1967-01-31

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special joint committee on immigration- Mr. Klein.
[Stage Direction]
Second report of special joint committee on penitentiaries-Mr. Watson.

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the mailing of the wheat payment cheques will be completed tomorrow. The distribution of the cheques for the final payments for oats and barley will commence on February 2 and will be completed within the next two weeks.
In 1865-66 producers delivered 49,626,630 bushels of oats and 88,920,104 bushels of barley. The amounts of the final payments to be distributed are $12,313,571 for oats, and a record $29,230,543 for barley. As I informed the house on January 13, the amount of the final payment on wheat was $270,028,575. Thus the total of the final payment on wheat, oats and barley is $311,572,689, which is the largest final payment on grains in the history of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: These sums are not a final
payment by the government of Canada but represent the net returns of the Canadian Wheat Board in the marketing of western Canadian wheat, oats and barley for the 1965-66 crop year. The average final payment for oats is a record 24.8 cents a bushel, and the average final barley payment of 32.8 cents a bushel has been exceeded only once.
I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to table the statement being issued today in Winnipeg by the Canadian Wheat Board regarding the final payments on oats and barley.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, the farmers in western Canada will, of course, be pleased with this announcement of the final payments on the oats and barley pools. As the minister has indicated, this is a payment of money due to them on the sale of their grain. I was interested in the minister's statement that these, with minor exceptions, are the highest payments on record. Western farmers are presently facing the highest costs in their entire history, and this is one of the facts that must be borne in mind when examining these figures.
If my memory serves me correctly there is no appreciable increase in the volume of barley as compared with previous years, and the improvement in the payment on oats is a reflection of the policy begun eight, nine or almost ten years ago, when the oats pool was in a deficit position. Over the years it has gradually been brought to its present situation.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Of course this also brings to mind the other problems which face those who are engaged in agriculture generally and particularly those in the dairy industry. They have a peculiar problem. All in all I would say that the people in western Canada will be pleased with the final payment, but still it does not reflect the improvement which we should like to see in the position of those who are producing grain in western Canada, when one considers the high cost of production which prevails at the present time.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's announcement to the house and the country will be welcome news to the grain producers of western Canada particularly those who have middle sized and smaller farming operations, because to these people the production of oats and barley is relatively a more important factor in their operations. I should like to say also that the fact that the final payments on oats and barley are at either record or near record rates on a per bushel basis seems to be a pretty definite indication that perhaps it is time to think in terms of increasing the amount of the initial payment.
One could make the very logical argument, since the farmers must wait a certain number
12450	COMMONS
Consumer Credit and Cost of Living of months to receive the money that is coming to them in any case, that it really is not fair, that they be required to carry the interest charges on the money they must borrow in order to carry on their operations with their fixed costs and so on.
In view of the fact that the final payments are at a record level on a per unit basis I would urge the minister to give serious thought to increasing the initial payment to a significant extent.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I join with other hon. members who have spoken in welcoming this announcement. At the moment, according to Canadian Wheat Board selling prices even since the end of the selling year 1965-66, there are indications which would lead us to believe that the final payments for 1966-67 will be even higher than the payments indicated in this report. The minister has pointed out this is the largest payment ever made. I think it is the largest final payment ever made on wheat. It is almost certain that a year from now we will have another report which will indicate that the total price for this year's crop will be higher than in respect of last year's crop.
This indeed is welcome news, although we do recognize the point brought up by the hon. member for Rosthern that the costs involved in producing this grain have increased at least as rapidly as the price itself. One other point I am very gratified to see in this statement is that the minister included the fact that this is not a final payment by the government of Canada. This $311 million does not constitute a charge on the public treasury. No part of it constitutes a charge on the federal treasury. I believe this is one of the first occasions on which this kind of emphasis has been placed on this fact. I should like to commend the minister for doing this, and I recommend that he include it in all statements which are made in respect of these final payments on wheat, oats and barley.



CONSUMER CREDIT AND COST OF LIVING


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved:: That the third report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit and cost of living, presented to the house on Tuesday, December 20, 1966, be concurred in.

DEBATES	January 31, 1967


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to comment briefly on this motion. The special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit and cost of living is submitting to us today a quite detailed report and is asking us to concur therein. But something happened within that committee that should not go unnoticed, and since there is no mention of it in the report, I feel the house should look into the matter.
When the Consumers' Association appeared before the committee, its president, I believe, brought a rather serious accusation against the government with regard to its inaction, stating that if-


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Lapointe realizes that the motion before the house relates to the third report and not to the fourth report of this committee. The details to which he is referring are contained not in the third report but in the fourh report.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this concerns the report presented on December 20, which contains a large number of recommendations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is still speaking about the fourth report, even though the third and fourth reports were both presented on December 20.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity and I think I have the right to do so. Whether the third or fourth report is involved, we are refused, possibly under-


Mr. Boulanger:: That is incompetence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken. The hon. member may not, during a discussion on the tabling of a report in the house or on a motion for concurrence in a report by the house, give consideration to the proceedings of the report in which concurrence is being sought. The point he wishes to
January 31, 1967



bring up bears on a report other than the one now before the house and I suggest that he may not continue the remarks he has started to make.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my remarks deal with the third report as much as, if not more than, they do with the fourth, both of which were presented at the same time. Although concurrence is sought in only one of them today, my remarks deal as much, indeed more, with the third report, because it recommends that the committee be authorized to adjourn from place to place. If it is to be authorized to do so, its hearings should at least be useful. Now, that is precisely the point I want to make. The chairman of the Canadian Consumers Association charged that nothing was being done, that no valid recommendation was being made by the committee or that the government was not considering any action to help housewives, because its election funds are provided by large food processing corporations, and that its decisions are thus influenced by those companies which preclude the government from taking the necessary action to ease up the housewives' budget.
Mr. Speaker, if that accusation is justified, then whatever recommendations the committee makes, the present government will still be bound to the big companies which contribute to its election fund. At a committee hearing, the companies were accused of being mainly responsible for price increases to the consumers, especially on food. If those companies rather than the committee influence the government, what good will it do to hold hearings here and there?
Mr. Speaker, I feel that after such a serious accusation the government should investigate that matter, should reveal what those food companies subscribed to its election fund, so that we can decide whether or not that might constitute an obstacle to logical and normal decisions, in short if that might prevent the government and the committee from making suggestions and offering solutions which will really help Canadian consumers to solve their budget problems.
Mr. Speaker, you will admit with me that the committee received the accusation full in the face, that it did not refute it and that through its silence it admitted the accusation implicitly. I feel some light should be thrown on the subject.
It is all very well to accept election funds from the big companies but if, as a result, the government feels committed, consumers can
Inquiries of the Ministry see why nothing is being done for the consumers and why food companies take such a heavy toll of their budgets.
That is why I say, when the committee is asked to sit in various localities, that we must make sure that it operates efficiently, and draws valid conclusions capable of helping Canadian housewives. I want to see positive results and to achieve this, the government cannot be committed to those companies which contribute to election funds.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for an inquiry in that respect. I think the committee should set out clearly its position and state that whatever these contributions might be, it will not be influenced by large corporations that take unfair advantage of Canadian consumers as a whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the reports appearing in the press in relation to a letter from the Prime Minister to the premier of Ontario dealing with the question of a constitutional conference summoned by Premier Robarts, will the Prime Minister table in parliament the letter along with the reply when it is received?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection whatever to doing this, to set at rest any rumours as to what I might have said and the tone in which I said it. I have not yet received the reply, but as soon as it is received I will ask Premier Robarts whether he would be agreeable to my tabling both letters.



REQUEST FOR ACCELERATED STUDY BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. With reference to the Prime Minister's statement as recorded in Hansard at page 12331, on the subject of confederation and the constitution, can the Prime Minister advise how long this study has been carried on, under which minister's authority is it taking place, and when will it be completed?

January 31, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been going on now-I am subject to correction here-for about a year in various committees under the supervision of the President of the Privy Council. Since he unfortunately took ill I have been supervising the study myself. I think it will take a good many months before we complete this work. I suggested the other day that it would be the autumn.



RETURN OF PRESIDENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL AFTER ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['As I say, the government naturally accepts its international obligations in matters of this kind. In so far as obligations toward the property of Canadian citizens is concerned, that is a matter that is being examined now and, as I indicated yesterday, it involves certain legal considerations which will be looked into very carefully.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnafay-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my question may I be permitted to say how delighted we all are to see the President of the Privy Council back in his place. We hope he is fully restored to health and strength and that he will be sufficiently well to be with us for a long time.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, at this point I wonder whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will allow me on behalf of our party to also welcome back the President of the Privy Council. It is good to see him back, and we hope he enjoys good health.


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted on this occasion to say a few words without taking too much of the time of the house?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members who have just spoken for having been the interpreters of their own sentiments and those of their colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, during the rather frustrating period I have gone through and which kept me away from the house, I must say I was constantly sustained, and I want the house to know this, by the tokens of friendship, the encouragement and the sympathy which I received from all sides of the house.
It may have become a cliche to say that friendships transcending ideologies or political convictions are made in the House of Commons, but I think it should be repeated, at least in my case, because the manifestation

of these friendships is one of the main reasons why I am back in the house perhaps several months before I expected it.
I wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for his constant support and encouragement.
May I, at this stage, add a personal word or two? It is that, during my absence, specially in the last few weeks, I have had to make a difficult decision, that is to leave the Quebec leadership. I must say, on the other hand -with the utmost sincerity-how happy and proud I was to observe the unanimous appointment of my successor. It is often a source of anxiety for someone forced to leave a post, to wonder over his successor. In the present case I must say that the personality, the sincerity and the talent of my successor will always give me a feeling of fulfilment. I wish him all success in the heavy task he will have to carry on. I also wish him-and I know he will receive it-the same support, the same backing and the same solidarity which I have received from all my colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was about to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any reports from police authorities regarding the persons or organizations responsible for the recent bombings of the Yugoslav embassies and consulates. I notice that the leader of one organization in the United States has said that they were out to make life miserable for Marshal Tito. What seems to have been overlooked is that it is also endangering the lives and properties of Canadian citizens. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has received any report on who are the persons responsible, and whether anyone has been apprehended as yet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No report has yet been received from the police who are carrying on their investigation into this unhappy and senseless incident. The observation as to responsibility to which my hon. friend referred was made, I believe, by a United States citizen in San Francisco. I should add that the Secretary of State for
January 31. 1967

External Affairs saw the Yugoslav charge d'affaires again yesterday, and I believe he is seeing him later today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any decision has been reached with respect to compensation for persons living in adjoining residences whose property was damaged as a result of these violent actions? I ask this because of the suggestion in some areas that people are asking for these consulates to be moved in view of the threat to their property.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I say, the government naturally accepts its international obligations in matters of this kind. In so far as obligations toward the property of Canadian citizens is concerned, that is a matter that is being examined now and, as I indicated yesterday, it involves certain legal considerations which will be looked into very carefully.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I avail myself of this opportunity to welcome back in the house the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Registrar General of Canada and to wish him a good health for the years to come.
I now wish to refer to the question I put yesterday to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning a Mr. Ritzig. Has the minister anything new to tell the house in this connection or does he need more time to look into this problem?
I put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I wonder whether he caught it.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member whether he means the question he asked me yesterday?


Raymond Langlois: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I studied the records this morning and took up the matter with my officials. We found no justification for the question put yesterday.
It may be, though, that the hon. member received more information. I can assure him that we looked up the name he mentioned
Inquiries of the Ministry and failed to obtain the required information. I should be pleased to discuss the matter with the hon. member. I believe some of my officials got in touch with him this morning.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will be very pleased to take up the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in the meantime perhaps his officials could discuss it with the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, in order to look at that side of the picture.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard  Johnsion@Okanagan-Revel-sioke: First, Mr. Speaker, may I on behalf of this group express our pleasure at the return to the house of the President of the Privy Council and wish him good health in the future.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement that the French government has moved to make Paris a more important international money market, what will be the official Canadian reaction to possible foreign investment in Canada from this new source?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The Canadian government would welcome investment from France. I hope there will be an increasing interchange both in trade and in investment between our two countries.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question. When the Minister of Finance says he would welcome investment from France, does he mean investment in bonds or equity capital?


Mitchell William Sharp: In either form, Mr. Speaker.



STEPS TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the French and Canadian governments in France within the past few days. Our delegation has returned to Canada and is making a report some time tomorrow, when we will have an opportunity of seeing what progress the negotiations have made. My impression is that the progress has not been what we had hoped it would be; however, the discussions are continuing.']
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: wonder if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is now in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday with regard to improved markets for Canadian crude oil.

January 31, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I presume the hon. member is referring to the Levy report. This report was read and analysed by my officials a number of weeks ago. Mr. Levy is one of the world's prominent oil experts who deserves to be read with great attention. Generally speaking I can say that my experts are more optimistic than Mr. Levy. On the subject of exports to the United States, I can only say that they have been growing substantially. They were averaging 317,000 barrels per day in 1965 and 379,000 barrels per day in 1966. This indicates quite a growth. However, the hon. member can be sure that the government, in co-operation with the industry, is at the moment still trying to expand these markets.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did ask particularly whether the minister and his officials had any consultations with representatives of the oil industry with regard to steps that could be taken, and particularly if anything had been done leading toward the constructoin of a pipe line into the Chicago market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Extensive consultations have taken place with regard to the matter the hon. member mentioned.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Within the last few hours reports have been circulated, consistent with the questions that have been asked, to the effect that the crude oil industry is working at less than one third of capacity. Is there a complete program in the United States for the sale of this product?


Jean-Luc Pepin: A complete program?


Eric Alfred Winkler: By the Canadian government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The policy was originated six years ago by the previous government, and it has been progressing ever since. The Canadian government, with the full agreement of the Canadian industry, has developed the program consistently in the past years. Last year the Canadian oil industry broke the one million barrels a day production barrier, and the rate of increase of exports has been 18 per cent in 1966 over 1965. I do not believe it is proper to talk about this industry other than with enthusiasm.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: My
supplementary question will be directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the important answers given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in view of the

discussion which I had with the Prime Minister before the house opened, will the Prime Minister be prepared now to have one of the ministers, either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, make a statement on this important matter outlining the situation and the policy of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who are the two ministers most concerned, to ascertain if a time can be arranged for such a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has his department made any feasibility study of extending the oil line into the Montreal market area, and will such a study be made available? Has the government any policy to announce as a result of such study, if it has been made?


Jean-Luc Pepin: A continuing study is made by the National Energy Board and that subject is also covered, as the hon. member knows, by the Levy report. The industry is also studying this possibility, but at this moment there seems to be a consensus that increased exports to the United States are more desirable than building a pipe line to the Montreal area. Our efforts, therefore, are concentrated now in this field of further exports to the United States.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the great new discoveries of oil in Canada, as well as the proven oil reserves, the government of Canada has initiated discussions with the government of the United States with a view to obtaining an upward revision of the quota of the North American oil market allocated to proven Canadian reserves.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Canada benefits in the United States from what are referred to as the overland exemptions. These exemptions are set from year to year, and this is presently being discussed by Canada and the United States.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Am I to understand from the minister that discussions are under way between the two countries now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Indeed.
January 31, 1967



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent discussions between Canadian and French officials on the issue of offshore exploration rights, has the minister any report to make on the conflicting national claims to the area between St. Pierre and Miquelon and the Canadian coast of Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question is of a very general nature. I am not sure the subject is of immediate urgency. If it is the hon. member may so indicate; otherwise it seems to me this matter could be dealt with by way of a statement on motions.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in answer to your suggestion may I say that I believe a delegation was sent from Canada to Paris, and that it returned only this week end. Therefore I would welcome any announcement the minister has to make because of the importance of this question not only to Canada nationally but to all our provincial premiers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the French and Canadian governments in France within the past few days. Our delegation has returned to Canada and is making a report some time tomorrow, when we will have an opportunity of seeing what progress the negotiations have made. My impression is that the progress has not been what we had hoped it would be; however, the discussions are continuing.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would undertake to request the Economic Council to supply members of this house with copies of its latest study on manpower adjustment to technological and other change, because as far as I know we have not yet received a copy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do that. I
Inquiries of the Ministry think the report just came out yesterday, but I shall be glad to ask the chairman whether that can be done.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. I should also like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether the study suggests any legislative action in reference to the kind of arrangements that should be made between labour and management in the case of technological change; and in that case may I ask whether the government is contemplating such legislative action on the subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to do more than read the report casually. I am not sure whether there is any recommendation for legislation. My impression is that there is not. In so far as the general nature of the question is concerned, we will be awaiting a report from the task force on labour legislation which I believe will have certain recommendations on this as on other subjects. However, we should like to have that before we decide on what legislation should be introduced.



DOMINION COAL BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that regretfully another member of the Dominion Coal Board has now passed away, which leaves two vacancies on the board, and in view of the critical situation of the coal industry and its future, can the minister advise when new appointments will be made to fill these vacancies on the board, especially in regard to a representative from the ranks of labour?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for being reminded of this situation and I will do my very best to correct it. If the hon. member would kindly become a candidate I might act even more rapidly.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he is desirous of removing me from the house? I always thought he rather liked me, like the Minister of Transport.

January 31, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



IMPOSITION OF SURCHARGE ON CARGOES BETWEEN EUROPE AND VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister refer to the restrictive trade practices commission the action of the European-Pacific coast freight conference in imposing a 10 per cent surcharge on ship cargoes between Vancouver and European ports, so they can investigate this price fixing conspiracy?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this would be a very efficacious way of dealing with the problem, but I do regret very much that this conference has seen fit to penalize the harbour of Vancouver in this way without any prior consultation whatsoever with the National Harbours Board. We have asked for an explanation of this and protested as strongly as we can.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce which arises out of the statement he made today regarding the final payments for oats and barley. In light of the progress that has been made in this regard, is the government now considering moving rye and flaxseed within the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been under continuing consideration for some time, and the government will continue to consider it.



EXPO '67 STATEMENT ON DISMISSAL OF MEMBER OF YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I answer a question asked the other day by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace about the dismissal of Mr. Harvey Oberfeld from his position on the youth advisory council. The hon. member asked whether this was due to criticism of the hiring policies

at Expo in connection with the youth pavilion.
On looking into this matter, Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that Mr. Oberfeld was dismissed by the youth advisory committee, which committee is completely independent of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition. The reasons for the dismissal have not been communicated to Expo but I understand they related to certain comments he made to the press without the authorization of his employers.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I apologize for doing so because he has been very much overworked today.
Negotiations are supposed to be taking place between the coal operators in the Crowsnest pass area and Japanese officials with respect to new contracts and larger shipments of coal exports from Canada to Japan. Has the minister anything to report on these new negotiations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I make one point first; the minister of energy can never be overworked. In answer to the question may I say that negotiations are taking place at this time regarding the export of coal to Japan, but the government is not in command; these negotiations are being carried on by industry. I think it is well understood by everyone concerned, particularly by the Japanese, that these exports must be made without federal subsidies.



SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
BOILER ROOM EXPLOSION ON "NIXON BERRY";

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he appointed or does he intend to appoint a commission of inquiry into an explosion in the boiler room of the ship Nixon Berry which resulted in one person dying in hospital subsequent to the explosion?
I wonder whether I could take a leaf out of the cabinet's book and while I am on my feet
January 31, 19G7

*direct another question to the minister. Has he yet received the report of the commission inquiring into the capsizing of the Manseau 1011


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, the answer is yes. In answer to the first question, may I say the matter is under consideration.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question with respect to the report of the commission of inquiry into the capsizing of the Manseau 101. May I ask the minister when he will make this report public?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can give a precise answer to that question at the moment, but I am considering the matter.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is further to a question asked in the house last Friday in connection with a telegram addressed to the Prime Minister from the city council of Sept lies protesting the proposed increase in St. Lawrence seaway tolls. I should like to know whether the minister has any comment to make on this matter today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was sent copies of this telegram both by the city and by the Prime Minister. I sent word to the city clerk that I would reply to the matter as soon as I can find a few minutes to do so.
That happened after my bill got to this house. I replied yesterday to the city of Sept lies telling them that the question of tolls was still under discussion between our government and the government of the United States, but assuring them that we would not agree to any change in tolls which would have the effect of discouraging traffic and, above all, of interfering with the iron ore industry of Quebec and Labrador.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What reply did the minister make with respect to the request of the city of Sept lies that they be allowed to make representations to the government before any final decision is made?
Inquiries oj the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not think it was necessary to reply to that question because under the law made by parliament the opportunity to make representations was advertised widely throughout this country, and a great many representations were made. I need hardly add that any citizen who wishes to write a letter or send a brief to me can be assured that within the limits of human capacity it will be given full attention.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberf):: Does that reply not mean that the minister will still not consider the advisability of bringing this matter before the transport committee before a decision is made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were so many negatives in the hon. member's question that I do not know whether to answer yes or no, but I will be glad to look at it.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will make it positive and simple. Does the minister envisage that this question of tolls will go before the committee for consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 would not be surprised if it did go before the committee. However, there has to be something definite to go.


Michael Starr: So I guess it will never go.



HOCKEY-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO CONTROL OF FLAYERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider setting up a parliamentary committee to formulate federal legislation to protect our young Canadian hockey players from being signed by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and sold like slaves to the professional National Hockey League?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am serious about the question I asked the Prime Minister a few minutes ago. This is a matter of great concern to the people of Canada, regardless of whether the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) wants to laugh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A report on this matter is to be made by the fitness council. It has not yet been received by the government but it will be available very shortly, I understand. At that time we

January 31, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry can determine whether it is the kind of report which should go to a parliamentary committee for consideration, to see how these wage slaves-some of whom receive a much larger income than does the hon. member-are treated.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of external affairs, who appears to be in a better mood this week than last week. Will the minister contribute to the discussion of unification of the armed forces this week by indicating to the house the importance to his department of destroying the identity of the three services, the navy, the army and the air force, as intended by the Minister of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think there is a possibility that the minister might want to contribute to the debate later this afternoon along the lines suggested by the hon. member, but I do not think that question can be asked now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I was in the west last week and noticed in my hon. friend's constituency a great deal of dis-unification.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will be out there this week to correct the bad impression left by the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My question is for the Minister of National Defence and it concerns the propaganda task force which he has posted just behind the press gallery. Would the minister instruct his propaganda agents to draw to the attention of the press my speech of November 4 in which I accused the minister of knowingly and deliberately misleading the House of Commons?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I asked these people to attend during the present debate because indications are that the hon. gentleman and some of his colleagues have such a primitive knowledge of the subject under discussion that we are happy and willing to make available to them all

sorts of material which will assist them in the preparation of their speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister make
available to us in the opposition the slick, 47 page booklet complete with photographs of military hardware which he has distributed to servicemen, veterans groups, writers and other interested persons and organizations? This contains his speech of December 7, which was most uninteresting. With the addition of the photographs and pictures we might be enlightened and amused.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be pleased to do that.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I would ask the minister to review his last answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Does he recognize that his answer contains an admission that this propaganda force is actually in being?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is hardly a proper question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: My
question is addressed to the Secretary of State. It arises out of the fact that ten Canadian university teams will debate the Viet Nam war on March 17 at York University, and that two United States networks are apparently planning to televise the event. Since the C.B.C. has said it does not plan to carry this program, would the hon. lady consider using her influence to try to obtain a reversal of that decision?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: No.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the statement made yesterday in the Ontario legislature by the attorney general of that province that the Ontario Provincial Police use electronic listening devices in criminal cases, and his statement outside the legislature that he had asked
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to permit this, would the minister tell us whether the government is considering the introduction of such legislation?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: The question of wire tapping was discussed quite fully at the meeting of attorneys general held about a year ago, and the matter has been under study by the department for some time.


David Orlikow: Would the minister consider referring the whole question of wire tapping and the use of electronic listening devices to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not think it would be wise to refer the matter to that particular committee at this time.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. If she decides to give me a one word answer, as she did to the hon. member for Winnipeg South, I hope it will be "yes" rather than "no".


Mr. McCleave:: Is this a proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid that would be invading a jurisdiction which has already been established.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the general desire to honour older Canadians during this centennial year, would the Secretary of State suggest to the centennial commission the possibility of arranging for complimentary trips to Expo for Canadians 80 years of age and over?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have to confess to the house that I have been waiting 40 years for the chance to say "yes" to a question, but this is not it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Where?
National Defence Act Amendment CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN



INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION BY PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare supplementary to the one I asked him yesterday concerning the Canada Assistance Plan. The minister said no agreements had been concluded with the provinces. Can he say whether the necessary agreements will be completed within the very near future so the benefits of the plan can come into operation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, I hope it will be possible to sign these agreements in the near future.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have about four speeches which I wish to make on this bill and until a few moments ago 1 was undecided as to which I would make at this time. However, I have been prompted to make up my mind by the answer given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to the question put to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) during the question period. I was not quite clear whether he meant by his answer that he had limited knowledge or that the opposition had limited knowledge. However, I think I can prove which is correct.
Before the house adjourned last night I had referred to the minister's speech of December 7 last and said it left much to be desired. I said it reminded me of a balloon; it had a cover but inside there was nothing of substance, just air. We in the official opposition were particularly anxious to examine that great speech in order to determine what he meant by unification. The word "unification" as used by the minister mystified the members of all the armed forces, the general public and members of this house, and again I say that the definition of this word is the crux of the debate in which we are engaged.
January 31, 1967


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right. It is completely misleading.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows he should address the Chair and that he should not address the minister or another member directly.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I direct my remarks through you to the minister. I should like the house to remember the only definition of the word "unification" which appears in the whole of the minister's speech. I repeat, as I said last night, that the definition which appears in his speech is that unification is the end object of a logical and evolutionary progression. I admit that that is a very lofty statement, but it does not convince me that the minister knows what he is doing; in fact, it actually has the opposite effect. I now agree that the senior officers who have been referred to so many times during this debate were right in the action they took even if it accomplished nothing more than to focus public attention on what is happening in the Department of National Defence. I would say that they have served their country well by
National Defence Act Amendment retiring and refusing to accept such an explanation as the minister is attempting to give the house at the present time.
How many staff officers who are now serving in the forces can say that they understand what the minister has in mind for the future of the services? It is beyond me. Perhaps I should enlarge the term "staff officer" and say that I cannot understand how any officer serving in the armed forces today knows what the minister means unless he is gifted, as the minister seems to be, with inner sight. I defy any one of these officers to give a coherent and rational explanation of unification as outlined by the minister. The onus is now on members of parliament, particularly those on that side of the house, not this, to stop this farce of unification, as the minister has attempted to explain it, before he destroys not only our defence forces but Canadian pride and sovereignty as well.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister refers so often to a single service he really means a funeral service for the armed forces of Canada if he is allowed to remain in his present office. I should like to read the last paragraph of the minister's speech under the heading "Bill No. C-243" as found on page 10832 of Hansard:
The three services under the provisions of the bill become one service to be called the Canadian Armed Forces. It is understandable that proud and gallant men may read this with heavy hearts. Those who do, I hope, will on reflection see that the single service is born with the great heritages of the three services that give it its life blood. These are not lost but brought together into one service, the strength of three to meet the challenges of the future and to add to the glories of the past.
Such hypocrisy for one who holds the axe. I could continue to read other ambiguous statements contained in the minister's speech. Under the heading, "The Influence of Rising Costs", he had this to say, dealing with finance:
The conclusion is somtimes reached because the figures are approximately the same that there have been no reductions in costs in the defence department.
Let me repeat that:
The conclusion is sometimes reached because the figures are approximately the same that there have been no reductions in costs in the defence department.
Although I am not an auditor, it would seem to me that if the figures are the same the cost is the same and there is no reduction. How ambiguous can the minister be?
There are other problems which appear from the minister's speech. In fact he has
12462	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment outlined quite well the problems not only here in Canada but in practically every country in the world in respect of national defence. I could go through the minister's speech and point out where he has listed certain problems in respect of manpower, certain problems in respect of command and certain problems in respect of finance. But he offers no solution so far as the Canadian government is concerned. We might take, for example, the United Kingdom solution to these problems. Last night the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) put on Hansard the remarks of Mr. Christopher Mayhew. I should like to direct the attention of members of the house to the first and last paragraphs of those remarks. They appear at page 12411 of Hansard. Mr. Mayhew said:
It seemed clear to me, and Mr. Hellyer readily agreed, that the degree of dislocation which he had cheerfully and deliberately created in Canada would be too much for a country like Britain-
Then in the last paragraph he said:
A member of the department commented sardonically that he doubted whether Canada could find the money needed to finance Mr. Hellyer's economies.
After saying that there is no reduction in the expenditure for national defence the minister should have come up with some suggestion concerning how it could be reduced. As I said before, I should like to have taken the jxample of the United Kingdom. However, I will deal with the problems France had. I believe France probably had a great many more problems than Canada in this regard. Canada has no concrete plan to overcome the military problems today.
The French government has decided to keep military expenditures at a fixed percentage of the gross national product in order not to affect the country's living standards or production growth. This is a very sound basis on which to work. The gross national product of France is increasing by about 5 per cent annually, which means a parallel increase in absolute value in the military budget. These additional funds will make it possible to meet the growing cost of modernizing the armed forces of France. The structure of military budgets in all countries has undergone radical changes since world war II. In the case of France the sums allocated for capital expenditures have risen from 16 per cent of the military appropriation in 1945 to 50 per cent in 1966, with an appropriate drop in operating expenditures. In other words, they are balancing their budget and intend to do so.

DEBATES	January 31, 1967
Military capital expenditures for defence must inevitably increase due to technological advances. New weapons and equipment become more complex and costly each year for all countries. In spite of the increase in capital expenditures for weapons, France balanced her defence budget by a sizeable reduction in military personnel which resulted in a decrease in operating expenses. The minister should make a note of this. The reduction in personnel is compensated for by the increased fire power of the new weapons that country acquired. In France the operating expenses for defence have remained fairly constant for the past five years, but fire power has increased over this period in spite of a reduction of over 50 per cent in personnel during the period 1961 to 1966.
Why did the minister not propose some sound plan for the Canadian people, like other countries have done, instead of giving us the drivel which he gave us in his speech of December 7, 1966? For a few moments I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 14, 1966. The title of the article is, "Hellyer sees anti-unity conspiracy". The article states:
Defence Minister Paul Hellyer charged Saturday that a conspiracy of forces inside and outside parliament is determined to kill unification of the armed forces.
In a speech to the Toronto District Liberal Association, he said the real cause of the filibuster in parliament was from influences outside the House of Commons.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I do not consider that we are carrying on a filibuster. We are carrying out our duty as members of the official opposition to the people we represent and to the people of Canada. We are trying to bring to light the mess the minister is trying to make of Canada's defence, the mess he is trying to make of our sovereignty and the mess he is trying to make of our national pride. Having read the speech delivered by the minister abroad I am afraid that we are now being ridiculed by every country in the world. The article to which I have refered then states:
He blames a small group of "desk officers" who have combined forces with the Conservatives and who he said are determined to prevent unification regardless of its effects on national defence.
What does he mean by "desk officers"? Is this another rank that he has created within our forces? The article continues:
He said also that part of the blame lies in Opposition Leader John Diefenbaker's "tenuous hold on his party" and the desperation of his supporters to keep him as Conservative leader after next week's national P.C. convention.
January 31, 1967

Let me point out to the minister that our leader has not taken part in this debate. If he had I suggest that perhaps he might have conveyed to the Canadian people much better results which will result from the attempt of the minister to impose on the Canadian people something of which he knows nothing.
There is no doubt that many Canadians have been seriously disturbed by the implications of the ministers' unification program. We do not understand the ultimate intent of unification because the minister has never explained the meaning of that term in a manner that relates to the services, except by what he has been reported to have said in various newspapers. I have a long list of reported statements but let me read only a few. At one point he said:
Unification is a single military force containing lists of sailors, airmen, artillerymen, infantrymen, dentists, etc.
In another paper he is reported to have said:
In the unified force management will not be imposed from the top, but will work up through the crafts and trades-
This certainly is unorthodox so far as the policy of any other service is concerned.
In another newspaper he is reported as follows:
Unification is probably the boldest plan of military reorganization ever tried by a modern nation-
In another newspaper he is reported to have stated:
Regardless of the words the important thing is to understand the concept which is a force of military specialists and their support all working for a common purpose.
What a conglomeration of words. He is also reported to have said:
We are now becoming leaders in defence organization and thinkers not just followers.
We really must be the laughing-stock of other countries.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just the minister, not us.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We are also a part of the parliament of Canada and if this bill passes it will be partly our responsibility. Let me appeal to all hon. members of the opposition to get up and oppose this bill.
The minister is also reported to have said:
Canada will have indelibly etched he name as the world leader in military organization-
How is that possible with a population of only 20 million?
National Defence Act Amendment
In another article he is reported to have said:
The aim of our program first and foremost is to build a more responsive force-a force which is more united strategically. To do this there is a necessity for a cohesive plan at the top.
Perhaps some of his staff officers can explain to me how a force can be united strategically. The only conclusion to be reached as a result of such statements is that the minister has some revolutionary ideas to advance that will change the whole concept of defence. Does he intend to keep these ideas secret as a new weapon for Canada?
We have asked the minister to reveal the facts about unification. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we did not want to agree to this fundamental change in principle without knowing the implications of such a change. We are not attempting to carry on a filibuster; we are truly attempting to obtain answers to our questions and to find out what the minister means by unification. Certainly his speech in respect of Bill No. 243 gave no indication of what he meant. In that speech he said yes at one time to one question and no at another time. As I said before, his speech was very ambiguous.
We are not alone in our search for answers. Members of the press have asked various questions such as: Tell us what unification means, Mr. Hellyer? What is required is an official comprehensive public statement on unification. The services and the people must be told why integration is not enough and why unification is necessary. We must be told what we have to give up and what we stand to gain. The services and the people have a right to an explanation of the necessity of this dangerous political experiment, and I am inclined to believe that is all it is, a political experiment. The press has also stated that the minister has not handled this matter well. He must reveal more facts. Unification is untried, untested and undefined.
The minister must have been aware he was causing unnecessary fears and confusion in the minds of the Canadian public by his silence and his refusal to define the term "unification of the armed forces". The minister knew he was not proposing any fundamental change in the services, but he let that idea circulate because of the press coverage he was receiving at that time. Possibly he had dreams similar to those that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) had for him. Perhaps he wanted to attain the top position-prime minister.
12464	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
In any event the minister was getting a lot of free publicity. If that was the reason he allowed that idea to circulate then he obviously had no concern for the armed forces and was using his position only as a stepping stone or for political expediency. If that is the position-prime minister.
The minister knew that his statements were just a play on words designed to deliberately create confusion and in many cases unnecessary fears. What did he do to those officers who had served for a lifetime in the armed forces when he forced them to retire because they would not agree to something they could not understand? The minister could not make them understand because he did not know what he meant. I am sure he does not know what he means by unification. This was a word which obtained a lot of publicity for him. He continued to utter it time and time again.
As a result of this obvious play on the word "unification" the minister has perpetrated a gigantic hoax on the people of Canada, the armed forces and the parliament of Canada. This is the greatest hoax ever played by any minister in this or any other parliament. What is perhaps even more dangerous is that he has endangered the security of this nation. He has endangered this nation by dismissing or forcing the early retirement of a number of senior officers.
The minister in my opinion deliberately misled the Canadian public when he said some time ago in Edmonton that this issue involved civil control over the military.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I ask the minister to get up at this time and deny that he made that statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, he now confirms it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said it, Mr. Speaker, and I meant it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The Canadian people are entitled to know if at any time during the minister's term of office there was a deliberately planned coup by the senior officers of any of our services. He owes this house and the Canadian people an explanation in respect of the statement he has now confirmed. What military control did the officers want to take over civilians? I think this is something that has to be explained in the house before discussion on this bill is completed.

DEBATES	January 31, 1967
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Make him answer it now.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) says, "Make him answer it now."


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member a question? Has not the minister, by the answer he gave just a minute ago, cast a very serious reflection upon the officers and men in our services, namely, that they were trying to gain control over the civilian authority in this land? That is the reflection he cast upon our serving officers and men.


An hon. Member:: Is that a question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, up to this time I was not sure whether the minister had made that statement in Edmonton although it had been reported in the press. Today all hon. members present heard the minister when he rose and repeated that statement. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that it is a serious statement. It does cast a reflection upon all officers now serving in the armed forces and in particular upon those who left under a cloud, as it were.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was directed to one.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Tell us who that one is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You know who it is.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We do not know who it is. You told us you knew.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we are to have orderly debate it means that the hon. member will make his speech and the minister will eventually reply to speeches made, closing the debate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the minister has not produced any proof for his statement, and I believe this house is entitled to some proof. I have only a few moments left so I will let one of my colleagues deal with this phase of the matter when I have finished. The minister is primarily responsible for the present uncertainties, insecurity and lack of confidence he has caused to develop because of the issue of unification.
As I said before, the minister will be responsible for the ridicule that will be directed at us when other nations realize that unification is a myth that existed only in the minister's mind. I doubt that it does exist in the minister's mind because I do not think he
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
knows what he is talking about. One writer, after reading the minister's speech, said:
Many of Mr. Hellyer's arguments in support of unification have an improvised air about them, as though he had dreamed up unification first and then devised the evidence in support of it afterward.
I would say there is no evidence that he has devised the evidence in support of unification. At least, it is not on record and he has not told us what the evidence is. He certainly did not tell us in that ambiguous speech in which he said yes and no at the same time. Again I say that perhaps that speech was made so that when he attains a higher office or aspires to a higher office he can say to one audience, "I said no there and I will read it to you," and to another audience in another part of the country he can say, "I said yes here in the same speech." If that is not political expediency, I do not know what is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is worse than that.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I submit that there is no evidence to support the minister's dream. Regardless of any explanation now put forward by the minister, the fact still remains that the term "unification" as used by the minister in his press releases could only mean extreme integration. I do not want to be unfair to the minister. I am sure all hon. members in this party will agree to a certain amount of integration. Those of us who have served in the forces of our country know that this has been taking effect ever since world war II, perhaps too slowly. If we were in the minister's position we would be able to realize that and speed it up if possible. We would have no quarrel with a program such as that; in fact, we would give the minister kudos for such an attempt.


An hon. Member:: I would not go that far.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should now like to say a few words in relation to what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) said last night about a single chief of staff, a single committee, and so on. I do not want to repeat what I said on two previous occasions in this house. The first time I mentioned this matter was in May of 1963, and I dealt with it again just a couple of months ago. At that time I referred to the danger of having a single chief of staff.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Halifax that there is a danger here. All the minister has to do to realize this is refer to history and find out what happened in the United Kingdom forces when the government attempted to instal a single chief of staff over
National Defence Act Amendment their forces. They did not continue that policy. We know what happened in Germany as a result of a similar experiment. I think the minister should be very careful because of his nature, and he should know this, that he does not gather around him "yes" men or people who will agree with him. That is not what the minister needs. I do not know whether the people sitting in the gallery are there because they are "yes" men or not, but I would suggest that if they want to serve their country well they should tell the minister the truth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. My understanding of the practice of the House of Commons is that visitors are allowed in the gallery and are welcome there but they are not permitted to bring in with them various articles such as papers, books or things of that nature. If undesirable people are in the gallery an hon. member may rise and declare to the Speaker, "I spy strangers." I do not want to do that on this occasion because there are some people here who are earnestly endeavouring to gain some knowledge of this debate. But I would ask Your Honour to discover whether the group of people sitting behind the press gallery are authorized members of the press gallery and therefore entitled to have books and papers with them or whether they are visitors to the press gallery who are not entitled to be here laden with books, papers and goodness knows what.
I realize that in recent years we have had to take very much more stringent security precautions in the house. Is it now permissible for people behind the press gallery apparently to have rather voluminous documents in their possession? Are they just visitors to the gallery? Are they members of the press gallery and therefore authorized to be present and have papers with them, or what is their purpose? I would ask you, sir, to investigate.


Mr. Speaker:: I, of course, cannot see who is behind me in the press gallery. However, I think I should point out to the hon. member that for some time now the row of seats immediately behind the press gallery has also been occupied by persons who would normally sit in the official gallery. In other words, the proliferation of officials attached to ministers' offices over the years has meant that the departmental officials occupy not only the official gallery but also the row of seats behind the press gallery.
January 31, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
I might mention to the hon. member that there is a dispute, if I may use the word, between the press gallery and others about whether that part of the public gallery has been assigned to the press gallery and whether they have authority over it. So far as the Speaker is concerned, the authority of the press gallery over that particular row of seats has never been confirmed. Therefore in the circumstances departmental officials have used these particular seats. I assume that is what is being done now, but this is only theorizing on my part because, as I mentioned at the outset, I have no way of knowing who is now occupying those seats. I presume that is the explanation of the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. In any event, I will look into the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that at this distance they do not look to me to be departmental officials and therefore I think they should be expelled from their position.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look at them and see whether they look like departmental officials.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, the activities which have been generated by the bill now before the house were referred to in an article which I read the other day as being a collision between the minister and the admirals. I do not know about that but I recall reading recently an authoritative book about accidents at sea and I was amused to see on the front page a single anonymous quotation which might interest the house in connection with this debate. It read: "Collisions at sea should be avoided. They can spoil your whole day". Some aspects of the matter now being debated have spoiled not only my whole day but also my whole summer and my whole winter, and I hope we do not intend to let them spoil our whole spring.
I had planned to make my contribution to this debate in the usual form and I had prepared a number of quotations from famous men showing how right the government is in introducing its unification legislation. However, on reading what has already been said in the newspapers and magazines and in the lengthy debate on interim supply, and having listened to the debate yesterday and today, I have come to the conclusion that this would be pointless now because it is evident to me that little that is new can be added to what has already been said somewhere.


The battle lines in this debate have been drawn, and like Wellington before Waterloo we are going through the motions of a sort of parliamentary gavotte before we get down to the real business before us, which is of course the vote on second reading. It is the form of this political dance which bothers me, and it disturbs me to the point where I feel that I must unburden myself to the house for a few moments on this subject.
As every backbencher knows, a backbencher has plenty of scope for contemplation. In contemplating parliamentary work generally and this debate in particular I am struck by the way our excesses in the house come back to haunt and plague us all. Debates on matters as close to the heart as this one generate in many of us a heat which gives rise to exchanges across the floor and in the press that amount to nothing less than slander and are a form of character assassination which leaves grievous and lingering wounds. It seems to me that all of this serves but little the cause of parliament and the people's business.
The general excuse, and how often we have heard it, is to say, he did this or he said that when we were over there, meaning the other side of the house from wherever the speaker happens to be. I know I am not the first to say this but I hope I will be the last to have to say that this is ancient history and it matters not one bit to the great majority of us. It should be forgotten, dead and buried. In my view it is inexorably poisoning the atmosphere and killing our work in this house, work which somehow has to be done. I point the finger at no one because I could not do so if I tried. I suppose we are all guilty of at least encouraging or in any event condoning this kind of debate.
I feel that we are too inclined, in the security and isolation of this chamber and elsewhere, to try to impute motives, however subtly we do it in order to get past Your Honour's watchful eye, and too inclined to place in question the integrity of the opponents of our own point of view. We do this when surely the real point at issue in every case, as it is in this case, is one of judgment. Is the government right in its judgment in introducing this legislation on a unified force? Some say this and some say that, some say yes and some say no, but it is all a matter of judgment, and the questioning of motives and integrity has no place no matter how subtly it is done.
January 31, 1967

What possible excuse is there for harking back to the day-and I mean no pun here -when, for example, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) was minister of national defence, as has been done more than once in this house and elsewhere? Is it intended to prove that he was not a good minister? What is the point of that? Having used his name as an example, and it is only one example, I owe it to him to acknowledge to the house that from my personal knowledge, regardless of whatever has been said or implied in this house, the hon. member for Calgary North when he was minister in fact enjoyed the general respect of the officers and men of the armed forces for the job he was doing, and nothing can take that away from him. I venture to say again that, whatever is said or implied here, the same respect is generally shared today by the present minister.
If I can continue in somewhat the same vein for a moment, let me ask who would presume amongst us to question subtly the motives of that other westerner, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)? Of course there is no need for me to labour on his behalf since he has earned his place in this house and in this debate many times over by his unique experience in the service of Canada both in peace and in war. Therefore it pains me to hear us resorting to excesses in debate both here and elsewhere, and I implore hon. members both inside and outside the house to use the restraint which a matter of this importance deserves. I know this is not going to be easy, and little wonder, because a matter such as the unification of the forces which deals with long established and honourable institutions and is surrounded with such indefinite but nevertheless very real factors such as tradition, esprit de corps, morale and so forth, tends to make ordinary human emotions explode. When one adds to this the undoubted fact that into this emotionally charged field one is thrusting servicemen and ex-servicemen who, God bless them, are not used to losing and who do not intend to start now, then one has the makings of a real knock-down and drag-out battle.
Is this really what will serve our nation best? I suggest that there comes a time, and that time is now close at hand, when we must decide whether in the excitement of the immediate battle and in the excesses of the moment we are not endangering the very thing which in the long run we all wish to preserve. I am sure hon. members will agree
National Defence Act Amendment that this is now a very real dilemma. I venture to say that every hon. member here and every person who has taken sides outside the house wishes to see the armed forces of Canada continue strong, useful and, most important, in good heart. What each one of us has to decide for himself is whether by prolonging this debate we are helping to achieve these things, and I for one do not think we are. It does not take much imagination to see what the inevitable results of delay and uncertainty could be, and I say it is a tribute to the qualities of Canadian servicemen that, after all that has happened, morale, enlistments and re-enlistments are as high as they are, and from what I have been able to find out from my own sources they are not at all bad. As I see it, this debate is in danger of becoming a "yes it is, no it isn't" type of debate, if indeed it has not done so already.
Are we now engaged in a time-consuming exercise in futility which could drag on for weeks and weeks, and if so will not the innocent victims of parliament be the armed services? The uncertainty under which they labour has been with us, one way or another, for long enough. Thousands upon thousands of pages of written words are a matter of record, and hundreds of thousands of spoken words have been devoted to the subject.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
To be realistic, there may still be some legitimate questions to be answered and this is to be expected when there is almost no precedent for what we are undertaking. Firm answers, in my opinion, too often represent immovable positions, and in stepping into almost the unknown as we are doing this would be dangerous indeed. However, to be realistic also, it can hardly be argued there is much hope now of changing anyone's point of view on this matter. We obviously differ amongst ourselves on the wisdom of the government's action in bringing this matter before parliament, but it can hardly be denied with any justice that it is their right to do so and to do so in the manner in which it has been done. The government has the responsibility and they have followed the procedure entrenched in 400 years of parliamentary practice, which is a pretty good tradition in itself if I may say so.
The government has put its life on the line to back up its judgment and its responsibility. This is not a threat, it is a fact of parliamentary life. This fact sometimes needs explaining, if not inside the house then outside it. I certainly have no quarrel, and I emphasize
January 31, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment the word "quarrel", with those who oppose this bill. Let no one misunderstand the motives which have prompted the opposition. We have two genuine points of view and for the moment they appear to be irreconcilable. This situation is not new to parliament. Sooner or later we have to make a decision on this bill and then get on with the job at hand.
I have purposely refrained, Mr. Speaker, from entering into the subject of the debate because, as chairman of the defence committee, I feel it is my most important duty, if this bill ever does come before us, to help resolve the differences during the clause by clause study in committee. I have a duty to see to it, within that framework, that when the unification bill is returned to the house it contains all the essential safeguards necessary from the point of view of both the serviceman and the national interest. I have the duty to see that it reflects to the greatest degree possible a balance of the opinions and experience of the members of the committee.
I happen, of course, to support the government strongly on the principle of the bill, which is all that is before us now. This is a matter, as I have said, of personal judgment. For the reasons I have outlined, and in particular in the interests of the services, I urge the house to rise and shine, to use a service expression, and take a vote on this matter as quickly as possible. We should either get this bill approved in principle or get a new government. If the bill is approved, then our task is to get our heads together and, using all our intelligence, skill and experience but in particular all our good will, to do what is expected to us in committee by making this the best possible bill to meet our nation's needs.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to congratulate the hon. member who has just resumed his seat upon the manner in which he made his speech, although I cannot agree with the content of it. I hope the minister was listening closely and will take the attitude of the hon. member as an example. I am sure if he did so he would expedite the passage of this bill through this house.
In so far as the major principle of the bill is concerned, I can do no better than to endorse heartily the excellent speech delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) yesterday. Rather than repeat the remarks made by that hon. member, I think my time might be better spent in trying to give some advice to the minister, for whom I used to have a great deal of admiration. I had a

great deal of sympathy with the alleged objectives of his integration bill as it was introduced in the house and publicized across the country.
I think back, Mr. Speaker, to the first time I saw the minister and that goes back some years now, long before I was a member of this house. I recall that at that time the minister was a very youthful, newly appointed associate minister of national defence. He was being heralded as the young, white hope of the Liberal party. He was particularly heralded because he was the first minister the Liberals had appointed from the city of Toronto in many years. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, there was no lack of qualified members from that particular region. I recall a very distinguished member of the other place who was a Liberal member in this house for a number of years. Almost everyone in Ontario wondered why he was not chosen to fill a cabinet post. Possibly the major reason was the fact he was a little hard to handle. I recall that when he was a cabinet minister in the Ontario government they tried to push him around so he promptly resigned his cabinet post. The federal Liberals did not want the same thing to occur again. Finally they decided that the best thing to do was to try to bury him in the other place. This move was not really successful because today he is one of the most vociferous and hardest working members of that chamber.
I recall having breakfast on many occasions with the present minister back in the days when he was a member of the opposition. I remember the many discussions we had at that time. I must say that the first impression I had of the minister continued for some time. I recall the night he was called in as a last minute replacement for a guest speaker and created a tremendous impression. After all, he was young, he had stature and good looks and he did make a very good impression.
I believe this impression started to fade at the time we attended the NATO conference. I thought at that time that the minister, then a member of the opposition, made use of his position for purely partisan purposes and did not really play the game the way one might expect. Of course, the reason is easily understood. The minister was ambitious. Now his ambition has been partially fulfilled at least by his appointment as Minister of National Defence. I might say that at the time he embarked on the program of integration, which has somehow become unification, he
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
had almost universal support. He had the support of the armed forces, the general public and the members of this house. I think everyone realized, certainly anyone who had been a member of the armed forces or who was interested in the minister's proposals, that waste and duplication were rampant in the armed forces. Everyone supported the idea of trying to achieve a little more efficiency in the services in order that the Canadian people could receive a little more value for their defence dollars.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister, Mr. Speaker, having had this great and wonderful opportunity, has muffed it. Somehow he has lost the good will that he had when he first made these proposals. He has lost the good will of the forces, he has lost the good will of the public and certainly he has lost the good will of the members of this house.
I think the reasons for his loss of good will in this house are quite obvious. We saw another example today during the question period. The minister seems to be completely unable to resist any opportunity to display arrogance and rudeness. The minister has been a member of the house long enough to know that this is not the way to get the co-operation of other hon. members. That is not the way for a minister to get his legislation through. Regardless of how great the temptation or how much his ire may be aroused, the minister's attitude is not the way to accomplish things. The minister's whole attitude in the debate on this issue reminds me of nothing more than a frustrated corporal who, because of the death of some grandparent, has inherited the office of commander in chief and ever since has behaved like a bull in a china shop, seeming to love the sound of breaking glass.
There are some people who say-I do not know whether this is true-that the prime motivation for this attitude is to try to show the Canadian people that, contrary to the present leader of the Liberal party, the minister is a man of strength and determination. Anybody who has started out on a project of this kind with the complete support of everyone but winds up without the support of anyone would make a very good leader of the Liberal party.
The reason the minister is losing the support of the armed forces is again, I think, quite easy to understand. I have with me an example, a letter received from a member of
National Defence Act Amendment the armed forces serving in the Gaza Strip. I should like to read two paragraphs. He says:
I do not see why the single man must pay for rations that are supplied from world powers. We do not receive any Canadian rations here and Canada only subsidizes an 8-cent grant per man. I'm willing to pay $2.40 per month but not $35 per month.
If you can answer this question it would be appreciated and if Canada wants us to pay $35 a month let them send us good Canadian rations for a change. The food here is not worth $35 a month.
That is one of the reasons that the armed forces are becoming so fed up with the present minister. Another major reason for the minister's loss of the support of the forces is the confusion which is being caused throughout the armed forces as well as throughout the country. This confusion is rampant. For example, I have before me a few newspaper clippings dealing with the recent well-publicized pay raise given to the members of the armed forces, and they are quite interesting. On September 24 there was a story by Neville Hamilton of the Journal headlined "Armed Forces Pay Bonanza May Reach 30 Per Cent". Three days later, in the Ottawa Journal for September 27, there was a headline reading: "Forces' Boost 14 Per Cent". On the same day the headline of a story by John Walker in another newspaper was: "Forces' Boost Cut -Now 10 Per Cent". Two days later the following headlines appeared in two newspapers both printed in the same city. First, a story by Norman Campbell was headlined: "14 Per Cent Average. Forces Pay Increase Puts Stress On Skill". Second, a story by Dick Jackson was headlined: "Increases Average 10 Per Cent. New Pay Deal For Forces".
I do not believe that there is a conspiracy afoot among newspapermen to try to confuse the Canadian public. I think that these newspaper reporters were trying very hard to do an adequate job. I believe that they, like the house, the armed forces, the minister and all his officials, are completely confused about this whole situation. No one seems to know where he is going, what he is doing, what he can look forward to, what to expect, or anything else.
I have talked to ex-servicemen recently returned from Germany who told me that six months prior to their return they had every intention of signing on for another five years but that because of the confusion brought about in the forces over the past six months they cannot wait to get out of uniform. This they did as promptly as they could and returned to civvy street. If it were possible for
12470	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment all members of the armed forces to get out of the services today, we would find the services completely depleted almost overnight. However, there is a beautiful little scheme to prevent this. I am told by servicemen-I have letters in my office to back this up-that if a member of the armed forces wants to get out of the services he must first of all have a job to go to and, second, he must give six months' notice. In other words, proof must be provided to the authorities that somebody will hold open a job for him for six months. In my opinion that is the only reason that the armed forces today are not so depleted that there would not be enough men to defend Parliament Hill against an invasion from Hull.
I suggest to the minister that the best thing he can do is to take a good lesson from the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) and as long as this debate continues govern himself as did the hon. member. I think the hon. member for Victoria has rendered a very good service and I am very pleased that he is chairman of the standing committee. I hope he can maintain the calm and restraint that he showed today, and most of all I hope he can pass on some of his calm and restraint to the minister.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the most important issue in this debate is whether or not the present legislation, which we are told is designed to unify our armed forces, really indicates an important shift in our foreign and defence policies and, if it does, whether this shift in our foreign and defence policies is desirable. To date the government and, indeed, various organizations have dragged in a number of red herrings, so to speak, which have thoroughly confused the real issues involved. There are many, many questions concerning this legislation which have been left unanswered by the government, and how the government can have the effrontery to ask parliament to approve this legislation in principle before those questions are answered, or the details have been clarified, is hard to understand.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In my opinion the subject matter of this bill should go before a joint meeting of the defence committee and the external affairs committee so that the details of the bill and the government's long-range defence plan can be clarified. Only then could approval in principle be given or withheld by this house. The government and the minister have been vague and ambiguous with regard to many

DEBATES	January 31. 1967
aspects of this bill but it does appear, despite all the confusion, that the following are to be essential elements of the measure.
First, it is the intention of the government to set up a single service which will be outfitted in one kind of uniform the design of which has apparently not yet been chosen and that all designations of rank will be an agglomeration of those now used in the existing services. It also appears that the government intends to do this over a number of years, perhaps over three or four years.
Second, it would appear that the new service will be extremely mobile and well armed. To this extent it will probably be very efficient. It will resemble a kind of marine corps or possibly, as somebody put it, a modified police force. I suppose it will rather resemble a marine corps.
Third, it appears that the air force and the navy will eventually be relegated largely to transport and support roles. These three considerations seem to emerge from the morass of information which has been handed out. As has already been pointed out this afternoon, the minister's public relations men are already organized upstairs, passing out information on this program to the press gallery. It is difficult for members of this house to compete with such a formidable tribe because they probably have easier access to the press than do most of us. However, I rely on the judgment of the members of the press gallery to pay some attention eventually to the arguments put forward in this house as well as to those handed out to them by the minister's public relations staff. Incidentally, I would say that the members of this staff have been very efficient. I compliment them because they have been able to "sell" the public on the proposition that this new, unified force will be economic, efficient, and somehow up to date in this modern world.
So far as economy is concerned, that is a matter of evidence, a matter of fact. There has been plenty of evidence so far to raise doubt whether this new force will be economical. I think these facts could be brought out very well when the bill goes to committee. For that purpose, and for that purpose alone, I see no objection to the bill going to committee after second reading. But approval of such a procedure ends there.
The second aspect which the minister and his cohorts have "sold" to the public is the claim of greater efficiency. Perhaps this new force will indeed be efficient. But efficient for what purpose? That is the big question, the
January 31, 1967

really important question. One naturally asks: can a hybrid force of this kind effectively integrate with the forces of our allies under our collective defence agreements such as NATO and NORAD? Our allies have no unified forces of the kind proposed for Canada at the present time; they have the conventional three services.
It is difficult for any of the military men with whom I have discussed this subject to understand how a hybrid force such as is contemplated by this legislation could successfully be integrated into the more specialized forces of our allies. As someone put it, it would be like trying to mix oil and water. Close co-operation in future with our NATO and NORAD allies would certainly be very difficult, if not impossible.
Another question which arises is this: what about the role of the navy with respect to NATO? As I understand from the information which has been given to me, our naval forces have certain responsibilities to carry out in respect of NATO, namely, anti-submarine work. It is also my understanding, though the minister has denied this from time to time, that our naval forces are at present not fulfilling the commitments which have been undertaken.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister says no. He has said it on other occasions. But it is difficult to understand how this can be so when some of our ships are apparently not sufficiently manned to go to sea. The minister himself told us a year or so ago that there were plans to build additional ships to fulfil our anti-submarine role, but these vessels have not as yet been laid down.
It would seem to me, from information which is public knowledge, that one of the main dangers to NATO and to this continent is the increase in the number of nuclear-powered rocket firing submarines operated by the Soviet Union. While at the moment there is a detente between the Soviet countries and the NATO powers, there is no assurance that such a state of affairs will continue indefinitely and one must always take into account the weapons which any hostile power or powers might have. If the numbers of nuclear-powered submarines are increasing, it would appear to me that our navy should be given an increasing role rather than a decreasing one in this regard.
As both the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) have 23033-789

National Defence Act Amendment stated on other occasions, defence policy really depends on foreign policy or, to put it another way, defence policy is really a part of foreign policy. What is our present defence policy? As I understand it, for a good many years our defence policy has been in this priority: first, to preserve the security and sovereignty of Canada; second, to play an active part in collective defence agreements such as NATO and NORAD. These two items are closely related, especially in regard to our link with the United States known as NORAD. The third objective is to participate in United Nations peace-keeping activities. These seem to be the three bases of our defence policy, and that is the priority given to them.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
But there would now appear to be patent evidence that the proposed new force cannot fulfil adequately, if indeed at all, the first two priorities I have mentioned, namely, the immediate protection of Canada and active participation in collective agreements such as NATO and NORAD. There is, as I have mentioned, the difficulty of integrating a hybrid force such as is proposed by this legislation with the three specialized services of our allies, and there is the factor of the steadily declining role which seems to be laid out for the navy. It would now seem that the purpose is to place the third priority, United Nations peace-keeping operations, in first place, and there appears to be plenty of evidence to corroborate this very natural conclusion.
The Ottawa Citizen, a newspaper that normally speaks on behalf of the government, carried a lead editorial on Canada's defence program in its issue of November 5, 1966, which has already been referred to by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness). I quote from that editorial:
The evident strategic doctrine contemplated by the government is to set up a mobile force of land, sea and air services that could be moved quickly to any part of the world to undertake either a U.N. peace-keeping obligation, or to help fight a brush-fire war on NATO's behalf. This would require the country's air and naval units to play largely a support role for the army, rather than the semiindependent part they once took. The air force appears to have come to terms with this doctrine. The navy has not.
From what I have seen over the years the Ottawa Citizen, and certainly its editor, seem to be very close to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the government, and when it comes out with this allegation I think most reasonable people would be inclined to pay pretty close attention to it.
12472	COMMONS DEBATES	January 31, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment
Another piece of corroborative evidence is that at the United Nations last fall, Canada's largest and principal project was a peacekeeping resolution which it introduced in the General Assembly. I have a copy of that resolution here. It is rather long, Mr. Speaker, and I would request that it be placed in the record of today's proceedings as an appendix to Hansard. As I say, it is a resolution which was presented by the government of Canada to the United Nations General Assembly last fall.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house give unanimous consent to have this resolution printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of resolution referred to above see appendix.]


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The Secretary of State for External Affairs had the responsibility for this resolution, which was a very good one. In general terms it laid down guidelines as to how the United Nations could provide funds and troops at the request of the Secretary General. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and his departmental officials should be commended for it. However, at the United Nations we found that for a good many reasons peacekeeping is not in vogue any more, and this commendable resolution put forward by Canada was badly defeated.
Although we expected the Soviet Union and her allies to oppose it, much to the sur-pise of some of us we found that the following countries, many of them members of the Commonwealth, did not support the resolution: France, Australia, Brazil, Burma, Ceylon, Ghana, Iceland, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Tanzania and Zambia. When our close friends, plus a great many other countries, did not support our resolution the conclusion is that peacekeeping is not at all popular at present in the United Nations.
If it is the intention to provide an integrated force mainly for peace-keeping operations we should be very careful of what the United Nations is thinking because, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) during the question period some time ago, we might have the force "all dressed up and no place to go". I am sorry that peacekeeping operations are by no means popular at the United Nations at present but the facts of life, unpleasant as they may be, are the facts of life.

As further corroborative evidence I would point out that from time to time many of us receive information from what the gentlemen of the press refer to as "reliable sources". People tell things to those of us who have been around here for a while, and the information which I have received from various sources and in various places is that the government's plan for a single service is to make it available for United Nations peace-keeping operations and perhaps occasionally for specific NATO purposes. I might add that two members of the goverment party have quite frankly said that this is the government's intention.
This suggestion was put forward by myself during the debate on December 7, and also by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the spokesman for this party on defence and vice chairman of the parliamentary defence committee. We have posed these questions to the minister on other occasions and there has been no reply to our suggestions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not true. They were categorically denied.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would like to know just when they were denied?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The last time you raised them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister, as usual, makes a vague remark. Perhaps when he is answering he will deny these things. He has not denied them to date. They were brought up the other day right after the minister spoke. The hon. member for Edmonton West again raised these points. I do not know when they were denied. They certainly have not been denied in this house nor have I seen any reports that they have been denied outside the house.
I do not wish to create the impression that members of this party are opposed to peacekeeping operations by the United Nations. Far from it. We are certainly most in favour of this sort of operation but we are not in favour of putting all our eggs in one basket, having all our armed forces designed for one purpose, to serve the United Nations and possibly help NATO fight brush-fire wars. I think the United Nations should be the third priority. The defence of this country and this continent should be the first two priorities.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If the government's intention is as I have outlined, I would like to hear the minister speak on that point when he replies because
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
there is some logic and merit in the apparent position taken by the government. It is argued that Canada cannot defend her huge area and enormous coast line all by herself, that we must rely on the United States to help us and, therefore, that it is better and more efficient for the United States to do this by herself. Then Canada could carry its share of the burden of keeping peace in the world by providing forces for United Nations peacekeeping emergency operations and also take a part in fighting "brush-fire" type wars on behalf of NATO.
As I have indicated already, I have no doubt that this new force could perform this function very efficiently. There is some logic in the position of the government in this regard. There are, however, certain arguments against such a proposal. Perhaps I might enumerate these. First of all, if the defence of the continent of North America is almost completely turned over to the United States, then the United States for her own protection and for the protection of the continent eventually must take over and use the military installations in Canada. In addition, the United States would probably find it was necessary to set up new installations in Canada. In view of the present increasing Canadian nationalism I would doubt very much that such a proposition would be acceptable to the Canadian people. As was suggested to me the other day, I hardly think it would be very acceptable if United States troops were quartered in the citadel at Quebec. That is just one example.
There is no one in this house who is any more a friend of the United States than I am.
I believe it is all very well to have close alliances with friends, but once one starts turning over his household to them there can be only one result. In this case it would only encourage anti-American feeling in Canada even more than the C.B.C. is doing at the present time. I do not think this is at all desirable. If a situation were to develop in which United States troops of different types were quartered in Canada, then foreign countries could only assume under these conditions that Canada was little more than a military province of the United States. Should Canada be regarded as merely a military province of the United States, would our troops then be acceptable by the United Nations? I think they would not.
In the United Nations peace-keeping operations it recently has been the practice that the major powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union do not provide forces nor do 23033-789^
National Defence Act Amendment their immediate close allies. Were Canada to be placed in such a position, I do not think our troops would be accepted by the United Nations. They could not be used. Then what function would they perform?
The third objection, to which I have alluded already, is that at the present time the United Nations is not disposed to undertake peace-keeping operations. This may change in the future, and I hope it does, but at the present time the United Nations is not disposed to undertake peace-keeping operations because of the many internal difficulties it has had in this regard. I shall not take the time of the house to enumerate these. Those members who are interested in this matter already know the reasons.
It is alleged that we have a faint voice in Washington, but if we should leave the defence of the continent entirely to the United States then under such conditions we would have no voice at all. At the present time we have a very good position internationally. However, there are a number of serious questions concerning matters which ultimately could seriously affect our sovereignty and position internationally. The government has not yet answered any of these questions. A few moments ago the minister stated that it has. I do not know where these answers are. I hope the minister will clarify this situation so that there will be no misunderstanding.
Is it the intention of the government to provide a single unified service, sort of a hybrid force, just for the purpose of U. N. peace-keeping operations or to take part in certain brush-fire wars on behalf of NATO? It seems to me that this is the case. There is a good deal of evidence to back this up, including private observations made by members on the government side of the house. If this is a fact, then the minister should tell us. If it is not a fact, he should deny it specifically right down the line, because I think this is the most important issue in this debate.
Matters such as economies, uniforms, what happens in respect of the various units and so on, of course are important, but the really important thing is how our foreign policy may be changed as a result of this program. The minister, in a sense, is in a awkward position in a debate of this kind because he cannot answer until the debate is wound up. However, I suggest to the minister, and I hope he will seriously consider the suggestion, that the subject matter of this legislation be sent to a joint meeting of the committees on national defence and external affairs so that we will
January 31. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment have an opportunity to ask some questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well as the Minister of National Defence, because these matters affect our whole foreign policy in the future and our relations with the United States, the United Nations and other countries. I believe these are matters which must be clarified before we are expected to vote on the principle of this bill. If the minister will not allow the subject matter of this question to be sent to either of these committees, then I would hope that he would give very complete and, for once, unequivocable answers to all these questions which have been brought up from time to time. He has not done so to date but I hope he will before we are asked to vote on this bill.


Mr. Jim McNuliy (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, in considering the question of unification of the Canadian armed forces, I think it would be interesting to hear the words of a distinguished Canadian soldier, General Charles Foulkes, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. As hon. members are aware, General Foulkes gave distinguished service to his country for more than 34 years. He held senior military posts in the Canadian armed forces. He served as chairman of the chiefs of staff committee for over nine years. I should like to read the following article by General Foulkes entitled "Our Defence Dollar Is Being Wasted" which appeared in the Toronto Star Weekly magazine of October 14, 1961. The article reads as follows:
Drastic changes are needed in the organization of the Canadian defence forces. This year's regular defence budget-without the additions promised in the present session of parliament-came to $1.6 billion for a total strength of 120,000 men. About three-quarters of it is needed for pay, maintenance and operation, leaving only $400 million for new equipment, although effective defence depends more and more on highly complex and expensive weapons. We are well on the way, as one commentator remarked, to having "the best dressed, best paid and poorest equipped forces in the world". Unless we can devise a new approach we shall find ourselves spending more and more money on less and less effective forces.
I am not one of those people who think we can find an easy and painless way out by trying to be neutral or putting all our forces under the United Nations or even by refusing all atomic weapons. Nor do I agree that our forces don't provide any protection. They help to provide the only protection there can be-which is to prevent nuclear war by making it far too dangerous for an aggressor to start one. I think Canada must go on contributing what it can to the "nuclear deterrent" of the free western world. I think we must also go on supporting United Nations efforts-however haphazard-to police the world's trouble spots. The

question is whether we can reshape our defence forces so that they can perform these tasks more efficiently.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Can we eliminate the waste and duplication and futility which taxpayers properly complain of? Can we reorganize the navy, army and air force so that they will give the Canadian people value for money and make a better contribution toward preserving peace?
1 think we can. With the money we are now spending, I think the forces could be reorganized so as to meet all the major aims of Canadian policy. The first thing to do is to abolish the Canadian navy, army and air force and unite them all into one single Canadian Armed Service, and that is the name I'd use. Their functions already overlap. The army and navy want to fly; the air force already dreads being relegated to underground burrows dusting off automatic missiles.
Instead of keeping a separate air division and army brigade group as part of NATO's European shield, we should have a single Canadian task force. Instead of our scratch collection of ships and aircraft patrolling the oceans-some under the R.C.N. and some under the R.C.A.F. with joint committees trying to control them-we need a single maritime task force. Instead of having the R.C.A.F. clinging to its aircraft as the cavalry used to cling to its horses, while the army conducts survival operations, we need a single task force for continental defence.
After my nine years as chairman of the chiefs of staff, trying to co-ordinate the rival services, I am convinced that we can't achieve much more by the present road. Attempts to integrate the three services by persuasion have been going on ever since 1945. They have woven a huge spider's web of committees, which are rather like foreign ministers' meetings where rival powers try to reach a compromise. Some of the branches, like medical services and chaplains, have actually been amalgamated. But there was no economy in these amalgamations. When former defence minister George Pearkes pushed through a merger of chaplain services, he ended up with two more chaplains on brigadier's salary.
The problem can only be solved by complete unification of the three services, with one chief of staff, one chain of command, one ladder of promotion and one uniform.
I'm thinking, among other things, of the young men who are now in the services or may contemplate joining them. We must realize that these are professionals. Both officers and other ranks look to the services as providing a career. They can't be hired and fired at will as defence requirements may change. But so long as we insist on keeping them in three separate channels, which never meet except to argue on committees, we are crippling their chances for promotion and greatly reducing the career prospects we should be able to offer them.
In 1958 we had to disband the anti-aircraft artillery regiment. Its role was finished. The regiment included many technicians with tradesmen's skills in radar and electronics who had several years' service ahead of them before they went on pension. The air force was busy at the same time recruiting people to man its new radar stations: It took them in green and trained them. Air Marshal Hugh Campbell, chief of the air staff, fully agreed with
January 31, 1967

Lieutenant General Finn Clark, chief of the general staff, that the surplus army men, who had been trained in the same skills, should be taken into the air force jobs. The "brass" pushed the idea, but it still foundered on the basic rivalries and vested interests of the different services.
I can see the same thing happening in the near future to hundreds of skilled men in the R.C.A.F., unless the services are unified in time. The Canadian air division in Europe has 12 squadrons flying F86's and CFlOO's, which are now becoming obsolescent. They were designed to intercept enemy bombers. Eight of these R.C.A.F. squadrons in NATO are to be re-equipped during the next two years with the Lockhead Starfighter, known as the F104G, which is now being built by Canadair Ltd. and numerous Canadian subcontractors. The new plane is called a "strike fighter" and it is designed to help ground troops by carrying a small atomic bomb to drop on enemy concentrations. It looks as though the R.C.A.F.'s switch to this new role in NATO will leave at least one-third of the pilots and ground crews of the present air division without a job.
At the same time both the navy and the army need men of just these skills. They are now advertising for new recruits whom they will have to train. Will they save the expense of training and absorb the R.C.A.F. men who already have the necessary skills? Not on the present basis, because it would upset their ladder of seniority.
The set-up of navy, army and air force is really a hangover from the two world wars. It was spiced up to meet the demands of NATO and Korea, but it's still basically a miniature model of the old British forces. This always meant keeping enough "brass" and pen-pushing "office wallahs" to look after four or five times as many active troops as Canada had. They were supposed to be ready with paper plans to mobilize the reserves and auxiliaries after war started. But today's strategy leaves no place for reserves and wartime mobilization. We are no longer trying to win the last battle. Our only object is to prevent war starting by making aggression too dangerous. The only troops which can contribute to this deterrent are those already trained, equipped and in position.
As it is now, navy, army and air force each has a separate establishment and each has different methods of administering it. Their manpower ceilings, laid down by the government, stand at 20,000 for the navy and 50,000 each for the army and air force. Naturally each tries to get as many men as it can into the higher ranks. When I was chairman of the chiefs of staff, we tried to rationalize the ranks through a three-man committee consisting of myself, the Deputy Minister of National Defence (C. M. Drury first, then Frank Miller, who succeeded me as C.C.O.S.), and the Secretary of the Treasury Board (originally R. B. Bryce, who has now gone on to be Secretary of the Cabinet). The one thing we learned was that the three services were organized so differently that we couldn't impose a single standard of rank requirements.
I consider that this is very unfair to the men in the services. There should be a single list for all promotions, appointments and retirements. Men should be posted to the various task forces according to their training, experience and seniority regardless of the colour of their uniform.
Although we can't turn over our whole forces to the United Nations-which doesn't want them, anyway-we ought to be able to go on providing
National Defence Act Amendment
contingents suitable for police duties as we did in Egypt and the Congo. But it shouldn't be as difficult to pick out the appropriate tradesmen as it was when the Congo force was being assembled last year.
You may ask why no one has tried to cut down the "brass" and unify the three services long ago. The answer is that we did. The late Brooke Claxton was made Minister of National Defence in 1946 with precisely this object. Until then there had been separate ministers and departments for each service. Brooke Claxton made a good start. The civilian side of the administration was unified under one Deputy Minister. "Bud" Drury, a former Brigadier, and later Frank Miller, an Air Marshal who went back into civies for the job, did all they could. The chiefs of staff were lumped together in one building around the one minister. Innumerable inter-service committees were set up. It seemed that one single Canadian armed service was about to be born at any time.
Then suddenly it was all dropped. I can't be sure why the idea of a single service vanished so suddenly, but the story at the time was that Mackenzie King had persuaded Claxton to become Minister of National Defence by promising him that he could move to another department as soon as he had "banged the heads" of the three services together and unified our defence effort. This promise gave him a chance to be quite ruthless in overruling inter-service jealousies and cutting out duplication. He got as far as amalgamating the civilian administration. Then, the story goes, Mackenzie King was so pleased with this success that he told Claxton to stay in national defence and continue the good work. Whether that's the reason or not, the attempt to unify the three services came to a grinding halt and we were left with innumerable, ineffective inter-service committees on every conceivable subject.
Let me quote one example of the way overzealous service loyalty at an earlier stage resisted common sense attempts at uniformity and economy. When the war ended, Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, president of the National Research Council, wanted to give up the military research which N.R.C. had been doing during the war, and asked the chiefs of staff to take it over. The army staff had prepared a plan, at my direction, to centralize all military resaerch for the three services in one research organization. It was bitterly opposed by the air force, which insisted on keeping sole control of all military air research. The chief of the air staff, Air Marshal Leckie, happened to be chairman of the chiefs of staff committee at that time and we made no progress. Finally I put the problem to my minister, then Douglas Abbott; and he put it to C. D. Howe. The air force, which still had a separate minister, Colin Gibson, got his support, and it took a cabinet level decision to overrule the air force and establish the Defence Research Board.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Brooke Claxton's new organization-more or less integrated on the civilian side with committee government on the service side-barely survived the challenges of 1950 and 1951, when we had to raise the special force for Korea and make our contribution to NATO in Europe and the North Atlantic. I was still C.G.S., with responsibility for raising and training the new army brigades. I had also become chariman of the chiefs of staff, which meant frequent visits to Washington, London and
January 31, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Paris for discussions with our allies. There was so much work involved in this first effort to establish a collective defence alliance in peacetime that the government decided to appoint a permanent chairman, chiefs of staff. This relieved me of responsibility for the army and Lieutenant General Guy Simonds became C.G.S. But it didn't give me any direct authority over the chiefs of staff. They remained directly responsible to the minister, Mr. Claxton. I was expected to rely on my powers of persuasion to "co-ordinate" the services.
This led almost immediately to a critical dispute about the stationing of our army brigade group in Germany. We easily reached agreement that our air division in Europe should be stationed in the U.S. zone and supplied by the U.S. supply system. But General Simonds insisted that the army brigade group should be stationed with the British forces and get its supplies through them. All the rest of us in the chiefs of staff committee believed that the brigade should be near the R.C.A.F. contingents and that they should both be supplied through U.S. channels. This would have been more reliable and certainly more economical. But General Simonds took his stand on tradition and sentiment, and his plan was adopted.
General Simonds insisted on going to negotiate himself with the war office in London. He got an assurance of British support, but there was no written agreement of it and no details were spelled out. Within a few years the U.K.'s financial troubles and shortage of manpower landed us all in difficulties. Its supply system fell below NATO standards; the brigade group was affected; NATO authorities asked Canada to augment the inadequate British supply system. In short, the arrangement never was satisfactory: It still leads to friction and uncertainty. But it just shows what can happen when one service is allowed to follow its own desires instead of doing what is best for the overall defence effort.
We need one single armed service, under one supreme chief of staff, in one uniform. We need to organize our armed forces in the form of task forces designed for their particular jobs-at home or off the coasts or in Europe or with the United Nations. They should each be given the strength they need for their particular job at a given time. They would have no fixed establishment with rigid ladders of promotion, as the three services have now. They would all come under one system of administration. By this means-and only by this means. I believe-the taxpayers' legitimate complaints of extravagance, duplication and waste can be removed and Canada can start to get real value for its defence budget.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Certainly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I wonder whether the hon. member has read the most recent statement of General Foulkes on the question of unification, which appeared last year in the Ottawa Journal under the heading, "General Foulkes asks where integration went wrong." He seems to have changed his mind considerably since that 1961 article.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: I did read that article, and I think the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and myself would be very pleased to have General Foulkes as the first witness before the defence committee as soon as we can get this bill through the house and into the committee.


An hon. Member:: No, we want the minister first.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Members of the house have discussed at some length this particular issue in regard to our national defence policy. During the interim supply debate from October 31 to November 15, 1966, there were 204,641 words spoken and recorded on 241 pages of Hansard. Certainly this is not a surprise measure. The government announcement to reorganize the Canadian armed forces was made on March 20, 1964. I quote from page 19 of the white paper on defence:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
That passage in the white paper has been quoted before. Members of parliament have thoroughly discussed this subject and the special and standing committees on defence have had 81 meetings, where in 2,300 pages of committee evidence were recorded the thoughts, advice, reports and criticism of 103 witnesses, retired and serving officers, civilians, and so on. The Minister of National Defence has been accused of not giving sufficient information to the house regarding unification. The facts refute this accusation. The minister of National Defence or the associate minister appeared before the committee on 63 occasions. The minister himself answered 857 questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How many dealt with
unification?


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: More information on defence has been provided to parliament through committees in the past three years than at any other time in the history of Canada. I appeal to all members of the house to give this bill second reading and move it into the defence committee where we can hear expert witnesses, some against and some for unification of the armed forces, where we may question, probe and seek the advice of top military and civilian personnel.
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
If hon. members will give Bill C-243 second reading and allow the defence committee to study it in depth, clause by clause, and come to conclusions in a democratic manner, parliament and Canada will benefit greatly. Let us hear these specialists in military matters who have been quoted from both sides of the house where their words will have meaning, before the standing committee on national defence.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Slraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be following the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) in this debate and I hope the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) is still in the house because I would like to make a comment or two about his contribution to the debate. I thought the question asked of the hon. member for Lincoln put most of his speech into focus. He quoted at great length from General Foulkes' opinion of several years ago, but his answer indicated that he realizes that the general has now changed his opinion. But this did not stop the typical Liberal approach of putting on the record what they hope they may find useful and quoting someone whether or not the quotation is reliable.
I thought the suggestion the hon. member put forward was so much like the attitude of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer): Let us get this bill out of the house and into committee so we can get at the facts and allay everybody's fears. It was very nicely put by the hon. member. But, of course, he did not bother to mention that since the question to be decided is the principle of unification, once the vote is taken the house has decided on the question and therefore there is no right for the committee to call evidence as to the principle of unification. It would then be useless to go to the committee to get answers to all these questions.
Of course, all this has been said before in the house. The same objections have been taken and we have received the same bland assurances. The frustrating part of it is that the minister can sit there very contented that he has been successful in the snow job he has been doing on the Canadian people as to what is at issue in this defence debate. Frankly, the situation is that this house is demanding information and the minister says: Ha, ha; I do not have to give you any and I am getting away with it.
National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There was an article in the Globe and Mail this morning on the same subject as the objection raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) with regard to the activities behind the press gallery. The minister has his high-priced and very successful hucksters up there riding herd on every word said. They are making sure that if anything embarrassing to the minister is said in the house they can descend on the press gallery and divert the attention of its members should they show any signs of thinking seriously about something which may be objectionable to the minister. His minions disseminate with the greatest vigour what the minister would like said about him and what will enhance his image.
Our principal objection to unification, our principal complaint, is that for the first time in Canada's history there is only one important element in the mind of the defence minister, namely, to sell his own image and to gain the political benefits which can be obtained from building himself up. I suggest that the minister is playing fast and loose with the security of Canada and with millions and millions of the taxpayers' dollars. His prime purpose is to ensure his own greatness.
I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos), who is chairman of the defence committee, compliment the minister on the way in which he has presented the bill to the house. As a matter of fact I was shocked. The chairman of the defence committee was aware before anyone else in the house of the minister's methods to ensure that parliament would grant the funds for his program. The chairman of the defence committee was aware, before I was or anyone else on this side of the house, of the fact that the minister had tampered with the evidence before that committee. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., said that the minister had acted in the same democratic manner which has been followed for 400 years. What nonsense. This is the first time that parliament has ever been so affronted by any minister of the crown. It is the first time that a member belonging to the same party as a minister who has so insulted this house has suggested that he will slavishly follow and support him in continuing to insult the house. The minister is guilty of tampering with evidence and he has done so for the purpose of ensuring that parliament does not get the information which is essential before it can decide on
12478	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment those questions on which it is its duty to decide before granting supply. The suggestion that this is a method which has been followed for 400 years is sheer hypocrisy and I am amazed at the hon. member's effrontery in making such a suggestion to the house.
I think that the approach of the minister has been very consistent, as evidenced by the statements made by various individuals and organizations who have taken exception to the minister's actions. Their statements have been founded on a sincere and firm belief that the defence of this country is too important to be trifled with and that when drastic changes are to be made which have such a far-reaching effect on morale, on the status of the forces and on our security, not to mention the financial implications, the fullest information should be supplied so that all those who are concerned can see for themselves that the matter has been fully studied, that all necessary information has been made available and that the best minds have discussed it thoroughly. All the information has not been divulged to us. All we have is a barrage of propaganda and the bland assurance of the minister that all is well.
I was not surprised to hear the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who has come to the minister's defence so often, assure the house that any suggestion that full information has not been forthcoming is nonsense. As he said, the amount of information which the minister has provided to the house is stupendous. In other words, how can we say we do not have information when the Minister of National Defence has been willing to give it to us and in fact has given us more information than anyone else? The hon. member for Leeds told us to look at the great number of appearances which the minister made before the committee and at the great number of questions he has answered. Let me say in reply that I do not think anyone in the house is prepared to accept the minister's testimony on anything as being of any value or accuracy. In fact, after having witnessed his tampering with evidence we must even suspect his motives. I for one have to say about the minister what I have never said about any other minister of the crown, that I cannot in all conscience accept any information pertaining to defence which he gives to the house as being helpful to us. I am suspicious of it and in fact will reject it until such time as he should decide to submit to trial on the charges which he now faces and attempts to clear his name as any hon. member should.

DEBATES	January 31, 1967
I do not wish to return to the debate we had on this subject. The important point is for everyone in the country to realize that the minister's critics are concerned and feel they do not have enough information. For example, the Tri-Service Identities Organization, in a letter written to members of parliament stated in the last paragraph:
We hope that you will support us in our objective of a commission type of inquiry but, as a preliminary step, the Minister of National Defence should be persuaded to follow the rational and democratic process of reconvening the defence committee before the unification bill is presented. We hope you will agree that an issue as vital as national defence deserves a thorough and open nonpartisan approach.
The minister labels these critics as a bunch of admirals trying to take over. His answer in the house indicated that the cause of the whole difficulty is that the top service personnel find themselves unable to grant to the government ultimate authority over the armed services, and he would have us believe that there is some sort of plot whereby the top service personnel are attempting to dictate to the government. I think such an approach is a reprehensible one and a studied insult to those people who have devoted their lives to defence. Certainly this is not the only insult which he has thrown at most of the top personnel who have found that they had to resign rather than go along with the minister's reckless plans.
The Air Force Officers' Association, which is composed of people who deserve the confidence of this nation as well as our gratitude for the services they rendered in the last two world wars, has written asking for certain information. They have asked for an explanation of what is meant by unification and integration. I think that this type of approach to the question of defence demonstrates the spirit in which the House of Commons has always acted until the advent of this minister, namely, an inquiring mind, a search for information and a real concern for the welfare of the country rather than solely the personal glorification of the Minister of National Defence.
In its brief the Navy League of Canada demonstrates exactly the same sort of attitude. Although we can understand that they have every reason to consider that the minister should be condemned out of hand for his character and conduct, for the way in which he had treated the armed forces and for the confusion which he has brought to this country, their brief indicates a simple search for information. This is obvious in the concluding
January 31, 1967

paragraph of the brief on page 36. They wish to be satisfied that the question has been properly considered. This paragraph reads:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is of paramount importance to determine if there has been any change in the underlying principles on which our forces are established. Is it the intention to abandon the concept of forces organized to protect the sovereignty of Canadian waters, fields and skies, and replace them with a new kind of police force designed for dispatch overseas, and leaving Canada to be protected by others?
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, those are legitimate questions to which we have had no answers. I thought that the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) beautifully illustrated that point. The minister has not explained to the house what is meant by unification. He has not told us what his aims and objectives are. I submit that unless we know what his aims and objectives are, unless we know at least his definition of unification, it is going to be difficult for hon. members to vote in favour of this bill.
As for having confidence that this plan is the result of careful thought and detailed study by the best minds available, I find it incredible that all the evidence I can gather points to the fact that right up until last summer not one of the heads of staff, not one of the top brass in any of the armed services knew what the minister meant by unification. Not one of these people who have spent their lives in these important jobs knew what the minister intended to do. Not only had the minister not taken their advice but apparently he had not taken them into his confidence and had not even discussed the matter with them. In fact, when historians are looking at this particular period of Canadian history I think the most amazing thing to them will be that so many of the top brass were fired for disagreeing with the minister when nobody, including the top brass and the minister, knew what the minister intended to do. This is still the situation today. Nobody can tell us what he means to do with these forces. No one, I am sure, knows what this special force is.
Anyone who has seen the lengths to which the minister will go to keep information from the members of this house, the lengths to which he will go in disseminating propaganda rather than facts, would be a little afraid to accept the minister's definition of the special force. We do not know what it is to be used for. We know that no one in the armed forces is going to ask the minister 23033-790

National Defence Act Amendment because it has been demonstrated that if you ask a question you are on your way out.
I hope some members of the house have read the brief prepared by Rear Admiral Landymore which includes testimony he would have given to the committee if he had been recalled. The committee will recall that when he gave testimony before, not only was his brief altered and his evidence tampered with by the minister but the minister sat right there and pre-empted any questions that might be embarrassing. The minister gave his own replies. We have to take it for granted that this is exactly what he did with all the rest. In other words, the evidence that was given before the committee by the minister was given to prevent the committee getting the facts and not to give the facts as my hon. friends opposite suggest when they brag about the number of visits the minister made to the committee and the number of questions he answered.
It is obvious or should be obvious to hon. members that the purpose of the minister in answering those questions was to prevent the witness from giving the committee the facts which the witness had available and wanted to give. One has only to look at the proceedings of the defence committee to see how often the minister stepped in. One has only to look at those areas in which are armed forces are in such disarray today compared with the time before the minister took office, to see how skilfully he rode herd on officers who were responsible to him and to see how his interventions prevented them from giving evidence.
Rear Admiral Landymore had something to say in his brief about the subject of the planning for unification and whether it was the result of consultation with the best brains and most responsible people in our armed forces. I quote from the top of page 6 of the brief:
At this time the word unification was assumed to mean a single service, with a single identity, that is, a common identity for personnel serving in the force. This definition had to be assumed for there wasn't any official definition then, nor as far as I can determine is there one now. Indeed, in the military forces of other nations "unification" means something altogether different. For example, in Britain it is used to denote that in a theatre of operations there will be only one commander in chief who, with proper senior advisers from other services, will command the theatre. There was no study of unification to show how it had been arrived at as a concept. Although it has been claimed integration was studied, as far as I can determine there hadn't been a study of the implications of it either.
12480	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Whether people are opposed to the navy, whether they dislike admirals or generals, the fact is that the armed services constitute a tremendously important business in this country. There are many millions of dollars being spent. If we are going to have armed forces, then they must be properly run. When Admiral Landymore left the service he was chief of the maritime command and so would be in a position to know whether any studies had been made of integration. He would be in a position to know what unification meant.
Hon. members should consider the destruction of morale, the feeling of uneasiness, the wholesale firings of the top brass and the amount of consternation in the forces generally caused by this word "unification". One would have thought that someone would certainly know what it meant. If there was any plan for unification, if there had been any study of the effect of integration, certainly the top brass would have heard about it. But we have Admiral Landymore's evidence, and I will take his word any day over that of the minister, that he never saw any study. In other words, apparently we have been wandering along without any plan and with some idea in the minister's mind that he could change from time to time. I suppose this is what he means by "flexible".
I thought the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) did a fine job of explaining to the house the position of the Conservative party and those of us who are opposed to the minister's bill. I realize that the hon. member said it was his intention to support the minister. We are used to the Social Credit philosophy of criticizing something because they do not know what it is about but saying that they will go along with it. On this occasion I believe the hon. member was making a valiant effort to find out what the bill was all about. He did confess that the bill left him confused but said he was going to go along with the minister.
I suppose I should congratulate the minister because it is a fact that the feeling of the hon. member represents, I am sure, the predominant feeling of most citizens in Canada today. The minister has done a beautiful snow job by way of publicity not only on some members of this house but on the people of this country. No one yet knows what unification means but people have swallowed the minister's line that he is giving them more defence for less money, that Canada is leading the way in a sparkling, new concept
[Mr. Nugent.}
DEBATES	January 31, 1967
which shows original thought and which other countries are going to be glad to follow as soon as they realize how brilliant our minister is.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I also realize why so many people in this country pay little attention to the armed services and to defence spending. It is very hard to arouse the interest of people in why we are fighting so bitterly over this issue. Because the people at home are not paying enough attention I believe we should perhaps redouble our efforts in this regard. I resent the minister doing a snow job. I resent the minister, who should be interested in the defence of this country, selling himself, and I doubly resent it when he is successful. I have always said that the Liberals-the minister is a shining example of this-can sell a lie faster than we can sell the truth, but when the effects of a lie are so far reaching and dangerous to the country as well as so expensive to our treasury, then our duty becomes much clearer and much more rigid.
Admiral Landymore related an incident or two to prove the kind of mystification which exists throughout the top echelons of our armed services. He stated in his brief:
The minister himself gave us a clue at the meeting held in Ottawa in June 1965. At an assembly of a very large number of senior officers who had been invited to Ottawa to learn something of the organization plans for integration, the minister in his opening remarks announced there would be a single walking-out dress and a single rank structure by July 1967. I immediately asked the chief of personnel for more details of this and he, normally, is responsible for dress and rank structure. He told me he had no pre-knowledge of the announcement or any knowledge of any such plan.
I think the chief of personnel should certainly have had some knowledge of this if there was a plan. I would not be surprised if the Minister of National Defence had suddenly made it up on the spur of the moment and announced it in his speech. Since the minister had not been known beforehand to be an expert on defence matters and we in this house have no reason to suspect that since he has become minister he has learned very much about defence, it would be very comforting to hon. members to think that at least there are some people who know something about defence who have been guiding him. But according to this statement it has been a one-man show. The chief of personnel had no knowledge of something that it is his personal responsibility to know. He had no knowledge there was any such plan, which makes it
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
obvious there was no such plan and that there was no planning.
There is a line or two on page 7 of Admiral Landymore's brief which illustrate what many members in this house feel. He says:
But it is impossible for anyone to support something, or to be against something, if he doesn't know what it's all about. For my part, from the beginning I have made it clear that if unification is to be carried to the rumoured extreme so that the navy would lose its identity, there would have to be clear improvements to efficiency and economy or I'd oppose it.
From the time the minister first put forward his concept of integration and unification of the services this was the position of this admiral who stayed in the service and stuck it out after Admiral Brock had gone and others had been fired. His position was that there would have to be clear improvements in efficiency and economy or he would oppose this plan.
I ask the minister, though I know it is futile, what is the objection to a senior officer who has this viewpoint? Does it not reflect the real concern of this officer for the efficiency and economy of the services? Is not the viewpoint of this officer one which we on this side would like to think prevails? Is he not taking his duties seriously in wanting to examine any radical changes to make sure that in all conscience he can go along with them, in wanting to examine the reasoning behind them in order to make sure that improvements will ensue, in wanting to voice his disapproval of them if he cannot find any improvements? That is what this officer was doing, and we all know the manner in which he was treated.
I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, how I can get the minister before the committee on privileges and elections or before the defence committee where those senior personnel could be called who have been forcibly retired or have taken early retirement from the services over the last few years, particularly those who resigned because they could not stomach any further the lack of planning and lack of policy on the part of this minister. Before such a committee, the minister would not be able to interrupt. He would be told to shut up if he tried to interrupt when we were asking questions of somebody else in our search for the facts. In this way we would get the facts, not the minister's propaganda.
I can well understand the minister being scared to death at being put in this position. I can well understand those who feel that the Liberal party would be given a black eye if 23033-7901
National Defence Act Amendment the minister were shown up for the phony he is. I know why they so anxiously and slavishly support him and why they deny to this house the information that we should have before voting on such an important issue.
I must confess that I cannot go along with what was said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I believe it is a complete abdication of the duty of a member of this house to say, "I don't understand this bill but I am going to support it". Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the minister cannot make it plain to this house, if he cannot reveal the facts to the members of the house so that they can with confidence support the government, then the government has no right to proceed. Certainly no member has any right to give his confidence and a blank cheque to the minister under such circumstances.
I have said before and I say again that there is one fundamental point in argument that most have accepted as common sense from the time they were old enough to think. Whenever one becomes involved in a discussion one should not do what the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) suggests and regard something as a case of "It is or it isn't". If the facts support your side of the argument you should present the facts and try to convince the other side of the truth of your proposition.
Is there any member of this house, Mr. Speaker, who would take serious exception to this manner of approaching a question and trying to persuade others that you are right? Is the hon. member for Lincoln, who so glibly quoted the outdated speech of General Foulkes, going to suggest that the minister is afraid of revealing the facts unless the minister knows that the facts will support him? Surely it should have entered the minds of hon. gentlemen on the other side, as well as the mind of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, that if the facts are there the minister should be ready, willing and proud to present them so as to give conclusive proof of his statements and to overwhelm his detractors.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) in his speech praised the minister for giving the house so much information. I am wondering whether the hon. member has had any courtroom experience. I can just imagine him calling a witness, saying to the judge that he could rely on that witness, the judge saying "Yes, but what about this recent conviction for perjury, do you still want me to take his word", and the hon. member saying, "He is a very fine fellow; take his word anyway". This
12482	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment seems to me to be the parallel of what the hon. member for Leeds said in his speech about the information given by the minister, who still sits in this house though charged with tampering with the evidence of a witness. The purpose of the tampering was to make sure that we did not get certain information. The minister still has not disclosed this information. Yet the hon. member for Leeds has stated that more information on defence has been given to the house by this minister than by any other. For that kind of information we do not give much thanks.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I hope hon. members will read the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). To my mind it was a perfect, a classic example of a difference of approach.
I have not always agreed with the hon. member for Calgary North, but he is honest and straightforward and he said what he had to say like a man. The minister of National Defence has hidden the evidence, has resorted to half truth, has kept the facts from the committee and has given us nothing but propaganda when all we seek are the facts.
It is my hope that some hon. members who so far have supported the minister will search their consciences at least to the extent to which the hon. member for Fraser Valley has searched his and reach the conclusion that they do not really know anything about this plan. They might continue to search their consciences before reaching the conclusion that we as members of parliament have at least ten times as much opportunity as our constituents to find out the facts. They might admit that it is our responsibility to ascertain these facts before disposing of the taxpayers' money in such large amounts.
I wonder whether we can succeed in spurring the minister into rising and telling us what he means by unification and what role Canada's armed forces are to play. Perhaps he might even say something about nuclear weapons. When in opposition he was skilful at selling the idea of our commitment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has promised to reconsider that particular role. Perhaps the minister, little as we can rely on his word, will tell us what part nuclear arms will play from now on in the armed services. Just what kind of defence force are we to have?
I would suggest, if I thought the minister was the type of man who would take advice in the house-he has not taken it from his military advisers-that the hon. gentleman should put aside the arrogance referred to by

DEBATES	January 31. 1967
the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) and try to see himself as others see him for a few minutes. I suggest too that he should look at the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary North, compare that speech with the pamphlet he himself put out, and try to follow the example of that member. He could still disagree with the hon. member for Calgary North, but he might gain a tenth of the respect in which the hon. member for Calgary North is held in this house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: This might be an appropriate point at which to announce the proceedings on the adjournment motion tonight.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Transportation-Montreal-Use of the French language in railway transportation services; the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), National Parks -Use of expropriation to halt court cases; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Administration of Justice-British Columbia-Commutation of death sentences of convicted murderers.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, the objects of national defence ought to be clear to everyone. They are to defend our territorial integrity and the political institutions of our country, or at least those political institutions which we value. Our defence policy should be the means by which we seek to accomplish this.
The 1964 white paper on defence ought to be a blueprint to guide us in this purpose. It is anything but that. It is both confusing and
January 31, 1967
confused. It is impossible to get clear meanings from it. It reminds me of the story of the blind men who went to look at an elephant. One felt a leg and said "It is like a tree trunk." The other felt an ear and said "It is like a leaf". The third felt the tail and thought it was a vine. On this evidence the blind men concluded that the elephant was a tree. Consider the white paper of 1964. One can get any meaning from it one wishes. Nothing is clear. It is far from being a blueprint.
There are two essential truths about our national defence. They relate to our physical position and to the size of our country. The first is that the defence of our territory will always depend on others, primarily upon the United States. The second is that the defence of our principles must also depend on others. This will depend to a greater extent though on our political alliances with the Commonwealth, NATO and the United Nations. Of these three organizations only NATO has effective military strength.
To follow this through, our military role will always be to contribute to our own defence to the best of our ability, subject to the reality of our ultimate reliance on others. The degree of political integrity which we would be likely to retain after another world war would depend on the effectiveness of our contribution to our own defence relative to that of other countries. When, therefore, we are discussing integration and unification we must always do so with the knowledge of our dependence on others, realizing that our forces would be only part of a larger defence system.
It is hard to find any real objection to the principle of integration and unification of the supply services, the communications services and training facilities. Indeed, it might be fair to complain that the integration of these services might have gone ahead a great deal faster since the end of the second world war. If the services I have mentioned, along with similar services, were properly integrated, the result ought to be a real saving in both manpower and money. However, I am not sure that this phase of integration has in fact been carried out properly. My impression is that there has been far too little planning. There was and is still far too much haste-why, we do not know. This haste, together with the absence of planning, has, I feel, destroyed some of the advantages of integration at the level I have mentioned to the detriment of
National Defence Act Amendment the morale of our military forces, their military efficiency and, incidentally, the combat efficiency of our troops.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I think this phase of the integration of the services is of such importance that no further steps should be taken until this has been accomplished in reality, not just on paper or in theory. We should have the reality of integration before we go further. Unified command was provided for in large measure by the amendments in 1964 when a single chief of staff was appointed. Unified command has been the subject of long controversy. Nearly every biography and history of world war II cites examples of disastrous mistakes in judgment and often attributes them to lack of unity in command. Many of the people who have written these books are experts but I have got the feeling they are being wise after the event in citing lack of unity as the excuse for other shortcomings such as bad judgment, bad advice or mistakes in execution.
I am not sure that all the damnation of lack of unified command is just. One recent book, for example, talks about the now generally accepted wastefulness of much of our bombing of Germany, but I doubt very much that the course we took in that respect would have changed if there had been unified command.
The 1964 amendments provided for a single chief of staff. The pitfalls in that course of action were set out in great detail both by hon. members and by experts inside and outside this house. The chief objection to a single chief of staff was, and still remains, that it cut off too many high ranking military officers from direct contact with the Minister of National Defence. The minister now gets only the consensus which the chief of staff brings to him. This perhaps cuts out bickering but there is a difficulty because the military machine is much more complicated and technical than ever before. The minister is usually a layman in military matters. Therefore I think he needs more advice rather than less advice.
One cannot help but wonder if many of the early retirements among senior officers are related to the fact that they have lacked direct contact with the minister or direct means of expression of their views within the services. I am not talking about their right to go outside the services and speak, but I think some of the retirements have been due to frustration. Officers have had no way in which to express their dissent and still stay within the services.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Picfou):: Mr. Speaker, the bill of the Minister of National Defence is of great importance to areas such
National Defence Act Amendment as the Atlantic region and particularly the maritime provinces. I should like to put on the record a few thoughts on this matter. I do not intend to deal in detail with various matters such as the new set-up concerning the chief of staff and so on which have been dealt with adequately by other members. I should like to reiterate, however, what was said by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and other members to the effect that our Canadian defence policy should be threefold. First, it should provide defence for our country, second, honour our international commitments so far as NATO and NORAD are concerned and, third, participate in the peace keeping operations of the United Nations.
In his excellent speech yesterday I believe the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out that with the mobile command now taking the priority position in our new national defence scheme our navy and our air force will only be support components and will not have an important part in our defence set-up. It is my submission that this should not be the case. If we are to carry out our commitments in this regard and provide an adequate defence of Canada, we require the three services which we have today.
I believe that integration at the various levels certainly is a necessary thing. It has been agreed by many officers in our armed forces that integration in respect of supply, pay and many other things-the components which make up the administrative part of our defence forces-is something which should be carried out, but not unification as proposed by the minister.
Perhaps I might place on the record a most interesting article which I do not believe has been referred to in this debate. It appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and was written by Dave McIntosh of the Canadian Press who had quite a wide experience in Korea writing on defence matters. The article is dated September 14, 1966, and reads as follows:
A manpower crisis, a financial crisis and planned unification of the armed forces have arrived simultaneously at the defence department.
He points out that the three problems are intertwined.
Since Mr. Hellyer took over the defence portfolio in April, 1963, the strength of the armed forces has dropped by some 17,000 to 106,000- 45,000 air force, 44,000 army and 17,000 navy-of whom 12,000 are serving with NATO in Europe and 2,000 are on United Nations service in world trouble spots.
12486	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
The drop may have been more since there may be a slight difference in the figures.
The drop of 17,000 represents a financial saving of some 85,000,000. But the savings are being eaten up by the necessity of paying servicemen more to keep them from returning to civvy street for better paying jobs.
Then the article goes on to say:
In the meantime, the cost of weapons and equipment keeps going up.
Of course the minister in his utterances in the house and as reported in the press has repeatedly talked about the impact of inflation on his department.
The manpower and financial crises pose a stern problem-whether to reduce some armed forces commitments and tasks or increase the defence budget. The 1966-67 defence budget is $1,572,000,000, an increase of $22,000,000 over 1965-66.
As I pointed out, the real problem is that of unification. It is pointed out fairly in this article, as I have said, that a number of the leaders in the various services certainly have agreed with the proposition of integration but not unification. This very senior officer pointed out:
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
We want to grow into unification in, say, five years.
We don't want to be pushed before we can get properly ready for it.
That is what the minister is doing by this bill, which he expects to have passed in a hurry. Many hon. members have spoken about the bill and undoubtedly many of our military personnel do not agree with it. Some may agree with the proposition of unification, but do not feel it should be put into effect in a short period of time.
The article then states:
Sources close to the minister say he is inclined to regard as disloyal any officer who opposes unification on technical ground and that is where the main opposition lies.
We all know that certain senior officers who would not agree with the m inister's proposition for unification lost their jobs.
Another problem regarding unification was referred to by the Chief of Materiel Command who said-
-he could not provide them with adequate support.. .weapons, equipment, spare parts and the like...in an emergency.
He was referring to the operational commands. That is one reason unification should not go ahead so quickly, and a further reason

DEBATES	January 31, 1967
it should not go ahead quickly is the upsetting situations young men find themselves in so far as careers are concerned. I talked to a number of excellent young Canadians who had joined the navy after attending R.M.C. and other schools, and they now do not know where they are headed.
In this regard our commitment to NATO is an important one, and as we all know our NATO forces report to the commander of SACLANT at Norfolk, Virginia. Under that command our role has been one in respect of anti-submarine operations. In the last few years our naval research people devised one of the best types of sonar systems, called the variable depth sonar. It was developed by E.M.I. Cossor, Limited, at Dartmouth, in the province of Nova Scotia. In my constituency the Trenton works company constructed what was known as a "fish" housing for this equipment. This proved to be excellent and assisted to a tremendous degree in our anti-submarine role. As has been pointed out by other hon. members, we have insufficient ships to carry out our role in NATO.
I have been aboard ships in Halifax during the last two months, and on one particularly I spoke to a number of junior officers. Reference has been made to the fact that we in the opposition have been talking about admirals and generals, and what they have said. These junior officers said they had wanted to make the navy their career but that they now do not know where they are going. They suggested that unification was not the answer to all our problems, and that it looked as though they would be stricken off strength.
These men pointed out that there were insufficient ships, particularly in view of the number being declared surplus, to train junior officers. In this regard let me quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star on September 24, 1966. It was written by Tom Hazlitt, who journeyed down to Halifax to see what the situation was, and who he wrote the following:
At a jetty around the corner and out of sight of this old navy town there lie six ships which may consider a dismal symbol of the future.
The six ships tied up at Shearwater, the nearby naval air base, are the modern destroyer escorts Athabask.au, Algonquin and Crescent plus the World War II vintage frigates Swansea, New Waterford and Victoriaville.
He pointed out that these ships were kept in what is known as "hot reserve". He suggests that is a way of saying there is nothing wrong with them except they do not have crews.
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
The article continues:
The ships cost the taxpayers several million dollars each and as they now stand are utterly useless for offensive and defensive purposes. They are in fact a deficit, because every day men go to work on them in an attempt to keep complex electronic and mechanical gear in shape.
He pointed out that theroretically these ships could get up steam and sail perhaps within a week or, by raiding training establishments and cancelling leave, the navy could probably muster crews within a month. He also pointed out that-
-this "hot reserve" concept is largely window dressing because every sailor knows it takes at least two months of solid work to whip a new crew into anything approaching fighting efficiency.
He also stated:
H.M.C.S. Skeena, a magnificent ultra-modern destroyer escort with helicopter facilities, lies alongside at H.M.C. Dockyard preparing for a major refit. When she comes out in three or four months she will take on a skeleton crew and join the hidden fleet at Shearwater.
This may also be the fate of her sister ship Annapolis, which is undergoing refit.
Finally he states, and he was referring to the new uniform of the unified forces:
Take the case of the Jolly Green Jumper, as navy types designate the proposed common uniform proposed by Hellyer.
He then quotes a navy type to whom he was speaking at that time as follows:
The navy can still mount a flashy guard of honour, the officers still have that starched, stiff-upper-lip look, but the ratings observed in the bars and on the streets can only be described as scruffy.
This is so because their uniforms have been allowed to deteriorate because new uniforms are to be issued. He quotes a leading hand with seven years service who looked balefully at the patches and worn spots on his uniform and said:
A couple of years ago I wouldn't have thought of wearing this on the street. But now, what with the Jolly Green Jumper and all, it doesn't seem to matter.
Mr. Hazlitt's article then continues:
A saltier colleague put his feelings in more colourful language: I'll be flipped," he said, "if I'm going to wear the Jolly Green Flipping Jumper regardless of what Paul Flipping Hellyer flipping well says."
A bright young officer summed up the majority thinking. He said he agreed that the days of swords, ceremonies and iron clad discipline are over. But he added: "I've spent my entire adult life preparing to take command of a ship. Now it appears there aren't going to be many ships. So I'm shopping for another career."
The morale of the navy is very low.
National Defence Act Amendment
On December 19 of last year the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) answered a question I placed on the order paper. I asked what units of the Royal Canadian Navy are now being declared surplus or will be declared surplus at an early date, and this is the list as set out in that answer:
H.M.C.S. Granby H.M.C.S. Antigonish H.M.C.S. Beacon Hill H.M.C.S. Jonquiire H.M.C.S. New Waterford H.M.C.S. Sussexvale H.M.C.S. New Glasgow H.M.C.S. Swansea H.M.C.S. Stettler H.M.C.S. Ste. Therese
Surely some of these ships could have been retained in order to provide necessary instruction for our junior officers. If this is not provided the navy will be a thing of the past. An old saying of the navy is "The gravy's in the navy". I think those days are gone forever. Perhaps the "wavy navy" will never wave again.
In his answer the associate minister also said that tenders would be called for helicopter destroyers in March of this year. I hope that will be the case, but I fear it will not. It was my understanding that four of these ships were to be built. It will be many years before they are completed. Once a keel is laid, as hon. members are aware, it takes a great deal of time to construct one of these modern destroyer escorts. Unfortunately our navy will not have ships available for its operations, and when they do they will not have sufficient crew.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Let me turn to another matter. I was pleased on Robbie Burns Day to hear the associate minister announce that the minister agreed that pipers should be accredited as musicians. I think that is a proper decision. I have in my possession-I do not intend to read it all-an excellent letter from a constituent of mine which contains a letter from a pipe major who came from Scotland and had a distinguished career. Among other things he was appointed Queen's Piper of Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh. In 1948 he was appointed private piper to the Royal Company of Archers, private piper to the Queen's Bodyguard in Scotland, and so on. I intended making this speech before the change was made in the Department of National Defence but I will still put a few of these matters on
January 31, 1387

National Defence Act Amendment the record because they are quite pertinent. The letter says in part:
The decision regarding piping-
That is the decision not to accredit pipers as musicians.
-and music is just another step in the discarding of old military traditions, and I'll bet my last cent that there's a bigoted English "scrap metal" band type aiding and abetting the whole issue.
The letter continues:
To say that a person who plays an instrument and music which must be committed entirely to memory, literally hundreds of different tunes, some such as the piobaireachd (piob-roc) involving times of 20 to 30 minutes playing, is not the equal of the man who plays a proportion of a musical score propped under his nose, especially on a trombone, bass horn, glockenspeil and the like is beyond the bounds of reason, and must indeed be the thoughts of a professional snob, not a musician.
I concur in what my constituent says. He goes on to ask a very pertinent question. I was at the United Nations with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois). As we walked up Broadway we saw the proud pipes of the Black Watch as the pipers marched along and made a great hit. My constituent wants to know this:
I wonder if the D.N.D. must still comply with the musicians union regulations whenever pipers and pipe bands perform, such as was the case in New York and on the Ed Sullivan show recently. They can't have it both ways, surely.
That would probably be a nice question for the order paper, namely whether pipers are musicians. The hon. member for Chicoutimi might say that French Canadians do not like the pipes, and so on. This letter from Pipe Major Ramsay says:
It has been suggested that the French speaking people don't like bagpipe music. To me this is utter nonsense. I have adjudicated in Brittany, France, where no fewer than 40 French pipe bands took part in what can only be described as "tremendous", the sight of thousands of Frenchmen flocking to hear "The Bagpipes".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I bring this matter forward just to point out that I have in black and white a commitment by the minister that the kilt will remain a part of the tradition of our forces. But I am wondering how often the forces will be allowed to wear it. Perhaps the minister when replying at a later date will answer this question. It is an interesting matter. It might be something like our second flag in this country: Only when the Queen comes here will they be allowed to wear it. I hope this will not be the case.

We go back-and this ties in with the militia-to the days of the first world war when battalions such as the 78th and 85th were proud to wear the kilt, and the North Novas in the second world war, of which the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy) was a company commander. We must remember that the militia is a very important part of the reorganization which the minister has put forward.
I have read that the militia will play an active role in the reorganization, and I hope this is true. I belonged to the local unit. Upon being elected to the House of Commons I had to leave it, of course, but I still maintain an interest at the local level. The reports I have received from some of the officers are not good. I hope there will be an active participation by the militia in the new reorganization, because they are most important for the defence of this country. I fear, however, that with a unified force this will not be the case.
May I refer specifically to the matter of defence establishments in the maritimes, and particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. I refer to those which are most important -Greenwood, Cornwallis, Shearwater, and so on. These bases pour millions of dollars into our economy, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall). Not only that, but in my submission they are needed in order that we may provide for the adequate defence of our country and meet our commitments to NATO.
I recall that on coming into this house I and other hon. members called for the decentralization of industry in this country. These defence bases are among the most important industries we have. Our shipyards of course are assisted, although since the present government came into office the shipyard in my area has had hardly any naval refits because the ships just are not there. It is my hope that the minister will take a very close look at these defence establishments and will realize, if he means what was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos), namely that the good of this country must come first, that these defence establishments are most necessary for the first two parts of our national defence policy, that is, the defence of Canada and our commitments to NATO and other organizations.
Many very pertinent questions have been asked by hon. members: Is Canada going to rely for its defence in the future on alliances such as NATO and NORAD? If so, what type of military contribution is Canada going to make to these alliances? What are the specific
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
advantages in a single military service that are not attainable in an integrated three-service system?
Many questions put to the minister have not been adequately answered. In my opinion the bill before us is something written in black and white, but there are many more things that should be found out. There are many witnesses who should be heard, so we will be able then, and only then, to judge whether this plan that the minister proposes is a proper one. I say integration, yes; unification, no.
This policy has been hurried by the minister, and such should not be the case in a matter so vital to our country. The effective defence of Canada is our first duty. We have heard many very good speeches in this debate, and many important points have been raised. Hon. members have asked that this bill be sent immediately to the defence committee before second reading. I think the minister would be wise to do this, so that we would then be able to judge what are the merits of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am responding to the general desire of the other side of the house to hear me. I was waiting to see whether hon. members opposite wanted to hear me, and I think they are suggesting that I speak now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise under a bit of a handicap in entering this defence debate. This afternoon during the question period the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer)-I copied his words down-said that I have only a primitive knowledge of the subject under discussion, and he then went on to say that he would be happy to send me more information. This is the handicap under which I labour, namely that my knowledge of defence matters and this bill is, in the opinion of the minister, primitive. Despite that handicap I thought I would be bold enough to enter this debate.
I have this similarity with the minister: I was once a corporal. When the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) was speaking yesterday he said there was a story going around about corporals. I quote the words of the hon. member as reported at page 12415 of Hansard, when he said that-
-history would show three main troublemakers, one was Corporal Napoleon, one was Corporal Hitler and now it is Corporal Hellyer.
National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
They certainly have been trouble makers; but I would not want any reflection to be cast either on present or past corporals, with the sole exception of those three. I stand here to defend corporals, because the corporal is the mainstay of the army. The officer has the advice of the sergeant major and the sergeants, who have the privilege of talking things over with their superiors; but the corporal is the one to whom orders are given and the one who does the work. His companions, the privates, treat him as one of themselves. In my day the corporal was not a superior person. The sergeant majors, sergeants, and the officers supervise and make the plans on paper, in an armored car, in a cellar or in a dug-out, but the corporal and his section have to go out in front and carry out the orders which they have been given. I am speaking in favour of the corporal and I hope that just because we have had some offenders like Napoleon, Hitler and Hellyer, the rank of corporal will not be downgraded.
On December 7 the minister introduced the bill in a rather lengthy speech, of which he was so proud that he had it reprinted specially, with the addition of photographs, for the edification of the general public and of the people in the services. I have not yet received my copy of that expensive brochure or document, but I notice that his speech filled 19 pages of Hansard, 15J of which were devoted to matters which we have already heard debated before. This constituted the historical summary. It showed us largely what had been done by better ministers of defence before the present minister. These 15J pages were a repetition of what we had heard in the defence committee and here in the house. The minister was so unenthusiastic about the bill that he devoted only 34 pages to a discussion of it. He should have concentrated his attention on the bill, which is to be the crowning glory of his career.
We are witnessing a strange series of events in the house. Before Christmas the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) presented us with two or three bills which had to be completed. He had to have the claque of the Liberal party behind him to give him encouragement, and when the bills were passed he rose in the estimation of his party. One of those bills does not even take effect until 1968. Lately we passed a bill in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). That bill on transportation was his crowning achievement, and he had to get
12490	COMMONS DEBATES	January 31, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment it through the house one way or another before ending his career. In one of the statements which he made during consideration of that he devoted only 3J pages to a discussion Minister of Transport is approaching its completion.
If I could be sure that the passage of the bill before us will bring to an end the career of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), I might take a different view. Perhaps one of the assistants of the minister sitting behind the press gallery could send down a note and tell me what is the future of the minister, and if the passage of this bill will promote a change in his occupation. I think that the opposition should have such information at its disposal. It might change our attitude with regard to the minister. As a matter of fact the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister indicated last night that the minister will not continue forever in his present position but might become the prime minister. These words are recorded in Hansard. I wonder whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has been advised of this sinister plot that is going on behind his back conducted by his own parliamentary secretary. This is what shook me last night.
Although we do not have any information regarding the future of the minister, we have his bill before us, the crown of his career, which may wind up what he has been doing in national defence. Perhaps that is why he is pressing on with it at present. He does not wish to subject the principle of that bill to an investigation by the committees on national defence or external affairs, to see whether we are following the right course. This is one of the most important bills that has ever been placed before us. I intend to oppose it, just as I opposed the bill which brought changes to the administration of the Department of National Defence and set up a supremo in the person of the chief of staff. I do not like the idea and I hope it can be changed in the future.
Similarly I am now opposing this bill and I join my colleagues in pointing out its errors. Although we have heard hon. members saying that this subject has been debated and that now is the time to complete the debate, I say that this is the first opportunity we have had for a debate on the subject of unification. We have talked about integration and we have exposed the fact that the minister has misled the house by providing incorrect information or by not providing it at all. However

we have not had the opportunity to debate the subject of unification. This is the first opportunity we have had to study it at length, because until the bill was presented to us and until we heard the minister's speech on it we did not know with any exactitude what the minister meant by unification. On earlier occasions we tried to get that information from him, but we failed. Time and time again I asked him whether he would give us a definition of unification but he would not do it. It is only now that this subject is placed before us, and we intend to examine it with the greatest of care.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it seven o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: The
house will now suspend its sitting until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, just before the supper hour, which was of no advantage to me, I was making some introductory remarks. I should like to continue them now. However, I should like the assurance of the minister that he has his brain trust in the gallery behind the press gallery, equipped with their suitcases, documents and writing pads, in order that they can keep an account of what is going on here and pass to the minister or to the members of the press contradictory items of information. If they are present, perhaps we can continue.
I was talking about the minister's presentation on December 7, and I made one slip. I said that in the 19 pages his speech covered he devoted 15J pages to telling us things that had already been placed before us. My slip was that, during the course of those remarks, he dealt with a single unified force, something which had not been drawn to our attention on any previous occasion. I was going to criticize him for that omission in days gone by when we had the defence committee operating. Incidentally, the minister has been afraid to summon the committee during the last seven months, in view of the disclosures that would be made at that defence committee.
The minister did not tell the committee or the house about his ideas with regard to a single, unified force. This idea has now been disclosed in the bill before us and in the speech the minister made on December 7. I
January 31. 1967	COMMONS
cannot deal with all the matters that are subject to criticism in the speech the minister made, or as to the principle of the bill, but I hope to have another opportunity to do so. I am restricted to 40 minutes while the minister had about an hour and forty-five minutes. However, I will mention some items.
Before I conclude I intend to give the minister an idea, and I hope he will think about it. I hope he will put his brain trusters to work and set up a study group if he sees merit in the idea. I believe even this minister will see some merit in the proposal I intend to put before him before I sit down. Before doing that, however, I want to draw attention, with some regret, to the continuing misleading statements to which the minister subjects this house and the people of Canada. In his speech on December 7, as recorded at page 10820 of Hansard, the minister referred to rising costs. He was attempting to get across to us and to the public the fact he had made some substantial savings, and he used these words:
The facts are clear and incontrovertible. Either the defence budget had to be substantially increased or substantial cost reductions had to be made. Otherwise funds would simply not be available for the capital expenditures that are essential to effective military forces. These pressures will continue. The integration through unification process will generate important new cost reductions for some years to come.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The minister went on in that vein until I interrupted him to ask:
Will he relate the reduction of personnel to the cost factor?
The minister dodged that and simply replied:
Let me continue my statement.
However, Mr. Speaker, I had had it from him earlier by way of question and answer on another occasion that by reducing the personnel in the services and on the civilian side of National Defence headquarters to the number of 23,000 all told, the minister had saved on the cost of personnel and was able to divert that saving to other purposes. That is how he effected what he likes to proclaim to the public as substantial savings in national defence.
The budget of the minister for national defence is the same; he has a ceiling of $1,500 million, or it goes a little above that now and again. The minister has made no saving to the taxpayer at all, yet this is the type of propaganda that he has spread across this country. Here and there I hear from various people, and from some who should know better, that
National Defence Act Amendment this minister has saved the taxpayers money. He has dismissed from the services 23,000 people, and this saving by way of salaries and upkeep has eliminated any increase in the defence budget; but in point of fact there has been no corresponding savings to the taxpayers. I regret that the minister continues to give misleading information such as that.
I want to say a word or two about the minister's statement concerning the single service concept, as he calls it. The minister wants us to believe that when he issued the white paper in 1964 this was implicit in that white paper. I am not going into all the details. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) pointed out that this was not evident at the time. It is not evident even now from reading the white paper. There are ever so many senior officers, retired, dismissed or fired by the minister, who will be prepared to state, I expect, that this was not evident to them when they first read the white paper or when they had conversations with the minister.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the minister said that this concept was introduced at that time and that we are now going to have just one single service. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) pointed out this afternoon, with several examples, how the minister on one page says we are going to have a single service and on the next page says that there will be a navy, an army and an air force, or that there will be sailors, soldiers, and airmen. There must be half a dozen examples in this speech of his where, on the one hand, he is saying that we are going to have one single unified service, and yet things will be unchanged.
What are people to judge from that, Mr. Speaker? The only judgment you can make is that the minister is misleading the House of Commons and the people of this country, and I do not think that this should be done.
Remarks were made the other day about the statement of the minister in his speech in connection with higher loyalty; the minister gave us some peculiar statements with regard to that matter. He said that the men in the three services, despite their respective loyalty to each individual service, will have to develop a loyalty to a single unified service, and consequently a higher loyalty to their country.
I think this is quite wrong, Mr. Speaker. I stated yesterday, or stated by way of interruption in the course of discussion going on, that this was insulting to the people now in
124S2
January 31, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment the services. Anyone who has served knows perfectly well that his loyalty was to his unit, to his corps, or to whatever branch of the services he was in, whether navy, army or air force; but there was an overriding loyalty which did not have to be further developed, that loyalty to his country, to Canada. It was the same in the first war and in the second; there was this overriding loyalty to Canada. Every serviceman that I ever saw or met had that loyalty and was proud of the fact that he was serving his country.
The minister tries to tell us that because the services are split between navy, army and air force the people in these separate services must develop a higher loyalty to a single service, and hence to their country. That, sir, I think is an insult-an insult to Canadians who have served and to Canadians who are now serving, and I reject it entirely.
I was interested and amused by the reference by the minister to adaptability to change, which appears at page 10831 of Hansard. Then the minister went on to tell us about the various weapons and their influence on the services. Let me quote some of his words, as reported at that page:
Many of these developments cut across the traditional lines of distinction between the different services. One example of this is the anti-submarine warfare equipment which can be carried in land-based aircraft or carrier-based aircraft, or in ships on or under the sea. Another example is the use in all three services of fixed-wing aircraft and missiles. Still another is the use of helicopters in all three armed forces as reconnaissance vehicles, weapons platforms and instruments of mobility. The recent creation by the United States of mobile divisions with their reliance on helicopters may mark a departure from tradition which will have a profound influence on the nature of military activities.
Then the minister goes on to say this:
Such changes must affect the organization of the forces. It is clear that the influence works in the direction of a single service for reasons of military effectiveness, cost and career considerations.
I do not know where the minister gets these illogical statements. Just because an artillery weapon is used on a ship as well as on land the minister seems to think that you must therefore unify the services. Just because a machine gun is used in aircraft, on ships and by the army on land he says you must therefore unify the services. It is just sheer and utter nonsense.
The minister thinks that the use of the helicopter with a mobile division is going to change the whole nature of organization within the United States forces. On the contrary, the use of the helicopter is just another 
method of obtaining mobility, which has been the search of armed forces ever since the beginning of warfare. If we had more helicopters in the Canadian army we could form a helicopter brigade, fashioned upon the experience of the United States division which is now in South Viet Nam. As the years go by there will be other means of getting infantry from one position to another, whether by a track vehicle by helicopter, by some other method such as propelling an individual over ditches or walls; or even the age old method of simply walking on your flat feet.
I do not see why the minister suggests that because these changes are taking place we have to have a single unified force. The whole history of warfare is that changes have been adopted from time to time, some of them slowly, some of them more rapidly. But it is not necessary to unify the navy, army and air force just because they happen to use similar weapons.
Then the minister had some profound words to utter about the demands of modern warfare. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) talked about that a little while ago. As reported at page 10832 of Hansard the minister said:
The need for fast decision-making and quick reaction is synonymous with modem warfare.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I have heard all that before. Everything is to be done much more rapidly than in the past. Decision making is to be done in a split second instead of being carried out over a period of time. But it is too bad this cannot be applied to civilians such as those who compose the present cabinet. Their decisions are not reached in a split second. There is procrastination, delay and postponement. But the minister is attempting to tell us that everything is changed-that there must be a new attitude and a single, unified force in order that we can have these quick decisions. I have heard all that before-in 1939, in 1940 and in 1941. The second world war was to be so different from the first. Everything was to be done much more rapidly and men who could make quick decisions were required. My actual experience of the second world war showed that in many respects it was like the first. I regret the need to mention these things, because the minister said earlier, as Your Honour will recall, that my knowledge of such matters is primitive, which means, archaic, antiquated and ancient.
If I may be pardoned, let me state categorically that decision making in the second world
January 31. 1967	COMMONS
war was in many instances no quicker than in the first, not a bit. Again, in the second world war, speed of movement in the areas in which I was operating and which I had the opportunity to observe was no faster than had been the case in the first. It depends on the nature of the situation and on the nature of the ground. We talked in 1939, 1940 and 1941 about tanks going at 20 miles an hour. Well, I saw tanks going at one mile an hour in the month of January, 1945, and they were lucky to make that speed. So when the minister tries to tell us that everything is changed, that we must reach decisions more quickly because we have a single unified force and because we have new equipment, it shows he does not know very much about the actual operations of war.
In that famous speech of his, the minister uses a heading which reads "To Sum Up". That is a bright paragraph heading. This is what he says with regard to the bill:
The object of this bill is not to destroy and erase at one stroke the traditions of the past but to build, on the solid foundation we have forged, a strong and viable force to meet Canada's needs of tomorrow.
Well, we know he has, in fact, destroyed at one stroke the traditions of the past. He has virtually wiped out the navy and its tradition. He has already effectively wiped out the traditions of the air force and the army. He talks about Canada's needs for tomorrow which, in the minister's mind, will be so different from Canada's needs today and are so different from Canada's needs ten years ago. Apparently he had a special perception of the future. Then he goes on to say:
I believe that the present division into three separate service components imposes restrictions and that these barriers should be removed both in the interests of the most effective military forces for the future and in the interest of the men and women who belong to the force.
What are these barriers? He does not tell us, but he goes on to say this:
That is the essence of this bill. It has nothing to do with the question of naval forces, land forces, air forces or even space forces. Rather, it has to do with the management, the strategic and operational planning, the training and support, the capacity of the force to adjust to changing requirements, and the ability of the force to provide meaningful, challenging and rewarding careers for service personnel. All of these needs are enhanced by unification rather than the traditional separation of the men and women who comprise the force into three components.
Well, in that paragraph the minister's brain trust produced quite a bit of gobbledegook-I think that is how it should be categorized. We
National Defence Act Amendment are told that the essence of this bill has nothing to do with naval forces, land forces or air forces. I am uncertain as to the minister's real objective. He talks of a single unified force, yet on the other hand he says there will always be sailors, soldiers and airmen.
We have not objected to certain aspects of integration-integration of the supply and administrative services. We have not objected to the training of the high command in the knowledge of operations by land, sea and air. Indeed I think that is essential in order that in combined operations, which are as old as history, our commanders in this modern age may be able to adapt themselves to the use of forces in the three elements. We have not objected to that. But we have objected to the single chief of defence staff, and we are objecting to the single unified force.
Sir, the single unified force seems to us and to people who have been writing about this subject to be designed to promote one aspect only of Canada's defence. I intend to quote from an article written by the former chief of staff, Air Chief Marshal F. R. Miller. He has since retired; I do not know what his attitude is, or was, with regard to unification. At any rate he wrote this article which appeared in the Canadian Forces Sentinel of June, 1966. The article is called "The Decisive Years" and it was directed primarily to university undergraduates and senior high school students in order to encourage them to enter the services-an object of which I approve. He says this:
Operationally, Canadian servicemen are being employed more and more in peacekeeping, or "fire brigade", roles.
Later on, he says:
Today the Canadian serviceman is, first and foremost, a man of peace. He is still trained to use his weapons, and use them well, but there has been a subtle change in his prime purpose. Once it was to fight and win. Now he must add the role of preventing or halting bloodshed.
His duty, in essence, is the assertion of the rule of law as well.
Our Canadian servicemen have, very com-mendably, been undertaking United Nations peace keeping operations in various parts of the world and the policy of this government as expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) seems to be directed toward enlarging Canada's contribution to peace keeping forces for the United Nations.
12494	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The change that is taking place in the forces appears to be directed along that line, with the navy dropping its anti-submarine role and the air force dropping its attack force role, bomber fleet and strike reconnaissance role in order to give transport assistance and close support to a land force, with the navy also providing transport assistance. With the sanction of the government this is what the minister appears to be aiming at, but at the same time he says, "Oh no, we are going to maintain our contribution to NATO although it may be reduced in size from time to time. We are going to maintain our military alliance with the United States in NOKAD, and maintain our connection with the Commonwealth for military purposes, if required." But recently the minister has come around to putting United Nations peace keeping operations in the forefront, and this is where I think he has gone wrong.
I do not think there is any objection in this house or throughout Canada to activity by Canadians in peace keeping operations, but I believe these peace keeping operations should be separated from our military forces, navy, army and air force. Most of this work has been done by army personnel, and in this connection I mention the Gaza strip, the Congo, Cyprus, and the International Control Commission, the brightest organization in the eyes of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). We also have people stationed in various other parts of the world, but most of the work has been and is being done by the army. I believe we should separate our peace keeping role from the armed services. Our peace keeping forces have not been obliged to intervene to put down insurrections. So far as I know they have not engaged in fighting. They have defensive weapons in case they are attacked or unexpected trouble occurs, but they have not been used to suppress military activities in any country. We had signal personnel in the Congo. I presume if we had had infantry there the United Nations might have used them in a combatant role, but that has not been our history over quite a number of years, and so I say we should make a division of our objects, and for our peace keeping operations we should have a force separate and apart from our armed forces.
If a Canadian peace keeping force under United Nations auspices is assigned to some country where there is trouble, I think that force should not be a regiment or a battalion

DEBATES	January 31, 1967
of the army, or ships from the navy, or aircraft from our air force, except transport craft. Here is where the minister could really achieve something worth while by setting up a special force which would have to be disciplined, trained, and administered for supply purposes from defence headquarters, with a special uniform, equipped only with protective weapons such as rifle, revolver, armoured scout cars if in terrain where irregulars might attack them, and let that type of force operate for peace keeping purposes. Make it an elite force of specially selected and specially trained men.
I think the effect on the country in which that force would be operating would be better than if we assigned an organized military force to undertake that role. I do not think there would be objection from the country or countries concerned, if this type of force were available. It would convey no idea of aggression because it would not be armed for that purpose. It would contain no idea of aggression because it would not represent the navy, army and air force of this country, or would not represent a single unified force of this country.
I put this idea in front of the minister and say to him, "Consider setting up a force of that nature with a strength of, say, 3,000"-at present we have 1,800 people engaged in these foreign operations under the United Nations-"and maintain the navy, the army and the air force for the defence of Canada, for our operations with NATO and for our military alliance with the United States." If the United Nations gets involved in a struggle in which forces have to take an active part, only then would I dispatch Canadian forces from our armed forces.
The minister and Canada as a whole can have both forces. We can continue our peace keeping operations under the United Nations, because I think that is essential, and we can have the army, navy and air force to fulfil their important role with regard to the defence of Canada and to meet Canada's obligations under her military commitments with other countries, We can have it both ways and everybody will be satisfied. We do not need to have a single unified force in order to carry out United Nations operations. We could have a separate force for that.
I was unable, Mr. Speaker, to think of a suitably spectacular name for such a force, but some of the bright people in the Department of National Defence or in the
January 31, 1967

Department of External Affairs, which considers itself somewhat superior, might come up with a suitable name for that special force. If such a force were set aside then you would not have to draw on Canadian battalions and reduce their strength for other purposes; you would not have to draw on fighter aircraft and fighter pilots from the air force. You would have people whose definite role for a period of time would be a United Nations peace keeping role, something like a constabulary. I do not like that term because I think it is a little out-dated. Neither would I like to call it a police force -I don't like the word police. But we could call it something else. We could call it the Canadian Peace Keeping Force, which gives four initials. I present this suggestion to the minister with my compliments and I think he should do something about it.


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


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter this debate on the unification bill, first because of a life-long interest in the military, and more especially the army, an interest which goes back many years to a high school cadet corps, and second, because in my constituency there is situated what is considered to be one of the finest military establishments not only in this country but in the entire world. I refer of course to Camp Gagetown, which is now part of the new mobile command.
The third reason I enter this debate is, the same for me as for all other Canadians, that we believe our way of life is the right way, and we are prepared if necessary to fight in its defence should the need again arise, even to the extent of engaging in a full scale war. But, Mr. Speaker, if I may interject a personal note, having served in world war II as a front-line soldier I pray that never again will we have another world war, because man now possesses the nuclear capability of destroying our civilization as we know it.
Before criticizing this legislation and asking the minister some questions, I would like to thank both him and the associate minister for the many courtesies they have extended to me on the problems that I have taken to them over the past months, as a matter of fact, over the past three years. Since the bulk of the matters that I have raised have dealt with
National Defence Act Amendment personnel, with the problems of serving soldiers and their dependants, my correspondence for the most part has been with the associate minister and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him especially for his assistance. My letters have always been answered promptly and, where possible, the answer that I sought for my constituent was a favourable one. I realize that you cannot win them all, but I feel that the minister has been very helpful. I am very grateful for that assistance.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I should like to comment on a decision made this past week wherein the minister announced that henceforth pipers are to be classed as musicians. The minister may recall that some few months or so ago I wrote to him on two or three occasions in this connection. I love the pipes, as I think most persons of Scottish ancestry do. The pipes and drums of the Royal Highlanders of Canada, the Black Watch regiment which is now stationed in Camp Gagetown, have become known all over North America and even beyond. Only recently they were on one of the great national television shows of the United States. To classify these pipers as musicians is the only right and fair thing to do. I am surprised that this was not always the case.
There are many matters which I should like to raise dealing with specific cases of men in the services, but I decided I would wait until the minister's estimates are before us. They concern such matters as elected representation in the town of Oromocto. I have some suggestions for the minister in this regard which I think he would welcome. I also have some constructive suggestions, I believe, about the soldier vote, about pension service of veterans serving in the regular forces and other matters of that nature. Even though on second reading the debate can be rather freewheeling, these matters I believe can wait until another time.
There is, however, one matter which I think is within the purview of this debate. I should like to commend the government about this too; that is, the re-engagement bonus which was instituted some time ago. This was a very important issue in my area where we have a very large concentration of troops. In the election campaign which was held in the fall of 1965 I stressed that I was very much in favour of this. I raised the matter with the ministry and I am very pleased to see that this was done. I am sure it is a measure
12496	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment which made those troops who were able to benefit from it very happy indeed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having said those more pleasant things, I should like to discuss unification and integration. There are a few criticisms I should like to make and I hope that they will be considered as constructive. I feel that is the only type of criticism which is of any value. Otherwise we would be wasting our time. I should like to raise the matter of the militia of this country. The militia has been affected greatly by this matter of unification. Unfortunately it seems to have been very much downgraded. A few years ago the role of the militia was changed, and it was given a more active role in the whole vital field of civil defence. I have had considerable correspondence from serving officers in militia units, especially in eastern Canada. Those letters indicate that the officers and senior N.C.O.'s especially are very unhappy. Now, what is the trouble? I suppose most of the troubles are those which the Minister of National Defence has heard many times before. There is the lack of proper equipment to do a job, and specifically the lack of vehicles.
When you have a militia unit which is spread over a distance of several hundred miles with four, five or six companies-infantry regiments normally have six companies-the only way in which stores and personnel can be moved is with road transport. With many units, the vehicles are old and not functioning properly. When a vehicle breaks down, that is the end of it; they do not get a replacement. I believe the militia still has a very definite role to play in this nation. Some of us, from our experience, know that in 1939 and 1940 the Canadian army had a firm springboard from which to launch itself. Thousands of excellent officers and N.C.O.'s -many now in this house-went right from the non-permanent active militia to the Canadian army, navy and air force.
Another complaint is that adequate training time is not allotted to these units. I have been led to believe there is some discrimination against the maritime units in the matter of training time as opposed to units in other parts of Canada. It disturbs me to think that this might be so. I would appreciate it if the minister would look into this matter. Recently a very distinguished former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), wrote about this matter. I should like to quote him because I think what he has to say is sound. He speaks from broad experience as a militia officer and as
[Mr. MacRae.l
DEBATES	January 31, 1967
commander of an artillery regiment in world war II, and he also speaks from his experience as a former minister of national defence:
The direct defence of Canada also requires strong militia or reserve forces and it is only by the maintenance of such forces that numbers of trained men in organized units can be provided. A strong militia is also essential to carry on the survival operations, which would be the most important immediate task of our armed forces in the event of a nuclear attack. In addition, reserves are necessary to provide some of the personnel likely to be required for United Nations operations. The Korean war was an example, and to provide the numbers required for rapid expansion of our regular forces in any emergency.
I do not agree with what the government is doing in respect of unification of our Canadian armed forces. I am deeply disturbed to see so many senior officers leaving the service prematurely-not only senior officers, but others not so senior who I believe should have been retained until the end of their service. As I understand it, in many cases what they were suggesting was that we should proceed more slowly with what was being attempted. In other cases, of course, there was outright opposition to this whole program of unification. Like all members of parliament I have received the material which has been prepared by the Tri-Services Identities Organization-TRIO-as it is usually called. Recently, among the material which we received, there was a copy of an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada. In this letter the gentlemen who formed this group-which is non-political-have outlined their position. They say, and I agree with them, that they are left with grave doubts concerning what is going on. They say there are a number of questions which are fundamental but which are unanswered. The TRIO group sets these out very well. I should like to place these on the record.
First, what is to be the future role of Canada's defence forces in terms of specific military tasks? Second, is Canada to rely for its defence in the future on alliances such as NATO and NORAD, and if it is, what type of military contribution is Canada expected to make to these alliances? Third, how is a requirement for mobilization to meet an emergency and up to a tenfold expansion in the numerical strength of Canada's forces provided for in this unified force which is envisaged? Fourth, what are the specific advantages in a single military service that are not attainable under an integrated three service system? This brings up the point, that many of us see considerable value in having some integration, but we cannot see the value of
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
unification. Fifth, what are the criteria for militarily effective forces? Could these be met to the same degreee in a single force as in a three service system. Finally, would a single military force be capable of operating effectively with the military forces of our allies, remembering always that none of our allies at this time have a single military force?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I believe that the Minister of National Defence owes it not only to TRIO, who have pointed out so well the questions that are troubling them, but also to the people of Canada to tell them much more explicitly than heretofore just exactly what are the advantages and disadvantages, what are the pros and cons of this whole matter of the unification of our forces.
It has been suggested, especially by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that a United Nations police force would be one of the most effective ways of maintaining peace in this world. I recently read a very interesting article by Major General Carl Von Horn, who indicated in the article that he was deeply critical of the United Nations peace keeping missions. General Von Horn, who is a Swedish officer, took over from Canada's General Burns as chief of the staff of the UN truce supervisory organization in Palestine in 1958. He went on to command the United Nations forces in the Congo and later in Yemen. He writes that the troops he commanded were excellent, that their morale was high, despite humiliations, but that the United Nations civilian administrators "were so petty they made the soldiers feel like second class citizens".
This is a very damning indictment against the United Nations. I read his remarks with a great deal of interest because I spent some time at the United Nations a few years ago at a very interesting session. I had the opportunity there to watch the direction that the United Nations was taking, and how rapidly it was changing with the advent of the many small African nations. Not only does General Von Horn say that United Nations peace keeping efforts have been a complete mess, but he makes the charge in his memoirs that corruption is rife among United Nations officials on peace keeping missions. These are very serious charges. I believe that in this world, with two great power blocs, the U.S.S.R. and the United States, the really serious arguments will have to be settled by
National Defence Act Amendment direct negotiation between the United States and the U.S.S.R.
I should like to put on record the opinion of two of Canada's most distinguished generals, which I do not think have been put on record in this debate before. I refer to General G. G. Simonds and General Vokes.
They had this to say:
The aim of military policy in peace time must be to prepare for the worst eventuality, which would be the outbreak of a major war in which we would become involved. No matter how remote this eventuality may seem, employment of our standing military forces on peace enforcement tasks is a contingency which is secondary to the above aim. To prepare for war is not militarism. It merely faces up to the cold, hard facts which will govern our future existence as a sovereign power.
Generals Simonds and Vokes say that our military structure in peacetime must be so organized that it can pass rapidly and efficiently to a war footing. Therefore it must be measured by this: Is it capable of assuming the burden which will be placed on it in the event of the requirement to mobilize our military force to maximum national capacity? If it does not measure up to this, then it is of doubtful value. This preparation for war does not demand a large standing military force in peacetime, but it does require the maintenance of professional and military know-how by maintaining the trained nucleus to provide the framework for a planned and tidy mobilization.
Fortunately since world war II and because of our military commitments through membership in NATO and the UN, Canada maintained standing military forces today that are many times greater than at any other peacetime period in our history. Because of this the military expertise which began to flower in the Canadian Armed Forces in world war II has remained in bloom. Thus the regular Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen are highly skilled, professional military men. Those who have risen to senior rank by education and experience are military experts of a high order, and their advice on matters pertaining to the military service should never be disregarded. It would appear that in far too many cases this has been so.
It is very easy for the government to impose its will on senior service officers by retiring them out of hand if they disagree with the policy which, because of their training and experience, they know to be dangerous to the future military welfare of their country.
January 31, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
I am disturbed, and I am sure many Canadians have been deeply disturbed, by the premature retirement of so many of Canada's ablest soldiers, sailors and airmen. I am disturbed by what is happening to our armed forces. I am disturbed by what is happening to the great traditions of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. I can see that some integration might be a good thing. Certainly, there is some integration in the forces now, and we accept it, and think it should be given a fair show. However, unification of all our forces is another matter.
In the past we have had in Canada, in peace and in war, some of the finest sailors, soldiers, and airmen in the world. I can see no value in putting our armed forces in uniforms of one single colour. There is no question of course that we want efficiency and economy in the administration of our armed forces. We realize only too well that defence costs a great deal.
I would urge the Minister of National Defence, with all the power at my command, to stop and take another look at what he is doing. Because, if this great experiment on which he is embarked should prove to be the wrong one, irreparable damage will be done to our armed forces and to our whole defence system, which could require decades to correct.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when I took part in this debate at the resolution stage I appealed to the minister to refer this important matter of national defence to the standing committee. He did not pay heed to that appeal, and I thought that, having advanced to the second reading stage, the appeal had been lost. I had not intended to take part in this debate during second reading, but wish to do so now because of two things which occurred today. First, the minister in reply to a question posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) indicated that the present discussion was taking place on what he called a primitive level of knowledge.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
He did not specify the names of those who were participating on that level of military intelligence, but I think it is a significant commentary on the lack of clearcut and specific information that has been forthcoming from the minister and his advisers during the course of the discussion which now has spread over more than a two-year period.
Debate is supposed to broaden knowledge; it is supposed to clarify issues and assist in

determining policy. If at this stage of the discussion, having advanced to the second reading of the bill now before us, which will be discussed in detail in due course, the minister still refers to the contributions of members of the opposition and others taking part in the debate as being on a primitive level, I am sure he is partly, if not entirely, responsible.
I have read very carefully the statement made on December 7 last with a view to broadening my knowledge of the fundamental purposes and policies of the minister. I wanted to avoid being classified among those hon. members who possess a primitive knowledge of these matters. But for the life of me I cannot discover in that speech a specific policy, particularly a policy which might lead to the conclusion that unification, as the minister keeps insisting over and over again, will establish greater economies in Canada's armed forces and produce an organizational set-up which might be described as more efficient than that which would exist under a program of integration. I say right at the outset that I am all for integration and have always been in favour if integration, as is everyone who has concerned himself with military matters, in the wake of the tremendous technological changes that have taken place in the past two decades. But it is this word unification that is confounding even the pundits.
Just to demonstrate that point, the minister's speech on December 7, listed under very nice headings, is a lovely essay in the organization of prose. It is full of words and phrases, a few of which I should like to quote as illustrations to indicate the dilemma that faces an ordinary member of parliament in trying to interpret the mysteries of this wonderful program of unification. Here is what Mr. George Bain said when commenting on the problem that he faced in interpreting the gobbledegook prose in which the speech was phrased:
Everybody who knows anything about defence knows that an ample supply of logistical hardware is one of the prime needs of the day. Obviously, if logistical hardware is to be of any use at all, it must be systematized.
So there you are: "It seems to me, if I may say so, that the defense department in its current posture is not giving enough attention to systematized logistical hardware." After that, you can say anything; you are a certified expert.
Functional management capability. Is anyone against functional management capability in our defence department-communists excepted, of course? Balanced digital options. It may not mean much, but, by George, it has a ring to it, hasn't it?
January 31, 1967

If I may digress for a moment to the minister's speech, it had a fine oratorical ring to it. It contains that wonderful phraseology that is today peculiar to the pursuits of the men in grey flannel suits. Returning to the article by George Bain, he said:
Now, get in there and blind them with footwork.
It's astonishing all the information you get in this newspaper for a lousy dime.
I would paraphrase and say it is wonderful, all the information you get in Hansard, and I think it costs only a nickel. There is even more information in Hansard, and it costs only five cents. This applies particularly to Hansard for last December 7.


An hon. Member:: It is $3 a year.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not intend to make this a commercial on behalf of Hansard but it is, as the hon. member suggests, $3 a year. I am sure that is a good investment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is $3 a session, which may be two years.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Buy now, read later.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is because of the aura of confusion that has surrounded the subject of service reorganization, as a result of statements, phraseology and public relations gob-bledygook, that I am entering the debate at this stage. I think only by a close and detailed analysis of the problem, and this can only be carried out in a parliamentary committee, will we sort out fact from fiction. Certainly it is only by that face to face confrontation that becomes possible between members of parliament and the experts in the Department of National Defence, particularly those experts who have been fired because they disagreed with the so-called policy enunciated in the minister's speech, that we can sort out fact from fiction.
Sooner or later we will have to come to grips with the matter in the defence committee. The tragedy is that we are proceeding, to quote the minister again, on the primitive level of knowledge at this important second reading stage. We could have had the opportunity to listen to well qualified critics, such as General Foulkes, to enlighten us as to why he now disagrees with the trend that the government's integration policy has taken.
The contribution of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McNulty) is another reason for my wanting to take a few minutes of the time of the house this evening to try to clarify some of the confusion. A good deal of the
National Defence Act Amendment hon. member's speech this afternoon was taken up in reading a quotation of General Foulkes, the former Chief of Defence Staff, from an article written in 1961 which was highly in favour of integration. I am sure that most members of the Department of National Defence were in favour of integration, because it had been proceeding at a steady and logical pace for a number of years under several ministers. As the Minister of National Defence pointed out in the preamble to his speech of last December, integration is not a new concept and has been proceeding at a reasonable and logical pace over a number of years.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I asked the hon. member for Lincoln whether he had read the sentiments of General Foulkes as expressed in three articles which appeared last year in the Ottawa Journal and in other newspapers across the country. This was five years after 1961. I will take this opportunity to read a short excerpt from General Foulkes' statement, which indicates why he is now disturbed by the current trend of government policy. This was the first in a series of articles and I will start by reading the opening paragraph. It reads as follows:
I know all the senior officers who have been involved in this controversy with defence minister Hellyer over integration. Most of them have served with me in peace and war and I have had an opportunity to evaluate their ability, knowledge and character. I have a high regard for their professional skill, loyalty and esprit de corps and their devotion to the Canadian defence effort is above reproach.
I am sure that if these senior officers had not believed fully in the concept of integration, they would have not have accepted their appointments on the armed forces headquarters staff, knowing full well that their task was to implement the integration scheme.
The only logical conclusion that can be reached on the recent mass retirements is that there is a profound disagreement on the method and pace of implementing this novel and complicated military reorganization.
I think this points up the problem which confronts parliament. Suddenly integration has turned into unification. Anyone who disagrees with the sudden transformation is fired. The minister, in his white paper of 1964 indicated that unification was the ultimate objective. The statement was in the final phrase of that paragraph and was almost an afterthought. This is the impression which I got from the minister's speech, that he suddenly dreamed up the concept of unification, and unification, whatever it means, had a good ring to it. It seems to me that now he is
12500	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment improvising a policy to fit that vague word. This is a trial-and-error proposition. This is what disturbed General Foulkes, and what has disturbed most of the senior officers who were heartily in favour of integration but who have retired prematurely or were fired by the minister because they did not agree with this vague, and ill-defined concept of unification. Judging from their comments it would seem to me that the fact which concerned them most was the thought that we were proceeding at such a hectic pace to achieve the propaganda goal of unification without policy guide lines that we were placing our present defence structure in jeopardy, so far as the maintenance of the basic responsibilities of a defence force of any country is concerned, and that is the security of our nation.
Unfortunately the senior officers who are now advising the minister are ardent exponents of unification, and have been active promoting it in defence establishments across the country and in making public statements in support of this vague concept. I suggest that ultimately those who have the good fortune to be serving on the defence committee will have a chance to come face to face with the experts on both sides of the question. It is tragic that we have arrived at a stage of the debate at which the rapid process of unification is irreversible. The very propaganda activities of the upper echelons of the officer corps have so saturated the thinking of some of the members of the armed forces that the process has become irreversible, and the pace has been so fast that confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding amounting to demoralization have become rampant in the armed forces.
As General Foulkes intimated in the introduction to his series of articles, the proposed unification has brought about the exodus of highly responsible and most experienced members of Canada's armed forces, as well as the premature exodus of a large number of service personnel.
I must say that I have tried to understand what the minister means by unification. As I have intimated, I can understand integration. Integration was designed to streamline the Canadian armed forces, to gear it to the demands of defence in the technological and military situation of today. However, unification is a change for the sake of change. This afternoon the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. McIntosh) dealt with this in some detail. In carefully analysing the minister's speech
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
DEBATES	January 31, 1967
he pointed out the contradictions it contains. At one point the minister said that there will be a single service and at another he said that the services in their respective environments will preserve their individual identities. No wonder we are confused on these matters and, no wonder many members of the armed forces have retired in confusion.
I question the minister's claim that unification will produce greater economies and greater efficiency in the armed forces. No less a defence critic than Mr. John Gellner, writing in the Globe and Mail last November, expressed the same anxieties as we have expressed in the course of the debate.
The following is a quotation from his article:
The defence debate over the past months has been conducted on a distressingly low level-lower, if anything, than the last one, in early 1963, which brought down the Diefenbaker government. Then, it was nuclear weapons; now it is service unification. But the point at issue is the same in both cases: What is the purpose, the mission, of the Canadian armed forces?
Unfortunately, this fundamental question was not posed then, let alone answered. It is not being posed now. Four years ago, Canada had largely irrelevant discussions about such matters as the value, if any, of Bomarc missiles, with or without nuclear warheads.
At present, Canada is having an equally irrelevant debate about the virtue of maintaining service traditions. Yet it should be clear that unless it is first determined what the Canadian armed forces are for, the problem of unification and whether it will help or hinder Canada's military effort, it cannot be tackled intelligently.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I have tried to determine what policy decisions might be behind the minister's breakneck pace toward the mystical goal of unification. The only conclusion to which I have come, and others have come to the same conclusion, is that there is a fundamental policy change to convert the Canadian armed forces to an international police force. This, as I read the white paper, was the lowest priority back in 1964. Unification, it seems to me, is reversing the priorities and placing this peace keeping role into a position of priority ahead of the basic function of defence forces, that is the security of the nation, and ahead of the other priorities of commitments to the alliances and the military responsibilities that are ours.
I know the Prime Minister has long had in mind the goal of the peace keeping role. This goes back I believe to about 1956, at the time of the Suez crisis when the United Nations first put a peace keeping force on the Gaza
January 31, 1967

strip to separate Israel and Egypt. Of course, prior to that we had the Korean war, but that was hardly a peace keeping effort. It was a full blown war. If Canada's armed forces are converted exclusively to a police force function, it means that we lose our influence as contributors to peace keeping forces; we lose our influence as a middle power. This influence has been built up over a number of years during the course of Canada's history, largely because of the nature of the contributions Canada's armed forces have made in world conflicts in this generation. We had no political objectives; we had no desire for military aggrandisement or political aggrandisement. Our sole objective in participating in the world wars of this century has been the preservation of our free way of life.
Our contributions have been made at tremendous cost of Canadian lives, Canadian manpower and Canadian resources. This contribution was made without any ulterior motive whatever. It was on this basis that we have been able to serve in the United Nations councils as a middle power, accepted by both sides in the power struggle that has gone on in the world since the end of world war II. In addition, we are going to lose our moral influence. While this is intangible, I would submit that it has been the source of Canada's strength in the United Nations and in other military and international organizations. The moral factor of Canada's willingness to serve without any nationalistic desires or objectives of her own has been important.
Once we convert our armed force to a glorified police force, we have to depend on somebody for our security. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, to say we cannot defend ourselves in any case in the face of the threat of nuclear weapons and a global conflict. This gainsays the main issue, the issue that is the number one priority, and that is the security and defence of our own shores. This is the fundamental function of our armed forces. If we reduce our armed force to a police force, then we automatically surrender a substantial part of our sovereignty and we come under the military aegis of our powerful neighbour to the south.
If we are under the aegis of the United States in any shape or form, if we surrender our military sovereignty, it would be just as disastrous as surrendering our economic sovereignty, a subject which is racking the government at the present time. It seems to me there is an inconsistency in policy in this respect. This denotes a general confusion at
National Defence Act Amendment the level of government policy which has produced so much uncertainty across the nation.
In so far as our major obligations to NATO are concerned, and no doubt the minister will be discussing this in the defence committee, I fail to see how a unified force, particularly a single service force as it is conceived by the minister, will fit into the structure of our obligations under the NATO organization. Perhaps the minister can see it, but the rest of us cannot see it. We are proceeding at this reckless, breakneck speed even before NATO has determined the force requirements that will be necessary in the future. As I understand it, the minister, in reports following NATO meetings, has not yet been informed that there have been any decisions concerning what the NATO forces requirements will be. In spite of this, we are proceeding with this radical, structural reorganization, in the direction of the single force which obviously will make it impossible for us to continue to meet our obligations under the NATO treaty.
I should like to move on to another subject with which the minister has concerned himself recently, other than service unification. He has been making statements on urban policy, and his philosophy in meeting the problems of urbanization is the reverse of his philosophy in meeting the problems of defence organization in the face of a rapidly changing society, technological revolution and so forth. The minister favours decentralization and dispersal. He is afraid that centralization, the trend toward bigness, the trend toward monolithic unity, which is the natural trend in the sort of world in which we live, is contrary to the best interests of a rationally organized urban community and will foster problems of social confusion and social disorganization.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I agree with the minister in his concept of meeting the obvious problems of urbanization in the urban communities across Canada, and I would ask him to apply the same philosophy to the concept of armed forces organization, where he insists you must have solidarity always. Certainly firing anyone who disagrees with unification, or monolithic unity, is not the way to get a rational and intelligent defence force.
With regard to the three services in the armed forces, I am not so much concerned about the uniform problem or the rank problem. Regardless of how loudly the minister declaims that this concept will become the model for armed forces around the world and
January 31, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment will produce astronomical economies and fantastic efficiency, and regardless of how this concept is put in the language of public relations, I contend that if we remove the elements of criticism, of healthy discussion and differentiation within the armed forces, our armed forces are going to lose a great deal of their effectiveness.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think that anyone who looks at the matter conscientiously and sincerely today will agree that as a result of the overwhelming desire of the minister to proceed to this mystical goal our defence forces are placed in serious jeopardy at this moment. I have talked to many military people; I receive communications from military people; I visit defence installations across the country, and I find that there is a serious lowering of morale. There is a loss of esprit de corps. The pace of change has proceeded so rapidly there is confusion in the military centres across Canada.
I give one illustration of this. There is a joint air training centre at Rivers, Manitoba. Actually this is the only unified or integrated base of the armed forces at the moment, I would think and has been for a number of years. At Rivers there is co-operation among the three services who are living happily under the same roof. They have been proceeding toward the common goal of greater integration. Yet at this station there is grave uncertainty. There is the feeling that it is one station which will be seriously disorganized if not eliminated as we proceed toward the goal which is away beyond what was ever conceived by integration, that of unification. It seems to be a strange paradox, an illogical situation, Mr. Speaker, that the one station dedicated to the concept of integration and which has actually carried forward its training program on this basis should find itself in this demoralized condition. I am sure similar situations could be found in other military installations across the country.
I close with this, Mr. Speaker. The fundamental purpose and responsibility of the armed forces of Canada, or the Canadian defence forces, or whatever you wish to call them-a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; the language or terminology is not of any great importance-is the defence of the security of this nation at the present time. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we were at this time faced with a serious threat, because of the obvious confusion rampant in the armed forces we would not be able to meet our obligations. We depend on volunteers to

man the Canadian armed forces, we are largely a citizens army.
Unification, Mr. Speaker, this streamlining which is contemplated by the program the minister has in mind, would turn our armed forces into a body of highly trained mercenaries, devoid of the esprit de corps that comes from traditions, loyalty to the nation, loyalty to the cause of freedom, objectives that have made it possible for the Canadian serviceman in the great wars of this centurj to establish such an enviable reputation.
I do not think I am exaggerating in this respect. It seems to me that the wholesale exodus of our Canadian military officer elite, their public criticisms of the minister's proposal, and the reversal of General Foulkes' opinion from his statement in 1961 to his statement last fall, bears out this fact.
I am also sure, Mr. Speaker, that as the defence committee comes to grips with the details of the proposals outlined in the bill now before us, this is the conclusion that will be reached. The tragedy is that it might be too late for the safety of the nation. It is for this reason that I decided to speak at this stage of the debate and to appeal once again for a face to face confrontation with the men who have placed their careers and their reputations on the line by opposing this program of unification.
The bill will eventually arrive in the committee; the sooner the better. I trust that as the debate proceeds the minister might even now be persuaded to give the members of the house the opportunity of taking this close look in committee, which is the only way we will ever sort out fact from fiction.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, members in the house have been indicating different reasons for their participation in this second reading debate today. I could enumerate several reasons for my participation but mainly I take part in the debate because I disagree entirely with the idea that unification will bring about the desired objective of the minister. I could also state that I disapprove of his dishonest approach in this whole matter.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Come on.


Malcolm MacInnis: I disapproved of his attitude last fall, with regard to the charges laid in this house, charges which were substantiated by the sworn testimony of Admiral Landymore. The minister referred to the member who brought these
January 31. 1367	COMMONS
charges as lacking the guts to make the proper charge. Everyone in the house realizes that the proper charge was made, and if there was any lack of guts we know where it was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I cannot identify the hon. member sitting across the way, but if I could I would put him in his place.


Rémi Paul: I am not sitting in my place.


Malcolm MacInnis: You are
sitting in a seat and yak-yak-yaking. You do not participate in the debate as you should.


Rémi Paul: I shall soon.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then I look forward to listening to you and I will surrender the floor the minute you have the guts to get up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to continue his speech.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have trouble making up my mind whether to follow your instruction or listen to the yacking over on the other side of the house. I would think it was the duty of the Chair to put him in his place, should he seek to continue as he is doing.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his guidance, which I will try to take into account. However, the hon. member has spoken for a minute or two, and if he will read Hansard he will find that nothing he has said up to now has much to do with the debate upon which the house is engaged, and I would invite him to limit his comments to the bill now before us.


Malcolm MacInnis: can say to that is that I accept Your Honour's ruling.
With respect to the approach taken by the minister in this matter, I would refer to his attitude last fall and the charges which were then made in this house, as well as to the fact that there is an affidavit to the effect that evidence before the committee was altered. I have yet to see any sign of an affidavit from the minister that this was not the case. He will shake his head, but I should like to see it put down in the form of a note as was done when it was claimed an alteration had been made.
Turning again to the events of last fall, the minister had this to say as reported at page 9647 of Hansard for November 7:
A number of points have been raised during the debate and I should like to take this opportunity 23033-791
National Defence Act Amendment
to deal with some of them. The first major point that seems to keep recurring in many of the speeches which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite is in respect of lack of information regarding the unification and progress of integration of the armed forces.
He went on to refer to an example brought up by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and then he continued:
In reply to the hon. member for Calgary North and other members of the opposition who have raised this point, I must reiterate that never before in Canadian history have this house, its committees and the public been given so much information on our force structure, our present and future policies and the capabilities of our forces.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
That was quite a mouthful for the minister to utter when one considers that it is precisely this lack of information about which the public is continually complaining. If the minister does not care to believe me, I suggest he go to the files of the Prime Minister and read some of the letters which have been received in that office, copies of which have been sent to other hon. members. He will find there letters from the Air Force Officers Association, the Tri-Service Identity Organization, the Naval Officers Association-all groups which are interested and active in the affairs of the Canadian Armed Forces.
It is obvious that the minister's approach to this question is altogether wrong. We are developing in Canada something which belongs under a dictatorship. What is democratic about the idea of having among us a propaganda team or a propaganda force as was indicated this morning in the house by the minister's acceptance of that charge? He can look at Hansard tomorrow and read his answer about the propaganda team. They are still operating up there. I will say to them: Don't let me catch you passing a note or you will not be there too long. The minister indicated this afternoon in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that he does, indeed, have a propaganda team at work, and that he accepts the statement made to that effect.
What is propaganda? It is the spreading of lies for the minister's own advantage or, I was about to say, for the advantage of the government. But that would hardly be fair. The government is not in attendance. I have yet to hear any member of the government get up and defend the minister's position with regard to unification. Look around. Who is here in support of the minister? Nobody. The minister is trying to put this legislation
12504	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment through the house without the support of a single colleague. Of course it is not hard to understand why they cannot get together. The minister has had some support from the Liberal side of the house. Again I refer to last fall when a speech was made by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) who sought to quote various authorities in support of the minister's position. His approach to this theme was dishonest because he did not quote what those authorities had actually been saying. The hon. member shakes his head. I suggest he read over that speech and compare it with the following statement by General Foulkes, who has often been mentioned this evening. I quote this statement by General Foulkes:
The only other record of wholesale changes in the military occurred in the Hitler regime. He dismissed every general who dared to tell him what he should know and not what he liked to hear.
Check that statement against what the hon. member for Verdun said last fall. It will soon be found that the hon. member was misquoting the general in his efforts to defend the minister's policy.
I should probably refer to the minister's attitude once again because I believe it should be emphasized over and over again. In any other country he would be in jail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: You
laugh? Last fall the same minister denied what I put on record here, indicating that in any other country in the free world he would be in jail. He shook his head at that time and made a denial; but I produced for him his own words which told him what parliamentary language does not permit me to call him.
He knows he put that on record. He knows what he did. He knows that in any other country in this world he would either be in jail or something a lot more drastic would have happened to him. Yet this is the man who is today trying to push unification down the throats of the Canadian people. This is the man who has brought about the retirement of so many people from the services-people who were of great value to this country. Those who remain in the services for their own reasons cannot, or will not make their views known on the question of unification. Those who have spoken out have made their statements after voluntarily retiring from the services, and there are many of
JMr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South).]
DEBATES	January 31, 1967
these, very capable men, who have taken exception to the course the minister is pursuing.
Where does the minister get his advice? Evidence has come to me very recently that he has rejected the advice of officers on his staff, his own boys. What about his propaganda team? What are they doing to the Canadian people? To whom are they directing their propaganda? They continue to harp the same tune-that the old soaks and the veterans do not matter, anyway. But I can tell the minister that if a national emergency arose he would find himself obliged to call on a lot of people who are today in disagreement with him. Today he says their opinions do not matter. They are primitive, to use an expression the minister used this morning. The fact remains that when some of the senior officers were retired they were younger than the minister himself. Does he believe their views are primitive?
Where does the minister get his experience? I am sure he did not gain much experience riding that motorcycle around during the war. Yet this is about all he has behind him to call upon. Where does he get his advice, and when does he decide not to take that advice, as I have indicated was the case very recently when Canadian staff officers put forward their views?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The minister has said that certain information is not available. Adi he needs do is go to his files or to the Prime Minister's files. Many letters and briefs were addressed to the Prime Minister, so possibly he should look in the Prime Minister's files.
I would like to see the Prime Minister come into this house and tell us where he stands on unification. Is the Prime Minister, as in so many other matters, letting the ministers run wild and make their own decisions? I recall a statement made recently by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) referring to the return to the cabinet of the new Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gordon), the former minister of finance. She referred to him as the glue that kept them together. Someone else said that that was another way of saying they were stuck with Gordon.
But returning to the minister's propaganda team, they are aiming their propaganda at the large segment of the population under 30 years of age. They do not care about the opinions of former servicemen and present serving officers and men. I never heard of a propaganda team in a democracy previously, but thanks to this minister and his dictatorial
January 31, 1967
attitude we now have certain things that were brought about by dictators in the past. Again I refer to the recent statement made by General Foulkes who said of one dictator that he dismissed every general who told him what he should know, and not what he would have liked to hear.
I suggest that the minister should look at what his propaganda team is doing. Its members are probably very expert. They are probably feeding him	propaganda, but the
Canadian public are not swallowing the unification idea, certainly not those people most concerned with it.
As recommended reading for the minister I would refer him to editorials printed in the Winnipeg Free Press in August last year, and in particular to one headed "Two Serious Errors," which reads in part as follows:
The two serious errors in defence minister Hellyer's otherwise constructive program for integration of the three armed services concern the two extremities of the military establishment, namely the command structure at the very top, and the lower levels of the regimental family, the ship's company and equivalent units. The grave weakness in these two areas has already been illustrated through the recent retirements of a number of senior generals, admirals and air marshals. If not soon corrected, these two faults could destroy the effectiveness of our defence establishments.
The initial fault in Canada's command structure commenced with the army back in 1950 when, despite all the clear lessons of history, we created a virtual commander-in-chief. In the more recent re-organization of a unified defence council and a chief of the defence staff, Mr. Hellyer has not only perpetuated this faulty principle, he has enlarged the error by making it applicable to the combined services.
We now have in fact, if not in name, a captain-general of the forces, a post which became obsolete in Queen Anne's reign.
In essence, the chief of Canada's defence staff is now the adviser to the government on all defence matters. Mr. Hellyer argues that we do have a defence council. But members of this council do not vote or speak with a voice equal to that of the chief of the defence staff nor do they have the right of direct access to the government.
History has demonstrated times without number the fallacy of this arrangement. It is much like the relationship between a patient and his doctor- the professional. When the patient refuses to accept the doctor's professional advice the doctor must either abandon the case or be fired. In history, where the commander-in-chief principle has been attempted, either the minister representing the government or the commander-in-chief has iominated. One or the other, or sometimes both, nust be destroyed or become mere ciphers.
Invariably a commander-in-chief tends to gather around him his friends and like-thinking "yes" 23033-7915
National Defence Act Amendment
men, who have no authority to question his decisions, their future appointments and promotions being dependent on his favour.
That is as far as I wish to quote that editorial, but once again I would direct the minister's attention to the last paragraph which I read. I know the minister is not required to listen in the house but I hope he will take into consideration the arguments that are put forward. I see now that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) is leaving the house. I would ask him to get up and express his opinions with respect to this unification bill. As in other matters he has spoken outside the house but he never seems to be able to get up and put his ideas across in the house.
The propaganda team which has been referred to, and which has been acknowledged by the Minister of National Defence, is possibly a follow-up to the truth squad, something that was originated by the Secretary of State, but very soon dropped. I trust the propaganda team will come to the same fate as the truth squad, for no other reason than that the personal pride of its members should lead them to leave the staff of a minister who acknowledges that they are nothing more or less than a propaganda team. If this is the type of work they are performing, then I repeat that their personal pride will call upon them to quit, once the minister indicates that they are nothing more or less than a propaganda squad. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether this is getting across or not, but I trust it will be brought to their attention when they arrive in the house tomorrow.
The minister has often stated that unification will result in economic savings. He has often mentioned the 1964 white paper. I defy him and anybody else on that side of the house to point out where the 1964 white paper indicates anything in the way of savings for the Canadian taxpayer. There is absolutely nothing in it to indicate a saving to the taxpayer in respect of defence matters.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
12506	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, on January 17 last, I put the Hollowing question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
Since the Canadian National Railways are not governed by any specific regulation with respect to bilingualism, and in view of the fact that several regrettable incidents have occurred lately on Canadian Pacific Railways in the Montreal area, would the hon. minister advise the railway companies-including the C.P.R.-to finally recognize the bilingual character of Canada in our centennial year, and to set down effective regulations in this regard for the benefit of passengers?
Mr. Speaker, it is a long acknowledged fact that the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. do not promote bilingualism within their organization and in the relations between their employees and the public throughout Canada, as well as in the province of Quebec.
Only recently some unfortunate incidents happened on C.P.R. trains. On the train between Rigaud and Montreal, the conductor refused to speak French to one Marc Briere and called upon a company constable to put that French Canadian off the train. On another train, the one from Pointe-Claire, a Mr. Gilles Gaboury was treated the same way for the same reason. A company agent also called him "dirty Frenchman".
Those are bitter insults after a hundred years of federative life in a country recognized, even abroad, as bilingual and bicultural.
When those two incidents were brought to the attention of responsible C.P.R. authorities, Mr. J. L. Harris said that the union threatens to hold study sessions if ticket collectors are not spared the humiliation of having to speak French.
As far as the president, Mr. Crump, is concerned, he is blissfully satisfied to state that no C.P.R. law requires an employee to speak French.
That is conscious, wilful and blameworthy indifference. I want to protest with the greatest energy against such bad faith, such a backward attitude by the railway companies. These companies, in many fields, come under the jurisdiction of the federal Board of Transport Commissioners and the federal Department of Transport.

DEBATES	January 31, 1967
Millions of French Canadians pay taxes to support these companies directly or indirectly. That is why the federal Minister of Transport is in a position to recommend to the railway companies that they observe bilingualism and that they promote the study of the two official languages of Canada by granting a special bonus.
The minister could also suggest to the said companies that they adopt a regulation recognizing the two official languages and providing that their knowledge will represent a factor of qualification for the employees.
It is no use lighting bonfires, Mr. Speaker, to celebrate the Centennial if seven million French Canadians are still in danger of being roughed up and threatened for speaking then-mother tongue, that is, one of the two official languages of the country.
I hope the minister will take action at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. John N. Turner (Member of ihe Administration):: I am speaking tonight for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). I have listened with great interest to the plea of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard).
I note that, two days ago, the Canadian Pacific Railways addressed a letter to Mr. Yvon Groulx, Montreal president of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, outlining their policy with respect to bilingualism, and I am sure the hon. member has read this letter and that his interpretation is similar to mine. C.P.R. officials also released a statement alleging that they insisted on all their employees requesting tickets in both official languages, in the Montreal area as well as everywhere else in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member knows very well that we do not have the same direct jurisdiction over the C.P.R. that we have over the C.N.R., but I personally feel-and I believe I speak for hon. members on this side of the house-that if a company wishes to operate in an area of the country where there are English and French-speaking citizens, the company must deal in both official languages of the country.
There has already been extraordinary improvement at Air Canada, over the last few years, and I predict unhesitatingly that a similar situation will develop within the railway services.



NATIONAL PARKS-USE OF EXPROPRIATION TO HALT COURT CASES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight relate to a question I asked with reference to civil rights,
January 31, 1967
which elicited a reply from the Prime Minister, who waxed very eloquently in respect of civil rights not only of Canadian people but on an international scale.
My question arises from a problem we have had for many years in respect of the Banff National Park. A man by the name of Hugh L. Gourlay, who is only representative of perhaps hundreds of people in the parks, was operating a tourist business and had a 42 year lease with the right to renew it. He operates perhaps the only motel with tourist facilities in the lower Lake Louise area, outside of the Post Hotel. On April 12, 1965, in accordance with the terms and conditions of his lease he received a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) which said in part:
Dear Mr. Gourlay:
Thank you for your letter-
This was followed by the normal opening. The letter then stated:
I understand the director of the National Parks Branch has acknowledged your letter-
And this is the meat of the letter:
After a careful examination of your proposals, I would be prepared to permit expansion of your existing development as far as a new motel and a restaurant of sufficient size to serve registered guests are concerned. I would also be prepared to authorize year-round operation if the existing lease is surrendered and a new one for a term of 42 years with no provision for renewal is accepted-
Let me pause there to say that a new lease will be granted, but this gentleman must give up a 21 year period of renewal.
The minister goes on to say that a new lease would not permit a store and outlines the provisions for rent. That letter was written on April 12, 1965. When Mr. Gourlay submitted his plans to the department they were ignored. Last year he commenced an action in the Exchequer Court dated March 25, 1966, for damages resulting from the fact that the terms and the conditions of the lease were not carried out, and asking for other remedies which I have not time to outline.
What happened after he commenced that action? Without disrespect for the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Haidasz), because I am sure he is not aware of the situation and has no responsibility in this regard, as soon as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had notice of this action, it expropriated the whole property in order to avoid this right of action, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease and the law of Canada.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Having regard to civil rights, let me say that these people are so flagrantly bureaucratic nothing we can do will stop them. When we met in Banff we were presented with a brief such as we in the rural districts of the prairies would liken to an Eaton's catalogue. This was an obvious attempt to brainwash us. Instead of going out that night to attend a social engagement I read part of that brief. What I found was shocking to the deputy minister, because he had not been informed about it. In that brief it is stated, as the views of the Department of Justice, that:
On normal renewals of perpetual renewal leases, the department can probably be forced (legally) to issue renewal leases also containing the perpetual renewal clause-
It goes on to suggest that the term of the renewal lease cannot be reduced. That was based on the department's legal advice.
Let me draw an analogy. When they wanted four acres for the trans-Canada highway, which involved fee simple land, and when they could not make a deal they expropriated the whole 60 acres. I have a sworn copy of evidence taken on examination for discovery in the Exchequer Court action. This is the answer given by the witness. I said:
So that it was really, then, the result that as you were not able to negotiate for the highway that you did actually expropriate the other land?
That referred to the other 56 acres as well as the four involved. His answer was: "Yes".
We are talking about civil rights in this country. This man started an action. This is not one individual case, as Your Honour may have thought when I put the question. This question concerns hundreds of people in western Canada doing business for 1,700,000 tourists. As soon as they demand their rights through the courts, this minister and his department-with no disrespect to the parliamentary secretary-exercise bureaucracy by expropriation. If these are the civil rights in Canada which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) talks about in such glowing terms, and which we hope to gain internationally, I think the time has come to ask this government-and I can be brief tonight-when they are going to stop usurping the civil rights of those doing business for visitors to the parks.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I was told four years ago-this situation has not developed only under this government; that is one thing I want to make clear-by an R.C.M.P. officer who is no longer near the parks, that in two nights in July and

12508	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion August they turned out 100 families, which had to drive 100 miles to Calgary because there were not any hotel or motel facilities. Yet this government, with the legal right of a lease, use what they call the right of expropriation when a man starts an action. I do not know what the outcome of the legal matter will be, but I feel that when rights are being usurped like this I, as a member of parliament for that area, have a strong duty to ask the minister for an explanation.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me I would like to state that, according to the information available to me, it would not appear that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is using the law of expropriation to halt cases brought to test my minister's policy on leases in the national parks.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) should realize that action brought by Mr. Gourlay is proceeding in the normal manner through legal channels. The fact that Mr. Gourlay's property has been expropriated does not, in itself, I believe, preclude Mr. Gourlay from carrying through his court action against the department. To be more succinct, expropriation does not prohibit Mr. Gourlay from continuing his case against the department. The department therefore is not interfering with this man's rights to press for court action to test leasehold policy.
To give a little background on this whole situation, I would like to say that according to my information the problem is basically that Mr. Gourlay several years ago applied to expand his present facilities to an extent that would have been in serious conflict with the huge visitors centre planned for Lake Louise. The department vetoed his plan on the practical basis of a serious conflict and on the legal basis of the national parks building regulations, as amended, which state:
The superintendent may refuse to issue a permit where he is of the opinion that the proposed use of the building or structure is not in the interests of the park.
By early 1966 when the department had more clearly defined its land requirements for the visitors' service centre at Lake Louise, it became apparent that the lands immediately adjacent to the proposed complex, and these included not only the land Mr. Gourlay occupied but other lands as well, were in fact necessary for the successful completion and operation of the large visitors centre.

DEBATES	January 31, 1967
Therefore the department entered into negotiations with Mr. Gourlay to purchase his land. Mr. Gourlay demanded a price considered to be exorbitant by the officials of the department. The department then requested that an appraisal be carried out by the normal appraisal methods used by federal departments. Mr. Gourlay rejected this and stated that an appraisal would be carried out only under his terms. It was at this point the department deemed it necessary to expropriate in order to proceed with the Lake Louise visitors service centre, which will eventually represent an investment of approximately $10 million. At about the same time Mr. Gourlay decided to proceed with court action against the department on the basis that he was not allowed to develop his lands in the manner in which he is entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but he had only three minutes in which to reply. That period, I am afraid, has expired.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-BRITISH COLUMBIA-COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCES OF CONVICTED MURDERERS

Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I rose to ask a question which appears in Hansard and which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Solicitor General, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. The cabinet yesterday commuted to life imprisonment the death sentences of two convicted murderers in British Columbia. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what is the effect of this statement which he made on August 31 in this house:
"*-when this legislation passes it will be the will of the parliament of Canada and if it is the will of the parliament of Canada I know the law-abiding citizens of Canada, as they always have done in the past, will obey it."
Mr. Speaker, now I wish to direct the same question to the Solicitor General and ask him whether the cabinet is above the law of the land, that they do not have to observe the law of the land referred to by the Prime Minister on August 31 when he said that when it is the express will of parliament the law-abiding citizens of Canada will obey it, as they have always done in the past.
Two death sentences were imposed on convicted murderers in British Columbia which were then commuted to life imprisonment by the cabinet. This was done despite the fact that approximately a year ago parliament
January 31, 1967	COMMONS
ruled in a vote 143 to 112 that they wished to see the law of the land continued. This calls for the death penalty in capital murder convictions. I have not yet received an answer to my question on that score. I wish to develop further the question which I asked last Thursday, by asking whether the cabinet has discarded the principle of a responsible government in this country.
There was a vote of 143 members to 112 to continue the law as it is on the statute books, and yet the cabinet continues to commute death sentences despite that law. The cabinet has stated that it is commuting sentences in cases where there were recommendations for mercy from the jury. Does this mean that 12 selected jurymen have more power than 265 elected members of parliament? If so, I would suggest to the Governor General that he should dismiss the House of Commons and call in 12 jurymen to conduct the law and rule this nation. The cabinet seems to think that a jury is better able to handle convictions for murder than the Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme court of the province that may be involved, or even the trial divisions in the provinces.
I have in my hands pages 12397 and 12398. of Hansard of January 30, 1967 in which the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) gave some statistics with regard to the action taken by the cabinet on murder convictions. Four sentences without any recommendation for mercy whatsoever have been commuted. As stated in Hansard, in case No. 88 there was no recommendation for mercy from the judge or from the jury. In case 90 there was no recommendation for mercy from the judge or from the jury. The same applied in cases No. 91 and 93, and yet every one of these sentences was commuted. We are told that this was only done in cases where there was a recommendation for mercy from the jury.
Mr. Speaker, I will make the flat statement that I could get a petition signed by a minimum of 100 names, and possibly running into thousands, asking for mercy for the victims of these criminals. We have never had time to get a recommendation for mercy for the victims. The two men from British Columbia whose sentences have been commuted and who have received recommendations for mercy from 12 jurymen, murdered two women. I am sure we could have gathered thousands of names asking for mercy for these two women before they were murdered by
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the criminals to whom the cabinet has extended clemency.
I have no hesitation in referring to the case in Hull. It has not yet been appealed so one can comment, since a conviction has been handed down. This is another case of a woman being shot by a man for whom a recommendation for mercy was made. I am sure we could have gathered hundreds of names on a petition asking for mercy for the woman before she was shot dead by the man who has been convicted of her murder. But no, we have the criminal with a recommendation for mercy gracing his shoulders and no recommendation for mercy gracing the shoulders of the victim.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
When I said the cabinet is flying in the face of parliament when it commutes a death sentence, I refer to the fact that a free vote was held. Evidently a free vote means that parliament votes, then the cabinet feels free to do what it likes. When the cabinet flies in the face of a free vote of 143 to 112, responsible government appears to have gone out the window in this country. There was a vote not long ago of 59 to 58 against the cabinet. Within 24 hours they endeavoured to bring in another amendment which would counteract the vote of 59 to 58, and this is a cabinet which is supposed to be responsible to the parliament of Canada. Is it no longer responsible to the party that keeps it in power? They fly in the face of a vote of 59 to 58, or endeavoured to do so until they were derailed because they were flying in the face of responsible government. We believe that the cabinet should be responsible, and must be responsible to the parliament of which they are only the executive branch.
Now, I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), has responsible government left this country, in view of the definite cases we have in which the cabinet has been flying in the face of votes that were against them in two matters, but more particularly this question of capital punishment when the vote was 143 to 112.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to say that I respect the feelings of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) on this important subject of capital punishment. However I should like to point out to him, with respect, that section 656 of the Criminal Code was
12510	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion enacted by parliament and that section provides that the governor in council may commute a sentence of death to imprisonment in a penitentiary for life or for any term of years not less than two years, or to imprisonment in a prison other than a penitentiary for a period of less than two years.
I should like to point out also that section 642A was enacted by parliament, and it should be noted that section of the Criminal Code provides that when the jury finds an
DEBATES	January 31, 1967
accused guilty of capital murder the judge shall ask the jury whether they wish to make any recommendation in regard to clemency. In both the cases referred to by the hon. member, the cases of Frederick Myron Turner and Michael Gregory Kuzyk, there were unanimous recommendations from the jury concurred in by the trial judge.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
January 31, 1367



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
November 19, 1966
The General Assembly,
Recalling that the first purpose of the United Nations as set out in Article 1(1) of the Charter is to maintain international peace and security,
Convinced that all States Members of the United Nations should co-operate to ensure that the Organization is able to achieve this purpose,
Recognizing that the Charter has conferred
(a)	on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security; and
(b)	on the General Assembly the right to discuss any question relating to the maintenance of international peace and security and the right to make recommendations on any such question,
Recognizing further that if the Security Council is unable to adopt decisions the General Assembly, which bears its share of responsibility in maintaining international peace and security, may consider the matter in accordance with the Charter and make appropriate recommendations,
Believing that the Organization, pursuant to the Charter, should be in a position to respond promptly and effectively to the need for duly authorized action to maintain international peace and security,
1.	Notes that various methods of financing peacekeeping operations may be considered when the need for any such operation arises, and that these include:
(i)	apportionment among the Members of the Organization;
(ii)	special arrangements agreed among the parties involved;
(iii)	voluntary contributions;
(iv)	any combination of these various methods.
2.	Considers that if the costs of a particular peacekeeping operation involving heavy expenditures are to be apportioned among the Members of the Organization this should be done in a manner which would provide for
the equitable sharing of the above-mentioned costs, due account being taken of:
(i)	the special responsibilities of the Permanent Members of the Security Council;
(ii)	the relatively limited capacity of economically less developed countries to contribute towards the costs of such an operation;
(iii)	where circumstances warrant, the need to give special consideration to the situation of any Member States which are victims of, and those which are otherwise involved in, the events or actions leading to a peacekeeping operation.
3.	Considers further that, taking due account of the considerations outlined in operative paragraph 2 above, the equitable sharing of the costs of a particular peacekeeping operation involving heavy expenditures might be achieved by means of a special scale which would establish that the economically less developed countries would contribute 5 per cent of the total costs with the balance of the costs to be borne by other Member States.
4.	Invites Member States to communicate to the United Nations information concerning the kinds of military or civil forces or services which they might be in a position to provide, if they so decided, in response to a request to participate in a duly authorized United Nations peacekeeping operation.
5.	Recommends to the Security Council:
(a)	that it authorize a study of the means of improving preparations for peacekeeping;
(b)	that, as a matter of general practice, it should obtain from the Secretary-General an estimate of the expenditure involved when recommending or deciding measures to maintain or restore international peace and security;
(c)	that it explore the prospects for agreements to be negotiated with Member States for provision of armed forces, assistance and facilities, to be made available to the Security Council, on its call, pursuant to Article 43 and taking into account Article 47(2) of the Charter.
6.	Decides to place an item entitled "A Review of Peacekeeping in All Its Aspects" on the agenda of the XXIInd regular session of the General Assembly.
12513
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 1, 1967