Greenwood may be right, and certainly the evidence indicates that he is, that what is happening today under this minister is that our armed forces are being tailored so that we can have only one possible sort of external affairs policy.
Up to this time I am sure that most people in the country have been perturbed at the thought that the minister is selling the country a bill of goods when he says that he has been giving us more defence for less money, and we have found the evidence to be that we are getting less and less defence for more money. Next we are disturbed at the thought of what he is doing to our armed forces, the amount of destruction and harm he is doing to them, senselessly, since there is no rhyme nor reason why he should be proceeding with unification, and certainly less reason why he should be proceeding with this program with such haste. This situation becomes even worse when we consider that the result is not just less defence for more money but we are going to lose our ability to manoeuvre in the field of external affairs. I am against external affairs being decided on the basis of defence policy, especially when it is sold under such false
National Defence Act Amendment pretences as the minister is using in attempting to sell it. I am even more against it if we are to be put in a strait-jacket that will determine our external affairs policy for years to come.
I think this is a fundamental point that the house should not overlook. At least with the old structure of the defence forces as we know them, we had freedom to move about in our defence policy as we wished. Many witnesses who appeared before the defence committee pointed out that it was perfectly possible and logical, and this had always been the case, for the government to decide external affairs policy and then, by selecting certain parts of our traditional armed forces, to make up any special units required to undertake any special tasks to which our external affairs policy committed us.
What is happening now is that we are going to make up a special type of force that will perhaps be most beneficial to one type of defence policy. What is more, we are destroying our traditional concept of the forces. We are destroying our three forces and substituting therefor a new and untried concept of one armed force, which it is hoped will be most useful in a new role in external affairs. The reversal of this process will be very, very difficult. We are not embarking on something that can be treated lightly. It is not an experiment, as are some of the experiments in integration, that can be reversed overnight if we find it is not working. If we allow this bill to pass and the government then proceeds to change its external affairs policy so that their new concept of an armed force makes sense, and we are to try that foreign affairs policy for two or three years and then change our minds and decide that we should find some other role or roles more in keeping with our status as a nation, more in keeping with our size or the feeling of the nation as to what we should be doing in world affairs, we will find ourselves in a strait-jacket. You cannot turn around and create a navy overnight, after it has disappeared for two or three years. You will not be able to create an air force as fast as you can destroy it.
The idea of having just one force because of the whim of this minister, in view of the way this concept has been presented in the house and the political attitude taken by government supporters, which will leave us in a strait-jacket for many years to come when it comes to external affairs policy, is something that just makes me sweat. I think the reminder of the hon member for Carleton was most
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment timely in his appeal to the Prime Minister. Every hon. member of the house should be reminded of this. It makes me very much afraid of what is happening in this house when I hear hon. members opposite say, "Let us get on with the job," and when I hear them approach this very serious problem of unification and its long-term effects on this country with the political arguments that they have used.
The Minister of National Defence has been telling us that integration-unification are one package, despite the overwhelming evidence that this is directly contrary to the truth. Hon. members on the other side of the house have used such political red herrings as to suggest that those who are against unification are against integration, are against modernization of our forces and are against progress.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: How any member of parliament who takes his duties seriously and acts, as I believe a member should in this house, with some sort of honesty in regard to his duties, can state as his view such trash, in what should be a responsible speech, is quite beyond me. The hon. member for Leeds and one or two others on that side of the chamber followed exactly that policy, despite the wealth of the evidence to the contrary given by almost every witness who appeared before the defence committee that integration and unification are not one, that in fact integration is not one complete step at all, that each integration experiment is separate unto itself. I do not know how they can take this position, even with the assurance of General Allard, the chief of staff, who is for unification. The assurance of General Allard to the committee was that any step or any experiment in unification that does not work can be reversed. After that kind of clear evidence of how distinct and separate is each one of these experiments in integration, we still get this kind of nonsense from the minister and his blind followers on the other side of the house, namely that it is the integration-unification package that we are talking about today, and don't criticize unification or you are against progress.
If the mentality of hon. members opposite is of that standard, and if that is all they have learned after all the evidence that so many very able men gave to the defence committee, they should not be in this House of Commons, because either their intelligence is so weak or
[Mr. Nugent.l
their integrity is so lacking that they are very badly misplaced here.
I hope I have time to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, because it was a dandy. I did want to comment on the speech made by the Minister of Transport, since he is a very old and experienced member of this house-perhaps I should have said, since he is a very experienced elder member of this house-and one would normally expect to take what he says rather seriously. This, in essence, is what I gathered from his remarks: First, that we did not have to follow the advice of the experts on military affairs; that since we are breaking new ground and it is a new experiment, anybody's opinion is as good as anyone else's. That sounds to me an incredible approach to take, one that I did not think would be taken by anyone old enough to have graduated from school, and certainly not one in keeping with a man who holds a responsible portfolio in government, as does the Minister of Transport.
But the Minister of Transport pressed on with that theme. To give hon. members an illustration of how peculiar the thinking can get when one starts by saying we must defend the program, rather than logically arguing its faults or merits I would quote the following exchange as recorded on page 14670 of Hansard for April 7:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not questioning the system. All I am saying is, if you have a lot of evidence on one side and no evidence on the other that proves nothing. That is all I am saying. I am not saying whether this is a suitable or good rule.
I would say that any member who stands up in this house and says that, since all the evidence is on one side and none on the other this proves nothing, is bringing forward a most remarkable theory. I can understand why the minister was thwarted in his attempts to become a lawyer. Obviously no one whose logic is so lopsided as that would ever be admitted to the bar of any province in this country. I thought the entire purpose of the evidence was to prove a point. However, the Minister of Transport continues to say the following, and perhaps more light will be shed on his argument as he progresses:


Mr. Harkness:: Is the minister maintaining that the evidence does not prove anything?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am maintaining that if the witnesses on the one side of the case are allowed to speak and the witnesses on the other side are inhibited by the rule from speaking all the evidence will be on one side. That is all I am saying.
April 10. 1967	COMMONS
Then I asked the minister a question, and the gist of his reply was that since no evidence was given on the order side we should discount the evidence given by the independent witnesses, such as Lieutenant Generals Fleury and Moncel, who were free to speak.
I want to review for a minute the situation in that committee. We asked for all the evidence from all the witnesses, all the senior officers who were now free to speak and who had been in the armed forces since the inception of the integration program. We wanted to hear them all, so that we could get a consensus of what went on. We were balked at every turn by members on the Liberal side. We asked for many more witnesses than we were able to get. To get any of them was like pulling teeth.
If there had been any officers who had reached the normal retirement age or who had retired early who were in favour of unification, I am sure there would have been no objection to hearing their evidence from anyone on the Conservative side of the house. We wanted to get all the evidence from all of those who were in a position to give us their expert advice, who had knowledge of the situation and knowledge of the facts, and who were now free to speak. What the Minister of Transport said is that since the only ones who were free to speak were against unification we must ignore their evidence because, according to his reasoning their evidence does not mean anything. I suppose he accepted my argument that those who are still in the forces must simply follow the government's policy, and we are unable to get their private and personal opinion. He sums it up by saying that only those in the department who are inhibited from speaking freely are in favour of unification, that the only ones who spoke against it are from outside the department, and that therefore we have called only witnesses on one side of the argument.
As I attempted to suggest to him in my question, surely if there are people who are free to speak and who believe in unification they would have come. Would the Liberals not have called them before the committee if there were any such people? Surely they must have had some officers in the positions of Lieutenant Generals Fleury and Moncel and Air Marshal Annis who would have come forward and backed up the minister in his ridiculous stand on this question. Is it wrong for this house to conclude that because the only witnesses who were free to speak all spoke against unification there is nobody free to speak who is in favour of unification? This
National Defence Act Amendment is the logical deduction which I would make from the failure of the proponents of unification to produce one free agent to speak on their behalf. When I say "one free agent" I must qualify it by saying that a couple of witnesses who appeared before the committee were in favour of unification, but most of them were out of touch with the services. General Foulkes spoke on both sides; and there was another independent witness, long removed from the services. But I think I am accurate in saying there was unanimous evidence before the committee given by those who were in the most responsible positions when the integration program was started, who were most intimately connected with what was going on in the forces and who were free to speak, that unification is wrong.
If some of them did not go quite so far as to say it was wrong, they certainly said it was wrong to proceed with it at this time. The most support the minister received was when some of them said that when the experiments with integration are completed, the results tried and tested, it might be found that unification would be a good thing and we might then introduce it. However, those are the kindest remark that the minister got from people who are in a position to know. Bearing that in mind, how can the assertion be made by so many hon. members on the other side that we should get on with the job, since integration and unification are one package? What nonsense.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who was chairman of that committee, amazed me with his speech today. He said that all this bill does is to change the name of the forces. He certainly made a monkey out of those on the other side of the house who say it is necessary to pass the unification bill so that we can carry on the great work of integration, complete the modernization of our forces, streamline them and finish up the job started. As a matter of fact I thought this was the minister's theme song, this was his argument. The minister has been saying that it is all one package and that unification is necessary to complete the whole process. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra understands as well as I do that the minister's remark is a lot of hot air, because it is not all one process.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra told us that the bill on unification is not necessary. It is apparent that he has listened carefully to the evidence of the witnesses before the committee. I am afraid his financial arguments are a little confused because every
April 10. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment witness who came before the committee said that any saving which can result either from integration or unification will be the result of the integration process alone. They have all told us that unification will not save us money. Perhaps that is what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra meant when he said that this bill is not necessary. He went on to say there would be no savings as a result of this bill. Certainly he demonstrated a degree of honesty which we wish the minister showed. It hurts me very much to hear the only member on the Liberal side being so honest about the financial aspect and so confused about the other aspects of unification, which makes his evidence on our behalf not very helpful.
This may be a little embarrassing to the minister, but that is the way that the chairman of that committee sees it after all those sittings. He said first that the bill is not necessary, second that unification will not save us money, and third that this bill does not affect the composition of the forces. This is a most remarkable statement; in fact I find it incredible. Here we have a bill, the sole purpose of which is to destroy the identity of the three separate forces as they now exist and substitute therefore the minister's brainchild of one force. In fact the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is making light of this great achievement of the minister. He says that the bill does not affect the composition of the forces, and yet the Minister of National Defence says that this is a brilliant new concept, that Canada is now the leader of the world in this field and that other nations are just too slow and cowardly, but that soon they will follow us when we have this new force.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In spite of all this the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra says the bill has nothing to do with the composition of the forces. I am sure he must have taken a very active, personal dislike to General Allard, the chief of staff, because the only reason that has been put forward by the minister or anyone on his behalf was a remark made by General Allard. He said that he was sure once this bill had been passed and there was no more uncertainty, the forces would settle down and morale would have a chance to improve. This, Mr. Chairman, is the only reason for speed, the only justification given by General Allard, the minister or anyone else as to why this bill should be pressed with what we have always considered to be such unseemly haste. This 
was the reason we could not call more witnesses. The Liberals may have missed their chance. They may have been able to find an ex-service officer with knowledge and freedom to speak who may have upheld the minister's idea.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra says that this bill has nothing to do with morale. Then he says the real effect of it is to give the forces a new and honourable name. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is highly insulting to those forces that have built up Canada's reputation abroad. This is highly insulting to those serving officers and men who, through two world wars, made it possible for any serviceman wearing a Canadian uniform to walk with pride, no matter in what company he may be. The Royal Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force have always had a tremendous reputation. However, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is going to give them a new and honourable name. I wonder, is there any limit to how much abuse the soldiers, sailors and airmen have to take from these members who will go to any lengths in their assertion that, because what they are doing is new, then obviously it must be right. Anyone who gets in the way is an old fuddy-duddy who has done nothing to deserve any consideration, and who is trying to block progress.
I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I have dealt sufficiently with the background and the manner in which some of this evidence has been handled by people who should know better. I do not care what party a member represented on that committee or what party he represents in the house, his duty is to weigh carefully the evidence in as objective a manner as possible. His mind should be made up only after a careful and fair consideration of the evidence. The evidence of no witness should be rejected out of hand because it happens to conflict with a preconceived opinion. Due weight and consideration should be given to the person giving evidence, his experience, the position he occupies, his access to information and his ability and willingness to speak freely and frankly to the committee.
I reject any suggestion that any of the witnesses who came before our committee were not trying to give us the truth in so far as they were able.
I have pointed out, and I believe the Minister of Transport has indicated he agrees with me, that serving officers are inhibited in giving their evidence, that they can only give evidence that is in line with the policy they
April 10, 1967

are bound to carry out. This evidence, therefore, cannot be given the same weight as the evidence of independent officers. However, this is not a reflection on their honesty. I believe it is a reflection, perhaps, on this house, as I pointed out some time ago. Certainly, if we are going to call witnesses before a committee, they should be able to give free and honest opinions. I disagreed with the minister when he said that he had the right to indicate what he wanted them to say. Certainly I believe this is a matter which should be looked into by the house.
Be that as it may, the evidence before the committee has been overwhelming, from those who were free to speak, to the effect that unification should not come now. Another group of witnesses said they would not go so far as to say unification would never work, but it certainly would not work now. It certainly needs more study. I hope, Mr. Chairman, to have other opportunities to speak because I firmly believe that many of these officers, after long years of service to the country and with the technical competence they have, should have their opinions put on the record of this house. The next time I speak I hope to be able to quote from their evidence and give a few good examples of their excellent opinions.


Mr. Clancy:: I should like to ask my colleague about the other ranks, since he referred to officers who were inhibited from speaking.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The only people who were called before the committee to give evidence on behalf of the department were officers. I was talking about the evidence before the committee rather than opinions in the country generally because we know the people in the service are inhibited from speaking, whether they are officers or other ranks.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, a week ago I opened for the opposition, the discussion on Bill No. C-243 and, since that time, we have heard many members from all sides of the house. In fact, looking over the list of speakers, I see that 16 government members, about 20 members of the official opposition, five of the New Democratic Party and three independent members have participated in the discussion and their speeches were fairly extensive; following this, the Social Credit party and the Ralliement Creditiste both participated.

National Defence Act Amendment
In view of the fact that we have also had interventions on a completely separate subject related to defence, the external affairs of the country, it seems to me that we are considering not only the technical aspect of the amendment to the National Defence Act but also the entire program of external affairs of the country.
That is why I found rather strange the words of my hon. friend the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) when he closed his remarks Friday afternoon by saying:
Therefore, we say, now that everything has been said, let us act, let us vote and the electorate will judge whether this government is right or wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I find this an over-simplification of the problem. True, a blind or a deaf man may, if you will, be forced to vote, and if the electorate has to decide whether the government is right or wrong. I believe that by that time it is a little too late. If we destroy our armed forces by this reorganization, it will then be too late to say: The government has done that.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that ten to 15 years will be required to correct-


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Surely.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Has the hon. member the impression that his flow of words and speeches will change the opinion of any member? Has he not rather the impression that all have made their decision and that we are continuing to speak without settling anything?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It may be that, in this context, I was ahead of the views of the hon. member for, in my first contribution to the debate a week ago, I said that the government had asked or demanded that the house state its views on second reading, and the yea or nay of an hon. member, whether on the government side or in opposition, would not have changed his opinion, as a result of all the testimony we have heard in committee; therefore, the government has proceeded under a false principle, and so there is nothing new there.
But what I would like to say to the hon. member for instance, is that here the evidence given before the committee can be reviewed, so that the public in general will understand the principles involved. Public opinion has changed to a great extent in the last week and even in the last few days.
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
In fact, what we have heard in our ridings is enough to make us realize that people understand the difference between integration and unification. I do not know if the hon. member has underlined that difference, because he left room for doubt in his speech Friday afternoon.
What does the word integration mean? And the word unification? For the information of the hon. member, I feel that the debate-in which the government members took part as much as the opposition members-showed the people what was what. There was a certain amount of reporting, but it is also true that some reporters or newspapermen have become fed up; they cannot make up new headlines, so they get fed up, because they want news, something new. We might organize a dance to create a diversion or change somewhat the present atmosphere.
But, on the other hand, are we not trying to decide a matter of major importance, a fundamental matter, something which we will be unable to get rid of tomorrow? That is tragic for those of us who oppose not only the principle of unification but unification now or later, or unification itself.
I do not accept the principle of unification and I am as sincere in this view as any of those who accept it. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres emphasized many times everybody's good faith and, therefore, blameworthy motives should not be imputed to anybody. On the other hand, I will say this, to him and to all hon. members: the truth always persists and a repetition of good arguments does not weaken them. In certain circumstances, arguments must be repeated, sometimes in one way, sometimes in another way. Therefore, I say that we have not lost our time.
We have heard almost all members of the defence committee. Certainly, a few others will take part in this debate; at least I hope so. I am sure we will hear in a few moments the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos), who was chairman of the committee for several weeks. As a former career officer, he should have some observations to make.
Now, I should like to go back to another matter raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I deeply regret that he is not in his seat tonight. He took issue with my colleagues from Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), as well as myself, charging that we were racists because we objected to certain statements made by General Allard.


Well, I can say he is the one who introduced racialism, as some journalists did, too, who claimed that we were criticizing General Allard because he was a French Canadian, because he spoke French. But why General Allard and not General Moncel, or General Fleury? They too are French Canadians. And also, some criticism has been overlooked-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. member, on the contrary; but I should like to ask him to state very clearly that he is not putting the member for Trois-Rivieres in the same bag with the member for Lapointe. I do not want to be associated with his remarks, especially with regard to racialism.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, I thought I had indicated clearly that I was through referring to the remarks the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres made last week about General Allard.
As for me, whether the chief of the armed forces is named Smith, Boychuk or Allard, I could not care less. But I maintain that he had no right to speak as he did. After all, our argument was based on a reliable report published in the newspaper La Presse in which he was reported as having condemned the motives of certain members opposed to Bill No. C-243. I shall not repeat his remarks, but I do not think the chief of the armed forces was justified in imputing motives to members of the house. I shall not add anything more, but he had no right to say that.
On a technical matter, it is only natural to disagree, because after all, it is impossible to always reach unanimous agreement.
I feel that even though he disagrees with his former colleagues on that point, they can also be believed. As for him, I am not imputing any motive but, on the other hand, he should not impute any to us either.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I found the intervention by the Minister of Transport the other evening to be rather strange, and this point has been referred to by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona and others. It is not so much that he wanted to discuss whether unification was good or bad; he was directing his remarks to something that I think is quite fundamental to a discussion of this bill, and the procedures of this house in arriving at his conclusions on this bill. He was raising a doubt as to whether retired
April 10, 1967

officers should come before a committee to testify on military matters.
The minister said that these officers did not put any evidence before us but that what they said was only a matter of opinion. Gracious me, Mr. Chairman, even before the committee on transport and communications the greater part of the evidence given on the bill that the minister had before the committee was a matter of opinion. If I may say so, there is a great deal of difference between the type of witnesses one would call to speak on a bill such as Bill No. C-243, which deals with military matters, and witnesses who would give evidence on a bill dealing with transport. After all, Mr. Chairman, military men are not out on civvy street; they are specialists and are found only in the armed services. That is where they get their knowledge.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Admittedly some civilians, if one distinguishes them from military persons, are also experts on military theory. I would have hoped that some civilians might have come forward to testify for or against this measure, to give the committee the benefit of their opinions.
It has been suggested that the former officers brought forward to testify were sympathetic to the opposition. I know I put forward the names of several officers on behalf of the official opposition, at the suggestion of my colleagues, but I do not think anyone knew what at least 90 per cent of their testimony would be.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member is not being serious?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a fact.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member ought to talk to some of his colleagues. I have had conversations in private with some of them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will not mention names. We did not know what 90 per cent of the testimony was to be. I can say this to the minister, that it was not known what the testimony of the former chief of the defence staff would be. The majority of men who have testified have kept their silence and their counsel. I could have dredged up men by the legion who would damn the minister in no uncertain terms. He should have listened to some telephone calls I received in Edmonton during Easter week from service and ex-service personnel. They spoke about unification. I will
National Defence Act Amendment not repeat what they said about the minister, but they were not complimentary about the legislation he proposes.
Be that as it may, the members of the defence committee needed expert advice about the workings of integration and unification. One cannot say that in the main the retired officers who came before the committee had been retired for many years, or that the minister had discussed or failed to discuss this measure with them. Most of these men had had recent experience, and their testimony must be weighed carefully and must be given grave consideration by all hon. members of the house and by the public.
I know some feel that when a man reaches the rank of major general, rear admiral or air vice marshal that he starts wearing too much gold braid, which gives off some sort of radiation affecting his brain, and that he begins suffering from senility. This is a grave misconception. I suppose, similarly, that editorial writers think this way about publishers. They imagine that "the old man has gone soft in the top story". When it comes to running a newspaper I think that editorial writers, news reporters or cartoonists will agree that the publisher very likely is some streets ahead of the men who criticize him. Of course there are exceptions.
I say to this house that it will be a poor day when we cannot get men to come before a committee to express their views. I will agree that senior serving officials in the department should confine their testimony to facts. As will be seen from the testimony of a number of witnesses, when they were asked questions about confidential matters, about confidential advice they had given to the minister or others, they quite properly claimed privilege. No one insisted that they breach it. It will be to the advantage of the house to adhere to this facet of procedure. Before the Indian affairs and northern development committee the former commissioner of the Northwest Territories had some blunt things to say. When a man of mature judgment and experience who has had a great deal to do with implementing a policy comes forward should we not, as laymen, listen to him? How is one to determine policy? Is one to take only the minister's advice? This is the last thing we ought to do; otherwise we all become rubberstamps for ministerial suggestions.
It will be a happier day when legislative proposals are turned over to committees before second reading, to be accepted or rejected in principle at that stage. The present
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment measure is a classic example of why our system is not working. The Minister of Finance has said that legislation emanating from the Carter report on taxation will be placed before a committee, as a proposal, before acceptance on second reading. That I think is a step in the right direction. That procedure was followed with the transportation legislation last year, also in the Northwest Territories bill. These are halting steps in the evolution of parliament.


An hon. Member:: By way of policy?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I say this is part of the evolutionary process. What I have suggested ought to be done is in fact done in many legislatures of western Europe. As I say, I think this bill shows, in a classic way, where our procedure has been wrong. This afternoon, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra made a ploy, if one may term it that, saying that we should get on with this bill: "It is so easy, let us get on with it." What is the hurry? I am reminded of a cartoon drawn by Chambers where, standing against the wall, with their hands tied behind their backs, and facing the execution squad are a soldier, a sailor and an airman. In charge of the execution squad are caricatures of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. To them is attributed the caption, "We have decided to go on with the execution, but we will postpone the funeral." This is precisely what the government intends to do with the bill. They say, "Pass this bill and we shall defer its implementation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Vice Admiral Hennessy has said that morale in the navy is high. General Allard in his evidence before the committee said morale would get worse if this bill were not passed. Would morale indeed get worse if this bill is not passed? Remember there is not one member on this side of the house who talks about fighting morale when he talks about morale. As Admiral Landymore said in his testimony in June of last years: Ask me about the morale of men in maritime command; there are two kinds; if you talk about fighting morale there is not one who is not prepared to do his duty and even beyond it; but when it comes to a different kind of morale, job future, certainty, living conditions and all those things, morale is backward. It is in this second sense that we have discussed morale. Never once has there been a question as to the fighting qualities of our forces. Fighting capacity, yes, but that is something which is


related to numbers and training, or the excessive bleed-out of men getting out ahead of time, and a weakness in recruiting brought on by the uncertainty of some of the steps taken toward integration, the "golden bowler" program, for instance, and some of the other things which weakened the direction of the forces.
Now we are faced with this other business of unification. Some may ask: Why repeat these things? As I said to the hon. member for Trois Rivieres, a good argument never loses force by repetition.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the hon. member say the same of a bad argument?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A poor argument never had any substance to start with.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister is a great one for generalizations. This whole question of integration and unification could have been put forward in a better way. There would have been less uncertainty in the forces; there would have been a greater understanding by the public and by this house if the minister had given us much more information, if he had been fair with hon. members instead of treating us as ignoramuses, as we were treated on a number of occasions. We are not ignoramuses. I do not know what the minister used to think when he was in opposition. Was he then an expert?
The dilemma in which this house finds itself is still unresolved. It is one which has been adverted to by my hon. friend from Edmon-ton-Strathcona, by the hon. member for Greenwood, by the hon. member for Vancouver East and others. It was introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he intervened in the debate. It is something to which I myself have adverted during earlier debates with regard to Bill C-243, namely that the objectives of our defence policy have been modified or are to be modified, because the way in which reorganization of our forces is now taking place would make those forces incompatible with the full discharge of the present commitments and objectives of our defence policy.
Defence policy cannot be determined by the nature of our armed forces. That is putting the cart before the horse. Yet, as was pointed out by a number of the witnesses before the committee, we are committing ourselves in this bill to organize our forces in such a way
April 10, 1967

as to lose our ability to fulfil our obligations as we have undertaken them.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs told us clearly the other afternoon that no change in policy had taken place and that none was contemplated for the time being, though perhaps in the future the situation could alter. If that is the case, a much larger question mark has been placed over this bill. This bill is not necessary in order that integration of command may be brought about. There is a great deal of work still to be done. The whole of materiel command has to be organized and brought into operation. The machinery has to go on stream, and it is a long way from that at present. The same applies to training command. There are a number of ancillary and related problems which so far have not even been discovered.
The minister strikes me as an architect, or an engineer who hires a contractor to put up a building of revolutionary design. He puts in the foundations, builds the walls and the roof, closes in the windows, and then says: We had better test the foundations. This is where he has gone wrong.
This bill is completely and utterly unnecessary. In fact, the bringing forward of this idea at the minister's insistence has meant the loss of his most senior advisers and many more whose services we can ill afford to lose. Why? They are all out of step and he is the only one who is in step. As a result of this unresolved question between foreign policy and defence policy I wish to reiterate an argument which has been made earlier today-that the Prime Minister himself must now come into the picture. It is his responsibility as the senior minister to enter this debate and lay out clearly the relationship between the foreign policy of this government and its defence policy in the light of what it proposes to do. Until this is done the basic question behind this proposal will be left unresolved.


Mr. Fulton:: I think it is not without significance that the discussion on this important and far reaching measure is taking place at a time which coincides with the 50th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, an anniversary which we have officially marked in Canada by sending a contingent of veterans overseas to take part in ceremonies on the site of that battle.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I am ill-equipped to pay adequate tribute to the heroism of those who fought in that battle or in the other battles of that war, or of the second world war, the Korean war, or any of the battles in which Canadian forces have

National Defence Act Amendment taken part. Suffice it to say, however, that this is an area, the area of military accomplishment and of honour on the field of battle, in which Canada has established no mean tradition. Canadians have a very fine tradition of accomplishment militarily on land, on the sea and in the air and I would suggest therefore to the minister, and to hon. members opposite, especially to the Minister of Transport in the light of the speech he made on Friday last, that it would behoove them to take a second look at any measure which, as this measure does, strikes so directly at the heart and the content and the feeling of Canadians with respect to their military traditions, their service traditions, and the traditions of the splendid units which have served Canada so well in the past.
I am not one of those, and I think there are few of them in this chamber, who are opposed to change where change is demonstrated to be beneficial and where it is clearly proven that the change will produce a better result than the situation which now prevails. But I am indeed opposed to change for the sake of change especially where, as on the evidence we have before us so far, we have the opinions, not of reactionaries but of military moderates, of the people who have had training, who have brought their minds and their thoughts, and their desire to serve the best interests of Canada, to bear upon this problem. They have declared themselves overwhelmingly against the proposition that this bill will do any good, and overwhelmingly in favour of the proposition that the bill, on the contrary, will do great damage to the military effectiveness of Canada's Armed Forces.
What have we in effect by way of background for the consideration we are giving this measure tonight? We have here one minister, the Minister of National Defence, against over 30 senior advisers who, because of their disagreement with the policy, have either been compulsorily retired or have taken early retirement. These are not brass hats in the old and opprobrious sense of the word. They are not Colonel Blimps. They are men in whom Canada has a substantial investment in training and in experience, men from whom Canada should be getting the maximum return now in terms of advice and service and in the shaping of the armed forces in line with the accepted policy, and that is the policy of integration and not the policy of unification.
Well, where are they now? Gone, all gone; and the minister remains in the face of the
April 10. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment weight of evidence, adamant, stubborn, determined like a Hitler to give no extra ground in spite of the advice of his senior advisers-nor an inch. It does not matter if it means sacrificing the best interests of the armed forces of this country-not an inch will he give, because he personally is committed; and his personal position to him means more than what any council of moderation would advise, such as some gesture, some adjustment in view of the overwhelming evidence that has been given before the standing committee on national defence.
The minister now blames the press. "Oh," he says, "the effects of this bill have been misrepresented. The controversy has been misreported and distorted in the press." It is not just the senior military advisers; it is the press of the country, never the minister, never his stubbornness, but always somebody else who is wrong. "Yes," he says, "they distorted the meaning of the statements." But then in his discussion in Toronto recently before a group of young Liberals, having attacked the press he went on to attack Admiral Lan-dymore. Having attacked the press because it reported the facts, then he attacked Admiral Landymore; and after that he said, "I hope the press won't report what I have just said." What a childish attitude. And, Mr. Chairman, he was on television. The minister, with all his avowed modernity, forgets there is a modern means of communication which, unfortunately from his point of view, brings home to the public the absurdity of his position.
That is the background against which we are discussing this measure. But while I think it is important to bear these facts in mind and to assess the importance or the significance of the minister's stubborn position, these are not the most important arguments or reasons that we should bring to bear in forming our judgment of the measure. No, the arguments in principle, the laws of principle remain, and they of course outweigh even the considerations of the evidence to which I have been referring.
I repeat, sir, that on the basis of the evidence, on the basis of the facts, there has been no sufficient justification made out to support the far-reaching and the dangerous proposals that are embodied in this bill. There has been no sufficient justification for the headlong plunge into unification, with all the turmoil, and all the upset, and all the loss of efficiency, and all the loss to the services of the senior advisers that it has involved and will involve in the future.

Search as you will, I defy hon. members opposite, or the minister, to show us where is the justification for this measure. Does it lie in the realm of economy? Are we going to save money by this proposed measure? Certainly not. According to the evidence of the distinguished officer who for seven years was chief military adviser of past governments and of this government, there is to be no economy.
If one looked for an illustration of the absurdity of the argument in favour of economy the demonstration of it is complete and total. One could find it in the recent words of the minister himself. He said there was going to be economies but when taxed with the question of what it meant to have one common uniform, did he say it would result in savings? No, he said that when servicemen were doing their ordinary daily work they will retain their working uniforms, and when attending any traditional ceremonies, in messes or elsewhere, they will retain their traditional uniforms. He said that only when walking out will they have a common uniform. What kind of absurdity is that?
So a common uniform means one extra uniform, and what pride can any one man, or any one unit have in the fact that when he or they walk out, instead of wearing a traditional uniform they have to wear a common uniform? What kind of saving is that? What improvement will it bring to their morale; or is it just extra expenditure on an extra uniform which will add nothing in terms of economy or efficiency?
What about efficiency itself? Is the single rank structure going to add to the efficiency of the fighting prowess of the men in the units and of the service themselves? Can it be denied that if we are to have effective defence forces for an effective defence of Canada-and in spite of the minister's intran-sigency that is still the primary responsibility of any government, to ensure the national security of the country-we have to have forces capable of military effort against attack, capable of striking a blow on the sea against any seaborne invasion or follow-up, capable of military effort on land to contain, and to repel, and to defeat any land forces that may attack us?
I see that the minister has just received another message from on high. I mention this in passing, Mr. Chairman.
To continue, we have to have forces capable of effort in the air, capable of beating down an airborne assault on Canada and of attacking troops on land. We have to have forces

April 10, 1967	COMMONS
capable of military effort in the three spheres. If it is necessary to have forces capable of a military effort in three spheres, what possible increase in effectiveness would there be in having them in one uniform instead of three, or in having a single rank structure instead of three. This has not been demonstrated and of course cannot be. What about the national interest; what about Canada's responsibility for maintaining and protecting the integrity of Canada. I suggest the evidence clearly establishes that if this course of unification is proceeded with it will mean that now, and in the foreseeable and definite future, when it comes to the matter of the defence of Canada, once again we will be dependent upon the United States and will not be able to play even our proportionate part in the defence of the North American continent.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
While no one for a moment would suggest that Canada, by itself, can defend its part of the North American continent, nevertheless it is our responsibility to play our full part in the alliances and defence arrangements. This certainly means we must be prepared to integrate closely our forces in these alliances with the forces of those with whom we are allied in respect of the defence of the North American continent. This means the close co-operation of our forces with those of the United States, and we are fortunate that that country is there. How on earth does the minister suggest that this unified force of which he is speaking will be capable of bringing about a more effective Canadian effort, in respect of the type of Canadian responsibilities we have in this sense, than would three integrated forces each capable of its own distinct but coordinated effort in the three areas in which the defence forces must function, namely on the sea, on land, and in the air?
What about the more effective discharge of our defence commitments? Is it here that the bill can be justified? As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West and other hon. members, we do not even know what our commitments are. The NORAD arrangement is under review at the present time. Is the minister in a position to tell us what will be the result of that review?
If the minister knows, will he tell us what factors govern the decision we are being asked to make here concerning the kind of forces we should have. The NATO commitment is under review at the present time, but we have had no statement either from the
National Defence Act Amendment Minister of National Defence or from the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the direction these negotiations are taking. We have had no statement concerning an alteration in any of our commitments, any new commitments, or the affirmation of an old commitment which might come out of these reviews.
As a result of this bill, if it passes, we will be giving our forces a narrow capability. They will be capable of only one exercise, the exercise which the minister appears to hold in priority to all others.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Where did you get that false impression?


Mr. Fulion:: From the minister's own words. From the only things the minister has said it is evident that he places at the top of the priority a peace keeping force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have not read my speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister's speech is capable of a number of interpretations; but the minister's whole attitude is capable of one interpretation and that is that in his view Canada's prime contribution in the defence field is that of an integrated force capable of being transported anywhere in the world for a brushfire operation. Therefore in that sense our commitments and our capabilities must be tailored to the kind of forces we have. Yet, when we have the situation where our commitments are in fact being reviewed, when NORAD and NATO are under review, what should happen is that we should keep our plans flexible so that our forces are tailored to our commitments, instead of our commitments having to be tailored to the kind of defence force this bill inevitably will force upon us.
There is another and I think more important objection than those to which I have referred. Not only do we fail to find any justification for the measure on the grounds I have mentioned, such as economy, efficiency, national interest, and the discharge of our defence commitments, but the primary objection to the whole headlong precipitous course which the minister asks us to follow is jeopardizing the one sound, sensible policy, and that is the policy of integration.
I cannot understand why the minister, who professes to be a progressive and far-sighted man, would run the risk of jeopardizing the policy of integration. This is more than any of us, military advisors or anyone else who has given much thought to this matter based on
14752	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment experience, can possibly understand. In support of my contention that the bill jeopardizes the policy of integration, I should like to refer to the evidence of Air Marshal Miller as given in the committee on national defence. Air Marshal Miller emphasized that he and all the senior military advisors were committed to and were working hard to implement the policy of integration. He also emphasized that the policy was far from complete, and that the program was far from being implemented. He said there were many unresolved problems of a type which required solution in order to lay a sound basis for the development of integrated forces and an integrated and effective effort. He said that this was being, and would be, jeopardized by rushing into unification.
I should like to refer members of the committee to a portion of the air marshal's evidence in this connection as reported in the Gazette of Saturday, April 8. In discussing the theory of integration he said:
There have been various approaches to working and developing an organization that will control the three services. We have had examples of it in the two world wars, and we have examples of it in many of today's activities. So that, I think, anybody who has been in the military, thinks, and has studied the problem of what we have come to call here in the Canadian scene, in the context here, integration. By that I mean the operating of the three services under a single-what I would call-management. A single defence staff, a single planning organization, and a single budgeting arrangement.
This, of course, is the outline of an effective and co-ordinated defence effort. In the course of his evidence, Air Chief Marshal Miller was asked this question:
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
But was there consultation between the military and civilians, or were you under instructions as chief of staff to bring up plans for unification?
To that question he replied:
To the best of my knowledge and recollection,
I have never had any instruction to bring up a unified plan.
I pause there to point out that Air Chief Marshal Miller was chief of defence staff until as recently as July of last year, and he says he had never had any instructions to bring up a unified plan. He had received no instruction to bring up a plan for unification up to July of last year. This bill was introduced last fall, and we are told now, to paraphrase the minister's words and his stand, that the whole welfare and efficiency of the defence effort of the country depends on getting this bill through. It has been too long delayed, we are told. Yet no instructions were given for the preparation

DEBATES	April 10, 1967
of the first plan for a so-called program of unification as late as July of last year when Air Chief Marshal Miller resigned.
Air Chief Marshal Miller gave another answer that I think is of special significance. He was asked whether he would comment on the bill and its dedication to the principle of unification, and said:
Specifically on the bill, I am not familiar with it because I have not had an opportunity to really look at it.
He went on:
On the principle of integration, my own feelings about it are that it might very well be the end result. I do not think it is timely now.
I do not want to substitute my opinion for that of Air Chief Marshal Miller but I think that passage should read, "On the principle of unification, my own feelings about it are that it might very well be the end result." Then he said:
I do not think it is timely now. I have felt that the problem of integration and getting the organization, if you like, was the area where the biggest return in manpower savings and in effective control of military lay, and it was important to get that right before we had ventured into the area of unification.
In those passages and others from the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller it becomes quite evident that what concerned the chief military advisers of the government was that they were all committed to the program of integration but felt that that program, and indeed the welfare and effectiveness of Canada's defence forces were jeopardized by the rush into unification. What they were saying was, "Let us get on with and complete the program of integration." Incidentally, that policy and program started long before the present minister was even in the house. It was started shortly after the end of world war II. It was started by the very men whom the minister has been attempting to brand as brass hats and reactionaries. It was started by the military moderates who thought and planned and succeeded in bringing forward plans, modifications and reforms that were in the interests of the country, and it was furthered by a number of ministers before this minister ever came into the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member, where in the evidence it was suggested that they had brought forward the integration plan?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That who had brought forward the integration plan?
April 10, 1967	COMMONS


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Whomever you are talking about.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister say that this is one of his brainchildren? Is the minister now trying to claim parentage for the plan of integration? Does he say that his predecessors Brooke Claxton, George Pearkes and my seat-mate in the house had no ideas of integration? Does the minister pretend that he brought in the concept of a chief of combined staffs and a chief of staffs committee, which were innovations of this concept and the first step in the policy of integration, with a definite idea of integration? These things were done long before this minister became minister of national defence. Those were the steps taken and the plan of these military moderates, over 30 of them, who have resigned or been forced to take retirement because of their disagreement with unification. These were the things to which they were dedicated. They resigned because they felt these plans were being jeopardized by the minister's unthinking, unjustified, unsubstantiated and headlong rush into unification.
This is exactly what Air Chief Marshal Miller said. These were not men who resigned in a blaze of publicity, although one or two of them did because they were forced into public controversy with the minister. Does the minister suggest that Vice Admiral Dyer is not a thoughtful and progressive military moderate? Does the minister suggest that General Fleury is not a thoughtful and progressive military moderate? Does the minister suggest that General Moncel is not a thoughtful, intelligent, brilliant military thinker and planner, and a moderate? All these people, and others, resigned because they felt the sensible, intelligent, progressive, sound plans to which they were dedicated were being jeopardized by the brainchild of the minister and one or two of his inexpert advisers. That is the fact.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister put his nod on the record?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that it is incumbent upon this committee, having assessed the situation, having heard the weight of the evidence, bearing in mind the advice that has been received by the government, and now by the house and the country, from these experts in the field, not to jeopardize the sensible reform of Canada's armed forces and Canada's defence effort. This is a reform which would have the result of a co-ordinated staff,
National Defence Act Amendment co-ordinated planning, integrated supply services and integrated efforts on the part of three fighting services of top efficiency. Those integrated plans should not be jeopardized. Rather, we should say it is not necessary to proceed with this measure now. This is the overwhelming advice we have received. We should say: Let us complete and consolidate the measure of integration. Let us build the integrated forces. Let us build in Canada the most skilful and effective integrated defence forces in the history of any country. But let us not jeopardize all this by succumbing to the dictates of one minister, which have already resulted in the largest purge in the peacetime history of any western country of skilled, seasoned, thoughtful and intelligent military advisers.
Let us get on with the job of building the integrated forces. Let us get on with the job of building the kind of forces which, when it is necessary-and let us pray God it never will be-to call upon them, will repeat, with the same morale, the same splendid tradition, feats such as those to which we have just paid tribute, the feats of Vimy Ridge. Let us get on with the job of building these integrated forces. If we do that with half the skill with which we built the separate forces, and if we can build the kind of Canadian defence forces which will attract Canadians into service and in which they will serve with the same zeal as did the veterans at Vimy, Ortona and at Korea, preserving the traditions and morale of the fighting services, giving them the best backing in integrated command, planning and supply of the best weapons, we can be proud of the job we are doing.
Parliament will have performed a really tremendous service to the country by insisting that this bill be brought to a halt and demanding that the minister and his staff get on with the job of integration, in order that Canada's role in the field of defence may remain sufficiently flexible, so that when our commitments are determined we will have forces of the kind that can be designed to discharge those commitments with the same splendid tradition of heroism, valour and effectiveness as has always characterized Canada's armed forces in her past glorious history.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, there are a few comments which I should like to add to this debate. First, there is an evident desire to proceed to a clause by
April 10, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment clause study of the bill, and some demonstrations of impatience that the opposition is taking time to explain its position and bring out the points which it feels should be made for the benefit of Canadians generally, to help them to reach an understanding of what is involved in this so-called unification program. The opposition has a job to do, and its job is to make the objections to this proposed legislation perfectly clear to the Canadian public. Because this is a matter of great importance, the clarification to the public of the matters involved is so important that the necessary time should be taken, and I hope that the impatience of which we saw signs will be less evident in the future than it has in the past.
The rules of parliament are made so that the opposition can bring forward objection to any legislation which is offered by the government, and the time is provided under the rules for this to be done. If the government is not satisfied with the way this has been done, it has a remedy which it can apply.
One reporter wrote that this debate has gone on for 119 days, since the introduction of the white paper in 1964. I am not prepared to vouch for the correctness of that statement, but we do know that the debate has gone on for a long time, and rightly so. Surely the length of the debate and the efforts of the opposition to make good its points against this legislation should be a warning to the government to listen to the opposition and to modify its legislation. What the opposition is asking for, and all it is asking for, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops, is that this rush to do away with the three branches of our armed forces, the army, the navy and the air force, and to unite them into one single force should be stopped at this stage, until the integration which has been taking place up to date can be thoroughly tried out, and improved upon where necessary. Following this, if it becomes evident that unification, or the abolition of our army, navy and air force and their union into one organization with a single command, a common uniform and a common rank structure, should be carried out, this should not be done until the present state of integration has been thoroughly proven.
The people of Canada have been very uncertain as to what is involved. In listening to the debate over the years the government itself seems to have been very uncertain as to what is involved. It was not until quite recently that the ultimate objective of doing away

with the army, the navy and the air force and uniting them into one body was made clear and that the objections to the whole program became very pronounced. I suggest that the management of this legislation has been mishandled. Uncertainty has been allowed to persist and the government has failed to make its position clear.
I should like to refer the committee to an editorial which appeared in The Legionary, the official organ of the Royal Canadian Legion, for the month of November, 1966. The Legion, through its president, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. I believe that part of it should be put on the record at this time. It reads as follows:
We have been deeply concerned at some of the public statements which have been made lately, both by those opposing and those proposing complete unification of the Canadian forces. In spite of our best efforts to understand the situation we are compelled to say that, because of the lack of authoritative, clear-cut information and explanation we find ourselves unable at this moment to form a sound judgment on the whole question.
The Royal Canadian Legion is not interested in the partisan politics which appear to be developing in connection with this question. We are, however, deeply concerned about the question of the state and condition of our defence forces at any given time. It appears to us that sufficient thought and planning have not been given to the important questions of tradition, morale and esprit de corps or, if so, the members of Canada's forces and the public have certainly been kept in ignorance.
The point I am trying to make here is that there has been continuous uncertainty, even on the part of the best informed people in this country, concerning the question of the unification of our armed forces. For that reason the government should listen to the opposition and should be prepared to stop the integration process in its present state and to give it a thorough try before proceeding further. That is all that the opposition is asking.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will carry on with this fascinating debate. Should it conclude during the course of the day, we will take the business that I announced the other night.
April 10. 1S67	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, it will not take me very long to lay my complaint before the minister. The riding which I represent has always been very interested in navy, army and air cadets. The young people of the district in the various schools throughout the years have taken a great interest in the cadet corps. I am pleased to say, and the minister may not know this, that the Castlegar air cadets won the prize this year for the whole of Canada. I certainly congratulate the commanding officer, the parents and the children. The navy cadets of Kootenay West won first prize for the cadets in British Columbia. I hope the minister is taking in all of this.
There has always been a great interest in flying in our district. We have an unusually large number of men and women who have their private licence to fly planes. Even the little village some miles from where I live, with a total population of only 1,000, has a small airfield. I believe there are about ten young people in that district who have their private licence for flying planes. There has been a great deal of interest in the district in recent years in respect of the R.C.A.F. Golden Centennials. The people have discussed this group and are anxious to see a full show at Castlegar. I have had letters from practically every municipality in the riding of Kootenay West urging that the Department of National Defence, if it is possible, provide a full air show at Castlegar when this squadron is visiting the interior of British Columbia.
It is for that reason I asked the following question as reported on page 14422 of Hansard for April 3:
I dislike very much intruding twice during one question period-
This is quite correct, Mr. Speaker.
-but this is a matter of urgency.
It is from the point of view of the people I have the honour to represent.
In view of the request by the municipalities In Kootenay West, representing the wishes of the people, that the R.C.A.F. Golden Centennials put on a full show while in Castlegar on July 14,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and in view of the fact that the Castlegar squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Kootenay West, has been chosen as the top squadron in Canada, will favourable consideration be given to the request of the municipalities and the 25,000 spectators expected to attend-
I should like the minister to let me know what can be done about this so that I can reply to the municipalities as soon as possible. I apologize for keeping him late this evening after a very tiring day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows, I think, from correspondence that I did offer to look at this question. Regrettably, the itinerary of the Golden Centenaires has been made up and is already so full that the crews are being worked to the maximum of their endurance. It has been suggested by the staff that any additional performances would be more than could rightfully be expected from them and might produce fatigue which would jeopardize the safety of the unit. It has, therefore, been recommended to me, and I have had to concur with the judgment of the staff, that additional performances should not be authorized.
The unit will be flying through Castlegar en route on two occasions, I believe, and there will be opportunity while there to talk to the crews. The air cadets can see what the airplanes look like and have discussions with the crews of the acrobatic team. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend a more positive reply, or that in this case we cannot oblige him and authorize the extra performances that have been requested. I really feel, under the circumstances, it would be doing an injustice to the very fine crews who form the Golden Centenaire team. I really do not think I would be justified in this case in overruling the judgment of the staff.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Could I ask a question. Would the minister let us know the dates that these men will be there?



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-REQUEST FOR NIGHT TRAIN BETWEEN MONTREAL AND QUEBEC

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, for the fourth or fifth time I beg the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to give us his assistance so that a night train may run between Montreal and Quebec city, at least for the duration of Expo.
I want to explain right away that I do not blame the minister who until now has been extremely kind in offering his help, but to try
14756	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to get as much assistance as possible to urge the Canadian Pacific authorities to run such a night train. Until now, the only answer we got was in the negative.
Mr. Speaker, here is the whole matter in a nutshell.
Between Montreal and Quebec city, and especially in my immediate area, there are
350,000	people who are poorly served by the Canadian Pacific and who, at Expo time namely, will not be able to leave for Montreal in the morning and come back at night, which means that they will have just a few hours in the afternoon to enjoy Expo.
That night train was requested by the government of my province, through a unanimous motion. It has been requested by about 40 municipalities, by a great number of federal members, of my colleagues here; the project has also been supported by Expo's commissioner general and several special interest groups which have sent resolutions in due form.
In spite of all that, not only does the Canadian Pacific refuse to run the train in question but they even refuse to grant us an interview so that we may state our case.
Mr. Speaker, I charge the Canadian Pacific with gross negligence in its duty towards the people. I should like to remind the management of the Canadian Pacific that they became wealthy through the gifts and grants of the Canadian people, and that they have a moral obligation to the Canadian people to supply them with services that I call essential services. They have no right to treat such important and unanimous requests as this one with the haughtiness they have shown.
I charge the Canadian Pacific with refusing Expo assistance which would be of infinitely greater value than the building they put up, that of guaranteeing reasonable services for all those who wish to visit Expo.
Mr. Speaker, it is not only the people in my area who need this night train; there are thousands of passengers who will not be able to stay in Montreal during Expo and who will have to spend the night in municipalities 50 or 80 miles away from Montreal, when they would like to visit other municipalities after spending the day at Expo.
There are also people in my area who will not be able to reach Montreal by car because of inadequate roads and parking facilities.

DEBATES	April 10, 1967
I charge the Canadian Pacific with having amassed wealth off public moneys and refusing today to recognize its obligations to-toward the commonweal.
I charge the Canadian Pacific and, in particular, Messrs. Crump and Sinclair, respectively chairman of the board of directors and president of the company, with treating offhandedly those who are responsible for the commonweal, the members of the provincial legislature and the members of parliament, the members of our municipal councils and those who are responsible for the intermediary organizations.
I charge the Canadian Pacific with preparing systematically and diabolically the degradation of its system, of its passenger services, probably with a view to getting rid of it eventually and throwing it into the lap of the government.
If they tell us those services are not profitable, it is precisely because they neglected them so much for years that they turned their users away from them.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
But because of this particular time, with Expo drawing near, the Canadian Pacific should co-operate with us more fully.
I charge the Canadian Pacific with making fun of the authorities by writing letters containing misleading arguments, withholding part of the truth and failing to reply to our specific requests in order to obtain an interview and state our case.
I ask the minister to give us more than the moral support he has been granting us generously up to now, because I shall tell what we intend to do from now on. As a matter of fact, this very week, we shall make arrangements to meet the Board of Transport Commissioners and ask them quite earnestly, while putting forward every possible argument to act as mediator in that dispute.
We will go further, Mr. Speaker. We are going to prepare documentation for an overall inquiry to be conducted into all the shortcomings of the Canadian Pacific passenger service, which are intended in a very systematic way, and I intend to use whatever means placed at my disposal by the parliamentary procedure to have an over-all inquiry carried out across the country. And if Messrs. Crump and Sinclair, respectively chairman of the board of directors and president of the company, keep ignoring our request to be received in delegation, the members of the provincial legislature, of
April 10, 1967	COMMONS
the federal parliament and of municipal councils will go and stand on their doorsteps as long as they do not show up to hear us, and this precisely for the purpose of coming to a solution before it is too late, because Expo is opening on April 28.
I dealt with that matter four or five times and I will bring it up 20 more times, if need be. I urge the minister to support us as much as he possibly can. I thank him for what he has done for us so far, but I see that to get action from the high priests of the C.P.R., who feed on the wealth of Canada and do not realize that they have a moral obligation toward the people, all the tact of the Minister of Transport will be needed and probably also all the energy of a great number of hon. members who see that their constituents are deprived of a service and that they themselves are treated with arrogance and contempt.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, in
replying to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres I draw to his attention that this matter was brought to the minister's notice only last Friday afternoon. At that time the minister replied that he would bring the matter before the officials of the Canadian Pacific. The week end has intervened and it is perhaps early to have anticipated a detailed reply. The minister was not aware until an hour or two ago that the hon. member would again raise this question this evening. We regret again that there is not a confirmed reply for the hon. member, even were such obtainable from the Canadian Pacific, which is not directly under the jurisdiction of the minister.
The minister has asked me to assure the hon. member that his remarks this evening, made forcefully and directly, will be drawn to the attention of the officials of the Canadian Pacific. I have also the assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, sitting near me this evening, that he will add his good offices to the request to be made, since he is greatly concerned with the success of Expo.



DIVORCE-REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF IN CASES OF PROLONGED DESERTION

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a letter from a young woman with five children who had been deserted for over five years, asking about the prospects for changes in the divorce law. I think my experience in receiving this 23033-933
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion letter is no different from the experience of most other hon. members in this chamber.
However, that is not why I raised this question earlier this afternoon. I thought about it for approximately a week because it seemed to me it would take some time for the joint committee to bring in its recommendations to this chamber and to the other place; and then, of course, the government would need time in which to study the recommendations. There are good and sufficient reasons in my opinion for establishing wilful desertion of three years or more as an immediate ground for divorce, and I should like to present these reasons to the Minister of Justice. Before I do so may I compliment him, as many other members have done and will do, on his appointment to that position. We have great faith in him and great hopes for the work he will carry out.
I shall set out some of the reasons for my thinking we should pass a divorce measure without waiting for a full bill, which in my opinion could not come before this house until much later this year, either in October or in November. First there is the burden on the courts. There are some 60,000 people in Canada who have been deserted by their spouses, and since our divorce rate is about
8,000	a year one can see that a considerable burden will be thrown on the courts by applications in connection with this class of case alone.
My second point is that courts have to establish rules with regard to cases of desertion. In many of these cases one of the parties has either bolted from the province or established himself, or herself, a long way from his or her home. This will mean the establishment of special rules which I do not think will need to be established in connection with most of the other classes of application now being considered by the divorce committee, with the possible exception of cases involving people suffering from incurable insanity. The courts need time in which to establish rules, and this alone would eat up several precious months.
In the third place, my mail would indicate that the class of deserted people is the largest single class-with the possible exception of cases involving cruelty-which will have to be considered under the new divorce law. To my mind, when a marriage has broken up for three years or more it is up to this parliament to provide some relief for those who are left behind with the children.
Finally there is this question of the children. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others have indicated that in
14758	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion our new divorce law we must of course consider the needs of the children. This will probably be the most difficult part of drawing up the new divorce law and one which will give the joint committee the greatest concern. But the fact is that after desertion has occurred for three or more years it is probable that any legal remedies which exist will either have been attempted and have worked, or will have been attempted and have failed. So I do not think this particular aspect of divorce reform is a stumbling block in this class of case.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
May I suggest to the minister that he admit limited judicial separation or divorce on that ground, judicial separation being favoured by the Catholic Council and by some of the Protestant faiths. I think we have to pay heed to religious thinking when we bring in our divorce reform. Second, may I suggest to him that this is best done by talking with the house leaders. If we are to have immediate reform in this one specific field it can only come if the members of this place exercise discipline, recognize a need, and say the measure will pass with very short debate. If that is not possible, Mr. Speaker, then that class will have to wait until the fall months come around. But if the minister, through the house leaders, is able to achieve an agreement on this class of case, which to my mind is the most worthy of immediate relief in the process of divorce reform, then perhaps we could have an interim measure presented and passed in a remarkably short time, even though we are in the dying hours of the session. In short, we could have a sort of special centennial project of which we can all be proud and then, later in the fall, take the more leisurely and long-term approach to some very difficult problems in the divorce field.


Hon.   P.-E. Tudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) for his kind congratulations and assure him he has introduced a
DEBATES	April 10, 1967
subject with which I will be very much concerned in the months to come. I want to assure him that this is a matter which I and my colleagues regard as being of major importance, one which will get very serious consideration when all the facts are before us.
I think the arguments brought forward by the hon. member are well thought out and reasoned, and I will say quite frankly that they do merit consideration. However, the problem he is really raising is whether this type of legislation is better attacked piecemeal or when introduced as a whole, and whether the spirit of reform and the spirit of the law can be better preserved in one way or in another.
As the hon. member knows, for some time a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons has had the whole question of divorce, including the grounds for relief and the adequacy or otherwise of existing legislation, under serious study. It is expected that this committee will be in a position to report in the not too distant future, and I submit that it might be unfair to the members of this committee, representing as it does both houses of parliament, to introduce any measure of an interim nature which might imply government approval or disapproval of any recommendation which the committee may feel disposed to make.
It is essential that in considering the reform of Canada's divorce law the government should, in the interests of all concerned, view the problem in the broadest possible perspective. The needs of those who are suffering real hardship must of course be taken into account, but it is doubtful whether piecemeal solutions should be envisaged at a time when there is a serious attempt being made to solve the problem as a whole. This is a complex and sensitive problem, and one which must be approached in a spirit of mature deliberation if legislation in keeping with present day realities is to be achieved.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, April 11, 1967