1967-04-21

FELICITATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER ON BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit me to do so I should like to extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on his birthday anniversary, which is the day after tomorrow. The house will not be sitting then so I take advantage of this opportunity. While there have been occasions when I have not been in complete agreement with the Prime Minister, I have always belonged to that group which believes in doing honour to those, regardless of political beliefs, who make their contribution to their country and the world.
I couple with my congratulations the expression of the view that his distinguished career both nationally and internationally is worthy of mention on this occasion when he joins me in celebrating his seventieth birthday anniversary. Age does not weary, and I conclude by expressing the hope that he will now realize that those old age pensioners, who have not received the additional amount over and above $75 per month, cannot properly live on the amount they are receiving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted on behalf of my colleagues to extend birthday greetings to the right hon. Prime Minister and to say to him how pleased we are to see him in such good health and good spirits. He has a very arduous year ahead of him during our centennial celebrations, and we are pleased that he is able to tackle his long list of commitments and to continue to be so effervescent here in the house. We hope his good health will continue.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
I noticed earlier this week that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) expressed the hope that the Prime Minister would continue as leader of his party. I
should like to support that hope. When I look around at some of the prospective candidates for that office I feel that we would rather bear the ills we have than flee to those we know not of, or perhaps some that we know only too well. I would say to the Prime Minister that on this auspicious occasion we are happy to join in extending birthday felicitations to him, and hope he will continue to enjoy many more years in which to receive the appreciation of the Canadian people for his long years of public service.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Lest the Prime Minister think that we wish him ill rather than well, we in the Social Credit party join in the expressions of congratulation and best wishes on this very important occasion.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group I should like to join with the other party leaders to wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the happiest birthday ever. I hope that he will direct as much as possible the business of the house toward social legislation liable to get the support of most hon. members, if not all.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, lest it be thought-


Mr. Pearson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to move closure on these tributes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is one occasion, sir, when I am not going to pay any attention to the Prime Minister's wishes, because I feel I should pay attention instead to the wishes of his followers. I should not like it to be thought that the good wishes that have been expressed from the other side of the house were not every bit as sincere from this side of the house. Perhaps I could remind Your Honour that tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of the formation of the Pearson government, and we on this side of the house look forward to another four years of constructive activity for Canada under the same Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be clear now, Mr. Speaker, why I moved closure. These family matters, about
15178	COMMONS
Birthday Greetings to Prime Minister the prolongation of a particular individual or a particular party, should be discussed within the family. Perhaps the house will forgive me if I just mention that yesterday we did have a discussion of my birthday and all that it meant to my colleagues. They were good enough to make me a presentation, and it was not what I expected. They had asked me what I would like to have and I said perhaps the most appropriate thing to have would be a hair shirt, but it is better than that.
I would be less than human, and I do not think I am less than human, if I were not deeply appreciative and moved by the expressions of good will toward me on this occasion. There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, like a death or a birthday to make you realize you have virtues which are not always noticed by everybody. I am, if I may say so, particularly touched by the good wishes of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is a wonderful and refreshing privilege to be able to join heartily with him in something, for as the right hon. gentleman has indicated, we are together now in our seventies, and I am catching up with him. Whatever may happen in the future to either or both of us, I shall always remember that as I entered this most important decade in a man's life, even more important than going from his teens to his twenties, I entered it with his good will and his expression of personal friendship.
As the right hon. gentleman has said, naturally we do not often agree in this house. We have been in opposition to each other politically for many years. I sometimes get the impression when I read the newspapers and magazines that this kind of feuding which goes on is almost unequalled in Canadian history. I only wish these writers could read about what it used to be like in the nineteenth century in the Canadian House of Commons and in Canadian public life.
The reason we rise above these differences, difficulties and controversies in public and political life is that whatever we may think of each other politically, and whatever we think of our political views, we always have an appreciation for each other. This is because we know we are here for one purpose and one purpose only, and we are joined in that purpose; that is, service to our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	April 21. 1967



PROVISION FOR OBSERVATION AND TREATMENT OF ADDICTS

Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-292, respecting observation and treatment of drug addicts.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, developments in the fields of medicine and psychiatry tend to establish that drug addiction, when it occurs, results from some type of mental illness or disorder. It does not appear to be any longer appropriate to punish persons who are drug addicts; it is rather advisable to treat the said persons as being sick, mentally or otherwise.
The purpose of this bill is to remove the stigma of a criminal conviction attached to drug addiction by drug addicts, and to protect the public and such persons from possible subsequent addiction by assuring that observation and treatment follow the laying of charges.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house, which I understand from the hon. member for Cartier will probably be forthcoming, may I move that this bill be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: I think there would have to be unanimous consent of the house to return to motions. Is this the wish of the house?
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there has not been an opportunity to discuss this matter with the chairman of the committee. I wonder if the request could not stand until Monday.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly, if the minister prefers it that way.


Mr. Churchill:: Let us see the bill.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister say whether a spokesman of his department was revealing
April 21, 1967

government policy when he said on Wednesday that the railway part of the Northumberland crossing may have to be dropped, or the whole project may be shelved?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, no spokesman from my department made any such statement.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Public Works assure the house that the government has not changed its commitment to proceed as rapidly as is reasonable with the construction of this project?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Much concern has been shown by hon. members representing areas near the Northumberland crossing, as well as by other persons, because of some speculative newspaper stories that have appeared during the last two days. Perhaps I can best answer the hon. member's question by saying that tenders for phase I of the crossing were opened on March 30. These are complex, and require extensive analysis and study. This analysis and study, which is normal, is now being made by the engineers and is not yet complete. Decisions cannot be made or anticipated prior to its completion. It may well be that when it is complete some adjustments or modifications may prove desirable. This cannot be anticipated at this time. Notwithstanding the possibility that some adjustments or modifications may be required, the government has every intention of proceeding with the construction of the crossing.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the house that these analyses will not result in the delay of the project's completion date?


George James McIlraith: The analyses have not been completed, and until I see them I cannot give information other than that just given. It would be wrong to give speculative answers, I think, to speculative questions.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he will not discuss with his colleague the Secretary of State the incredible gaff made when C.B.C. television news described this causeway project as a reconsideration of the Canso causeway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked of the Minister of Public Works regarding the Northumberland strait causeway. There seems to be a little too much smoke around this issue for there not to be some fire. I direct my question to the Prime Minister. On behalf of the government will he assure the people of Prince Edward Island that contract bids exceeding the cost contemplated by the government will not result in the deferment or abandonment of this project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is simply repeating or restating a question which was asked previously.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the new regulation, effective as of April 1, which will deny living allowances to persons, without dependants, who have not been continuously employed for at least three years. As this new regulation will have the effect of refusing living allowances to young people under 20 years of age, childless wives, widows, and new immigrants, I ask the Prime Minister whether protests about these regulations have been received and whether the government is considering altering them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not myself, to my knowledge, received any such protest. Whether the minister has I do not know, but I shall make inquiries. I ought to add that this matter was discussed carefully before action was taken. I shall be glad, however, to bring the hon. gentleman's question to the minister's attention and to discuss it with him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister tell the house under what authority this regulation was enacted, since the act itself has not been passed by the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether this question is in order.

April 21, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, I am simply asking under what authority the regulation was passed since the act itself is not in effect.


Mr. Speaker:: That is why I felt the question was not in order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I
ask the Prime Minister, when he discusses this matter with the minister of manpower, to call attention to the fact that the impact of this regulation falls largely on new immigrants, and that this seems to be inconsistent with the terms of the white paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister of education of the province of Ontario has made a strong protest in this regard, stating that some 7,000 people under this program will be seriously affected, I should like to join with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in strongly requesting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York South. I trust this will be a question and that the hon. member will not join in representations made by other members.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I think your wish will be observed, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will be good enough to discuss with the minister of manpower the possibility of tabling a copy of the regulation and the authority under which it was passed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: should like to address my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the government has instituted a crash program, as has been reported, to prepare for possible peace keeping operations in Viet Nam.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The normal planning is going on.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether

he or anyone in the government has expressed any regret or made any protest in connection with the most recent and most dangerous escalation of this war by the bombing inside the territory of Haiphong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have made no protest, nor would I even consider doing so until I had detailed information as to the nature of this particular operation.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received representations from the Baie Co-meau chamber of commerce about the sale to the British Columbia Ferries of the ferry Pere Nouvel which provides service between Baie Comeau and Rimouski?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure whether I have received any protest from that particular organization, but I have received some representations and these are being considered at the moment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the minister say whether grants have been asked from the federal government for the Nord-Sud Company in connection with the ferry service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I suggest the hon. member place his question on the order paper.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-PROPOSED CREATION OF DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Some weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister, when the legislation was before the legislature of Quebec, whether his attention had been drawn to what has been called the external affairs law empowering the government of Quebec to deal directly
April 21. 1967	COMMONS
with governments of other countries. Has the Prime Minister looked into this question? What is his viewpoint regarding this legislation? Is the legislation along the lines of that suggested by Mr. Lesage when he was premier of the province? What attitude did the government take then, and what does it take now, toward this unusual piece of legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a question on the order paper dealing with this specific point to which a more detailed answer than I can give orally will be given, I believe on Monday. Meanwhile I would only say that the legislation in question to which my right hon. friend has referred does not, in our view, infringe the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal parliament and government over external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs was reported to have stated in effect that Canada must revise her traditional relations with the United Kingdom as the interests of the two countries now often differed. Does this mean that Canada disapproves of the suggested entry of the United Kingdom into the European common market, or does it mean something else? Perhaps the Prime Minister could elucidate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it certainly does not mean that we have changed our views in regard to the United Kingdom and its possible entry into the common market, and it certainly does not mean we are weakening in any respect, or desire to weaken, our relations with the United Kingdom.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any survey is being made by the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other department of government to ascertain what Canadian commodities will be affected should Britain enter the common market?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Exhaustive studies have been made as to the possible effect of British entry into the common market. It is very difficult at this moment to come
Inquiries of the Ministry to any specific conclusions as to what that effect would be until we know the terms covering Britain's entry, if in fact that takes place.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
ihe Opposition): As a supplementary question, the terms under which entry may be made into the common market have been agreed upon by the member countries. On the basis of the present terms would Canada's agricultural preferences be seriously affected unless provision were made by the member countries of the common market to make an exception or an exemption in part?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are doing our very best to protect the interests of Canadian producers, agricultural and otherwise, in respect of any changes that might be brought about by Britain's entry into the common market.


Stanley James Korchinski: As a further supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the industries that might be affected will be forewarned in the event that they will no longer have a preferred market in Britain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister inform the house the number of federal and provincial government representatives who will be attending the water for peace conference in Washington from May 23 to May 31 this year, and can the minister inform the house whether these delegates will have an agreed Canadian position on water policy, water pollution and water waste?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



PROTEST AGAINST SLOW MOVEMENT FROM LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

April 21, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a telegram from the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks local 650 expressing concern about the slow start of grain movement from the lakehead, and has he looked into this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. I did receive such a telegram this morning. I made some inquiries of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am advised that at the moment the wheat board is in negotiation with the shipping companies about freight rates, and I prefer to express no opinion whatsoever about these negotiations. But while the loadings have not been as great as they were last year, I am informed that a vessel was loaded yesterday and others are expected to be loaded today.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General but in his absence I shall direct it to the minister assuming his duties for the day. It has been reported by a cross country news service that senior officials of the R.C.M.P. have met with the attorney general's office in the province of Ontario to deal with the case of extradition for perjury against Hal Banks. Could the minister report on the results of this meeting?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take this question as notice. I am not aware of the results of the meeting.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice now give the answer to the question I addressed to him a few days ago on the same topic?


Mr. Trudeau:: I think at that time, Mr. Speaker, I said something about the administration of justice being in the area of jurisdiction of the province, and that if there were any special circumstances in this case I would have them looked into. I presume they are being looked into.
I Mr. Andras.)



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, two or three days ago the Prime Minister announced a system of Canadian honours. I now ask him whether there was cabinet authorization for the granting of the title of right honourable recently given to the distinguished Canadian which in the past has been exclusively restricted to members of the imperial privy council? Does this mean that from now on some Canadians may expect to receive the title of right honourable without becoming members of the imperial privy council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the title of right honourable as applied to the Governor General was agreed to by Her Majesty the Queen and the table of titles amended accordingly on the recommendation of the government, specifically on my recommendation as Prime Minister. This recommendation concerns the Governor General only. It had the effect of giving the Governor General the title of right honourable and divorcing that particular title in respect of this particular appointment from membership in what my right hon. friend has called the imperial privy council. It has no other effect and covers nobody else.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it the intention of the government that no longer shall membership in the imperial privy council be granted to Canadians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, membership in the imperial privy council, so-called, which is indeed the United Kingdom privy council, is normally as a result of recommendations made respecting Canadians and others by the United Kingdom government and accepted by the Queen. The initiation of these does not come from the Canadian government.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that neither my right hon. friend nor I would have been members if it had not been the cabinet of the United Kingdom which made the recommendation to the Queen, but the Prime Minister apparently forgot the specific question that was asked. Is it the intention of the government of Canada no longer to have the right of Her Majesty the Queen to award to Canadians the title of right honourable, as members of the imperial privy council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that cannot be answered on orders of the day.
April 21. 19S7


John George Diefenbaker: Why?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly there have been no such memberships granted in the four years this government has been in office except membership of myself as Prime Minister of Canada, which I have always considered as a kind of honorary membership in the United Kingdom privy council.


John George Diefenbaker: An honorary membership?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no recommendation made in those four years, and I do not anticipate we will be making recommendations of that kind in the immediate future.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago the Leader of the Opposition raised a question as to the design of the coat of arms used on the centennial medallion, and characterized it as an emasculated neuter. The use of this particular design, I am now informed, is supported by leading authorities on heraldry. The revised edition of Boutell, for example, states that the shield of arms-and that is what appears on the medallion-constitutes the whole of a coat of arms. The rest of the design, not on the medallion, is considered additional heraldic material and not essential to the coat of arms itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An explanation like this should be made on motions. I would ask that the house revert to motions, because a simple statement of the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The answer by the Secretary of State appears to be commensurate with the question asked. Unless it is beyond the usual limits of answers I do not think we should revert to motions for that purpose.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the government has received similar advice on the question from Mr. Alan Beddoe who, as the house knows, is a former heraldic adviser to the navy. I am sorry the right hon. gentleman is not anxious to have this answer-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we should revert to motions. I want the opportunity to answer this-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think there should be a debate on this matter at the present time. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to limit the reply as much as possible. I suspect that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition perhaps will have a supplementary question to ask.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman should remember that this design was adopted by order in council and cabinet decision of September 5, 1957.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because of a statement which is without foundation. The coat of arms of Canada was given at Buckingham Palace on November 21, 1921, in the twelfth year of the reign of George V. That is the basis on which the coat of arms was issued to the government of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what has
been introduced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should attempt to have some order. My impression is that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising on a question of privilege and will be stating that question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: It will be very shortly stated. The document which was issued respecting the centennial medallion states:
The obverse or front side of the medallion (left), the Canadian coat of arms with the word 'Canada'-
That is not the Canadian coat of arms. It has been denuded to meet the Canadianiza-tion ideas of this government which is trying to separate everything-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, on the same
point of privilege I should like to read


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we should go further into the matter. I fully appreciate that the Secretary of State wishes to reply to the suggestion made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege and I have to rule that there is no question of privilege. Having done this, I doubt whether the minister should pursue the question unless she has her own question of privilege.

April 21. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, as a privy councillor, surely since my report given to the house has been called into question this should sustain a question of privilege. There should be no question about this because I have in my hand the record of the cabinet decision, which consists of about three lines, to which is attached a memorandum by the then secretary of state, Hon. Ellen Fairclough. I should be pleased, so there may be no question about this, if I could be allowed to read it-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a question of order. Let us return to motions. I have here the document giving the arms to Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There obviously is disagreement at this time as between the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State. It seems to me that even if we did revert to motions we would not settle the difficulty. So perhaps we should go on to another question.



HURON AND PERTH COUNTIES, ONTARIO- ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING TORNADO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I have been advised should be addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the tornado which went through Huron and Perth counties earlier this week as a result of which there has been loss of life and much property damage. A fund has been started by local residents to aid the victims of this tornado. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider matching from the federal disaster fund the dollars raised by the local residents or, in whatever way he might see fit, give federal assistance. I am sure any assistance would be gratefully received.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend no doubt is aware, although serious enough to those affected the decision with regard to relief measures in this connection is in the hands of the provincial government. If the provincial government feels that federal aid is required the provincial government then gets in touch with the federal authorities. However, the department concerned, the Department of Agriculture, has already sent a telegram to the minister of agriculture in Toronto asking whether he would send to the

federal authorities an outline of a provincial proposal for an assistance program. When this is received the government will know what part it should play in this relief program.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention in passing that on Tuesday an announcement was made in the Ontario house to the effect that representations were being made to the federal government on behalf of the victims of the disaster in Perth and Huron counties, and I understand an emergency fund has been organized and set up. I think application has been made to the national revenue department to the effect that donations to the fund should be tax free. Will the minister look into this matter with all haste so the organizers of the fund may inform donors that their donations will be tax free?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has made his representation to the minister.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am asking the minister whether he will look into this matter with all possible speed.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I give an answer which I think is commensurate with the question addressed to me the other day regarding the policy of the United States government in requiring loyalty oaths in respect of scholarships being awarded to Canadian students. This particular question was directed to me by the hon. member for Saskatoon and was based on a message received from a student. That student since has been in touch with my office by telephone to say that he wished me to know that his complaint turned out to be unfounded.
On the general question, we have been in touch with the United States government-the state department-and have been informed that it is against the policy of the United States government to require loyalty oaths from foreign students. There is only one exception to this policy. Under the national defence education act foreign students who apply for fellowships and indicate at that time their intention to become United States citizens must take the loyalty oath. With that exception, should evidence be provided to the
April 21, 1967

effect that a United States university is failing to abide by this policy, the United States state department is prepared to take steps to prevent the administration of loyalty oaths to any foreign student.



FOOD AND DRUGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he received any protests in connection with the federal food and drugs act provision that directions be written in English and is he contemplating an early amendment so that the said directions be compulsory in both official languages of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question of the hon. member is urgent and I suggest it be placed on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. lEnglishl



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, because of the urgency of this matter, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I try not to make a representation but rather to ask the Prime Minister whether he will immediately look into the matter of a deportation order against one Stanislaw Lubaszko, a Polish nationalist who is being held in isolation in Halifax?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into it immediately.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To my colleague's question might I add that this man faces deportation this week, which gives the matter some urgency. I would also ask the Prime Minister whether the former policy of granting refuge in Canada to people from communist countries still applies, or has it been altered?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge it has not been altered, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



REPORTED HIGH DEATH RATE OF VETERANS WHO SMOKE CIGARETTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the health and welfare report, as reported by Canadian Press, that veterans who smoke cigarettes are dying at a rate 54 per cent higher than non-smoking veterans, would the minister indicate whether he proposes to take any further steps to meet this grave threat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question is much too general and should not be asked on the orders of the day.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the request of the International Transport Workers Federation that jet airliners be prohibited from using JP4 because of the high inflammability of this fuel, is the minister considering taking steps to ban the use of this fuel by Canadian air lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could answer that question with a simple yes or no. I think it is not, therefore, the kind of question that can be dealt with on the orders of the day and perhaps the hon. gentleman would put his question on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can deal with it at ten o'clock Monday night.



CAPE BRETON-IMPLEMENTATION OF ANNOUNCED GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman is in a position today to advise what progress is being made in regard to the takeover by the government of the coal holdings of Dosco-Hawker Siddeley, relative to his announcement of December 29 last.
15186	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make an announcement today. The matter is proceeding as rapidly as possible. As soon as I or the minister concerned can make an announcement we will be very anxious to do so.
I hope we can do so before long.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman assure us that the appointment of the new chief of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will soon be made, and thus dispel the alarm caused by a statement made at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), that the government is having great trouble finding a man for the job because who wants to be nineteenth man on the totem pole, and that so many people have been approached that few persons of stature seem interested any more?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the alarm expressed by my hon. friend has no validity. I am sure we will very shortly be able to find good men and true to take on these very difficult posts.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has Professor Hugo McPherson of the University of Western Ontario been appointed head of the National Film Board?


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



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Edmonton West asked a question of the Acting 
DEBATES	April 21. 1967
Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue, concerning the referring of the regulations under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to the finance, trade and economic affairs committee. The minister took the question as notice at that time. I wonder whether he is now prepared to answer it.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to continue to take the question as notice until Monday, and I will have an answer for the hon. member at that time.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouih-
Clare): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. We seem to be overworking him on his birthday. Has the Prime Minister received representations from the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers urging the government, with cogent reasoning, to establish without delay a representative national body or commission with the necessary authority to carry out a study in depth of the possible implementation and adoption of the metric system in Canada as our standard of measurement? If so, can the Prime Minister assure the house that the government will take this step introducing, if necessary, appropriate legislation in the next session of parliament?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question should be placed on the order paper.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the question of capital punishment. Last night various news media reported that the government had come to the decision that it was going to bring in a measure to abolish capital punishment. If this is so, in view of the number of people in the jails of our country under sentence of death, does the Prime Minister not feel that this measure should be introduced at once? If the government has come to the conclusion reported there is no reason why
April 21. 1967

the overhanging fear and horror that rests on those condemned should be continued.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat, and perhaps I should put this on the record again, the exact words I used yesterday as reported at page 15135 of Hansard. The right hon. gentleman asked me a question which he introduced by saying:
A little earlier in his remarks he said that capital punishment might be discussed.
The right hon. gentleman was referring to myself. I have not been able to And those words in what I said. However, I went on to say in answer to the right hon. gentleman's question:
I mentioned this as one of the problems which the government has been considering. It is not a matter which can be dealt with this session-
For reasons which I tried to indicate yesterday.
-but I would hope it could be dealt with this year in a responsible way.
I hope this can be done, and done as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize the weight of responsibility that rests on the Prime Minister in matters such as this. I ask him this. If the government has made up its mind, does it intend to follow the practice of granting commutations; for it would be very difficult to explain why anyone should be executed if the government intends to abolish capital punishment at the next session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I understand it, and I would like to have this confirmed, there is no request for commutation likely to come before the cabinet for decision for a number of weeks. I would also like to emphasize that in any decision the government may take on this matter, and any method by which it may discharge its responsibility, there will be no interference of any kind with the complete freedom of all members on the government side and on all sides of the house to vote as their conscience dictates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does that last statement mean that it is not going to be a government measure, whatever is introduced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not necessarily the case, as my right hon. friend will know if he recalls the procedure that was adopted in the United Kingdom.
Inquiries of the Ministry PILOTAGE



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may ask a question of the Minister of Transport. It is a question that I like to ask him at least once a month. Can the minister indicate when he expects to table the report of the pilotage commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 REPORTED INSISTENCE ON U.S. FUNDS AS PAYMENT FOR ACCOMMODATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. The question is argumentative.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked of me the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) which I think ought to be answered. The hon. member referred to a newspaper article which stated that certain motels and hotels in greater Montreal were reported to be refusing accommodation except when deposits were made in United States funds.
I think it would be wise for me to clear up that misunderstanding, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am told that this statement originated in a publication from a trailer camp organization intending to draw American tourists to their campsite. All it said was that prospective tourists could make deposits in United States funds. It was not intended to imply that they had to be made in United States funds. I was incredulous when the question was asked, and I am glad my incredulity was justified.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that no proposal for renegotiating the migratory birds convention was included in the long list of parliamentary business announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, will he indicate the government's intention in this regard?
April 21. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows this is an extremely difficult and complex matter which requires discussion. Discussions are taking place with various interests in Canada as well as with United States governmental authorities, and they must be concluded before any decision can be taken. As soon as these discussions are complete we will be in a position to know what to do. Because of the complexity of the discussions I felt this was not a matter I should mention as something we should do this year. I doubt that it will be possible to renegotiate the convention this year.


Robert Simpson: I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister not agree that it would be a good idea to clear up this matter during our centennial year?


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 19, 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:: When the committee rose on Wednesday, evening, April 19, clause 2 was under discussion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the other evening I suggested that clause 2 should stand. I thought there was agreement to this suggestion on the part of the minister and members on the government side. That being the case I again suggest that clause 2 stand and that we proceed with clause 3.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to stand clause 2 and proceed with clause 3?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I want to draw one matter to the attention of the committee. In the event that clause 25 is never reached for consideration because of the arbitrary allocation of time I should like to point out now one rather silly typographical error which should be corrected here rather than in the other place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the committee stand clause 2 and proceed to the consideration of clause 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 3-Commissioned officers.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, clause 3 deals with terms of service. The first part states that commissions of officers in the Canadian forces shall be granted by Her Majesty during pleasure. This is the same as the section in the present act except for the deletion of the names of the three services and the substitution therefor of "Canadian Forces".
Subsection 2 of new section 21 states:
Persons shall be enrolled as subordinate officers or men for indefinite or fixed periods of service as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
That is a change from the present act which states that persons shall be enrolled as men for fixed terms of service as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council. It was pointed out by a number of witnesses before the defence committee that an indefinite term of service so far as the men are concerned will likely have serious consequences and therefore is a questionable provision. On December 7 the minister dealt with this matter during introduction of the bill and he had this to say regarding the length of engagement periods for men:
If they join, it normally will be for an initial engagement of five years. If this engagement is mutually satisfactory, they may, under the provisions of the bill, be re-engaged for an indefinite period. If they want to be released later, this can be done with six months' notice, except in an emergency or during periods of obligatory service.
Admiral Landymore was the first of the witnesses who appeared before the committee to point out some of the difficulties which may arise as the result of putting into effect such a regulation. He stated, as found on page 1055 of the committee proceedings:
This is an invitation to have trade unions in the armed forces. Let us say that a group of technicians is dissatisfied with some aspect of their service. They can, under this concept of engagement, en masse, give six months' notice, in order to exert pressure to have their wishes fulfilled Here is subtle, silent, collective bargaining, entering the armed forces. This has no place in the services. I am not objecting to trade unions or collective bargaining in industry or in civilian life but this form of activity is not acceptable in the armed forces, for very obvious reasons, however democratic we might wish to be.
I cannot tell you how often this type of unlimited engagement has been considered and, in wisdom.
April 21. 1967	COMMONS
not adopted. This concept has the further disadvantage that men will naturally always be thinking of opportunities elsewhere, and this, in turn, will lead to higher wastage rates in the forces- particularly amongst tradesmen whose skills are in demand in industry. We will live to regret this concept, if we allow it to become the practice. In an effort to have similar engagement periods for the three services, this has been jumped at as the answer. It is a foolish step to take.
Throughout a man's service he should be required to re-engage at set intervals. The initial engagement of five years is excellent. This should be followed by a second and third engagement of five years, each with a final engagement to pension. This spacing provides an essential safeguard and is fair to everyone.
General Foulkes also pointed out some of the disadvantages inherent in an indefinite term of service which can be terminated on six months' notice. His remarks in that regard can be found on page 1225 of the evidence. I will not take the time of the committee to read them.
There was also a considerable exchange between General Moncel and myself on this same matter, which can be found on pages 1339 and 1340 of the evidence. There is no question but that a provision of this kind will provide the opportunity for a group or several groups of tradesmen to leave the service to take up employment in civilian life. This is particularly true if these groups of tradesmen are dissatisfied and employment in their particular skills is available. These groups could leave on six months' notice. So far as some units are concerned, the result of this change would be that they would be unable to carry on effectively and perhaps not be able to carry on at all. This might be the case particularly so far as the operation of ships is concerned. If six months' notice were given by a considerable number of tradesmen, there would not be sufficient tradesmen to be able to send ships to sea. Under these circumstances I hope the minister will be prepared to move an amendment removing the indefinite term so far as the men are concerned and leaving the provision for a fixed term as it has been in the past with the governor general in council being able to set the term of service.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
General Foulkes in his evidence pointed out the many disadvantages of this provision. One was that it may not be possible to operate a unit at all. Many training difficulties are created. If a commanding officer does not know the length of time the men in his unit are going to be in the service, it presents great difficulties so far as training programs
National Defence Act Amendment are concerned and carrying on the technical, fighting training of that unit.
As I say, I can see no advantages. In fact, the committee was not told of any advantages when evidence was put before it in relation to an indefinite term of service. Under these circumstances I hope the minister is prepared to move an amendment to eliminate the indefinite period of service for the men and restore the situation to what it has been in the past.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The change in the law, Mr. Chairman, is really based on recommendations made by those who made the manpower study. A study was conducted on all aspects of terms of enlistment and the employment of other ranks. It was undertaken under the chairmanship of Admiral Hennessy, with representatives of the other services. They came to the conclusion that it might be desirable to have a policy whereby, after an initial period of say about five years, a decision would be made on the part of the service and on the part of the individual. The service would decide that the individual was acceptable as career soldier, sailor or airman and the individual would decide that he would like to make his career in the armed forces. This recommendation was included in their report and we included the necessary legal authority in the bill now before us.
I think it is fair to say that the defence staff is not wedded to this concept. In other words, there is no guarantee that it will work satisfactorily. It is, however, their judgment that it would be worth trying and worth implementing. If the provision does not work I am sure we would have no hesitation in changing it and using the authority which would be in the law to enroll men for a fixed rather than an indefinite period. I should point out, however, that the six months' notice by those who have signed on for an indefinite period is a matter of policy, not a matter of law. Once they have signed on they are in exactly the same position as officers, that is, they serve at the Queen's pleasure.
Under normal conditions we would allow them to give notice and to leave the service as we do at the present time for those who have signed for fixed periods if they have served three years of their engagement. In the event that a whole group of men gave notice simultaneously, obviously the policy would then have to be changed. It could not be permitted. This is a theoretical abuse which would not be acceptable. I agree with my hon. friend completely that a situation
April 21. 1967
15190	COMMONS DEBATES
National Defence Act Amendment would be created which would not be in the interests of the forces and therefore could not be allowed. It is not likely to arise, but in the event that it did some new policy would have to be implemented at once.
This situation may be considered along the same lines as the way banks operate deposit accounts. From their experience they know that a certain number of people withdraw money on any given day. This is, basically, an acceptable point of view. If, of course, all depositors simultaneously want their money the system would not be viable and extraordinary measures would have to be implemented at once. Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I believe we would prefer to have authority to follow either course. In other words, we should like to implement the recommendation of the minister's manpower study or, if in the long run that should prove not to be the best policy, to be able to revert to the previous one. This would give us more flexibility than if we were restricted merely to definite terms of engagement. I would prefer to have the legal authority to have a choice in so far as other ranks are concerned as we now have in so far as officers are concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister what advantages there are in having an indefinite term. As I said earlier, we did not receive any evidence in the committee with regard to any advantages in an indefinite term of service but received a great deal of evidence relating to the disadvantages. In view of the fact there is a potential danger in the provision, as the minister has admitted, I can see no good reason for including it. This is particularly true in view of the fact the regulations undoubtedly will be drawn up along the lines the minister has indicated. They will likely provide for six months' notice for a man to terminate his indefinite period, so the situation then becomes the same as with a fixed term. You would, in fact, have imbedded in the men's minds at least the idea that they have a right to give six months' notice and get out at any time.
The minister says that special measures might be taken in an emergency. However, if it happens that large numbers of people give notice at a time when there is no general emergency, and there are no emergency powers, I do not know what you are going to do about it. I think you are going to arrive at the point where you will not be able to put ships to sea or have communication units which can operate properly.
[Mr. Hellyer.I


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You do not need emergency powers under these circumstances. The six months' provision is not included in the regulations; it is merely current policy which has been in effect for some time. In at least one case this policy has been altered and that is in respect of pilots. Perhaps I should leave any statement on the pilot situation until a little later. However, pilots are now required, with the exception of those who have been R.O.T.P. students, to serve a minimum of five years before the six months' notice provision comes into effect. This is for precisely the reason my hon. friend gives. Market conditions for pilots are so buoyant and there is so much opportunity for alternative employment that we require them to serve the minimum period of time to justify the expense of training them.
I do not believe my hon. friend's concern is one which is too serious. He asked what the advantages were in having this choice. I think the advantage is that the men would have the same security as the officers now have. They would know, once they had passed the initial stage of their careers, once they had completed their apprenticeship, that they would be accepted as career soldiers. Just as with the officers with permanent commissions, these men would know that barring misconduct or some other serious offence, some very major contraction in the size of the forces or something of that nature, they would have the security of continuous employment throughout their military career. This would give them a sense of security that they do not have with the fixed term engagement.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
We also know from experience that this does make a difference. We have gone through this with the pilots and navigators. We found that short service commissions gave them a feeling of insecurity because they did not know in advance whether they would be offered a new term of engagement at the end of their present term. Thus they had no security in that they did not know after the second term whether they would get a third. A certain doubt was created in their minds and as a result they decided it would be preferable to take civilian employment rather than face the uncertainty of being given an additional short term of military service. This did become quite an important factor psychologically, particularly after the release of some short service air crew. For that reason all pilots are now taken on on a permanent commission basis.
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
I think there is a point in favour of having this indefinite period available to offer servicemen because it does give them the feeling of security and continuity that they would like to have so far as their chosen career is concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the example the minister has given about short service commissions is a good one so far as the enlistment of men is concerned. The very term "short service commission" denotes that the commission is granted for a short period only.
Originally when short service commissions were granted the presumption was that these men would be released in most cases at the end of the term which was ordinarily five years with a short service commission. It has always been understood-this has been the regular custom particularly in the case of N.C.O.s-that when the period arrived to reengage and these men wished to re-engage, then they would be re-engaged. I do not think there has been any uncertainty, let us say, in the minds of the enlisted men, particularly the N.C.O.s who were chiefly the ones reengaged, about their ability to re-engage. Therefore I cannot see any advantage in this method. In view of its very obvious potential dangers, I still hope that the minister might be prepared to strike out this provision and revert to the former situation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I am not as concerned about the potential dangers as my hon. friend. I also feel that, the staff having recommended that we have the legal authority to implement this policy if it is deemed to be in the interests of the service to do so, I should therefore seek parliamentary authority to so implement it. I have often been accused of not taking advice. I must admit that in this case, as in many other cases, I got conflicting advice. But the consensus of the military staff, those who are responsible for the organization of the forces at the present time, is that they would like to have this authority so that the policy can be implemented if it is considered by them and by the department to be in the best interests of the forces.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, if I may add a few words in this connection may I say that I understand the dangers the hon. member for Calgary North has outlined. However, certainly so far as the naval service is concerned the engagement period has been changed many times over the years. In my early days
National Defence Act Amendment a total engagement period of 21 years-I believe it is now 20 years-was required to qualify for a pension. The period of 21 years was divided into two sections, the first of 12 years and the second of nine. I believe the division then became seven-seven-seven. Then it was five-five-five-five, and I believe that now there is a three-years initial engagement period.
This further change is being sought now and personally I do not object to this departure. As I think all of us in this house agree, those of us at least who have been in the services at any time, morale is all-important. Morale varies in the services very much with the pressures of civilian life that are brought to bear upon servicemen. Regardless of the period for which a person is serving, I think he regards himself as being chained to the service for the rest of that period, and automatically bad morale sets in. The advantage of this clause is that it will make the defence department much more responsive to the changes in civilian life that occur from time to time, and I think that this is a good move.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, now that we are discussing these matters of great importance I hope the committee will realize that some of the matters that the pundits have told us have been repeated over and over again have really not been dealt with effectively in this house because we have not had the time to do so. This is one such instance. Here is a specific change in the act for which the minister has given no satisfactory explanation.
The minister has told us that if advantage is taken of the indefinite enlistment arrangement or if circumstances arise where a large number of men are going to give six months' notice and this would disrupt the service, the Department of National Defence would then take appropriate action. I think that is a very bad legacy to leave to the minister's successor. As of Tuesday night the minister will have the bill approved by the guillotine and the juggernaut, with the assistance of his friends to the left of me, and he will then be free to go to some other position leaving the mess to be cleaned up by somebody else. I think the minister should put the matter into better shape. Why saddle another minister of national defence with a bad policy?
The minister has said that he sometimes accepts advice. I wish he would give us instances which show he does. He has had advice, as the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out, from three men of experience and
April 21, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment long service, Admiral Landymore, General Foulkes and General Moncel. The hon. member for Calgary North quoted from Admiral Landymore's statement on this subject. Admiral Landymore made a very careful analysis of the proposals in this bill and General Foulkes also had something to say about it. I intend to quote from the evidence of General Foulkes and General Moncel.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I fully appreciate, having heard the Minister of Transport speak last week, that expert advice should be rejected out of hand. Only amateur advice should be accepted such as the amateur advice given by the Minister of Transport who made the silliest speech I have heard in this house in all the years I have been here. But despite what he said about experts I intend to put some remarks by experts on the .record. Admiral Landymore, General Foulkes and General Moncel know something about service life and they know something about the necessities for keeping organizations together. We are not surprised that the minister will not accept their advice now, of course, because he has consistently refused to accept advice. He has adopted the policy of the Minister of Transport: Do not ask the expert; ask the amateur.
On page 1225, volume No. 21 of the committee evidence. General Foulkes was talking about this clause dealing with the career serviceman concept, as it is called. Subsection 2 of section 21 says that a person shall be enrolled as a subordinate officer or man for a definite or fixed period of service. The bill changes that wording. The proposed subsection will read:
Persons shall be enrolled as subordinate officers or men for indefinite or fixed periods of service-
The word "indefinite" is used in addition to the word "fixed". As found on page 1225 General Foulkes said:
For men and N.C.O.s the five-year engagement would look to be ideal from an age standpoint, but would create quite a training problem. To re-engage junior N.C.O.s and men for an indefinite period would tend to worsen the problem. A short engagement requires the commanding officer to make a reassessment of the man's capabilities for continuing in combat training for another period. The man's age is always considered carefully, and if there is any doubt the man is not re-engaged.
By this proposed system, once a man is reengaged he would have to be dismissed if he starts to slip at the start of his new engagement.
I do not think this is very fair because if a man is dismissed it will place upon him a stigma which would not be an asset when seeking civil employment.

The general was considering the situation of individuals. The men of our services are not just statistics; they are individuals, as we are, entitled to their place in society, entitled to consideration, and entitled to the opportunity to retire from the services without any stigma being attached to their records, as General Foulkes suggests might happen.
General Moncel had some advice to offer about this matter-the advice of an expert, not an amateur. On being asked questions about this section he said, as found on page 1339 of the committee evidence:
I would be against it. I just cannot imagine what Landymore is alleged to have said coming true in the service I knew, but it is a possibility, I suppose, but it is hard to imagine.
Your great problem is that if you make it possible for people to go too easily you are apt to find yourself in very serious trouble. We have no guaranteed intake on a voluntary basis. It is extremely difficult to plan when you do not have the slightest idea how many troops you are going to have six months from now. In the United States it is relatively easy. You are invited by the government to come and serve, and it is not too difficult to sit down and estimate how many you are going to have in the force at a given date.
Applying those words to our situation in Canada, if it is open to a man in the armed services to give six months' notice, conceivably half a trained regiment could leave at the same time. I continue quoting General Moncel's evidence:
From our point of view we keep them, in large measure, by good will, but we also have a contract. The chap is signed up. Now, in the course of our business you have to do a number of unpleasant things. This is part of the business, and you do unpleasant things because you are told to do them, and if you do not do them the penalties are very, very severe indeed. By design, if everyone has the option of saying on six months' notice, "I will soldier no more," you are apt to get into trouble because every time you get an unpleasant posting you say, "Thanks very much, I will not take this one," and off you go.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Was that from General Mon-cel's evidence?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I remember correctly that policy was in effect when General Moncel was the vice chief. I am referring to the six months' notice. I am almost positive that was the policy then. If he was so concerned about this question when giving his evidence why was he not more concerned when serving as vice chief?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That policy was not in
effect, or at least authority for it was not in the act.
April 21. 1967	COMMONS


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thought my hon. friend was discussing the policy of six months' notice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that was not written into the act. What was done was done at pleasure. The minister has written this policy into the bill. All sorts of barrack-room lawyers in the services, with as much ability as anybody in this chamber, will soon discover the flaws in the act.
The minister now appears to be relying on General Moncel; yet a few days ago he dismissed him as a person to whom we should pay no attention. He checked the general out of the service when he had another six years of valuable, experienced service to give to our defence establishment. Obviously the minister adjusts himself to situations. Last summer General Moncel was useless. In this debate the minister said, in so many words, "Ignore General Moncel's advice". Now he says that before General Moncel left the service he favoured the six months' notice policy. In answer to that I can only say that in General Moncel's time the section authorizing that policy was not in the act. It has been written into this bill. I continue quoting from General Moncel's evidence:
We went through this argument in great detail when we had the difficulties with the pilots and the rest of them and we had to buy their services.
As Terence Robertson said in the article I quoted the other night, the minister threw out 500 pilots, disrupting the air force, to show the air force, the service which had been most opposed to unification, that it must not in any way resist the government. According to Terence Robertson, after the 500 pilots were thrown out resistance toward the government subsided in the air force. Having denuded the air force of pilots the minister then had to buy back their services to fill existing needs. As General Moncel says, this is wrong. The general went on to deal with the pilots.
I am talking about men in the services and the proposal that they be enlisted for an indefinite period. The expert advice of Admiral Landymore and of Generals Foulkes and Moncel is that this is not a good idea. I support the hon. member for Calgary North in asking the minister to strike out the word "indefinite" and to leave the subsection as it was before.
I hope the minister will give us examples of co-operation during our debate on this bill. I hope he accepts some of the advice offered to him instead of continuing his pose of resisting suggestions. This is the minister who has said that every member of every chiefs of staff
National Defence Act Amendment committee in the world is wrong that only he is right. He has tried to build himself up in Canada as the one who knows, as the only authority on defence matters. He has made himself de facto prime minister because the Prime Minister has abdicated in his favour.
I suggest that the hon. gentleman revert to his proper position and show some sense of co-operation in this house. As a first step I suggest he strike out this word "indefinite". I do so for the reason I have mentioned, to enable him to show some measure of co-operation. In the second place I suggest he do it because he has not put forward any real argument in support of retaining this word in the bill. Under the old act he has in effect a fixed term of service with a policy of giving six months' notice. Why cannot that be continued so as to avoid saddling the next minister of national defence with a situation which may be embarrassing and perhaps impossible?
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The dangers have been pointed out. If this change is introduced the men in the services may very well get together in large groups, give their six months' notice and then be in a strong bargaining position in that they will be able to say they will get out unless such and such happens. I think this is quite wrong. In my opinion a fixed term of service with the flexibility the minister already has is satisfactory. I hope the next minister of national defence will not be saddled with this proposal. I take my seat making a firm request to the minister to accept a suggestion from this side of the house, and then we might proceed to consider the other clauses of the bill in a very agreeable frame of mind.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on the same subject for a few moments before the minister replies. At the present time, as I understand it, service in our forces is on a voluntary basis. It will remain on a voluntary basis until this bill is passed. After that service becomes compulsory. I say it will be compulsory because of the word "indefinite" referred to by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre. I should like to read the explanatory note again.
The amendment to subsection (1) is consequential on the amendments made in clause 2. At present men are enrolled in the Canadian Forces for fixed terms of service. The amendment to subsection (2) would authorize their enrolment for indefinite, as well as fixed, periods of service.
Service at the present time is voluntary. But once this amendment is passed the men will be serving under a one-way agreement. I
15194	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment am concerned about members of our armed forces who joined the army, navy or air force under what they felt was a two-way agreement. Now the minister can transfer them compulsorily into what is to be known as the Canadian armed forces. I believe that those who now belong to the services and who fulfil the present requirements should have the privilege of getting out on six months' notice if they so wish.
I was interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. It was a long speech and I should like to put it all on the record again but time will not allow me to do so. He asked several questions which the minister should answer. I will read part of what my hon. friend said as reported in Hansard at pages 14944 and 14945. This passage illustrates a few of the problems the minister will encounter in dealing with the officers and men of our armed services. Once this bill is passed the minister will have serious difficulties on his hands. He may think he has had a problem dealing with the official opposition but it is only a foretaste of what will happen within the armed forces once this bill is enacted. I am afraid of what will happen to the defence of Canada as soon as the minister tries to implement a measure which will not work. This is what the hon. member said:
I want to tell the minister that I have had letters from many serving officers, not colonels or commodores but flight lieutenants and petty officers.
I have four or five of them in my hand now. Within the last two weeks these people have been told that they cannot get out of the service.
I should like to know on what authority they have been told they cannot leave the service. They have an agreement, which I understand is valid at least until the passing of this bill, enabling them to get out after six months notice. What power had the minister or the government to cancel this agreement? I can understand that after the bill is passed the government will have firmer ground on which to stand with respect to these applications. But at the present time there is a twoway agreement and I believe that if these men submit their applications they have a good basis on which to fight their case- Regardless of what the judge advocate general told us when we were in committee, I believe these men would be on firm ground and I would suggest to all of them that, though it might be costly, they fight their cases on this legal ground. I am not a lawyer, but if I were in that position I would contribute to the funds of those who wanted to fight their cases. This is a freedom for which they fought and

DEBATES	April 21. 1967
I say that neither the minister nor the government has the authority to take it away.
My hon. friend said these applicants had been told:
There is no longer the problem of transferring between the services because you do not have services now.
I say we do have services now and we shall continue to have them until the bill now before us is passed. Whoever wrote those letters had no authority to do so in those terms. There was no legal ground for sending such a reply as these people apparently received. It went on: "You now transfer from one environment to another". This will not be the case until after the passage of the bill before us. And further: "We are not a warlike country now, we are a peace keeping country". Many of the officers and men who make these applications forget that for some reason they are still considered as being on active service, and this has been the case since the Korean war. I cannot help wondering why this provision was never cancelled. My hon. friend went on to say in the course of his remarks on April 14:
I think it was Moncel or Fleury who said that in his day, according to his terminology, peace keeping meant preventing war or fighting a war. Today, as I said before, we do not have services, or we will not have if this bill is passed. We have environments and interchange within environments. I should like the minister to stand up and deny the fact that there has been a freeze on the release of officers who under normal circumstances would be qualified to obtain their release-
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I do not know whether the minister has made that denial or whether he intends to do so, but I believe that all applications for release made prior to the passing of this bill should be honoured. I think these people have made a reasonable request. I repeat that they joined a voluntary service. Now they are aware that they are in a compulsory service. They do not wish to remain with that type of service any longer and I expect that being young in years they are recently out of college or university and want to make preparation for their future lives. I do not think it is morally right for the minister to stop these people from taking up the occupations or professions they wish to follow.
These people have seen a lifetime vocation in voluntary service disappear. They want nothing to do with a compulsory service. The minister should let them get out so they may return to university if they so wish and become professional men. The hon. member went on to say:
I will not read the names of these people because they are still serving officers.
April 21. 1967

We know what happened to serving officers once they expressed opinions and the minister heard about them.
I have here a letter from the wife of one of them dated March 29, 1967 in connection with his enrolment. She writes that he was told the policy would allow him release on request three years after graduation.
If this was the agreement the minister should live up to it and on six month's notice give that man his release after three year's service. The hon. member continued:
This is not a man who has been commissioned under the R.O.T.P. plan, whose education was financed by the government and who now wants to get out early. Every one of these letters is from a man who has served his time, in all cases over three years.
I see no reason why the minister should institute a freeze at this time unless he is concerned about what is going to happen after passage of this bill. I think he will see the greatest exodus from the armed services that Canada has ever experienced. But that may not happen if legally these men can be held after passage of the bill. However, I suggest that if they are held against their will the deterioration of our forces will be publicly seen in a very short time. The hon. member continued:
There is a certain regulation-I do not know the numbers of these regulations-to the effect that in normal cases six months' notice is sufficient to allow a release.
An hon. member interjected:
That is what the minister told us.
From my experience in debating this bill in the house I can say that the minister has told us many things and many times has apparently reversed what he told us in the first place. This has contributed to the confusion that has resulted in such a long debate on the bill. Whatever happens to our armed forces, and whatever actions personnel may take, will be brought on by the minister's own actions. It was his actions which have led to the lengthy debate on the bill, a debate which is now being chopped off by the guillotine. The bill could have been debated in much shorter time if the minister had been forthcoming with explanations and with answers to the questions we asked him.
The minister deliberately created confusion for a definite purpose. We have gone over this time and time again. It all goes back to the time of the white paper. The minister has said that unification was definitely mentioned in the white paper. In reply I say that the word "unification" appears only once in the
National Defence Act Amendment white paper and has nothing whatever to do with what the minister now calls a single service concept. In the white paper it bore no relationship to the definition of unification that the minister gave us when we first asked him about it in the House of Commons. He gave us a jumble of words meaning nothing.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, replying to the interjection, continued:
I can believe that because the hon. member always makes good sense. These men are pilots and they want to get out. They entered the service under certain conditions, namely, that they could get out on six months' notice. The wife of one of them writes she has been advised that her husband has to complete two more years of service.
I wonder where this regulation came from? Is it a regulation or is it just a demand the minister is placing on those now serving in a voluntary force?
He has been serving for three years and has a commitment to a private firm which, of course, is jeopardized. This man is not one of those at the top; ho is right in the ranks.
Another pilot writes under date of March 29, 1967 to the effect that last week officers had their release dates cancelled.
I cannot understand how this cancellation has come about. The minister has disrupted the lives of many men who want to get out of the service. These men have made commitments with respect to outside positions or have been promised outside positions. Now their future is jeopardized by the minister's action. This is very unfair.
Another member of the air force says that service policy resulted in a statement to the effect that all graduate pilots holding permanent commissions will be retained in the service until the completion of five years of qualified pilot service.
I wonder under what authority this directive was issued since we were told that prior to the passage of this bill a pilot could be released on six months' notice. I suggest that the minister has taken on more powers than he was granted by parliament. I repeat part of that last statement:
-will be retained in the service until the completion of five years of qualified pilot service. I am suggesting that at the time these pilots entered the service this policy was not in existence and it has resulted in discrimination. This man wants to go back to law school.
If there was no such regulation in existence when these men offered their services to the country and got their commissions in the army, navy or air force, then until this bill is passed the previous agreement should still hold. I ask the minister to explain what has taken place with regard to the applications of
15196	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment those who want to retire from a voluntary service and not be subject to compulsory service as will be the case when the bill passes. On what authority has the minister instructed his officials to reply to these applications with a directive that the men must now remain in the services for a period of five years?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to point out that no officer or man has ever had a right to release after six months' service, nor is it proposed that he should have such a right. As I understand it, the policy is that except in special circumstances applications for release will not be approved until six months have expired. Thereafter they will normally be approved, but this is subject to the exigencies of the service-


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Let me finish my statement-


John (Jack) McIntosh: Did you not tell us they could get out within six months and is that not recorded in the minutes of the committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said that is the policy but it is not a right. It is not a regulation, nor is it-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I call it one o'clock. Surely closure is not to be extended to meal hours.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being one o'clock, pursuant to the order made by the house on April 6 this committee stands adjourned until two o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock clause 3 was under discussion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, a point was raised this morning which had been raised earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the hon. member for Lapointe. Earlier in the week I undertook to give a reply. I was unable to do so and therefore I should like to do so now.
A policy was introduced in August, 1966 under which pilots are required to serve a minimum of five years following completion of aircrew training. This policy was extended to all aircrew in November 1966. This policy

DEBATES	April 21. 1967
will not be applied to R.O.T.P. graduates who were not asked to accept this additional obligatory service before commencing aircrew training. In the future, that is, commencing with the 1967 graduating class, R.O.T.P. graduates will not be given aircrew training unless they are prepared to accept this additional period of obligatory service.
Aircrew training is costly and this heavy expenditure of funds is not justified for R.O.T.P. candidates who are not willing to accept, prior to undertaking training, additional obligatory service to that which they undertook when they entered the R.O.T.P. Those who do not wish to undertake the obligatory service required of aircrew will be employed in non-aircrew positions. There is a surplus of candidates for aircrew training and therefore no difficulty in filling all of the aircrew training spaces with qualified candidates to whom the five year obligatory service rule is acceptable.
From August, 1966 until the present time, during which staff consideration was being given to the application of the aircrew obligatory service policy to R.O.T.P., graduates, there was uncertainty among those R.O.T.P. graduates who had or were undertaking aircrew training as to whether the obligatory service they had undertaken when they entered R.O.T.P. would be extended. This has caused concern on the part of R.O.T.P. graduates in this respect and I trust that this will be cleard up now that the decision has been taken to apply the aircrew policy only to R.O.T.P. graduates who undertake aircrew which they were committed on entering the R.O.T.P.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about a principle which becomes evident in this clause. I do not suggest it is something new so far as this bill is concerned, that it results only from the minister's policies, or anything of that sort. I refer, however, to the situation where an individual enters into a contract by which he is bound in respect of service in any of the services concerned. There is a tendency, as the situation changes and as a matter of convenience, for the government through the Department of National Defence to change the contract to suit its own requirements. This would seem to be one of the most demoralizing situations in which a serving man or officer could find himself. Under the provisions for retirement a man may retire from the services by giving six months' notice. The hon. member for
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
Calgary North pointed out that under those circumstances there might be a situation where a great number of serving personnel might wish to retire at the same time. A group of personnel, for example, half a unit, might make application for retirement. They have decided they are going to retire under a certain set of circumstances.
The minister said that this is no problem at all, or words to that effect. I am paraphrasing. He said that under those circumstances the department would in effect change the regulations and not allow this. The serving man, however, assumes that he has this right, but if it is only a right which exists at the convenience of the service then it is not a right at all. This is a most demoralizing situation. I have heard the argument put forward that something might be done because it affected only a few and that therefore there was nothing wrong in doing it, that is, that any inconvenience which might be involved in carrying out the terms of the government's obligation was out of all proportion to the number of persons concerned. When it comes to a matter of keeping an obligation, I do not think in all justice that this should be based on convenience. The obligation which rests with the service to keep its side of the bargain should be just as binding as the obligation of the individual.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
This is something which goes back a long time. Perhaps I may be excused if I cite an experience I had. This was one of the reasons I did not remain in the permanent force after world war II. In 1939 the R.C.A.F. started a program under which it granted some short service commissions because there was an apprehension that a national emergency might arise. Young men were offered short service commissions in the R.C.A.F. I was one of them. One of the requirements was that you were a university graduate; another was that you were in a certain age group, and so on. The terms under which we joined the service were that we would serve on active service for a period of four years, which could be extended to a total of ten years if a national emergency existed at the end of the four years. For taking this risk, as it were, in a kind of indefinite contract, part of the agreement of enlistment was that for every year served except the first year one was on active service, he would be given a gratuity of, as I recall, $500 a year until the end of the active service.
National Defence Act Amendment
Two classes of aircrew were inducted into the air force and given commissions before the war began. These short service commissions were discontinued at that point or shortly thereafter. We had joined the service in the summer of 1939. After the war began there was a general raise in service pay which applied to the permanent force, to the people with short service commissions and to the special reserve, those people who joined the service after the war began, for the duration of the war. Naturally everyone accepted the increase in pay automatically and without question.
After about a year and a half we received a registered letter saying that since we were accepting the increase in pay we were no longer eligible for a gratuity at the end of our service unless we wished to return the increase in pay retroactively for the year and a half. We were a very small group. Quite a number had not been kept on-this was one of the terms of enlistment-because they were found not to have the aptitude to become flying instructors or aircrew members. After a year and a half quite a large number-I might say that these people kept their side of the bargain-accepted discharge from the service without question.
By the time the year and a half was up quite a number had been killed; only a very few survived the war. They kept their side of the bargain, but the government never paid the gratuity to the few who survived the war because they were a small, insignificant group. In my judgment, this is not something you can measure by numbers. It is a principle, a contract that must be honoured. I must confess that after the war, before I left the service in 1947, I was offered a permanent commission. I did not accept it, and one of the reasons I did not accept it was that I knew that a contract which I entered into in joining the service was binding on me but was only binding on the service as a matter of convenience and within certain limits. Actually, I am very pleased now-in fact, I have never been more pleased in my life-that I did not accept a permanent commission, because I can think of no more appalling situation to befall one than to be a serving officer under the present minister.


J. Michael Forrestall: He would have thrown you out.


John Angus MacLean: He probably would, but that is neither here nor there. The point I
April 21. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment am trying to make is that when men volunteer, as they do in Canada, to serve in the armed forces they want to know, and it is only reasonable that they should know, that the terms under which they join will be honoured and binding no matter how inconvenient it is to the service. I can visualize a situation where a difficulty may arise in regard to the six months' notice. If a situation develops where it is tempting for a great many servicemen, because of a particular set of circumstances, to get out of the services, there will be an inclination to do this quickly because it will be the early birds, the ones who do it first, who will be allowed to go. After it becomes a strain on the service the rest will be retained. It will be a question of who will get there first.
This is an unhealthy situation. I do not say this in criticism of the minister, but I point out that in my judgment it is a matter of vital importance to morale in the services that the services should be bound by their side of the bargain just as much as the individual is bound by his side. Unfortunately that is not the case. If you have a situation where the six months' notice privilege can be withdrawn under certain circumstances, I do not think it will make for good morale. No honourable man objects to keeping his side of the bargain, no matter how inconvenient it may be for him. We should realize that when a man joins the service it is the most important contract in his whole life. It involves his complete career in most cases, in peacetime especially, and is much more important than his purchase of a house, a car or something of that nature. It is a very unsatisfactory situation in which to find himself, if he discovers that after he has entered into this contract the rules can be changed by the government if it suits its convenience.
In my opinion this is not justice. I believe that the individual as well as the government should have equal rights when it comes to terms of engagement. That is all I wish to say on this part of the clause. I will have more to say later on the first part.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question to ask the minister. This matter was dealt with in part just before the luncheon adjournment. I wonder whether this information has been conveyed in a very tangible and real way to the people affected under the R.O.T.P. It is my understanding that this information has come to many of them as a

brand new awareness and understanding of their position with regard to the plan.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on April 17 a telegram went out to all commands giving them the policy and asking them to communicate it to the men in their commands.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask the minister one further question? What has brought about the great delay in communicating this information to the men? Was it because of a breakdown in communication?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated, Mr. Chairman,
the staff had been considering the possibility of applying the additional, obligatory service to R.O.T.P. graduates. This matter only reached my desk and that of the associate minister a few days ago. We dealt with it expeditiously once it was presented to us. In fact, we felt, and I think my hon. friend will agree, that if we changed that obligatory service it would have been the wrong approach. We did not feel that would be right under the circumstances and therefore it will apply only in so far as future graduates are concerned -those commencing their training this fall.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sorry I did not get back from lunch in time to hear the complete content of the minister's statement. Am I correct in assuming that the import of his statement was to the effect that this change only applies to R.O.T.P. personnel and that those who have served their three years, as suggested by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, wish to get out of the service and have made their applications will be allowed to do so? Is that the meaning of the minister's statement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The requirement to serve five years applies to all air crew other than R.O.T.P., who abide by the terms of the obligatory service they agreed to when they joined the forces. That is the case up to this time. In so far as the future is concerned, no one will be given pilot training from the regular officers training plan unless they agree to serve five years following the completion of their pilot training.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In other words, this officially cancels the six month clause which the judge advocate general said was policy, not law?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. The six months' notice only applies in the case of aircrew after they have served their five years obligatory service and, in the case of
April 21. 1967

the R.O.T.P., men giving notice to leave the service after they have served their obligatory period. Perhaps this might be a good time to read into the record the exceptions in so far as the policy of permitting release after six months' notice is concerned.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Would the minister also refer to all services and tell us what happens to army commissioned officers and other ranks as well as navy commissioned officers and other ranks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand the same policy applies to all the services. This statement is in response to an inquiry in respect of the voluntary release regulations and procedures. These are the exceptions to the six months' period of notice regulation for voluntary release. In these cases voluntary release will not normally be granted on six months' notice. I must again reiterate that this is policy, not something that is a matter of right or law.
The exceptions in respect of officers apply first to those obligated under Queens' regulations and orders 15.18, who have undertaken designed courses of over six months duration, R.O.T.P. medical and dental plan officers who are required to complete their period of obligation, and aircrew officers who are required to serve five years after completion of aircrew training, and R.O.T.P. aircrew officers required to fulfil the terms of their obligatory service.
The exceptions in respect of men apply first to men who are serving on a cycled ship, until the end of the cycle, men on fixed overseas unaccompanied tours such as in Cyprus with United Nations emergency force, and in Europe. These are six months or one year tours. Up to the present time, as far as can be determined, there have been no requests for release from officers who are serving on a cycled ship or who are on fixed overseas unaccompanied tours. If the problem arises the policy would presumably be the same as for men.
Second, I should add that compassionate or exceptional circumstances are accepted as reasons to release officers and men in the above categories. In other words, there may be circumstances so overwhelming that they would offset these exceptions. This would happen only in rare cases.
The current rules respecting release by purchase for all services are: (a) unless a man has urgent exceptional and compassionate reasons he is required to purchase his release if the request is made within three years of

National Defence Act Amendment commencing his first engagement; (b) release is allowed without cost beyond three years service and on six months' notice; (c) men in second or subsequent engagements are released on six months' notice, and Q.R. and O table (1) is not invoked. I might add that except as modified by those exceptions, the Queen's regulations and orders, 15.33, apply.
I think that completes the balance of the policy. Hon. members will now know just what it is that is presently in operation in so far as policy on release is concerned.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to ask the minister whether he has given any consideration to the requests of members on this side of the house to withdraw the word "indefinite". Let me refer to the minutes of proceedings and evidence, volume 32, March 14. The following question was asked by one member of the committee:
Any fixed period; so that strictly speaking the "indefinite" is not really very important?
The judge advocate general then replied:
No, it is not materially increasing the powers of the governor in council. It is just making it a little tidier, and easier to draft the regulations, and so on.
In view of the fact there is so much objection to the inclusion of this term, and possibly we are overly suspicious in this regard as to what it may mean, perhaps the minister would consider our request to drop the word "indefinite".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We discussed this matter at some length before the lunch break. At that time I indicated that the defence staff thought it would be advisable to have legislative authority for either fixed or indefinite periods for the enrolment of men. This would give the staff the same flexibility they now have in respect of officers.
The minister's manpower study on men, which made this recommendation in the first place, I am told and believe is the most comprehensive examination of the terms of enrolment and employment of other ranks in the armed services that has ever been undertaken in this country. It not only included a study by senior officers who formed part of the group but also involved consultations with many other ranks in all parts of the country and overseas. It was only after this exhaustive study that this recommendation was made. I believe they are only asking parliament to provide this flexibility. I cannot guarantee that this authority will ever be exercised. As the judge advocate general said or
15200	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment implied, we can now enrol men on a second engagement for a fixed term of 20 years, or something along that line. I think this would be more acceptable and would at the same time enable us to offer an indefinite period of enrolment with the security that goes with it to servicemen who have chosen to stay in the armed forces as a career.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question. I presume the judge advocate general ranks as an expert and therefore in the view of the Minister of Transport his advice should be rejected. That hon. minister suggested that only the advice of amateurs should be considered.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not quite follow this idea. We did get into a discussion yesterday about the situation. I take it my friend is actually referring to the judge advocate general.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. I understand he is an expert. The Minister of Transport suggested we should reject the advice of experts and pay attention only to what the amateurs had to say. I take it the advice of the judge advocate general should therefore be rejected.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not agree. I have found the judge advocate general to be a very intelligent and knowledgeable officer. His services have been invaluable in the preparation of this legislation. I am sure he will be helpful in the drafting of regulations after the bill is passed by parliament. He is an exceptional public servant and should be given full credit in this regard.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: You would prefer to accept his advice rather than the advice of the Minister of Transport.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I prefer to accept his advice rather than the advice of the hon. member opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So that the gloss on the hon. gentleman's remarks will not be misunderstood, I think it would be desirable for him, knowing what a great student of history he is, to cite the place in Hansard where I ever said that the advice of experts should be rejected. To my knowledge I never said any such thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry the Minister of Transport was not here before lunch because I said that his speech made about ten days ago was the silliest speech I had ever heard since I came to this house.

DEBATES	April 21. 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not altogether disagree with the hon. gentleman about that, but among the silly things I may have said X did not say anything quite so silly as the hon. gentlemen has said I said.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I may have gotten off the track, but I think I should say to the minister that I find the extensive study he says his department made into the inclusion of the word "indefinite" very alarming. We could not understand why the department had not made an extensive study of what the manpower requirements would be after the unification bill has been passed or what the cost to the country would be. We could not understand why the officials of the department failed to make a study of these important matters.
However, the minister now says an extensive study was made which led the department to believe this unimportant word should be included in the bill. This, in my opinion, was a waste of effort. I suggest to the minister that if it is not important and he takes the word of the judge advocate general he should adhere to the request of the members of the opposition and drop it. The minister says he doubts that it will ever be used. If it is so unimportant, why not drop the word and let us go on to another clause?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it would provide more flexibility to have it in. I am sure my hon. friend would not want to see anything put into the bill which would make it more rigid than is necessary in so far as the terms of enlistment and enrolment are concerned.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I think that by taking it out you would make the terms of the bill more flexible, not more rigid. This is the argument we are presenting.


J. Michael Forrestall: There is a matter which I should like to take up with the minister, and for this purpose I should like to refer to the committee evidence, volume No. 36, page 2351. The hon. member for Edmonton West, in dealing with this particular section, raised a matter with the judge advocate general and the minister. I should like to put in on the record because I suggest it is applicable to the clause we are considering. We are requesting information on this point prior to this bill being proclaimed and becoming part of our law. At the bottom of page 2351 I find the following:
But what I am primarily concerned about is that the regulations which may be published in regard to this, be referred back to the standing
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
committee on defence for examination, as I will propose for any regulations which may be made with regard to any amendment, and that these be examined. We have had this undertaking in the finance committee under the Bank Act where a sort of carte blanche is being given to the minister to flesh out a general authority given by parliament. I think that the more we develop the practice in this parliament that regulations made pursuant to these general authorities be referred back to the committee which is dealing with the legislation, the better off we are going to be. Far too great a practice has arisen in the years past to rely on this carte blanche authority, which is not reviewable by parliament. I would like to know what the minister-
At that point the hon. member for Edmonton West was interrupted by the chairman and then the hon. member continued:
I want the regulations as indicated in section 21 (2) as proposed be referred back and the minister can be given an invitation here. We respect that type of undertaking, as we have done in the finance committee with regard to the Bank Act, with what we have done with the Insurance Deposit Act and others. These regulations will be, as soon as they are prepared and if the house is sitting and this committee is sitting, brought in and referred back to the committee, not merely tabled as an order in council.
The minister, after some further interjections, replied:
If you mean regulations after enactment, I do not see why this could not be arranged.
I should like to ask the minister whether or not these regulations could be brought back to the committee for review prior to the bill being proclaimed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not like to give that undertaking because it will mean a delay. However, my undertaking to have them referred once they are proclaimed is good. I am sure that at that time the committee or the house, if they want to, would be in a position to pass judgment on them in the normal manner. There are opportunities in the house on motions of non-confidence and that sort of thing to deal with the situation where regulations have been referred and they do not meet with the general approval of the house.


John Angus MacLean: Clause 3 reads in part as follows:
Subsections (1) and (2) of section 21 of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
21 (1) Commissions of officers in the Canadian Forces shall be granted by Her Majesty during pleasure.
Subsection 1 of section 21 provides for all commissions for all officers of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force and says that those
National Defence Act Amendment commissions shall be granted by Her Majesty during pleasure. When the bill we are now considering is proclaimed the section I have just quoted will no longer be part of the law.
I assume, therefore, that all commissions now held by officers in our three services will cease to have any validity. I should like to know if my assumption is correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the situation is covered by subclause 2 of clause 6.


John Angus MacLean: We have here a situation which is the type of thing about which I was talking a little while ago except that in this case it applies to commissioned officers. Upon the proclamation of this bill, as I understand it, present commissions will no longer have any validity. They constitute the terms under which present serving officers engaged in the service. When Her Majesty's pleasure, as it is expressed, has ceased to exist, those commissions in the navy, air force and army will no longer exist. Apparently the minister takes the easy view-so what? These people are going to be commissioned into the new force. These are not the terms under which these officers undertook to serve in the first instance. They undertook to serve in one of the three services.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I am not just being difficult; I sincerely believe it would be recognized as a fact that the commissions of serving officers would no longer be valid. The terms under which they engaged will no longer be valid because they are being abrogated by parliament. Therefore there should be no compulsion on them to accept commissions in the new force. They should, of course, be given the first priority in accepting commissions in the new force if they so desire, but in fairness I do not think that there should be any obligation upon a serving officer to continue to serve in the new force unless he wishes to do so voluntarily.
What we have is a situation where men have embarked on a career on certain conditions which can be very binding upon them and difficult for them under certain circumstances. The conditions of the agreement entered into are enforced in many cases at great inconvenience to the individual. But when it is convenient to the government to do so the government take it upon themselves to abrogate the agreement and to substitute something else. It is like changing the rules half way through the game.
April 21, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Therefore I do not think we should by act of parliament substitute a new arrangement for the agreement that was originally entered into by individual officers and make the substitution binding upon them unless they voluntarily agree to accept the situation. I should like the minister to say a few words on the question of the compulsion in regard to all serving officers in the present three services when this act is proclaimed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this is the proper place to ask the question, but as the minister mentioned men who leave the service to further their education I have a case in mind almost parallel to the one brought up by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings concerning the officer who, after completing his three years, wished to leave the service and go into law. The case I have in mind is that of a young chap who was in the service and was permitted to buy his way out. I do not know whether policy, law or regulations govern this situation, but this man was not given a refund. The answer I received from the minister's department was that unless he left the service to enter university he must forfeit his $125, or whatever the sum was. In this case this young lad had not completed high school and he left the service intending to complete high school and, then go on to university. If proof is given the minister's department that after completion of high school the young lad has gone on to university, will the purchase price paid by the young lad to the department be refunded?


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 3 carry?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Chairman, I should like an answer to my question before allowing it to pass.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, I do not know the answer to that question offhand.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 3 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Call the yeas and nays.


Maurice Rinfret: Those in favour of the clause passing will please rise.


George James McIlraith: We should all rise.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Call the nays.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. A request has been made that the yeas and nays be called.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Only one person rose and you should have called the nays.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 40; nays, 25.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare clause 3 carried.
On clause 4-Ranks of officers and men.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the ranks to be held by officers, N.C.O.'s and men in the services. When this bill was originally introduced clause 4 listed the new ranks in the single unified force which would be in effect after the bill became law. It also had a provision that the minister may make regulations prescribing other designations for the titles of rank set forth in the clause.
No evidence was brought before the committee to show what advantages would accrue from having a single rank structure for all three services. It was stated that this would make for administrative ease. However, all of the witnesses who came before the committee were asked their opinion about this and they gave evidence to the effect that the proposed single rank structure would have very serious effects upon the morale of the services and that in particular it would be damaging as far as naval personnel were concerned. It was said that when our naval personnel encountered personnel of other navies they would be held up to ridicule and suffer embarrassment. As a result, I believe, of the representations which were made, amendments were introduced in the committee, some of which we find in the bill now before us. Column I in schedule A of the bill shows the ranks which originally were listed in clause 4. The ranks shown in columns II, III and IV of schedule A are those now in effect in the navy, army and air force.
It was represented to the committee when this amendment was introduced by the minister that it would have the effect of making the ranks appearing in schedule A universal as far as documents, pay records and things of that nature were concerned. Apart from that, Mr. Chairman, it would be possible for officers and other ranks to use the rank designations which are in effect in the respective services at the present time if they were authorized by the governor general in council. The explanatory note says:
The amendment would result in the following changes in substance:
(a) ranks would be prescribed for the purposes of the Act only;
April 21. 1967

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In spite of the judge advocate general's explanation in the committee and the minister's explanation, the meaning of those words is not clear. These should be a clear explanation of the meaning of the phrase, "ranks would be prescribed for the purposes of the Act only" and a clear explanation of its implications. The note continues:
(b) the other designations of rank that might be used would be limited to the ranks now held In the three services: and
(e) the governor in council, rather than the minister, would have the power to make regula-lations respecting other designations of rank.
Some contradictions seem to be inherent in the words of the last subparagraph. The governor in council so far as I am aware has always had power to make designations of rank, or to make other designations where that seems desirable for any purpose at any time. The committee ought to have an explanation of the legal effect of subparagraphs (b) and (c). Do they contradict one another? In view of the evidence before the committee and all the complaints, editorials, letters and so on about instituting a single rank system; and considering that the minister has seen the folly of his original idea to the extent that he has introduced the amendment now before us allowing in the naval environment naval ranks, in the land environment army ranks and in the air environment R.C.A.F. ranks, would he not be prepared to drop this whole clause? There is no demonstrable advantage in keeping it. As I understand it, the ranks will continue as they are at present. I hope that is so.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I join with the hon. member for Calgary North in asking the minister to make clear the meaning of the phrase "purposes of the act". In addition, before the house confers on the governor in council the power contained in this clause, the minister ought to explain the circumstances under which it will be necessary for the governor in council to exercise its power. I understood, as I believe the hon. member for Calgary North also did, from the minister's explanation in the committee that the common rank structure in the three service environment has been introduced chiefly for accounting purposes and that the bill does not contemplate, for example, that persons in the navy will be required to adopt an army rank. It would help the committee if the minister could explain the meaning of the phrase, "for the purposes of the Act only, " and indicate what is contemplated in regard to what the
National Defence Act Amendment governor in council may prescribe by regulation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, where the bill says that the ranks shall be ranks for purposes of the act it means that they shall be ranks for legal purposes. Authority is given to the governor in council to permit different rank designations for other purposes.
The point I made clear in the committee is that it is not intended to introduce changes in rank designations at present beyond those that would be reasonably acceptable to the men and women of the armed forces. The great majority of the air force, I think, prefer the new rank designations, though the navy prefers not to use them. I understood that we would proceed with great caution in this area which is not important enough to exacerbate feelings. Over a period of time we think there will be an evolution toward single rank designations for some ranks. That may never happen in the senior seagoing ranks but much will depend, as I said before, on what other countries in the world do and how they change their rank designations. We do not in the future intend to rush the implementing of this proposal. We shall only do it in a way that is acceptable to the majority of men and women in the armed forces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. Clause 4 reads in part:
Section 22 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"22. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the ranks of the officers and men of the Canadian Forces shall be as set out in Column I of the Schedule.
I rise to ask the minister about the honorary colonels in the military establishment of Canada, some of whom are concerned about the effect of this bill on their future rank and dress. They wonder what their authorized dress will be once this bill is adopted. Will the minister inform the committee how this bill will affect honorary colonels with respect to the rank they will hold and what form of dress will be required when this bill becomes law? I might say in raising this point that I could not help thinking of that honorary colonel, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I am sure wonders what his rank and dress will be once the bill is adopted.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No change is anticipated in the positions of honorary colonels and no change is provided for in the bill. There will be no requirement for them to change their regimental dress uniforms and they will be
April 21. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment able to turn out in all the brilliant finery they wear at the present time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does that mean that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as an honorary colonel, will be permitted to wear his kilt?
[DOT] (3:00 p.ra.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Most certainly he will be allowed to continue wearing his kilt. This is an opportunity to pass on a piece of information I picked up at the Vimy dinner the other night and which may be of interest to the hon. gentleman. Whereas we propose that kilts will still be worn for ceremonial purposes we do not intend to reinstate the practice of having people go into battle wearing kilts as was done in the first world war. One of the veterans of Vimy told me the other night that he saw men going into battle in kilts with mustard gas going up their legs. I am all for reform, he said.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for that information.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for his reassurance with regard to traditional naval ranks, that they will not disappear in the near future and, indeed, quite possibly will never disappear. If I have paraphrased what he said, I think the minister has now understood the point we have been trying to make for some months. It is a little difficult to accommodate a colonel on the bridge of a ship or in the engine room.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has given further thought to the making of what might be called intermediate appointments-private first class, private second class and so on up to corporal. The point was well brought out by two or three members of the committee whose questions appear in the proceedings of evidence No. 36. As to modes of address, there is no difficulty when we get to chief warrant officer. We call him "Chief". I suppose one would call a warrant officer "Mister". I am not sure what we would call a master. Has consideration been given to the classification of recruits? When does a private become a private first class? Has this been settled yet?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think it has been settled but in the present pay schedule there is a differentiation which relates to qualifications. This is already in force. As far as I know there is no differentiation expressed in rank insignia as between the different levels of privates. As I understand it there is nothing to prevent the armed forces making

recommendations that some sign be worn which would indicate the difference in qualifications. Indeed, they might wish to continue appointments such as lance corporals. I think this is within the power set out in the bill. It would be strictly up to the military. They could recommend what they thought was the most workable procedure.


J. Michael Forrestall: Am I correct in assuming that today pay is tied purely to trade structure as opposed to rank?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It applies to both. There are different pay fields for the same rank. One applies to rank and one applies to particular qualifications of persons holding that rank.


J. Michael Forrestall: Could the minister extend the treatment he has promised senior naval officers to other ranks in the navy and express the hope that they will never become corporals?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not want to try to outguess the future. The associate minister has just been travelling in Europe and he has found great interest in this reorganization in the capitals he has visited. This leads me to believe it is much better to watch and see how the history of the world develops than to make decisions which might not take account of the situation five or ten years from now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has spoken of the interest which may be developing in other parts of the world. This could be interpreted in two ways-interest in commendation of an enterprise or the fascinated interest of horror when something is being done which is wrong. I do not accept the minister's inference that other countries are anxious to follow the lead which has been set by him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some of this interest is accompanied by commendation. If the hon. gentleman would like me to do so I might give him an indication on third reading of the interest which is being shown in other parts of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why would the minister want me to accept any statement of his on that account when he has said it so often in the past and we have been given contrary evidence presented by people in other countries of the world? The minister may say that everybody is following our lead but experienced people elsewhere in the world say, no; they say this is a shocking thing to have done. The minister has no support from the United States, Australia, New Zealand or
April 21, 1967

Great Britain. What is he talking about? Nonsense.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I doubt that opinions on this subject would be unanimous in other countries any more than they are here. There are bound to be people in all countries who think as the hon. gentleman does.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope there are not many more people in the world like the minister, who is a self-centred egotist.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Does the minister remember the answers given by his former advisers when they were asked whether they had held discussions with their counterparts in other military forces of the world? Does he remember what these military officers in the service of other governments told his advisers when asked what they thought of this plan to decimate the Canadian forces? I recall specifically what General Simonds said with reference to a conversation he had had with his opposite number in the United Kingdom. He said: "Those people thought we were nuts". The minister should also remember that when he first introduced this bill in the house we on this side said that if he were not careful we would be the laughingstock of the world as far as our armed forces are concerned.
The minister tried to create the impression that he was bringing in a new idea which would revolutionize the military thinking of the world. In my opinion that was a ridiculous claim. The concept of a single service is not something new, and the minister knows it perfectly well. It has been discussed and discarded by practically every country in the world. The proof is on record. The minister has no basis for saying that unification will be successful.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Once the minister demolishes our services it will take years for us to put them back into shape after we come into power in the very near future. The minister is costing the country millions and millions of dollars. Everything he has said in regard to unification has not come to pass. He said it would save the country money but the last estimates which he introduced increased the defence budget by $115 million. Indeed, one might say that those people who are getting the contract for the new uniforms are possibly the only ones who will benefit from unification. For the minister to say that other countries will profit from this Canadian experiment is ridiculous.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 57; nays, 17.
National Defence Act Amendment
On clause 5-Embodiment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 5, Mr. Chairman, is very much like clause 2. It reads as follows:
(1) The services known before the coming into .force of this part as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force are embodied in the Canadian Forces.
That is followed by subclause (2). In the original bill which was discussed by the defence committee it read as follows:
The Canadian Forces continue, as a single service, the services known before the coming into force of this part as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
I drew attention to the fact that this implied no change in the services and that the three well known services would continue. As a result the judge advocate general, had a second look at it and accepted suggestions advanced by opposition members because, being non-partisan, he does not recognize political distinctions. The clause was therefore reworded.
This clause draws attention once again to the obliteration of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, and in their place we are to have the Canadian Forces or the Canadian Armed Forces. Away goes the tradition of the armed forces of Canada which have had distinctive names ever since their inception. No longer can we speak with pride of the Royal Canadian Navy. The word "royal" is anathema to the government party and they want it struck out.
The Royal Canadian Air Force, which like the navy established a magnificent record in wartime, is no longer to be spoken of as such. The men who are flying the transport planes and so on are only to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces. There is to be no special distinction. The pride that was felt by members of the Royal Canadian Air Force will disappear. It was a great distinction to belong to the Royal Canadian Air Force. Quite properly that force received attention during the second world war. It and the navy were active before the army units were employed. The Royal Canadian Air Force fought in the Battle of Britain, the battle that saved civilization in this country. Yet this minister, supported by his colleagues and the Prime Minister, who to my mind is the guilty one in the whole exercise, is wiping out that great tradition.
My hon. friends opposite laugh. They want nothing to do with the past. They want to
April 21, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment wipe it out. We are expected to look forward to an uncertain future and make fun of everything that happened in the past, make fun of the people in the services who have made such a contribution to Canadian life.


David Walter Groos: That is not so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just to show how careless this government is with regard to tradition and recognition of the sacrifices of the past, I wish the Minister of Veterans Affairs were here this afternoon, the man who bungled the Vimy Ridge-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can shout "shame" but let me tell you the story. He is the man who bungled the Vimy Ridge remembrance ceremony both in Europe and here in Canada, the man who did not give recognition to a representative of the Canadian Corps Association, who did not provide for a representative of the Canadian Corps Association to travel to Vimy Ridge with the regular party and who neglected the representative of the Canadian Corps Association here at the cenotaph ceremony. Yet the Canadian Corps Association was organized after the first world war and represents those divisions that fought at Vimy Ridge as well as other units. It has had a long and honourable history. But that is part of our tradition and therefore we are expected to forget it. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, like his colleagues, pays no attention to the past. He is not interested. He won't be bothered. This is the attention he gave to the ceremonies in remembrance of that famous battle.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I wish the derisive laughter could be recorded in Hansard. Members of the Liberal party laugh at such remarks about the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. They jeer at anyone who speaks of the history of this country and its traditions. All these things are to be wiped out.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor and I would invite members to make a little less noise during the time he is making his remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not object to the derisive attention I receive from the Liberal members. I will not be discouraged from speaking in this chamber. I often stand up here to defend

freedom of speech. I will seize every opportunity to make my voice heard here in opposition to what the Liberal party is doing to this country. This is all part of a pattern which we meet day after day and week after week. Whether it has to do with the word "royal" or the coat of arms, everything in Canada's tradition is to be set to one side, laughed at and derided. I believe the Secretary of State has something to say and I should like to hear what it is.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What I should like to say is that the hon. gentleman has dishonoured the house several times. He has produced a phony letter and now, having sat in this house and having heard the explanation that the government of which he was a part was the only one which had anything to do with changing the coat of arms or its depictions, he tries to use what one of his own colleagues calls "the big lie" to change the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are doing well, Mr. Chairman. About ten days ago the Minister of Transport entered this debate. As I said, I thought his contribution was the silliest I had ever heard. It has been exceeded now by the contribution of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will now rise in her place and withdraw the accusation that I introduced into this house a phony letter. Mr. Chairman, I call upon you to protect the privileges of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has to prove her case or withdraw her remarks. On a question of privilege, I ask that that be done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I consider the remark made by the Secretary of State to be in fairly strong language, but I am not convinced that it is altogether unparliamentary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, on the question of privilege may I say that the question is not as to the hon. members' motives. The words suggested either that he introduced it and knew it was phony or did this not knowing any better. I think it is entirely plausible from what we know of the hon. member that he introduced it out of sheer stupidity with no motives at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, of course-


An hon. Member:: An arrogant bunch.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, they certainly are arrogant. I have asked the Secretary of State to withdraw her accusation and I have also asked the Chairman on a question of privilege that it be withdrawn. If you, sir, do not wish to rule that this is a valid question of privilege then I must, under the circumstances, accept your silence. I have asked the Secretary of State to withdraw her remark and she will not do it. She knows she cannot prove that the letter was phony. She was afraid after making that statement and every member of the Liberal party is afraid. They are afraid of that issue.
On the second point which she raised with regard to the coat of arms-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Can the hon. member prove that the letter was genuine?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What letter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under what circumstances do I have to bring proof in this house with regard to what is introduced in this house? Will the hon. member prove to us that the things he introduces are genuine? I have grave doubts about that, but I have never bothered to attempt to insult the hon. member by asking him to prove his innocence. I doubt that he would be able to do so, but I am not making that suggestion.
The hon. lady has suggested, in respect of the references to the alleged coat of arms appearing on the medallion for our school children, that there is something wrong with that and that we were the ones who introduced it. This morning I happened to read the brochure published by the present government in 1964 describing the coat of arms. The Secretary of State, of course, has not read this document. She does not get around to some of these things. But in this document there is a definition of the coat of arms. It is defined as
National Defence Act Amendment consisting of a shield, a helmet with a mantling and supporting arms on either side and the inscription below. The coat of arms consists of the whole picture, not solely the shield. So once again the Secretary of State is wrong. Perhaps she now would like to leave the house and continue her correspondence elsewhere, because her contribution to this debate is of the same low quality as that of the Minister of Transport. It has added nothing. I should like to return to where I started at clause 5.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If there should be any other diversionary remarks I will be prepared to receive them and deal with them appropriately. This clause wipes out the famous names, "Royal Canadian Navy", "Canadian Army", and "Royal Canadian Air Force". They now become a part of our past which according to the Liberal party should be forgotten. This is what I object to-forgetting the past.


An hon. Member:: You never learn from the past.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish the Liberal party would learn from the past. They received a very severe lessons in 1956, 1957 and 1958. I hope the Canadian public will give them the same severe lesson again in the near future.


An hon. Member:: It is coming.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are attempting to destroy our traditions. The other night I read into the record from the writings of Terence Robertson certain words concerning the change in our national defence policy. He showed very clearly what is in the minds of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, namely Canadianize everything in this country. If anything has a hint of origin other than in Canada it is to be obliterated.
The article by Terence Robertson and the speech I made in respect of it the other night have not been answered. Who on that side of the house is going to answer that speech and the remarks of Terence Robertson? Silence prevails. Of course, that address was made at 9.30 at night. When one speaks at 9.30 at night in this house the things he says do not get into the press and rarely reach radio or television. Therefore, his words go unnoticed.


An hon. Member:: It all depends who says it.
April 21. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I may repeat the speech at a more appropriate time when I can catch the ear of those who are in the gallery. Perhaps I could get someone on the minister's staff to issue a release based on my speech. It is not very complimentary to the minister, and of course that is not the type of release that goes out to all the newspapers of the country. But it would be worth while if what the Liberal party is attempting to do to the country was made public knowledge right across Canada. It is trying to change so many of our habits, our traditions and so much of our valued history. That is exactly what this government is attempting to do, and clause 5 of the bill shows so clearly what is to be wiped out, ignored and forgotten.
{Translation]


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only one minute to salve the conscience of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) who, it seems to me, is overly concerned with the removal of the word "royal". I suggest he exaggerates when he says that the intention is to remove anything reminiscent of the British crown, just to Canadianize everything brutally.
I shall tell him, as the saying goes in my part of the country, that he is more catholic than the Pope, or that he is more royalist than the Queen. And I would like to prove it to him by quoting the words of Her Majesty the Queen of England, for whom, incidentally, I have much respect; those words are taken from the speech she made during her last visit to Canada. Here is the exact quotation from her speech:
The role of the constitutional monarchy is to represent the democratic state, to sanction lawful authority,
As far as I am concerned, the lawful authority is the elected government, the one in office.
-to ensure the legality of the methods-
That is what is voted by parliament.
-and to guarantee that the will of the people will be carried out. I strongly wish-
I am still quoting the Queen.
-that none of my people will know coercion. To be happy, the citizens of a country must live in a climate of confidence and affection.
And note what the Queen said:
But a dynamic state must not be afraid to rethink its political philosophy. There is nothing surprising in the fact that an agreement drafted a hundred years ago does not necessarily meet all the problems of this day.
The Queen herself said that.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, just before clause 5 passes I should like to draw the attention of the committee to a remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre about the Minister of Veterans Affairs, namely, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs does not care about the traditions of Canada's fighting men. I would remind the hon. gentleman, although I think he knows it, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was an officer in the R.C.A.F. during world war II, was shot down in battle and was a prisoner of war. Like the hon. gentleman opposite, he was a gallant gentleman and served his country well in battle. I think it is stretching the imagination to select this minister out of all others and say that he does not care about the traditions and past of the gallant men with whom he served. I do not think the hon. gentleman opposite would want that remark to stand on the record or would want to select this man, of all people in the House of Commons, and say that kind of thing about him. I give the hon. gentleman the opportunity to withdraw that statement from the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I know all about the record of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, so what the hon. member has said is not news to me at all. I said nothing about the military record of the minister. I said that he fumbled and bumbled with regard to the Vimy Ridge recognition ceremonies in Europe and here in Canada. I leave that on the record and I put it on again. I will put it on a third time if the hon. member wants me to do so.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to re-enter the debate when I came into the chamber but I was impressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre fighting a battle with respect to clause 5, and fighting it alone. I want the committee and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to know that he does not have to fight this battle alone. Another reason for my rising at this time was that in my humble contribution to this debate last Monday I made the statement, as reported at page 14987 of Hansard that this government, which is in a minority position in the house, was doing these things to our armed forces for no better reason than political expediency. I quote my words as they appear at page 14987 of Hansard.
One of these expedients is the removal of Anglo-Saxon traditions from our services.
That remark was followed by a one word interjection by the Minister of National Defence. I point out to the committee that the
April 21, 1967

word was "Nonsense." In other words, the Minister of National Defence implied that my remark was nonsense.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So it was.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The remarks I made at that time are substantiated by clause 5 of this bill. Is clause 5 nonsense? I claim that clause 5 is the most injurious clause ever introduced into military legislation in the history of this country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does my hon. friend think that the introduction of airplane engines into ships is designed to do away with Anglo-Saxon traditions? Does he think that bridge control on our ships is designed to do away with Anglo-Saxon traditions? Does he think that the pursuit of excellence is designed to do away with Anglo-Saxon traditions? I ask ;he hon. member to apply his common sense to this matter. We are trying to develop a force for the second half of the 20th century and the years ahead, not for the 1930's and the 1940's.


J. Michael Forrestall: Surely you don't mean that, Mr. Minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are taking a forward-looking approach and showing some leadership in the field of military organization which I am sure will be emulated later not just by Anglo-Saxon countries or Scandinavian countries but ultimately by countries all over the world. Does the hon. member feel this is in any way a reflection on our heritage? I am sure he would not want to give that impression.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister when he is going to ask me a question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I just asked you a question.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am not surprised at the interjection of the minister. He interjects by asking about material things, the use of engines, the use of bridge control, and so on. I am not surprised that my remarks brought the minister to his feet because he now realizes the enormity of his error, especially with regard to clause 5 of this bill. The minister talks about material things such as engines. Is he referring to British engines? What the minister says may be the case, but I am not
National Defence Act Amendment debating the merits of material things. I am talking about our Canadian traditions, excellent traditions which have been handed down to us. We have many good traditions which have been handed down by both our mother countries. However, I am talking about the very valuable Anglo-Saxwn traditions and practices, especially those of a military and defence nature, which have been our inheritance and which we have used so successfully in the past. In clause 5 of this bill the Liberal party betrays those Anglo-Saxon traditions and influences.
You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that on the page opposite clause 5 the legal advisers have attempted to give an explanation of this amendment. I draw your attention to the fact that clause 5 (1) of the original bill read as follows:
The Canadian forces continue, as a single service, the services known before becoming into force of this part as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
c (3:40 p.m.)
Apparently that did not suit the minister, the cabinet, the Prime Minister or the Liberal party's electoral interests. God only knows what electoral roads that party will follow in future, but at this time they are playing this game for all it is worth. They decided there must be a change in this regard.
Clause 5 as it appeared in the original bill was apparently not strong enough or definite enough in its pronouncement as to the dissolution of the three separate services. The government had to come up with what now appears on page 3 of the bill. This is obviously the death knell of the separate services and the names they have carried down through the past, thanks to the Anglo-Saxon influence.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers and I should like to remind him-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Let me remind the hon. member that the name "Three Rivers" does not even exist as the name of my constituency. It is "Trois-Rivieres".


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, may I remind the hem. member that my grandfather was born in Three Rivers, Quebec.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, to our delight the son does not live there.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, let me remind the hon. member that the son is now 90 years
15210	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment of age and is living on Somerset Street here in Ottawa.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Let me apologize by saying that perhaps he only looks like his son. I change my reference to grandson.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I offer my apology to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres for my mistake in respect of the name of his riding. He is correct; its name is "Trois-Rivieres". I have visited the area and have great admiration for it because of its culture, geographic location and history.
The hon. member did refer to the crown and its affect on this situation. Let me remind him that the crown has guaranteed and is the guarantee that his and my rights shall be preserved. To me there is nothing personal in the crown. It represents the power that lies within that hon. member and each of us individually and collectively as citizens of Canada. The crown means nothing more than that to me. If we allow these guarantees to be eroded we as Canadians may no longer enjoy our inherited rights. We do not know what might happen in this country as a result of Liberal erosion of our rights. It might become subject to dictatorial power which will not be to the benefit of the Canadian people as a whole.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I rise on a question of privilege.
My noble friend has attempted to insinuate that I advocate the disappearance of the crown. I have the greatest respect for the crown, as I have said, but there are conditions which arise on occasion which the Queen understands better than some of my friends on that side of the house. She in her own words has said that occasionally changes must be made and that she will accept such changes as long as they are suggested by a legal government, democratically elected.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Is not this type of discussion in respect of the crown and Her Majesty entirely out of place during this debate?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: That is the exact and succinct reason I referred to the crown rather than Her Majesty. To me the bearer of the crown is not at issue. The crown itself is significant of the guarantees made to Canada in the past which exist today. I was referring to the erosion of Anglo-Saxon traditions in our forces and I think I have made my point clear. The hoots of derision by those who care nothing about these traditions mean nothing to me.

DEBATES	April 21. 1967
I submit that the Anglo-Saxon traditions which have been carried on by the armed forces down through the years and centuries ought not to be allowed to be eroded. For that reason I should like to move that clause 5, which stamps out the individual names of the three branches of our armed services, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, be struck from the bill.


Maurice Rinfret: Let me remind the hon. member that our procedure requires that he submit his proposed amendment to the Chair in writing in the proper form. In any event, I suggest to the hon. member that his intended purpose will be served in another way. He may obtain the same result by voting against the adoption of this clause.


John Whitney Pickersgill: According to our traditions we should have a copy of this amendment.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why do hon. members want a copy of the amendment? They have not been interested in this debate up till now?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I submit that clause 5 should not be included in this bill. I will write out my proposed amendment and submit it to the Chair forthwith.


Maurice Rinfret: May I suggest to hon. members that the proper course of action would be to vote in favour or against the clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We want to speak in reference to this clause.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, while the amendment is being prepared in the proper form, perhaps I as one member for Halifax would be remiss if I did not remind hon. members and Canadians as a whole of the history of the Royal Canadian Navy. Let me remind hon. members of the great contribution the Royal Canadian Navy has made to the Canadian way of life.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I have in front of me some notes prepared on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the R.C.N. which occurred some seven years ago in 1960. The Royal Canadian Navy came into being in 1910 as a result of the promulgation of the Naval Service Act on May 4 of that year. It was a natural step in our evolution and progress from the wilderness to full nationhood and the acceptance of our responsibility not only in terms of our own nation but in terms of the common safety of man everywhere.
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
The year 1910 was a fairly meaningful one for the R.C.N. I am not going back into the past but am simply giving a young man's appreciation of the contribution made by our naval service over the last 57 years and what this contribution has meant to the world. I should like to recall some dates to hon. members, such as June 1, June 3, June 19 and August 4. They were all milestones. On August 4, H.M.C.S. Rainbow was commissioned at Portsmouth. It may be recalled that H.M.C.S. Rainbow was the first ship to enter the Royal Canadian Navy. H.M.C.S. Niobe followed on September 6. Again, I am sure all hon. members are very much aware, or at least they should be, of the very gallant record of the Niobe.
In so far as things historical are concerned, a few minutes ago the minister told us that what he was doing was laying before the Canadian people the role of our armed forces for the next 50 years. He knows better than that, and I think we all know better than that. We are all aware of the fact that no matter what we do with our armed forces today they will be obsolete in three years' time, so rapid are the technological changes which are taking place. We are all aware of this.
I remind the minister that on October 1, 1910, Atlantic command was established-in other words, maritime command. There is nothing new about it at all because 57 years ago we had a maritime command. On October 13 of that same year dockyard and Admiralty House in Halifax were transferred to Canadian ownership. This was a very meaningful event in terms of the economic and social life of Atlantic Canada. These are very real things and are not passed over easily.
On November 8, still in that year, Rainbow arrived in Vancouver. These things should not be treated lightly. On May 4 of that year dockyard at Esquimalt was formally transferred. On May 18, 1914, the Royal Canadian Naval Vounteer Reserve was established by order in council and on August 4 war was declared. His Majesty's Canadian ships were placed under admiralty operational control. On that date Rainbow sailed to seek S.M.S. Leipzig, and to protect H.M. ships Algerine and Shearwater, other great Canadian names.
On August 5 two submarines built at Seattle for Chile and purchased by the premier of British Columbia were delivered to the R.C.N. off Trial Island. H.M.C.S. Niobe sailed from Halifax in September of that year to complete her complement at St. John's, Newfoundland. Again, we find evidence of the
National Defence Act Amendment expansion of this Canadian contribution to the world. On November 1 the first four Canadian casualties were suffered by our Canadian naval service. H.M.S. Good Hope took part in this battle and was carrying four Canadians in her crew.
There are other dates that are very significant in terms of the Royal Canadian Navy. There was the explosion in 1917 at Halifax. In connection with all of these things the Royal Canadian Navy has been geared to give comfort to man in an hour of crisis or disaster. After the war, in 1920, naval demobilization was completed. In 1921 we got some more submarines for training purposes and our fleet began to grow. On June 16 the Royal Naval College disappeared and became something a little bit more identifiable with our own Canadian needs. In 1923 the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve were established.
On July 1, 1923, H.M.C.S. Stadacona was commissioned in Halifax. This was one of the most significant events that happened in the 218 years of history the city of Halifax has enjoyed. Its role has been immeasurable in many respects, Mr. Chairman. On March 1, 1928, we added more ships, the Champlain and the Vancouver which were to replace the old Patriot and the Patrician. On February 27,	1939, we lost H.M.C.S. Thiepval in
Barkley Sound, British Columbia. On May 22, 1931, H.M.C.S. Saguenay was commissioned, followed by H.M.C.S. Skeena. These two ships are very significant in terms of our Canadian navy. These were the first two ships to be commissioned in Canada on the basis of Canadian design, engineering and talent.
On July 1, 1934, Commodore P. W. Nelles became our chief of naval staff, the first Canadian trained officer to receive this appointment. We see here the evolution and development which has taken 57 years to bring about. On July 26, 1936-I was four years old at the time-a royal guard from H.M.C.S. Saguenay paraded at Vimy Ridge for the unveiling of the Canadian memorial by King Edward VIII. This was the first royal guard provided by the R.C.N. for the person of the monarch. These are milestones in our development.
I see one hon. member opposite paying some attention and that is the chairman of the defence committee who must be very familiar with these facts. He must indeed feel some sadness in his heart today at what is taking place. I am not old fashioned. I am in favour of progress. These things all happened
15212	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment long before I became an adult. However, I am very proud of them.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
On May 31, 1939, Kang George VI presented his colour to the R.C.N. in Beacon Hill Park, Victoria, B.C. The hon. member is probably familiar with that and in all likelihood was present. Perhaps I should repeat it for him. On May 31, 1939, King George VI presented his colour to the R.C.N. in Beacon Hill Park, Victoria, B.C. We started the building of our fleet and the Fraser and St. Laurent sailed in those early months before the war. On September 1 the R.C.N., the R.C.N.R. and the R.C.N.V.R. were placed on active service. On September 10 Canada entered the war by declaring war against Germany. On September 16 convoy HX-1 sailed from Halifax to the United Kingdom; the local escort were H.M.C.S. St. Laurent and Saguenay. Again we have these two very famous names of ships that made a very great contribution to the war effort. On December 10 the first Canadian troop convoy sailed for Britain, escorted out of Halifax by H.M.C.S. Ottawa, Restigouche, Fraser and St. Laurent. These are the things we are throwing away, that we are casually brushing aside because they are not right for the next 50 years.
On May 24, 1940 H.M.C.S. St. Laurent, Restigouche and Skeena sailed to reinforce the naval defences of the British Isles in repayment, in part, of our great debt to the past that some people would like to brush aside casually.
There are a lot of significant dates in 1940, such as June 25 and July 31 These are dates which remain in the memories of a lot of people, and they are not ashamed of that fact. On September 24 of that year the Annapolis, Columbia, Niagara, St. Clair, St. Croix and St. Francis ex-U.S.N. destroyers which were part of the 50 or 60 given to the British naval strength at that time, were taken over, if I remember correctly, by the British and handed over in turn to the Canadian authorities to man.
On October 22, H.M.C.S. Margaree was lost in collision with the Port Fairy in the north Atlantic. On October 25 H.M.C.S. Bras D'or foundered in the St. Lawrence. On December 4 the Prince Henry was commissioned as an armed merchant cruiser, followed by the Prince David on December 28, again extending our capability to contribute to the defence of the free world.
On March 25, 1941 the Otter burned and sank in the approaches to Halifax harbour.

DEBATES	April 21, 1967
On May 25 the first Canadian corvettes arrived in St. John's to establish the Newfoundland escort force. On June 14, three weeks later, the first group of ships of this Newfoundland escort force sailed to protect a convoy of merchant ships along that treacherous trek from Halifax and St. John's to the United Kingdom and up to Murmansk.
The war is full of records of glorious dates. Those who want to brush them aside casually are the less enriched for it. It is records such as these that build some spirit of Canadianism. Certainly the loss of them is not going to build that spirit. We should be able to look back with pride at a distinguishable force, an identifiable element of our armed forces. Men should be able to say that they joined a particular force, that this is their heritage, that it is what they are interested in. This, Mr. Chairman, is what we are throwing away. It is what we are being chided about. What is wrong with having some feeling of deep seated pride in our history?
I could go on for an hour reciting dates such as these. If we keep on as we are we will not have enough ships left to constitute a Royal Canadian Navy even if the government wanted to retain that force.
I have one or two other remarks to make on this particular clause before it passes. I understand that the amendment has now been withdrawn so I will be brief. My remarks have essentially to do with the point made earlier, by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, at which time he likened what is happening here to clause 2 and to the intent and content of clause 6, namely the compulsory aspect of this bill.
I am sure that the decision to do this is the minister's alone and nobody else's. No recourse has been had to any of the arguments that we advanced, either in committee or in this chamber during the last 12 or 14 months. Indeed at times it has been so frustrating that we wondered whether there was any point in continuing to ask questions, because in most instances it was extremely difficult to get straightforward and clear-cut answers.
In this connection I would remind the minister that compulsory action of this sort will not result in any meaningful implementation of his plans or this bill. The men will accept it because it is compulsory and they are loyal. Every officer and serving man is loyal first of all to Canada. But they have had no part in this whatever. Their best advice has been brushed aside. It may have been considered but we have not been told it has been duly
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
considered, even though we have inquired. The minister has simply gone ahead arbitrarily and said that this will be their new role, their new look. I suggest to the minister that what he will wind up with is a lot of men and officers who will work from nine till five or from eight till four and then return home and do some gardening.
In the old days a job was a job and a task was a task, and they were performed by men who had some pride in what they were doing. One day next week those days will disappear. There will be a quiet transition. But in the implementation of the regulations and in the meaningful day by day detail that is implied in this bill, the minister and those responsible for the furtherance of this measure will find a lot of disinterest on the part of the middle ranking officers and men. He will find a lot of nine to five men who will return home at the end of the working day and forget about their work until the following day.
I suggest to the minister that there is an opportunity for him here. We should not have to ask him to withdraw a clause such as this. We should not have to ask him to relax the compulsory aspects of this measure at all. The minister should see the dangers of such a provision. I am sorry that the amendment will not be introduced, because I would have supported it vigorously.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I had undertaken to move an amendment to clause 5, which seeks to abolish the word "Royal" from "Royal Canadian Navy" and "Royal Canadian Air Force." The three forces, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force are to become known as the Canadian Forces. The point is that as my amendment was not procedurally sound, I beg leave to withdraw it. I shall be content to vote against the clause at the appropriate time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on this clause. Having served in the Royal Canadian Navy for over four years and being still in the reserve ranks, I feel on this unhappy occasion that a few remarks might be in order.
It has been said that a nation with no past has no future. The real meaning of that expression is that a nation does not live by bread and resources alone, but that it builds its history on its traditions, and the events which have taken place to build it. To forget all these traditions and events is to forget that we have a country.
National Defence Act Amendment
The government has done a quite commendable job through its parks branch in commemorating historical events, and with the centennial celebrations. For that reason I am puzzled why there is this attempt to remove some of our background and traditions, and particularly those of our armed services. It is particularly necessary for the armed services to have traditions. Traditions are not tangible; yet they build something known as morale, which the psychologists have a difficult time explaining. Without morale-and I expect the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) knows what I mean-you can have all the ships, aircraft and tanks in the world and they will not be worth their metal. If the people in the forces have no will to fight or have no fighting spirit, they may as well have no weapons.
Factors other than tradition contribute to fighting morale, of course; but one of the most important factors in building morale is tradition. That is why the services emphasize the background of a regiment, or of a ship particularly if the ship has been in service for some time. The navy is proud of naval traditions and naval battles; and the same applies to the air force. Psychologists tell us that people joining a service associate themselves with the traditions of their service. Those traditions are not to be let down. That is why one of the most important elements of fighting spirit is morale.
I hope the minister and some of his bright eyed, bushy tailed flannel suited computer experts remember my words. The minister may acquire fine equipment; he may obtain his answers from computers, but he will not have a fighting service that is fit even for peace keeping operations for the United Nations. I hope he bears that in mind.
Does the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) wish to ask a question?


David Walter Groos: No thank you.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am always interested in the hon. member's remarks.
Removing the word "Royal" from "Royal Canadian Navy" and "Royal Canadian Air Force" will not save the taxpayers any money. That will not accomplish anything except to destroy the morale that is necessary for any fighting force. One wonders why the minister and his colleagues are so dead set on abolishing the word "Royal". It has been suggested by other members that this is part of the government's plan to destroy Anglo-Saxon traditions. I do not know whether that
April 21. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment suggestion is correct, but it looks as if it may be. I hope it is not, but future events will show whether it is or whether it is not.
In conclusion may I say this: The Royal Canadian Navy has had a long and great tradition. The hon. member for Halifax dealt with it and I will not repeat what he said. For some of us in this house who see the navy being obliterated this is a sad moment. I never thought, during the years I served in that force, that I should see the day when this parliament would destroy it, wiping out its traditions and record. I am sorry to have to be here at this time, and I can only hope that the future may bring some changes.


Mr. Winch:: My remarks on clause 5 will be brief. I spoke on this clause during the debate on second reading, in the defence committee hearings, and subsequently when the bill was referred back to the committee of the whole house. Because of the implications contained in clause 5 I find it necessary to emphasize something to which the minister has not paid proper attention.
Let me say at the outset that I have no objection basically, after planning, testing and readjustment, to integration culminating, in unification of the three services. If we do amalgamate our three services into a single service, surely no one will argue that in that single service we shall not have an army, a navy and an air force. I cannot conceive of any form of Canadian armed service not containing an army, a navy and an air force.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
With integration going forward toward a single service, can the minister explain to me why, without destroying the single service concept, it is not possible to retain the Royal Canadian Navy as a unit of the single service, the Royal Canadian Air Force as a unit or element of the single service, and the Army as a unit or element of the single service? I have used those terms "unit" and "element" because they appear in clause 5.
To my way of thinking, preservation of the names "Royal Canadian Navy", "Royal Canadian Air Force" and "Army" would in no way prevent a reasonable minister arriving at an efficient realization of the principle of integration or its culmination in a single service. It would not even interfere with his computers.
Because the maintenance of a name means so much and because the traditions and the honours and victories mean so much, why is it necessary to be so adamant in saying that

the name will have to go. It does not make sense. It certainly is not common sense for a minister who wishes to get so complex and far-reaching a bill as this through the House of Commons.
I have been a member of the defence committee ever since it was established. As far as possible I have attended every meeting of that committee. I think it would be reasonable, just and commendable for the minister of defence to consider the principle which I am trying to espouse and expand. You can have your principle of a single service-but without wiping out and destroying that which means so much to thousands of our people who have served and who are serving in the navy, in the air force and in the army.
If the minister can assure me that the meaning of the words in the third line of the first subclause of clause 5, namely, "are embodied in the Canadian Forces" is that we can have, as units or elements, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Army, I shall vote for clause 5. But if I do not receive this assurance I shall have no hesitation about voting against clause 5 as it is now.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I hope the minister will pay some heed to the plea just made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. However, I doubt very much whether notice will be taken of any plea made by a member of the opposition. This was clearly demonstrated a few minutes ago when we asked for the deletion of a certain word, "indefinite", which the judge advocate general said was inconsequential and without great importance. The plea made by the hon. member will almost certainly fall upon deaf ears. Indeed I doubt very much whether the minister even heard it.
We in the opposition refer to clause 5 as the compulsory transfer clause. When members of the present armed forces joined that force, they joined either the navy, the army or the air force. That was the agreement they made. The hon. member for Queens has referred to the contract entered into by members of the present forces. They joined a particular service. By a stroke of the pen this government intends to wipe out that service. I am not a lawyer so I am not prepared to say whether this clause is ultra vires. The passing of the bill will mean that those who have entered into a contract to serve in the army, the navy or the air force are now compelled to serve in
April 21, 1967
the Canadian Forces. This is in any case a change in terminology, but it may also be a change o f a much more substantial kind.
We suggest that the minister should consider the feelings of those who do not wish to continue to serve as members of a Canadian armed force. The contract into which they entered has been terminated by the abolition of the three services: There is no contract in existence. I do not object to those now in the services volunteering to enter the new force, but I plead on behalf of those who feel they will no longer be able to serve Canada as army, naval or air force men.
I should like to place on record some of the questions which were asked on this subject by a member of the defence committee and the replies given to him, because I am sure this evidence will strengthen the point I am making. The judge advocate general is the witness being questioned, and I am quoting from pages 2082 and 2083 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 32.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: If I, as a serviceman in any one of the three services decided, when this act was about to come into force, that I would dispute the legality of it, under what law could I be proven guilty?


Mr. Lawson:: Well, I suppose you would desert and you would be tried as a deserter.


Donald MacInnis: A deserter from what?


Edward M. Lawson: From the Canadian forces.


Donald MacInnis: On what basis would I be considered a deserter, if I had signed to serve in, say, the army?


Edward M. Lawson: Because parliament has said-


Donald MacInnis: The army no longer exists, according to the law. How can I desert something that has been wiped out?


Edward M. Lawson: But parliament has said that you are now a member of the new force: so as a member of the new force you are a deserter.


Donald MacInnis: But I have not said that, and my attestation papers do not show it. How can the law actually pin me down as having deserted something that parliament has wiped out?


Edward M. Lawson: But parliament has provided that you are to be a member of the new force; and therefore-


Donald MacInnis: Arbitrarily?


Edward M. Lawson: You continue serving the term of service that you have agreed to serve.
I wish to point out that the term these men agreed to serve was not a term in the Canadian Forces but in the army, the navy or the air force. Yet by a stroke of the pen clause 5 (1) declares:
The services known before the coming into force of this part as the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, are embodied in the Canadian Forces.
23033-962J
National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The three services are wiped out. The contracts made by the members of the present forces were contracts to join one particular arm of the services. Therefore I say there is a cancellation of those contracts, and those who do not want to stay in the forces should be given some consideration, whether by being pensioned off or by the provision of some settlement, plus honourable discharge.
The question went on further:
With the specific force, the army? I have signed my attestation papers. I have joined the army. The army is wiped out under the bill. What legal method can the government adopt to prosecute me for deserting something that they have done away with?
The answer was:
The law is there. Parliament has enacted the law. Parliament has said that this is the law and you are bound by that law.
Then there was another question:
Yes; but my question is: how are they going to apply that law? This is the essence of the whole question. How are they going to apply the law to something that is no longer in existence?
The answer was:
Simply by the fact that if you leave you are a deserter. You can be charged with desertion and tried for desertion. You can raise the issue at your trial.
Another question was asked:
How could he be charged with desertion of something that he has not joined?
The answer was:
Because parliament has said he is in it.
I am not too sure parliament can say he is in it. This is a case that should be tried by the courts of our land, to see if we have the power to pass this particular clause of the bill breaking a contract unilaterally. In view of what has transpired previously, all this is very odd to me.
We were talking about regulations that were going to be introduced after the bill had passed. The judge advocate general told the committee he had formulated some regulations, or suggested some regulations to the minister. I would like to read a portion of them because I do not believe they coincide with his remarks about joining the new ser-ice. These two paragraphs of the suggested regulations are very interesting:
No officer or man who immediately prior to the coming into force of Part I of the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act was enrolled in, or had been transferred to, the Royal Canadian Navy shall

April 21, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment without his consent be required to serve as a member of the crew of an aircraft or in a land force;
How can the judge advocate general say he will not be required to serve as a member of a crew of an aircraft or in a land force when he has just said he is going to be required to join the Canadian Armed Forces whether he likes it or not? There is nothing in this bill that says he will not have to serve as a member of an air crew or in a land force. In fact there is nothing in the bill to say an airman will not have to serve in a submarine, if the minister desires that he serve in it. That is why we say that this is compulsory transfer.
Another suggested regulation is:
No officer or man who immediately prior to the coming into force of Part I of the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act was enrolled in, or had been transferred to, the Canadian Army shall without his consent be required to serve as a member of a crew; and
no officer or man who immediately prior to the coming into force of Part I of the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act was enrolled in, or had been transferred to, the Royal Canadian Air Force shall without his consent be required to serve as a member of the crew of a ship or in a land force.
There is something funny here. They say that without his consent he will not be required to do certain things in the new service. However, they make it abundantly clear that regardless of what force he is in at present, he is going to be compelled to join the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why we say this is a compulsory transfer. We say this is the first step in conscription, the first step to compulsory service in Canada. I am not disputing whether that is good or bad, but if this is what it actually means then the minister should get up and tell Canadians that this is conscription. In that event I would be pleased to note the number of those members from Quebec who will get up and vote for this clause because I am quite sure their opponents in the next election will use it against them. We know the history of conscription so far as the province of Quebec is concerned.
I was very glad to see my colleague get up a few minutes ago and voice his opinion about the French matter. I say that certainly we believe you people of French stock are entitled to certain preferences under the B.N.A. Act, and I do not think we have objected too strenuously to your demands. But once you start stepping on the toes of other ethnic groups in this country then you are asking for trouble, and if it does come don't forget that you asked for it.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I heard a few remarks recently to the effect that somehow or other this bill has a sort of Anglo-Saxon bias. That is what prompts me to interject just a few words at this time because I just cannot understand that. In such reading of history as I have been able to do I have never noticed that the Anglo-Saxon race has ever been noted for its slowness or its reluctance to build on its past experience. After all, that is how the British nation achieved most of the greatness for Britain that we all admire today. They are the ones who gave meaning to the words "growing tradition."
I would like to point out to hon. members opposite that surely this is what we ourselves are trying to do with this bill. With it we are trying to build on past experience something new and something good for Canada. I am positive, just as positive as I am standing here in this chamber, that regardless of the gloomy forecasts which are coming from the officials opposition, the Royal Canadian Navy tradition, the Canadian Army tradition and the Royal Canadian Air Force tradition will live on, and on, and on in the traditions and the ways of the new Canadian Armed Forces.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. With all sincerity, without any bigotry or bias with regard to any racial group of people in any part of this country, I wish to say that over the last few years I have witnessed a series of events eroding much of what we have been proud of in our history. It is most unfortunate that during our centennial year celebration some departments of government are trying their best to celebrate appropriately the centennial of our confederation with attempts to make us, as Canadians, more conscious of our history, while at the same time other departments are whittling away at our traditions, good traditions, honourable traditions, traditions which most Canadians hold dear.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There may be other millions of Canadians who object to these traditions on some grounds which in my estimation are not valid. If they do object, they should state their reasons. Parliament should be a place where men reason together and not a place where, because they happen to have a voting majority, they force their particular biases and their particular desires down the throats of all Canadians who do not happen to hold their point of view. Democracy, in my judgment, is
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
a more subtle thing than the exercise of voting power. If a democracy is to work properly, surely there should be regard for the traditions, the feelings and the points of view of all segments which together make up a country, if that country is to hold together at all.
There are millions of people in this country-I know there are a great many in my constituency and I am sure there are many others like them-who feel so keenly about this erosion of things which they hold dear, that their ability to make the contribution they would like to make toward a united Canada is lessened. I believe this fact is very sad, especially if what is taking place is unnecessary. In much of what is being done here I see actions which appear to be based completely on prejudice. I think it is most unfortunate, because I believe prejudice is unnecessary and need not exist.
I have the highest respect for Canadians of all racial backgrounds, but the fact that they come from different racial backgrounds or from different parts of the country does not give them the right to force me to submerge any recognition I may have of my origin, or the traditions which I hold dear. This does not give them that right any more than it gives them the right to wipe out my religious thoughts.
In this connection I should like to quote briefly from Edmund Burke:
A nation is not an idea only of local extent and individual momentary aggregation, but it is an idea of continuity which extends in time as well as in numbers and in space.
People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.
In this particular clause we are whittling away at one of our traditions. I do not care what the minister thinks about "Royal" or whether the majority in this house think this word should be eliminated from the names of our services. If they think it should be removed, they at least should have the courtesy and the tolerance to realize there are millions of Canadians and, although I have no way of knowing what the percentage is, I believe there are many thousands of Canadians in the services, who are proud of this tradition.
The traditional appellation "Royal" was not given lightly to military units. It is something special. It is given in recognition of duties performed and standards achieved. The Royal Canadian Air Force was not always the Royal Canadian Air Force. It received this part of its appellation by achievement. Even if I were
National Defence Act Amendment one who approved of this unification, which I am not, I see no reason that in the process, by the back door, the government should take this opportunity to wipe out the designation "Royal" from all of our armed services. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of engines or the kind of electronic equipment which might be used; that is obvious.
I should like to ask the government to come clean, to put their cards on the table, and tell us what they are up to. What is the purpose? Do they think these traditions are divisive and bad because they happen to be associated with one ethnic group in this country, namely the Anglo-Saxons? Is that the reason? I do not agree with that reason. I do not think we should allow our traditions to be eroded or destroyed, regardless of their origin.
I am of Scottish origin. My ancestors fought against the constitutional authority of Britain almost as recently as the French Canadians did. I might say that for their pains they were treated much less kindly than were the ancestors of French Canadians. That, however, is aside from the point. I do not believe we should fall into the trap of judging conditions in the 20th century by the codes or ethics which existed in the 18th century. This of course is a means to stir up prejudices in the minds of those who either do not understand, or would stoop to compare the two situations. They are not comparable. I do plead with my colleagues who represent other parts of Canada to have regard for these things.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: These things are held dear. What I am about to say, I say without any political implications, without any attempt to cast reflection on the government or anything of that sort; and although I am speaking only for myself, I know there are others in my constituency who feel the same way. I confess that in the last four years I have considered very seriously moving from Canada and becoming a citizen of another country because I believe, if this trend should continue, that this would be the best course to take, although a difficult one, in the best interests of my children and my children's children.
This is an indication of how deeply some of us feel about the things I have been speaking of. I am not surprised that people who come from other parts of the country and from other backgrounds perhaps do not appreciate this. All I ask that you do is look into it. I do not care what methods you employ in looking
April 21. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment into it so long as you do it objectively. I would like some of the hon. members who this afternoon, sneered at some on this side of the house who spoke from the heart, although perhaps a little heatedly, to go down to our constituencies, mix with the people there, and find out what these people think. Let them do that, before they come to the conclusion that because of some magic, since they happened to get elected with a minority government, in some way this gives them a divine power to be dictators for the next four years or for the life of this parliament.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Democracy, in its proper sense, is not that sort of thing. Democracy is the temporary placing in the hands of those who acquire the confidence of the Canadian people the responsibility of carrying on government for a limited period of time, not just in the interest of those who support them but in the interest of all Canadians, paying proper attention, in proper balance, to the rights and aspirations of all Canadians. A dictatorship of a majority as Burke said-and I do not quote him verbatim-is no more righteous than a dictatorship of princes.
I would commend to hon. members that they read citation 18 on page 16 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition of parliamentary rules and forms and citation 67 commencing on page 54. I think they are both particularly applicable to this situation. I shall quote only part of citation 67:
A minority party may question ministers, may criticize but cannot control in the ordinary case a government with a reasonably large majority. There can be no control of the executive where the supporters in parliament are prepared without question to obey the leaders of their party- through the whips. All that the minority party- the opposition-can do without support from members of the majority party is to question, inquire and criticize, but whilst this does not amount to control it is an important method of checking abuses of power.
With the support of a majority of members it would be possible for a cabinet to suspend the sitting of parliament, have the minority members arrested, withdraw the safeguards of liberty such as habeas corpus and freedom of speech, and to establish virtually a dictatorship.
The point is that in our system of government there is no magic power that protects the electorate against the folly of a government if they wish to indulge in such folly, care must be taken by the electorate when they do the electing, because once they elect a majority in parliament, that majority is allpowerful until the next election.

The only thing that keeps our democracy alive is the intangible sense of decency, honour and respect for the rights of others and a sense of tolerance among those people who form the majority. This is why I have objected most strenuously to this bill. I have done it, not with any thought of political advantage. I feel aggrieved when we are accused by the minister of holding up the passage of this bill, when he himself has refused to pay any attention to the representations that have been made with the deepest sincerity by hon. members in this and other sections of the house. The minister has brushed aside the advice of loyal, conscientious Canadians who happen to be serving officers and who have given their lives to a military career and the service of their country.
I think that when the minister accuses us of holding up this legislation and messing up the program of the government, he is akin to Kaiser Wilhelm accusing the Belgians of being perverse because they loused up his program to be in Paris before Christmas of 1914. When it is a question of what you believe to be right, objectively defended, you must let the chips fall where they may. It is under those terms that I have taken part in this debate.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes left to me I should like to make a few remarks concerning the advantage or disadvantage of abolishing the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the R.C.A.F. If the government and the Minister of National Defence had decided that the present army, air force and naval services and units, particularly the traditional and long standing units, were to be wiped out and completely abolished, I would have thought it would have been suggested that new units should be established to take their place.
Competition is involved in this question. Hon. members have spoken about morale in the services. This involves the question of competition, not only in the military area but in every facet of the life of man. The spice of life is competition, to be just a little better than someone else. That is the reason for living of most people. If you take this competition away from the armed services, if you take away their right to compete in military as well as non-military activities, I think you take away the life and soul of the armed services. Nothing is being substituted for the units that are now in existence. We are going to have a faceless, grey-or green-group of
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
people serving Canada, without any incentive to do a good job for this country on behalf of their particular unit.
Mr. Chairman, I see it is five o'clock. I presume you will want to rise so that we may proceed to private members hour.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think that under the terms of the standing order there will be no private members hour today. I would invite the hon. member to continue.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As I read the rules, Mr. Chairman, it is fairly clear that there is no provision for the suspension of private members hour. If I may at this point, I should like to state my reason for suggesting that the Chairman should rise and report progress. Standing order 15A sets out the procedures to be followed during a debate on allocation of time. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of that standing order indicate a special concern for the one-day allocation of time on third reading of a bill, but no special treatment for second reading of a bill, or committee stage, which we are now in.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I should like to point out particularly that the provision for one day on third reading has been given special consideration in section 7. The one day is allotted for third reading on three or four conditions. It states:
No motion made by a minister under sections (5) and (6) of this standing order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time less than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill.
The specific provisions for third reading provide that it shall be called as the first item of business under government orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday of Friday. Presumably that is so we will not have a short day such as Wednesday. It also provides that third reading shall have precedence over all other business on one of those days until the normal hour of adjournment.
Section 9 of this standing order provides that Mr. Speaker shall have the authority to extend the one day for third reading for four hours. Here again the rule obviously expresses some concern about the final day for the debate under the time allocation. It gives Mr. Speaker the opportunity to extend the time, if necessary. For the purposes of such an extension it would be necessary on a Friday, such as today, to carry the debate on third reading through until six o'clock because of the one hour notice requirement.
National Defence Act Amendment However, that is not the situation today. We are now at the committee stage. There may be some ambiguity in respect of section 7, although I do not see any. This section specifically states in the sixth line, "for the third reading of the bill".
The section then makes specific provision for the one day debate on third reading. In the present circumstances I would say that the words "it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day" has reference to third reading. If there is any doubt in this regard let me remind hon. members that the private members hour is considered somewhat sacrosanct. It has never been set aside unless provided for by a specific rule. I do not think I need enlarge on that point, or stress it.
We as members have been very jealous of our private members hour. Under some provisions that hour can be set aside. Standing order 16 makes such a provision, but excepts debates for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, or for a debate on allocation of time. In that regard private members hour cannot be suspended. The reference there to the allocation of time has nothing to do with this debate, but a debate such as we had yesterday. I thought we were a little bit off base yesterday in having a private members hour.
In any event there are provisions such as those contained in standing order 15 (4) and (5) which provide for the suspension of private members hour under certain conditions. Standing order 38 (2) provides that the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne shall have precedence over private members hour. There is nothing in any standing order which says that private members hour shall be suspended without specific provision for such suspension. I submit there is no provision for the suspension of private members hour at this stage of the debate. For that reason I think you, Mr. Chairman, should rise and report progress, if you believe there has been any, allowing Mr. Speaker to assume the chair during the private members hour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, there is a very important point which concerns us here in this regard. I was a little surprised that we did not immediately proceed to consideration of private members' business. I am not aware of any circumstances which would allow the government to encroach upon private members' time without a formal rule, or without a motion to suspend private members hours.
April 21, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Sometimes this is done by agreement. Standing order 15 (3) specifically sets out the order of business for Friday. There is provision there that the hour from five to six o'clock shall be private members hour for the consideration of private bills and public bills.
Nothing has transpired in this house to indicate that private members hour shall be suspended, or that private members shall be deprived of their time.
Quite frequently during this session the government has made a request to abrogate the private members right in respect of this hour. Quite frequently that request has been granted. On several occasions I have protested because I think private members are being careless in the protection of their rights. I am afraid that if they yield too frequently the government will take over this time for the consideration of government business.
The order paper indicates there are 175 public bills standing in the names of private members. Some of those bills have not been reached during this lengthy session while others have been up for discussion and adjourned. Very frequently we talk about obtaining decisions in respect of these bills. If private members hour is to be discontinued in order to consider government business there will be an infringement on the rights of private members. This will prevent a decision in respect of important bills, important not only to the members who introduced them, but also to the country.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As pointed out very clearly by the hon. member who has just spoken, the order under which we have been operating up to five o'clock says nothing specifically about suspending private members hour. I doubt very much if any government would take away private members time without consent, in the one instance, or without specifically mentioning that fact in a motion. I know that from time to time when we have reached a point within days or weeks of concluding a session, we have had motions put forward to the effect that private members hours will be eliminated in order that government business may be considered. This, however, is done clearly and openly and the motion is subject to debate and vote.
In this particular instance, working under this new rule which the government devised, there is nothing to indicate that private members hour would be eliminated on any day. If the government had intended to eliminate private members hour when we were in this

closure operation, that would have been so specified. It is not so specified here. The other point that was made by the hon. member who preceded me was that in the section which has been quoted, except for the first sentence, it applies to third reading proceedings. I do not see there that private members business is struck out. Perhaps this is the result of careless drafting, but in all other sections of this order, such as subsection 6, there is an indication that Mr. Speaker shall, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business, interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question.
I would think, by inference, that what is intended is that this is government time that is being used for this special purpose and not private members time. I am sure that the government never intended to encroach so seriously on private members hour. I do not want to encroach any longer on private members hour. I am here to defend the rights of private members. I hope that you will find it in your power, Mr. Chairman, to rule that we should now proceed immediately to private members business, which will be public bills.


Harold Edward Winch: I rise, Mr. Chairman, strictly in search of information. I find myself completely stumped. It is my understanding that under a decision which was reached by a majority vote in the House of Commons, for every five minutes we lose in a procedural discussion we are losing five minutes of the time permitted for discussion of the 65 clauses of a most important bill. We have already lost sixteen minutes of time allotted for the discussion of this bill. May I ask whether it would not be possible to proceed so that we spend time on this bill and not lose a second, because we require every second-I think this is the position of the Conservatives-so that we might discuss the 65 clauses.


Mr. Olson:: I believe, Mr. Chairman, you will have to look at standing order 15A, paragraph 7. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has already drawn this to your attention. There is a sentence which commences:
Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier.
I think what you will have to do, Mr. Chairman, is decide whether that sentence relates to the first or last part of paragraph 7. I suggest to you that it relates only to
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
the second part because it says, "such an order". Prior to that only place the word "order" is used is the following:
For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called-
I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is the place to Which that word is related. I have to agree therefore with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and, infrequently but at least on this occasion, with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, when they suggest there is no provision here for dispensing with private members hour. I have to agree also with them when they point out that the motion moved by the Minister of Transport, as reported at page 15119 of Hansard for April 20, makes no provision for dispensing with private members hour. Of course, private members hour would be suspended anyway if we were on third reading, where the order is given as has been pointed out. I suggest therefore there is no provision in standing order 15A to dispense with private members hour on any day except the day third reading is being considered, which we presume will be next Tuesday.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I should like to point out to hon. members who have taken part in the discussion of this point of order that the Chairman is confused, too. On January 21, 1964, when these provisional standing orders were agreed to, standing order 15A was included. I do not believe members of the committee will be surprised if I say that some days ago, when there was some inclination that standing order 15A would be invoked, the Chair spent considerable time studying 15A and its subclauses to decide exactly what was meant in different situations.
Standing order 16, which deals with private members business, in my view is the standing order which governs the ordinary practice with regard to private members business. I suggest to the committee that at the moment we are under a special order. I must admit that I cannot quite agree with the interpretation given to paragraph 7 of standing order 15A by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
I read paragraph 7 in this way:
No motion made by a minister under sections (5) and (6) of this standing order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time less than two days from the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill.
National Defence Act Amendment
Since second reading has been disposed of, that part of the rule does not apply. I continue:
For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under government orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day.
Now I come to the phrase "such order". I think it is the duty of the Chair to interpret what this phrase "such order" means. It is the contention of the Chair that this phrase "such order" applies to the first part of paragraph 7 and not the second part, which refers to third reading. If this were not so, then I do not know how you would interpret the last sentence in this paragraph which reads:
Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the eqiuvalent of one sitting day.
It is my view that the phrase "such order" applies to the whole operation of this particular order under which we are operating and would indeed apply to second reading, to the committee of the whole stage as well as to third reading. I suggest the order having been called on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it would have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment of that day, unless disposed of earlier. I say again to members of the committee, there is a great deal of confusion in the mind of the chairman, so I quite understand the possibility of there being some misunderstanding on the part of hon. members.
However, it is the duty of the Chair to make a ruling in this matter, and my ruling will have to be that this particular part of paragraph 7 applies to the operation of standing order 15A in the committee of the whole stage. It is therefore my view that private members hour for today will be suspended.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might ask your indulgence to rule also on standing order 16, which provides that the proceedings on private members business shall not be suspended by virtue of the operation of provisions of standing orders relating to the allocation of time to certain debates.
In the first instance I accepted the fact that this probably referred to the debate we had yesterday on allocation of time; but there again standing order 16 says that the proceedings on private members business shall not be suspended in relation to the allocation of time to certain debates. I raise this as a second
15222	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment point and I think we might have the advantage of your ruling at the same time on another matter that is equally difficult.
[DOT]	(5:20 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: I recognize the validity of the argument that the hon. member presents.
I am sure that he too will recognize the difficult position in which the Chair happens to find itself. Standing order 16 applies to the general operations of the house and standing order 15A applies to a special case. My problem is to give the proper weight either to the provisions of standing order 16 or to the provisions of paragraph 7 of standing order 15A.
There is a conflict here; I do not think there is any doubt about that. I have recognized this conflict for three or four days now, but I have to make up my mind where I should place the weight. I place the weight on standing order 15A, paragraph 7, and it is my opinion that at this time I would have to decide that this standing order does suspend private members hour. I believe the debate on the committee stage of Bill No. C-243 should continue at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, because of the seriousness of this question and the apparent infringement, to my mind, on private members time, it is with regret that I will have to appeal your ruling.
[DOT]	(5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, the question is an appeal from a decision of the chairman of the committee of the whole. In the committee of the whole the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka raised a point of order to the effect that the hour for the consideration of private members' business must be proceeded with at 5 o'clock.
Using section 7 of standing order 15A, after having given due consideration to the conflict between the provisions in this section and those in standing order 16, the Chairman ruled that the committee of the whole on Bill C-243 should continue, whereupon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre pursuant to standing order 59 (4) appealed to Mr. Speaker from the decision of the Chairman.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for raising the point of order, despite the comment I hear from hon. members on the other side and to my left. We operate under rules, and when there is a conflict between rules we are entitled to raise the matter. I thought we

DEBATES	April 21, 1967
were wrong yesterday; I was doubtful when debating the allocation of time motion, in view of the provisions of standing order 16, whether our procedure in going on with the private members hour yesterday was correct.
Today a similar question arose, but today it was felt that we should not go on with private members hour.
Briefly, it seems that there is a conflict between provisional standing order 15A and provisional standing order 16. In considering the point, the Chairman acknowledged that really there are two conflicts one being within provisional standing order 15A(7).
To clarify the matter perhaps I ought to say this. Sections 7, 8 and 9 of standing order 15A refer specifically to the third day of debate after an allocation of time has been made. That is, they refer to the day of the third reading. I emphasize that third reading is particularly dealt with in those three sections.
Section 7 makes specific statements. First, that the order for third reading shall only be called on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday; second, that the order must be the first item of business; third, that the debate shall continue until the normal time of adjournment, and fourth, that such an order shall have precedence over all other items of business. The point at issue within section 7 arises from the words beginning at the seventh line from the bottom, which are:
Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday-
I submit it is clear that those words refer to an order for third reading, because third reading is dealt with after the first sentence of the standing order. I submit that everything appearing after the first seven lines, which constitute the first sentence, refers only to third reading. This contention is strengthened because closer to the beginning of the section we find that the language says that third reading shall be called as the first item of business on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and farther on in that section the words are, "Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday," and so on.
Section 9 of the standing order says that Mr. Speaker shall have the authority to extend the sitting of the final day of debate for four hours. I presume that that is to make certain that the last day is as full and as complete as possible. There is no argument about any reference to the third day. Also it is clear that we are now in the committee
April 21, 1967	COMMONS
stage, and this brings up another point. The second point, or putting it more correctly, the second difficulty on which the Chairman ruled had to do with standing order 16 which says that private members' business shall continue. Quoting the relevant parts of standing order 16 we find these words:
The proceedings on private members' business,... shall not be suspended by virtue of the operation of the provisions of standing orders relating to the adjournment of the house ... or to the allocation of time to certain debates.
It is quite possible that that wording refers to the allocation of time to certain debates, or to the discussion about that allocation of time. That wording may also refer, and probably does refer, to all debates taking place during the allocation of time, and herein arises the uncertainty.
My final point is this. It is clear, I submit, that the private members hour should not be interrupted or dispensed with unless there are specific provisions to that effect in the standing orders. Nothing in the standing orders says that the private members hour under these circumstances shall be dispensed with, and there was nothing in the order of the house allocating time which said that the private members hour should be dispensed with. Under those circumstances we ought to proceed with private members' business.
I am not raising my argument to delay the house. Should Your Honour decide that private members' business is not to be proceeded with, I shall continue with my remarks that were interrupted at 5 p.m. Surely, however, if we have rules, then we ought to know what the effects of those rules are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would never occur to Your Honour, because of your obvious fairness, that this discussion was designed to delay the debate on the unification bill. Remarks to that effect were made from the government side of the house, and they might leave the wrong impression in Your Honour's mind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do not smile when you say that.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka in his closing remarks has shown that there is here an abrogation of private members' time. The submission made earlier to the Chairman was on that point. The government does not infringe on the time of private members unless specifically
National Defence Act Amendment by motion or by taking other procedure in accordance with the rules. I recall that in a number of years when we were reaching the end of the session and attempting to conclude the business of the house we found it necessary to eliminate the private members hour. This was always done by a motion to that effect. The ambiguity which is contained in the rule under which we are operating led us to draw this matter to the attention of the Chairman and now to Your Honour's attention.
I have put in a plea earlier for the rights of private members who have frequently given up their time during the course of this session, and who should not be asked to do so again because there are 175 bills in the names of private members set down for the consideration of this house. This constitutes an additional contribution of mine to the very good argument presented by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words and I am afraid that what I say will not be of great assistance to Your Honour. It is obvious that you have a very difficult problem on your hands.
If I can recall our discussions about this rule, rule 15A, when we were adopting it a couple of years ago, the intention was that a day on third reading would be the same as a day on second reading or in committee of the whole house. But I am bound to say, as one reads carefully the exact words of that standing order as we have passed it and of the other standing orders, that the case presented by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is quite strong.
I will go further and cite another point in their favour. In Votes and Proceedings of Monday, March 20, there appears the second report of the special committee on procedure. One of the recommendations made in that report is that standing order 15(4) be amended. The purpose of amending standing order 15(4) was to put together in one place the instances where the private members hour may be suspended.
The report is interesting to read in the present context and it suggests that even in the committee on procedure we are a bit confused on this point. On page 1552 of Votes
April 21. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment and Proceedings for March 20, 1967, we find this recommendation:
That Standing Order 15(4) be consequentially amended on a provisional basis to read as follows:
15(4) On any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of this Standing Order, the consideration of private members' business shall be suspended when an order for resuming the address debate or the budget debate, an order for a motion 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair' for the House to go into committee of supply, or an order to go into committee of the whole on a money resolution, pursuant to standing order 61A, is set down as the first item of government business in any such sitting.
I hope no one will accuse me of revealing what has gone on in the special committee on procedure if I say that in presenting this proposal we were not trying to present anything new; we were merely trying to put in one place the various orders relating to the suspension of the private members hour. I submit that this also is on the side of the position taken by the two members of the Conservative party who have spoken.
The statement made by the chairman of the committee of the whole house to the effect that the phrase about third reading in standing order 15A should be treated parenthetically also carries weight. The phrase at the end of that section, "such an order", does seem capable of being applied to the whole of that section of the standing order. We all sympathized with the chairman when he admitted that he was confused. I do not think he needed to apologize for that. I think the wording of this standing order leaves a good deal to be desired.
There are times when we call upon Your Honour to overrule a ruling made by the chairman of a committee of the whole house. You have demonstrated your impartiality and the chairman has demonstrated his largeness of soul by the fact that on one occasion this did happen and a chairman's decision was overruled. Obviously this should not happen very often. I wonder whether in these circumstances-because, after all, there is not much time left either for a private members hour or for the discussion of the defence bill, -whether it would not be better for Your Honour to rule that the special committee on procedure should redraft the whole of this standing order. It seems to me there is nothing to be gained by ruling either way at this time.
There are arguments on both sides but if one looks at the precise wording before us there is a great deal to be said for the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg

South Centre and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. In any case I offer the suggestion that Your Honour reserve your decision until the special committee on procedure has had a proper chance to look at this matter more thoroughly.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: There are just one or two other points which I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention in view of the ruling made by the chairman of committees that private members hour should have preference over all other business until the time of adjournment.
I would refer Your Honour to page 2 of today's Routine Proceedings where the order of business for Friday is stated as follows: oral questions, government orders, questions, public bills and private bills. Today we have already considered questions, oral questions and government orders. So we have already carried on some of the order of business, and it would seem to me that if it is the ruling of the Chair that private members hour should not take precedence, then immediately upon our deliberations beginning this afternoon we should have gone on to the consideration of this particular bill in committee of the whole.
Since we have not done so, it would appear to me we should continue normally in accordance with the provisions of the standing order which is in effect, and consider that we should have proceeded at five o'clock to consideration of private members business.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I would point out, in view of the fact that Your Honour may decide to uphold the ruling of the chairman of committees, that we have already spent five hours on the consideration, according to this, and therefore suggest there is valid reason for not carrying it on into private members hour at five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their helpful comments. I think I should repeat the comments I have made previously when similar circumstances have arisen, that is, when the Speaker has been asked to review a decision reached by the chairman of committees. There is a fundamental difficulty about this in that the chairman of the committee is not only chairman of the committee but is also Deputy Speaker of the house and this, I submit to hon. members, complicates the situation when it comes before the person who occupies my position to review or reconsider a decision reached by the Chairman.
April 21, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
On a previous occasion I have suggested that that particular provisional standing order should be reviewed, and that an appeal or a questioning of the decision by the Chairman of the committee should come to the Speaker, not by way of appeal but perhaps by way of trial de novo, or by way of stated case; certainly not by way of appeal. This having been said, I have looked at the standing order which is the source of our difficulty and I am in full agreement with the suggestion made by the chairman of the committee, wholly supported by all members, that there is a confusion, and ambiguity and uncertainty in the interpretation of the relevant provisional standing order, No. 15A.
The question of course is to determine whether the third sentence of provisional standing order 15A (7) refers to the second sentence or refers to the first one, when we read:
Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday-
The question is whether the order referred to there is the order on third reading. The main difficulty comes from the obvious conflict between this provisional standing order and standing order 16 which specifies the cases where private members hour may be suspended. Of course standing order 16 refers not at all to this particular circumstance. There is no reference to the case where an item of business is under consideration under a time allocation order.
Having been a member of the special committee of the house reviewing these standing orders a couple of years ago, I am willing to plead guilty, along with other members who were concerned with this review, to perhaps not having gone far enough. I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that perhaps this was intentional, because certainly if we accept that there would be a suspension of private members' business when we are considering the third reading stage of a bill, then if we are to follow the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), that exception would have been provided in standing order 16; but it was not.
And yet if we were considering the third reading stage of an item of business under a time allocation order, on a day when we have private members' business, I wonder if anyone should argue that we should not suspend the private members hour because it is not
specified in standing order 16. Obviously there is a mistake either in the drafting of provisional standing order 15A or in the reconsideration that should have been made of standing order 16.
I have every possible sympathy with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that because of this uncertainty we should leave the matter in a state of suspended animation. There are four minutes left this afternoon and I can say very honestly to hon. members that if I were to make a ruling, in view of the uncertainty of the situation I would certainly rule to support the decision of the Chairman of the committee, because there is as much logic to support his view as there is logic to support the other view; and when in doubt I think the Chair should not overrule the decision of his colleague, the chairman of the committee of the whole.
For this reason, and in view of the fact that there are only three minutes left before we adjourn at six o'clock, I would suggest to hon. members that we either go back to private members business for a little while, for the next two minutes, or that we call it six o'clock. But of course we would have to resume in any event in committee of the whole, and this exercise will take a short while, which will take us to the time of adjournment. We will suggest in a formal way to the special committee on procedure that it review at the first opportunity the provisions of provisional standing order 15A in conjunction with the provisions of standing order 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
The house resumed 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.
On clause 5-Embodiment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might call it six o'clock. I am prepared to go ahead with my remarks if necessary. I had two minutes before five o'clock, and it is now one minute before six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee agreed to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.

April 21, 1967
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Minto Churchill: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are working under an allocation of time order, but there is nothing in the rules which says that could not be changed or modified; so perhaps the leader of the house has some different business to announce for Monday.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, for Monday we propose submitting to the house for consideration item No. 107 on government orders on the order paper, and if it is concluded during the day, then item 134.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about unemployment insurance and the dairy industry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On Wednesday and Friday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 24, 1967