1967-04-19

CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve) asked for leave to introduce Bill No. C-291, to amend the Criminal Code (Disturbance in Parliament) .
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Caoueiie:: Mr. Speaker, some time ago a visitor in the Commons galleries threw a number of tracts on the floor of the house, close to Your Honour's chair, thus disturbing the peace and order in the house.
Therefore, this bill provides that any person who, from any gallery, either in the Senate or in the Commons, breaks the peace
of senators and members of parliament, is guilty of a punishable offence upon summary conviction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. [English]



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Gray: What is (a) the total revenue (b) the cost of operation, for the period April 1, 1965, to March 31, 1966, for each of the following customs ports: Acton, Ontario; Bowmanville, Ontario; Galt, Ontario; Hull, Quebec; Ingersoll, Ontario; Levis, Quebec; Newcastle, New Brunswick; Paris, Ontario; Port Credit, Ontario; St. Mary's, Ontario; Saek-ville, New Brunswick; Thorold, Ontario; Walker-ville, Ontario; Wolfville, Nova Scotia?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Statement of costs and revenue Period April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1966
Customs	Customs	Excise duty	Total	Cost of customs portports	revenue	revenue	revenue	operationActon, Ont.	$ 167,900	-	$ 167,900	$ 12,100Bowmanville, Ont.	121,600	-	121,600	18,300Galt, Ont.	4,527,400	-	4,527,400	94,300Hull, Que.	106,000	161,100	267,100	50,200Ingersoll, Ont.	335,900	-	335,900	16,900Levis, Que.	573,800	-	573,800	39,200Newcastle, N.B.	272,800	-	272,800	10,400Paris, Ont.	774,300	-	774,300	19,800Port Credit, Ont.	3,546,600	-	3,546,600	73,800St. Mary's, Ont.	14,500	-	14,500	13,400Sackville, N.B.	87,800	-	87,800	10,100Thorold, Ont.	785,900	-	785,900	44,000Walkerville, Ont.	3,275,800	15,810,000	19,085,800	114,600Wolfville, N.S.	12,800	-	12,800	10,000$14,603,100	$15,971,100	$30,574,200	$527,100
Questions

April 19, 1967
Note:
All amounts have been rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.
Cost of operation in each case includes standard object expenditures such as salaries, travel expenses, telephone, supplies and equipment; cost of employee benefits; also cost of accommodation and financial services provided by other government departments.
Excise duty revenue at Hull and Walkerville is collected and controlled by excise duty surveys which are separate from the customs ports.


* GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What was the total of the gross national product for Canada in 1966?
2.	What increase would be required in the personal, corporation and sales taxes to provide 1 per cent of the gross national product?
3.	What increase would be required in the personal, corporation and sales taxes to provide 2 per cent of the gross national product?
4.	What increase would be required in the personal, corporation and sales taxes to provide 3 per cent of the gross national product?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Member of the Admin-isiration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is $57.8 billion.
The answer to parts 2, 3 and 4 is that it is difficult to relate increases in personal, corporation and sales taxes to percentages of the gross national product by reason of the fact that tax increases themselves have an influence upon the levels of the G.N.P. and thus upon revenues. However, $578 million is 8.5 per cent of the aggregate of the federal revenues, including old age security tax revenues, from personal income tax, corporation income tax and sales tax, twice $578 million would be 17 per cent and three times would be 25.5 per cent.


PAYMENTS TO BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total amount received to date by the commissioners of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, and in each case what is the breakdown of the moneys received as between honoraria and expenses?
2.	How much has each commissioner received that has been classified as tax exempt?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by Prime Minister's and Privy

Council offices and by the Department of National Revenue as follows:
1. Since their appointment three years and
nine months ago,	in July 1963,	the commissioners have received the following amounts: Travel and living Honoraria expenses	Rev. C. Cormier	$26,600.00	$10,922.01A. D. Dunton	44,800.00	4,150.70R. Frith	40,300.00	11,011.51J.-L. Gagnon	65,650.00	14,175.10G. Laing	33,350.00	21,117.92P. Lacoste	14,450.00	575.30A. Laurendeau	74,100.00	13,903.40J. Marchand	14,450.00	5,215.03J. Rudnyckyj	31,800.00	15,099.87F. R. Scott	32,850.00	7,206.99P. Wyczynski	32,700.00	3,884.212. The amounts	designated as travel and	
living expenses in part 1 are considered to be exempt from tax under the Income Tax Act.


RANDOM HOUSE (CANADA)
Mr. Barnett: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, is Random House (Canada) a subsidiary of Random House (U.S.A.)?
2.	Is Random House (Canada) able to import for distribution in Canada books published in the U.S.A. without payment of tariffs or other taxes?
3.	If so, what classes or kinds of books are importable without payment of tariffs or other taxes?
4.	If not, what rates of tariffs or other taxes are collected on imported books?
5.	Is there a price differential on books published in the U.S.A. when sold at the retail level between Random House (Canada) and Random House (U.S.A.)?
6.	If so, are prices higher or lower in Canada than in the U.S.A.?
7.	What, in absolute or in percentage terms, is the average difference in price levels?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. Information not available.
2.	The Customs Tariff Act provides for the duty free entry of certain books. Any importer, including Random House of Canada Limited, is entitled to the duty free provisions.
3.	The following books are entitled to entry at customs free of duty and sales tax exempt: Books in the curriculum of a Canadian university, college or school for use as text books
April 19, 1967



or as works of reference, not including dictionaries; books for use in intelligence testing; books for bona fide libraries, and being the property of the organized authorities of such libraries and not in any case the property of individuals or of business concerns; books for the promotion of religion, medicine and surgery, the fine arts, law, science, technical training, and the study of languages, not including dictionaries. These books are sales tax exempt provided they are not to be written or drawn upon and bear no advertising; books not including those to be written or drawn upon, printed in any other than the English language.
4.	Other books, not to be written or drawn upon, such as novels, dictionaries and general encyclopedias are dutiable, when produced in and imported from the United States, at 10 per cent ad valorem. These books are exempt from sales tax.
5,	6, and 7. Information not available.


REVISED CUSTOMS ENTRY FORM
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	What is the difference between the "Canada Customs-Entry for Home Consumption Form B-l Rev. 11-63" and the revised "Canada Customs-Entry for Home Consumption Form B-l 10/65"?
2.	Why was the introduction of the new form necessary?
3.	Were stocks of the old forms destroyed and, if so, what was the estimated cost of the destroyed forms?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The tariff item column was transferred from the extreme right of the form to an area immediately to the right of the description of goods column.
2.	The previous location of the tariff item column interfered with the use, by industry, of electronic entry writing equipment. It also interfered with high speed coding methods employed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
3.	Yes, stocks of old forms were destroyed; estimated cost $2,100.


EXCISE TAXES ON SPIRITS AND BEER
Mr. Caouetle: What was the total amount collected in excise taxes on the following products during the years 1965-66, 1964-65, 1963-64 in each province on (a) spirits (b) beer?
Questions


Edgar John Benson: Under the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952 c.100, as amended, no excise tax is imposed on either spirits or beer. No breakdown is maintained by commodities of the amount of consumption or sales tax collected under part VI of the Excise Tax Act.


DISTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURES OF ARMED FORCES IN CANADA
Mr. Chatwood: 1.	What is the number of armed forces personnel stationed in each of the ten provinces and in the territories?
2.	What is the total expenditure of the Department of National Defence in each of the ten provinces and in the territories?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. As at December 31, 1966:
Newfoundland, 678; Nova Scotia, 14,546; Prince Edward Island, 1,320; New Brunswick, 6,325; Quebec, 10,624; Ontario, 28,471; Manitoba, 7,757; Saskatchewan, 1,635; Alberta, 7,142; British Columbia, 8,781; Northwest Territories (including Yukon), 627.
2. Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question, and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


PROSECUTIONS FOR OIL SPILLAGE IN HARBOURS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many prosecutions have been initiated by the Department of Transport involving the escape or spillage of oil from ships in Canadian harbours in each of the past five years, and how many were successful?
2.	With regard to such prosecutions, what were the totals for the five years in specific harbours, naming the harbours?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. 1962: seven, 6 successful; 1963: eleven, 10 successful; 1964: eight, all successful; 1965: eleven, all successful; 1966: fifteen, 14 successful.
2. New Westminster, B.C., 10; Montreal, P.Q., 9; Port Arthur, Ont., 7; Vancouver, B.C., 5; St. Catharines, Ont., 4; Nanaimo, B.C., 3; Sorel, P.Q., 3; Saint John, N.B., 3; Tahsis, B.C., 2; Quebec, P.Q., 1; Halifax, N.S., 1; Welland, Ont., 1; Chicoutimi, P.Q., 1; Port Alfred, P.Q., 1; Newcastle, N.B., 1.

April 19, 1967
Questions
Where an offence occurred in waters adjacent to a harbour, the case is identified with that harbour.


RE-EXAMINATION OF C.M.H.C. PROGRAMS AS TO BILINGUALISM
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Referring to page 32 of the 21st annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, what was the nature of the re-examination by the corporation of its various programs to be assured that the objectives outlined in the Prime Minister's statement of April 6, 1966, on bilingualism are being met?
2.	What were the programs so re-examined?
3.	How was the re-examination carried out?
4.	What was the result of the re-examination?
5.	What action, if any, has been taken as a consequence?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Following the statement of the Prime Minister of April 6, 1966, the management of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation established staff committees to study the corporation's existing policies and practices relating to bilingualism. The terms of references of the committees specifically included programs relating to recruitment, staffing, language training and communication within the corporation and with the public. As a result of the committees' studies, the corporation issued a restatement of its policies and practices which would meet these objectives. The revised policies intensified the language training of corporation personnel in both French and English and the use of both languages in its internal communications. The practice of communication with the public in the language selected by the correspondent was continued. In its staffing, language training and recruitment, plans were made so that the various corporation functions would be adequately staffed with personnel qualified in both languages.


CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK-RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF CARIBOU
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
With reference to question No. 1,349, answered on May 9, 1966, is the department concerned now prepared to re-establish caribou in the Cape Breton Highlands national park and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, action is being taken to implement the reestablishment of caribou in Cape Breton Highlands national park.


PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ARMY DOCTORS
Mr. Noble: Will the medical doctors in the army receive a pay adjustment that would be commensurate to their skill and at least on the basis being enjoyed by the dental officers and, if so, when?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The matter has been referred to Treasury Board for consideration and a decision is expected shortly.


TERRACE, B.C.-DISPOSITION OF LAND
Mr. Chatterfon: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sell or dispose of some 20 acres of land in Terrace, British Columbia, since January 1, 1967?
2.	If so, what was the price and who was the purchaser?
3.	Were tenders asked for?
4.	If so, who were the tenderers and what were the amounts of each of the tenders?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2, 3, 4. Not applicable.


REBUILDING OF HIGHWAY IN RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK
[Stage Direction]
Queestion No. 2,859-Mr. Forbes:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to rebuild and blacktop No. 10 highway through the Riding Mountain national park from the North Gate to Clear Lake?
2.	Has provision been made for this in the 1967-68 estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so, when will tenders be called?
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. Part 1, yes; part 2, no; funds have not been provided for this year. However, it is planned to provide for repairs to this highway within the next five years.


IMMIGRANTS ENTERING CANADA
Mr. Monteiih: 1. How many immigrants have entered Canada from January 1, 1946, to December 31, 1966?
April 19, 1967

2. For that particular period, what was the number entering per year?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. 2,698,763.
2. 1946, 71,719; 1947, 64,127; 1948, 125,414; 1949, 95,217; 1950, 73,912; 1951, 194,391; 1952, 164,498;	1953,	168,868;	1954,	154,227;	1955,109,946;	1956,	164,857;	1957,	282,164;	1958,124,851;	1959,	106,928;	1960,	104,111;	1961,
71,689; 1962, 74,586; 1963, 93,151; 1964, 112,606; 1965, 146,758; 1966, 194,743.


MUNICIPAL ANNUITY PLANS
Mr. Madill: 1.	How many group contract-government annuity plans are there in municipalities in Ontario?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, have any of these plans been replaced by OMER and, If so, how many?
3.	Do any of	these municipalities carry	both
plans?
4.	If municipalities have a government annuity plan, are they compelled to pay into the Canada pension plan?
5.	Is legislation anticipated to provide for the repayment of these frozen assets to those municipalities now entered in other plans?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. 223.
2.	201 plans have been suspended or discontinued and it is believed that these have been replaced by OMER.
3.	No information, but it is possible in respect of the 22 government annuity plans which are still active.
4.	Yes.
5.	No, because the annuity pension credits remain in force for the individual employees concerned.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to bring to your attention the fact that I have had questions Nos. 2,532 and 2,606 on the order paper since January 26 and February 10 respectively. They are both simple and straightforward questions, and I see no reason why they could not have been answered by the government within a reasonable time.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion for papers No. 227 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations
Motions for Papers
concerning privileged papers and authorization by the governmental authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 221 and 223?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


FLOOD PROTECTION ON FRASER RIVER
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 227-Mr. Deachman:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all correspondence since May 1, 1963, between any department of the government of Canada and any department of the government of British Columbia relating to the raising of dikes, the building of dams on the upper reaches of the Fraser river and all matters relating to the protection of the flood plain of the Fraser river.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 221-Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the federal-provincial (Quebec) agreement with regard to technical and professional training for adults, mentioning the date on which such agreement was signed, and a copy of all correspondence on the subject between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec.
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the department has communicated with the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc).
The papers which are requested by the hon. member deal with the agreement with the province of Quebec concerning grants for training.
There is no objection to tabling this correspondence, with the consent of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 221 be adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
15086	COMMONS DEBATES	April 19, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
federal withdrawal from vocational Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The supple-training program	mentary question is argumentative.
Motion No. 223-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between the provincial governments and the federal government in respect to the decision of the federal government to withdraw from the technical vocational training program.
Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, if there is any doubt about this notice of motion perhaps it had better stand.
Motion stands.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the government to discontinue the Canadian officers training corps in the universities of Canada, or has this already been done?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the universities as to what form our future co-operation with the universities should take. A policy paper has been prepared by the department. There has been some discussion which has not yet been promulgated. As soon as a decision has been approved I will make the announcement in the usual way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand by that answer that objection has been raised by some of the universities of Canada to operating the Canadian officers training corps?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could not say there has been no objection by individuals, because I would suspect there has been some although I cannot at the moment recall specific cases. But in so far as negotiation with the Association of Canadian Universities is concerned, it has been most harmonious and co-operative and they have been in the picture all the way during consideration of the new policy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be advisable to continue to draw officer personnel from students at universities, in view of the tremendous purge of senior officers that has been carried out in the department?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There will be continued provision, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask whether he can report to the house with regard to the meeting he has just held with the provincial ministers of health, with particular reference to the contention of the minister of health of the province of Ontario that if commercial insurance carriers fit into the category the provinces should be allowed to turn the administration of medicare over to such groups. I want to ask the minister whether he can assure the house that the government intends to adhere to the original definition which he gave, according to which the public administration of medicare would be handled by other than commercial insurance carriers.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the conference of the ministers of health which ended yesterday was very successful, especially in terms of the discussion of the Medical Care Act. It is my view that all the provinces will be participating in a medical care program at the time the federal contributions will be available. I think we have made great progress in this field, and the conference was very heartening and encouraging in that respect.
The role of commercial insurance carriers has been laid down in the Medical Care Act. It is within the jurisdiction of a province under the act to designate a private insurance carrier as an agent to collect premiums and pay benefits, but it will not be possible for such an agency to assess accounts or determine the amount of payments. This has been part of the act and there has been no change in the terms of the bill that was approved by parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure all hon. members will share the minister's pleasure at the indication that there is every likelihood that all
April 19, 1967
the provinces will come under the plan by July 1, 1968. Do I take it from the minister's reply that the federal government intends to adhere to the original proposition that the administration of the plan must come under a public body appointed by the provincial government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is no change in that policy. There must be a provincial authority administering a public plan, and the roles of other agencies, such as private insurance carriers and plans sponsored by doctors, are laid down in the bill itself. There has been no change from that point of view.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) concerning the recent federal-provincial meeting on health.
Can the hon. minister tell the house whether it has been determined that the provinces will be the ones to decide what further health services will be admissible to federal subsidies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The method of adding further health services to the health plan has been set out in the bill. The attitude the government of Canada took at the conference was that when a consensus developed amongst the provinces as to the importance of further services, the government would consider adding those services to the plan. We have made no decision as to further services at the present time except the statement that has been made with respect to services provided by dental or oral surgeons.


Maurice Allard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At that federal-provincial meeting, was there any discussion about giving fiscal compensation to provinces not coming under the federal medical care insurance plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member not think that the question he has just put launches us in a debate and that, for this reason, it should not be allowed?


Maurice Allard: I do not, Mr. Speaker, because this question proceeds from the previous one.
23033-954 J
Inquiries of the Ministry [English]	>


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question; Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has had any requests from any of the provinces for an extension of services other than those which the government initially stipulated for the medicare program?	'


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very much afraid that the question asked by the hon. member is substantially the same as that asked by the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the light of discussions at the conference of health ministers during the past two days, is the government considering the possibility of advancing the effective date of medicare, as provided for under the Medical Care Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised at the conference but there was no request or disposition by any province to advance the date of medicare implementation. Accordingly the position of the federal government is unchanged. The starting date will be July 1, 1968, as provided for in the bill.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question. The minister said that there would be no advancement of the date from July 1, 1968. When pushing the legislation through the house he said the bill might be implemented on or before July 1, 1968. I ask the minister what happened to that "before".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That has already been answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was just window dressing.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the minister has probably studied in detail the unemployment situation in Canada;

April 19, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry could he tell us why, every year, just like this year, the province of Quebec alone has 40 per cent of the total number of unemployed in Canada? What are the reasons for such a situation?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question is much too broad, much too wide. Therefore, the question as asked is not in order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years we have witnessed the same situation. My question is quite simple. Can the minister explain to the house the reason why Quebec always has 40 per cent of the total number of unemployed?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question cannot be asked at this time.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on unemployment in Quebec.
I would like to know whether the minister intends to meet with the provincial authorities to discuss the measures indicated in an effort to reduce the unemployment rate in Quebec?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if Quebec feels the need of our co-operation to combat seasonal unemployment, I shall be happy to meet the representatives of Quebec.
As far as my department is concerned, we are already taking measures to combat seasonal unemployment with, among other things, the winter works program undertaken jointly with the provinces and the municipalities. There are also other federal programs, but we have no objection to considering any other suggestion from the province of Quebec which is aware of such problems, if they indicate their interest in solving them.


Martial Asselin: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Apart from the winter works program, would the minister have any idea of other steps which should be taken in Quebec to reduce the unemployment rate?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this question is much too comprehensive. The hon. member is asking the minister for a statement normally made on motions.
[Mr. Caouette.l


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when his department will be in a position to cope with all the applications made by the unemployed in Quebec for retraining courses as a result of technological changes?


Jean Marchand: We are ready to cope with all the applications of the provinces which are prepared to provide courses, teachers and facilities.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask whether he has yet received the report of the committee studying the question of veterans pension rates.


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received that report.


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would now consider the advisability of further interim increases and the inclusion of dependants in such increases.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this study, and as I have already indicated I hope to have this report as soon as possible. If there is undue delay, then certainly the matter will be considered.


CAMP HILL, N.S.-REPORTED LACK OP HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION
[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 Veterans Affairs. May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is in a position today to reply to the recurring questions I have been posing regarding the availability of bed space for veterans at Camp Hill hospital?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, I have had an inquiry made into this matter. The report I received enables me to assure the hon. member that no veteran has ever been refused hospitalization
April 19, 1967
for a pensionable disability. However, the time of admission may not always coincide with the veteran's own wishes. This decision is reached in the light of medical emergency factors and is made by qualified medical practitioners. In terms of the specific case to which the hon. member referred me, I will give him a private report.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply. I know he can only be guided in the answers he gives by the information he receives from Halifax. With your permission, sir, I should like to debate this matter at the first opportunity on the adjournment.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the final date for the filing of income tax returns falls on Sunday, April 30, can the minister say if income tax returns filed or mailed on May 1 will be accepted as having been received on time?


Edgar John Benson: I will take the matter under consideration.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, further to the question raised earlier by the hon. member for Wellington South, the final date for filing personal income tax returns will be May 1. Returns postmarked up to midnight of May 1, 1968-


An hon. Member:: For 1968?


Edgar John Benson: I beg your pardon; I should have said 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: Returns postmarked up to midnight of May 1, 1967, will be deemed to have been received on time, as provided for in the law.


APPLICATION TO HOLD 1970 WINTER GAMES IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Indian
Inquiries of the Ministry Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister inform the house if any decision has been made with respect to Canada being host to the winter games, including alpine and nordic events, proposed for Banff national park in 1970 by the Canadian Amateur Ski Association?


Arthur Laing: I think
probably the first part of the question should have been answered by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I believe he will permit me to tell the hon. member that we have made a small grant to assist the ski association in making the application. At the same time because Banff was indicated as a probable site they have been told we would much prefer that no application be made in respect of the nordic section.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Professor Ronald Price, who was a member of the special committee of the Department of Justice which prepared a report on juvenile deliquency in 1965, in which Professor Price is severely critical of delays and failure to implement the report's recommendations. Can the minister advise the house whether the government has accepted the report and if any progress has been made in implementing its recommendations?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, which deals with a very important subject.
A study of the report is actively under way within the department with a view to revising the act. I cannot, of course, state categorically that we accept the report in full, because it raises a number of constitutional points. I should point out that the matter is complicated by the fact that the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Delinquents Act is now being questioned in the Supreme Court of Canada and, of course, any action should await the judgment of the court.
I should also add, Mr. Speaker, that at my request the report was discussed by the criminal law section of the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada.

15090	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



BEQUEST FOR CONFERENCE ON NATION-WIDE ANTI-CRIME PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
* On the orders of the day:
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps I might deal with the question that was raised by the hon. member regarding a conference of attorneys general.
At the last conference of attorneys general the date of a future conference was left in abeyance. The law officers of the crown have had some correspondence with two attorneys general regarding a conference to discuss law enforcement and other matters. This exchange of correspondence is continuing and the matter of the conference is under consideration in terms of an agenda and timing. The extremely heavy commitments of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the centennial year is one consideration bearing on a date for such a conference.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house what progress is being made in connection with the contract negotiations with the brotherhood of railway trainmen?
, Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that I have received the final report of the mediator, Mr. Goldenberg. The tentative settlement that he reported to me some time ago and which needed confirmation by the members, has now been confirmed by an overwhelming majority, some 75 per cent. Therefore this leaves only one of the major railway disputes outstanding, and the board of arbitration set up to handle this dispute will be meeting within a matter of a few days. This, of course, will be an organizational meeting. Hearings will follow.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
' SUGGESTED STUDY BY PARLIAMENTARY <	COMMITTEE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Tvjr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

DEBATES	April 19. 1967
In view of the statement made by the Quebec leader of the opposition, Mr. Lesage, as regards the necessity of modernizing our constitution, is the minister now willing to create a parliamentary committee on the constitution?
Hon .P.-E. Trudeau (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that the position of the government in regard to that question has not changed, that we still believe it is too early to set up such a committee.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I should like to address a question to our energetic Minister of Labour, who also spends part of his time looking at Canada's housing crisis. In view of the continuing housing crisis has the minister anything further to report on the statement by the Prime Minister that the government is considering new initiatives to meet the situation? If so, can the minister tell us what those initiatives will be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday I refused to allow the question on these lines from the other side of the house. The question asked by the hon. member sins in the way the question asked yesterday sinned. It is too general and asks the minister to make a general statement. For that reason I do not think it can be accepted in its present form.


Reid Scott: By way of a supplementary question may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask a supplementary question. He may ask a different question.


Reid Scott: I shall do that. Several weeks ago, answering a question of mine, the Prime Minister said the government was giving consideration to the creation of a national ministry of housing and urban affairs. Has such a decision been made. If so, what sort of decision is it?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I question whether the hon. member has quoted the Prime Minister correctly, but regardless of that, I wish to say that if and when the government has any
April 19. 1967
statement to make along the lines suggested by the hon. member it will be made by the Prime Minister.


William Heward Grafftey: It is too late for this year. [Later:]


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: have a question for the Minister of Labour in connection with the housing problem.


An hon. Member:: "Crisis."


Robert William Prittie: "Crisis", my hon. friend says. I should like to ask the minister whether reconsideration is being given to the policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of refusing to grant loans in connection with apartment buildings in metropolitan areas.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This matter is under constant study, but-


William Heward Grafftey: That is all you do; study, study, study, study. No action.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot see any likelihood of the corporation having to make a change in its policy, because the indications are that the traditional lending institutions are now coming back into the field on a scale which should make up for the deficit experienced last year. The figures indicate this clearly.


William Heward Grafftey: A minister of studies.


Robert William Prittie: In view of the fact that most people in Canada cannot afford to buy through the National Housing Act because their salaries are not large enough to enable them to qualify, what new proposals is the minister considering in order that these people may be in a position to qualify to purchase homes?


Mr. Speaker:: Again this is far too general a question.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. I wonder whether the minister would consider removing the 11 per cent sales tax from building materials in order to facilitate house construction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State, who answers for the C.B.C., and pertains to the motion brought in yesterday by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). Knowing the great interest that Canadian farmers have in this matter, would the hon. lady inform the house why the discussion was not mentioned last night on the C.B.C., so that Canadian farmers and all those in the various political parties interested might be reassured?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making representations to the minister instead of asking her a question.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I wish to discuss the matter at ten o'clock.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from a newspaper article in my hand. I wish to address it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is responsible for Expo, but in his absence I shall address it to the minister answering for him. Is the government aware that certain motels and hotels in greater Montreal area are refusing other than United States funds in payment of accommodation? Also, does the government not think this is an insult to Canada and Canadians?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am not sure who is the acting minister of trade and commerce, but as I am the acting minister of almost everything else-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the absence of the Prime Minister I shall take the question as notice and see if there is any truth in the extraordinary statement the hon. gentleman has made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: I wish to ask the acting minister for everything else my routine question, about an important matter. I wonder whether in the Prime Minister's absence the minister could indicate the govern-

April 19, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry merit's position with respect to the matters raised in the urgent telegram forwarded today from federal local 173 of the Canadian Labour Congress in Halifax regarding artillery crafts, general trades and labour in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax.


Edgar John Benson: The telegram has not yet been brought to my attention. I can assure my hon. friend that it will be dealt with as soon as it is.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on April 13 the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) asked me whether I had received a representation from a group of workers of Sydney, Nova Scotia. I did receive such representations complaining of or charging political discrimination at the Canada manpower centre in Sydney and making allegations with respect to training allowances. I have ordered an investigation into those charges. As soon as I have that report I shall inform the house of what has taken place.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who I presume is now the acting house leader. My question pertains to a notice of motion presented yesterday by the house leader and published in Votes and Proceedings. The house leader said that on Thursday next he would move a motion pertaining to closure. The latter part of the notice of motion as printed in Votes and Proceedings says:
-that the motion will provide, that two days shall be allocated for the completion of discussion on the committee of the whole stage on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended), and that one day shall be allotted for the completion of the third reading stage on the bill.
Sir, the house may be taken by surprise unless those two days refer to two days in May, June, August, October or November, as

I suggested to the house leader. There is nothing specific in the notice of motion to guide the house. The matter is indefinite and I ask the acting house leader if he can explain this type of invalid notice of motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I feel that to explain a notice of motion that is on the order paper would be anticipating a debate and contrary to the rules. I shall, however, ask the house leader if he will communicate with the spokesmen for parties on the other side of the house to clarify any lack of clarity there may be in the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the acting house leader, who as usual is making light of a serious matter, not consider my question? Does the government not wish once again to be extricated from an error? This motion will be invalid if placed on the order paper tomorrow in this wording. We shall accordingly have to protest, to defend the rules of parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member should protest at the appropriate time. I can assure him that I will not accept with levity any protest from so experienced a parliamentarian.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I direct a supplementary question on the same subject to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister not pay serious attention to this matter, if he really intends to apply closure to the bill that has consumed so much of his time recently?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I should like to address a question to the acting minister of everything else, which I presume includes agriculture, and ask him what the government's response was or will be to the request that surplus fluid milk be reinstated in the dairy subsidization program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I inadvertantly misinformed the house; I am not the Acting Minister of Agriculture. My colleague the minister for Indian affairs is, and he is much more experienced than I am.
April 19, 1967


Arthur Laing: I am so experienced that I will undertake to draw this question to the attention of the minister immediately on his return from his duties in London.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture how long that will be?



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LAURENTIAN SINGERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: May I
direct a question to the Secretary of State, who is not afraid to answer anything. Will the hon. lady who is in charge of our centennial celebrations ask the centennial commission to consider inviting other non-Canadian groups as fine as the Laurentian Singers, now in the public gallery-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -to join in this Canadian celebration?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank the hon. gentleman for the compliment, and I should like to join him in welcoming these visitors.



INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION OF BILINGUAL PREMIUM POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: I
have a question which I trust is in order. After consulting with my very good Conservative friend from York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) -


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Auguste Choquette: -I thought I would direct the following question to a minister of great competence, the Minister of National Revenue. Is the government prepared to apply the 7 per cent premium policy to bilingual employees of the House of Commons?


Edgar John Benson: This is a question which I believe is more appropriately addressed to you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

National Defence Act Amendment NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT



AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243 to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer- Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening, clause 2 was under consideration.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It had been my hope that it would not have been necessary to participate again in this debate. I say this because as last week concluded it appeared the minister intended to spend a quiet week end considering some of the recommendations which had been made by members of the opposition, so that when the present week began it would be possible to arrange a reasonable compromise along lines which are usually followed by parliamentary institutions in a desire to resolve difficulties created by controversial measures of the kind now before us.
Unfortunately the attitude of the government has hardened instead of softened and the opposition is now faced with the inevitability of closure. This it seems to me is the antithesis of the process of parliamentary discussion, having regard to the nature of the bill now before the house. We have not moved beyond clause 2 in our consideration for the very good reason that that clause is revolutionary in its implications and in the effect it will have on our troops, on the defence of this nation and on the discharge of our obligations under international commitments. Some speakers have indicated that clause 2, which is the heart of the matter, is so revolutionary that it can only be compared with the great leaps forward which are taken by totalitarian regimes from time to time.
It was the irresponsible attitude on the part of the minister, supported, obviously by other members of the government-because no one on that side has disagreed with his viewpoint on this subject-which caused senior officers to retire prematurely rather than become identified with such a policy with respect to national defence and external affairs obligations undertaken by this nation.
I say it is customary among parliamentary institutions to reach some kind of consensus or compromise when there are such fundamental differences of opinion, and I enter the
April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment debate once more at this time in the realization that the government has obviously decided to continue its bulldozer approach to the legislation before us. Democracies move forward slowly. The very reason we suffer the relative tedium of the democratic process of discussion is because we all realize that no government or group of individuals is infallible.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government ever devised by the mind of man, except for all other kinds. It seems to me that our friends on the government side who have decided on the application of closure have agreed with the first part of that thesis, that democracy is the worst form of government ever devised by the mind of man, and they are going to eliminate the processes of a democratic House of Commons that have been going on with reference to this present important issue, notwithstanding the fact that there have been reasonable alternatives put forward to the minister whereby he might achieve some sort of consensus. A consensus in a democratic country is always a relative thing.
I have been in this house for some 16 years and I have found that most of the legislation which has been passed during the period I have been here has been revised three or four times. The minister, however, takes the point of view in respect of this bill that it is absolutely perfect, that all other countries in the western world with follow the pattern that has been laid down by Canada and that this legislation will bring about a great increase in efficiency in our armed forces. In other words, it is the essence of perfection in so far as legislative procedures are concerned.
I submit that this is characteristic of the totalitarian mind. I have read the evidence of the former chief of the defence staff, and that given by the other men who were responsible for the military affairs of this nation less than one year ago. Without exception they have withdrawn their support from this legislation because they believe it is something that is going too far too fast, and that it will endanger Canada's position in the field of national defence. As I have indicated already it is only the minister and the government that have taken the totalitarian point of view that this is the essence of perfection. Throughout the discussion I have marvelled at the ability of the government party to maintain unbroken discipline in the course of the debate. We are [Mr. Dinsdale.l
dealing with a most serious subject. Obviously there are members on the government who must have serious reservations. The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) for example, is such a member; but he rationalizes the legislation and says that actually it is no different from integration.
All members of this house agree with integration as it was provided for under the legislation of 1964; yet we are accused of being Colonel Blimpish, of tilting at windmills, and of resisting the process of technological change. These are fine propaganda phrases. I shall in the course of my remarks deal with that particular item. Our friend, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) who should be resisting this legislation, rationalizes and says that it is nothing more than integration.
It seems to me that hon. members on the government side have not really read even the explanatory notes in the bill, because I find in these notes the following:
The policy of the government that the three services of the Canadian Forces be unified was stated in the white paper-
And so on. Then in the last sentence of this explanatory note it goes on to say:
Since that time the planning required for the integration process has continued and it is now considered appropriate to proceed to the final goal of a unified defence force for Canada.
That is the aspect of this legislation that was resisted, even at the sacrifice of their careers, by the responsible military leaders of this nation. Then we go to the explanation of clause 2:
The purpose of the amendment to section 15 is to provide that the Canadian Forces will consist of one service called the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than three services as at present.
This is not integration; it is unification or, as it is described on the order paper, amalgamation of the navy, the army and the air force. I submit that this is a revolutionary leap forward and is not the usual manner in which democracies adapt to changing circumstances. It is more in line with the slogan which seems to have replaced the traditional policy of our Liberal friends. They now follow the slogan of power, patronage and perpetuity.
The minister himself has indicated-and it is repeated in the explanatory notes-that he has legislative authority to proceed with the necessary reorganization and now what he wants is a blank cheque to completely change the basis of the organization of the armed forces of Canada. Democratic parliaments do
April 19, 1967	COMMONS
not give blank cheques to governments. Democratic parliaments-particularly those which follow the British pattern-always reserve the right to demonstrate where the government is in error. In this particular instance the minister has substituted slogans for facts. This has been commented upon editorially as being an unseemly rush. He has drawn rosy pictures of the inevitable result of this well evaluated legislation. He has described it in the most exaggerated terms. This seems to be an unusual position for someone who operates under our democratic system of government to take.
I know the suggestion has been and is being put forward that the government has been forced to bring in closure because the opposition refuses to let this decision be made by the due processes of discussion in the house. We know that this is a house of minorities; we know there is a regional imbalance of representation in this parliament. We know that the government does not respect the national perspective or the national consensus on any matter. This is the reason I feel it has been able to get away with divisive legislation during its brief three or four year history in this country.
This decision to invoke closure, however, is not new. It was referred to by the chairman of the Liberal caucus committee, the hon. member for Durham, away back on March 28 when he indicated in a letter to his constituents that this likely would have to be the ultimate manoeuvre of the government if it was to get its controversial bill through the house. This is not a conclusion they have reached because of the intransigence of the opposition. They were thinking in these terms long before this debate in this final stage was under way in the house. This, of course, is true to the Liberal attitude on most matters.
During the second world war the Minister of Agriculture served with a night fighter squadron much the same as I did. I am surprised he has not taken part in this debate, because night fighters above all groups were aware of the success of combined operations, and the benefits in esprit de corps of the rivalry and competition based on traditions and records that had been established. There was this sense of keen competition even between the three Canadian night fighter squadrons. As I say, I am surprised based on his experience he has not taken part or made any comment about this measure.
National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Some two weeks ago we invited the Minister of Agriculture to my constituency to preside at the opening of the Manitoba Winter Fair. Unfortunately he could not find room in his departmental aircraft for the member for Brandon-Souris and I was not able to accompany him to that constituency on that occasion. At that time he did make certain statements which I thought were a little out of place for a man who had been invited to preside in a ceremonial way at the opening of that fair, which is reputed to be the best of its kind in Canada, next to the Royal Winter Fair in Toronto.
I have in my hand an article from the Brandon Sun of April 4, just after the minister's visit, in which he is reported to have said he had all sorts of useful agriculture legislation to bring before the house but the opposition would not let him do so. One might say that kind of comment is a violation of western hospitality, and if the minister were a westerner I am sure he would not have trespassed in this manner. One does not deal with partisan political matters when attending a function as a result of an invitation by the people concerned.
According to this article the minister, in reference to loans for agricultural fairs, said
this:
Noting that making such loans available was "one of the planks in our last campaign", Mr. Greene noted that "delay" by the opposition has prevented the government from bringing the measure to the house so far.
Who is in control of the business of this house, the government or the opposition? Obviously the government cannot get other business done if it insists on pursuing controversial items of this kind. The Minister of National Defence said that all he wanted was a blank cheque. I quote him quite precisely on this regard. He has also said he has the legislative authority to proceed with integration and reorganization. He gave this assurance in the explanatory notes and during his opening statement at the commencement of the committee stage on April 3. The minister has also said that unification will not go forward to completion for five or ten years. Why are we blockading all the other wonderful pieces of legislation the government continues to talk about? The government suggests that the opposition in this house is creating this blockade. This is unadulterated propaganda.
It must be obvious to anyone who has travelled in western Canada that we have a
April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment good sense of humour. In this regard let me refer to a headline which appeared in the Brandon Sun on April 3. The headline is "Greene in city to open fair today". The subheading is "Bull judging first big item". I think this speaks for itself, having regard to the comments made later by the minister for agriculture. I am not sure whether he got first prize or not because the story does not go on to deal with that aspect of the matter.


Mr. Baldwin:: Would the minister qualify as an expert in this field?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should not like to express an opinion because in a democracy we do not deal with absolutes. In a democracy we move forward slowly in order to avoid making great mistakes, such as those made by totalitarian states within recent tragic memory. Keeping this in mind I ask again why we are pressing forward with this measure regardless of consequences.
I have read clause 2 and the explanatory notes. I have searched the records of the committee, I have been in the house during most of the debate on this bill, and I have come to the conclusion that the amalgamation of the navy, army and air force, as a matter of practical organization, cannot be successful. No matter what we call these forces, we still have one operating on the land, one in the air and one on the sea. Three separate environments are involved. No matter how you bang your head against the wall you cannot amalgamate, unify or bring these three environments together, into one.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Ann, one of the few government spokesmen thus far. He assured the members of this committee that combat units will retain their identity. In my lexicon that means there is not going to be unification or amalgamation This whole matter is very confusing. The hon. member for St. Ann also said the men would not be jacks-of-all-trades. Surely that is gobbledegook or double talk of the most confusing kind.
If these forces or units are going to retain their operational identities, why should we go through this charade of amalgamation or unification? Why should we continue to push forward unnecessary legislation? A democracy should try to get by with a minimum of legislation, yet this government insists on a maximum amount camouflaged as positive action. All we can do is change the names of these forces, and a rose by any other name will smell as sweet.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre dealt in detail with this whole matter of name change. Like that hon. member, the only logical explanation I can discover for supposed unification or amalgamation is that this is an attempt to change the name, because unification or amalgamation is an operational or organizational impossibility. If the minister wants to change the names why does he not do so in a forthright and direct manner rather than by this subterfuge?
Clause 2 of this bill states in part:
The Canadian forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
If this one force is to be Her Majesty's armed forces why should we not call it the Royal Canadian Armed Forces? There seems to be something in this whole business that is not according to Hoyle. There have been some other contradictions in the minister's statements, some of which have been pointed out. He suggests that we must have civilian control of the armed forces and that he had to take severe disciplinary action against insubordination in the military ranks. His treatment of those who have spoken out against unification and amalgamation is quite different from the treatment of those who spoke out in favour of it. Those in favour of amalgamation and unification are the latter day experts who have come to positions of prominence because they have supported the minister.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This is totalitarianism; this is not democracy in action. This is authoritarianism. The principle is: You agree with me, or off comes your head. This prevents the possibility of debate. It prevents the possibility of any difference of opinion, if you are going to listen only to those to whom you want to listen. There are none so blind as those who will not see, or so deaf as those who will not hear. As the Globe and Mail editorial of Wednesday, March 22 put it, "Does Mr. Hellyer hear only what he chooses to hear?"
We have military leaders at the moment verging perilously close to participating in political discussion while this debate is continuing, yet they are praised by the minister for their great sense of responsibility and public duty. Here is confusion and contradiction beyond all comprehension. The other day the minister criticized the right hon. Leader of the Opposition because that gentleman when he was prime minister had the temerity to exert civilian control over the military with
April 19, 1967

respect to the selection of the CF-104. Yet the minister himself has stoutly defended the selection of the C-5, even though it was just as stoutly resisted by the air force authorities. I am not going to get into a debate on that subject; perhaps we will deal with it later in this discussion. I do not want to take up time in dealing with some of the technical details with respect to the merits of the CF-5 as opposed to the other types of aircraft which might have been selected. However, perhaps I may mention that its load capacity is limited as compared with the F-4 or the A-7. Its air refuelling capacity is less; its endurance is half that of other types of aircraft. Notwithstanding all its deficiencies and the recommendations of the authorities, the minister chose the C-5. But he criticizes the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for similar action when he had the responsibility as prime minister of this nation.
There is another question that interests me.
I refer to the control of the news media by the minister and his staff. I mention this in passing. I recall the night of the famous interview on television of Lord Mountbatten. In the middle of the interview and out of the blue-it turned out that this particular television clip had been taken some months previously

strategically and suddenly at a critical moment in the debate Lord Mountbatten seemed to be supporting the idea of unification and amalgamation. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, as they say.
There is another reason, of course, why the minister is pursuing this headlong course. It is because of his inexperience operationally, which has been mentioned before. We have been described as Colonel Blimps resisting change; but if you unify our forces in this complex, technological age, if you bring them all together in one great monolithic unit, how can you maintain the specialization and flexibility that are required to meet the complexities of our technological age? A monolithic unit, rather than providing for flexibility introduces rigidity. The minister says: If you have a single supreme commander, you must have a single force. That is nonsense. It is not even necessary to debate the point, because in every other area of modern society we are moving toward specialization, we are moving toward specialized knowledge in complex fields so that we might not introduce institutional rigidity into our national structure. Anybody who has operated under conditions of modern warfare will understand that this is so. This is why Lord Mountbatten emphasizes combined operations and bringing the

National Defence Act Amendment various units together, with their backgrounds of tradition and esprit de corps, with their specialized knowledge. This business of rigidity and inflexibility is the product of the sawdust Caesars, the men of the first part of the twentieth century who brought their nations to the brink of disaster by their rigidity and even their stupidity in their approach to military matters.
Not very long ago I was re-reading "The First and the Last" by the German general, Adolf Galland, who commanded the luftwaffe during the last war. He attributes the collapse of the luftwaffe, which was supposed to be supreme in its field, to the fact that the civilian authority took over, interfered with and ignored the advice of the military experts. I mention one example in this respect. I would recommend the reading of this book to the minister, who is obviously a military strategist. Corporal Hitler overruled the luftwaffe experts when they had developed the jet aeroplane ahead of other nations. The jet aeroplane could have played a major role in determining the outcome of the war. Corporal Hitler overruled his experts and decreed that the aeroplane should be modified and used as a blitz bomber rather than being involved in the fighter force. This resulted in a delay of some six months in the production of the aircraft. Decisions of this nature had the gravest consequence.
I am not going to deal further with the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. His was one of the major contributions to this debate and I think what he said has been adequately dealt with. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not in any way reassure the members of this house that we were going to be able to meet our commitments to NATO, NORAD and the United Nations. In fact, it is impossible for us to say we will be able to meet those commitments because we do not yet know what they are going to be. Also, we have the expert advice from retired generals, admirals, air marshals, and so on, that the reverse will be the case.
I want to conclude my remarks by dealing with a matter that I do not think has been raised in this debate. The minister has talked about the interservice rivalry which will be removed by amalgamation. I would like to suggest-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Does the hon. member wish to continue?
15098	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and that of the committee I should like to finish this point.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member have the permission of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I thank the committee and you, sir, for this consideration. The removal of interservice rivalry has been put forward as one of the main reasons for the necessity for unification. But what are we doing? We are developing a mobile command which will constitute a large part of our Canadian armed forces; 29,000 men will be in the command when it reaches its peak. Its headquarters are located at St. Hubert, which again is contrary to good military policy because we are locating the headquarters or the core of our armed forces on the fringe of a metropolitan complex which would be the first to be destroyed in the event of a missile attack. Hitherto the emphasis has always been on decentralization and dispersal of our strategic military headquarters. It would be much better to have it out in the west-I suppose the west is expendable; at least it is from the government's standpoint-where there will be no danger of obliteration by ICBM's which most probably will be aimed at Toronto and Montreal. St. Hubert, which is the heart of our mobile command, sits right in the centre of the target. This makes no sense whatsoever.
The mobile command consists of three infantry brigades in Canada and later will include four squadrons of CF-5 jet attack planes, as well as Buffalo transport planes and heavy and light helicopters.
It has administrative control of the infantry brigade in Europe. It is also expected that mobile command will take over maritime command's fleet, the replenishment vessel, the Provider, as a troopship, and two similar ships for which contracts were recently awarded. The maritime command being mainly naval is of course disturbed about this. The R.C.A.F. component of maritime command, the four squadrons of patrol planes, is obviously unhappy about being swallowed by the navy. Also the R.C.A.F. fear that mobile command will try to get its hands on air transport command. This seems to be inevitable in view of the course that is being taken at present. It leaves the air force with only the air division in Europe, and the air defence command, and both these roles are withering away.
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	April 19, 1967
The minister said there are no complaints in the armed forces. He said the troops are rejoicing at what is taking place. This is not what my mail says, this is not what my wartime buddies say. They are trying to get my ear at every opportunity to try to encourage us to stop this headlong rush toward confusion on which the government is embarked at the present time.
These informants tell me that the old power struggle between the three services is being rapidly replaced by an even fiercer struggle between the field commands. Inevitably we will be faced with the situation where mobile command has become a power unto itself. This will create divisions and jealousies. Unification will destroy the old names and the old esprit de corps. The second state will be much worse than the first.
It is these considerations that have persuaded me to address myself again to the minister as an old friend. A short time ago the minister was making laudatory headlines with regard to the necessary reorganization of integration. However, today he is beating his head against the wall and is rapidly losing his reputation. Let us, in the spirit of democratic institutions everywhere, try to come to some reasonable compromise. Let us either accept some of the amendments which were put forward in the committee's discussions, or else perhaps let us delay the proclamation, if that will resolve the present impasse which faces the house. Another possibility, which I think might be the wise course to take, would be to withdraw the bill. The bill is not necessary. We have all the legislative power that we need. Let us move forward step by step to make sure we do not make the fundamental errors that other totalitarian states have made in this twentieth century.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, to change slightly the tone of this debate which has lasted for several days, and even several weeks, I should like to say that it stirs no interest in the public. I feel that the Conservative members would put an end to this useless and futile debate were it not for their fear of losing face as a result of the attitude they adopted long ago.
They have accused us of wanting to help the government by voting in favour of the unification of the Canadian armed forces.
Mr. Chairman, in the public at large, we meet people who favour unification, and others who are against it. For that matter, the situation is the same here in parliament.
April 19, 1967

During a similar debate, that on the adoption of a distinctively Canadian flag, a lot of interest was stirred up right across Canada, and we received hundreds and thousands of letters from all over the country, asking us to take such or such an attitude, but we find no similar interest in the case of the unification bill. People do not write in about this.
Yesterday at noon, I addressed the Ottawa West Rotary Club, English speaking people, businessmen, professionals, industrialists. They are definitely disgusted with the time lost here in parliament by the extension of this debate, through repetitions without, however, any clear and precise solution to the problem.
We are studying Bill No. C-243. All its clauses were studied by the committee on national defence where every member had the right to attend, where he could discuss, and express his viewpoint. Everyone interested in the matter went there. Back in the house, we will have to go back once more to the committee. The discussion here is as long as it was in committee. Later, in committee, it will be as long as it was here. The bill will come back for third reading and we will no doubt discuss it again, repeating once more what we have heard for a month and a half. In the meantime, the Canadian people are paying for that loss of time.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I proposed the adjournment of the business of the house to discuss a definite subject namely the problems of the dairy industry. All the Conservative and Liberal members should have supported the motion to change the debate and discuss a matter concerning an important sector of the Canadian economy, namely agriculture. Instead of that, we carried on the debate on Bill No. C-243. There are pros and cons. Some are afraid of closure, others are afraid to lose votes in their ridings.
I was saying that the Canadian people were not very much interested in this matter. In fact, I received one telegram and one letter. The telegram was from London, and the letter from Winnipeg-probably from the riding of my excellent friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).-and I quote:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

Dear Mr. Caouette,
I cannot understand why unification of armed forces must proceed. It almost sounds like "peace at any price" of those who appease war-makers. If it is clearly so good why do great numbers of

National Defence Act Amendment
taxpayers, students, armed service personnel (of long practical experience) oppose the plan and its consequences of Canada having no effective fighting force to defend Canada first?
How can one possibly believe the idea money will be saved except by combining, say, postal and health services? Without competition between fighting regiments (or their sports) how can their morale possibly be as good? Until these and other dangers stated and unstated are settled carefully would it not be safer for Canada to vote no? Keep up the constructive work you do as a fighter for freedom with responsibility and private enterprise.
I will not mention the name, but the letter comes from Winnipeg, Manitoba.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you vote against the bill now, having received that?


David Réal Caouette: Pardon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you vote against the bill, having received that letter?


David Réal Caouette: Well, I have a telegram which-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is very sound advice.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, it is very sound advice. I have a telegram here which is a little clearer. It is dated April 18, which was last night. I should like to read it:
Mr. Real Caouette
Social Credit Rally Leader,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
Dear Sir: I am not a Social Crediter-
He may be a Conservative.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A wise man.


David Réal Caouette: Yes.
-but I think that you have the interest of the Canadian people at heart, so would you please use your influence in trying to get this unification bill through.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is a Liberal.


David Réal Caouette: I continue:
I am a veteran of 18 years of service-
Just as many years as my hon. friend.
-and I would say that 85 to 90 per cent like I are in favour of this unification bill so would you please help to keep us together. We have full confidence in our Minister of Defence, Mr. Hellyer.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: It sounds as though Bill Lee sent that telegram.


David Réal Caouette: The telegram reads:
We have confidence in our Minister of Defence, Mr. Hellyer.
15100	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
It is signed, "A corporal from London, Ontario". I will not say the name, but he has been in the armed forces for 18 years. My friend was asking me if I would vote against the bill now. These are the only two communications I have received, one from London, Ontario, and the other one from Winnipeg, Manitoba.

In my province, Mr. Chairman, we did not receive a single letter or telegram suggesting that we should vote one way or the other. In Quebec, we have the Royal 22nd which is, I think, a rather important and illustrious regiment in the Canadian army, and although we are told today about experts in the Canadian army who are fighting Bill No. C-243, there are others who are not fighting it.
General Allard is not opposed to it. Some may say that General Allard is in favour of unification because he is the commander in chief of the Canadian armed forces. We can impute motives to him, Mr. Chairman, but we can also impute motives to those who hold different views.
We live in a democratic country and we certainly have the right to be against this measure. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has the right to oppose Bill No. C-243, but we have just as much right to be in favour of this bill. We have reasons for approving this bill, just as the hon. member has reasons for being against it.
Personally, I see one Canadian army, not three. I see one Canadian army as a Canadian family, with a father, a mother and 10 children. The 10 children, sir, will not all become lawyers, or businessmen; they will not all get into the same trade; no. Each of the 10 children will go his own way, but will nevertheless remain within the same family; that is a unified family.
What prevents the people in the air force, the army or the navy from being part of a single force while remaining in the land army, the air force or the navy? Nothing whatsoever, Mr. Chairman.
I suggest all this is a tempest in a teapot; somebody is trying to turn the matter of the Canadian army into a clearly and purely political matter. Now, the Canadian army must stay above political matters or considerations. The Canadian army is neither Conservative nor Liberal nor Social Credit; the Canadian army is the army of the Canadian people. It is the army of all Canada. This
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	April 19, 1967
army belongs to the Canadian people and not to the government. The present government may change in a year or two; it will be followed by another which will possibly be changed four years later, whereas the Canadian army will last regardless of political considerations or changes of government.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is perfectly aware of what I say and he knows I am right in speaking as I do.
When his government was in power, pressures were then exerted to unify the Canadian armed forces. If this government were still in power now, it would probably have to introduce a bill which might not be Bill No. C-243 but possibly Bill No. C-995 but which would propose exactly what the government or the Canadian armed forces are now asking.
Look at what is going on across Canada. The hon. member knows that the present debate is of no interest anywhere in Canada, neither in his own constituency nor in my own, neither in Montreal nor in Toronto.
Yesterday I met prominent citizens of Toronto, people who had military service in Canada and who support the unification of the Canadian forces into one army.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand what the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) said.


Mr. Mongrain:: You haven't missed a thing.


David Réal Caouette: So, I haven't missed a thing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I asked the hon. gentleman if he met the people from Toronto who were not in favour of unification?


David Réal Caouette: I will be very frank with the hon. member and say that up until now I have never met anyone from Toronto who was against this Bill No. C-243.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Have you met the members of TRIO? They seem to be against it and they are based in Toronto.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I do not deny the fact just referred to by the hon. member. I do not dispute it. It may be true. But with those I have met from Toronto yesterday, it was not a question of finding out whether they were Conservatives or Liberals or Social
April 19, 1967

Crediters. Not at all. But we did discuss this debate and everybody found it horrible.
And the Conservatives are responsible for it because we have been ready to vote on this bill for two weeks now. If the bill is defeated, all right then, it will be defeated; if not, then it will pass.
It seems to me that under our democratic system we should at least have the privilege of taking a stand by voting in the house. The Conservatives are free to vote against Bill No. C-243. But as it is, they are preventing the house from voting on this matter, by going on with this marathon of speeches.
I sincerely think that I am now giving to Canada as a whole a true image of what is going on in parliament. This debate is disgusting to the people, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers and settles absolutely nothing. If the unification of the forces does not answer the purpose in ten years, it will still be time to change something.
We are neither angels nor saints. Legislation passed today can be amended in a year if it is not effective then.
The Canadian army is not now what it was in 1914-18. The means to fight are not the same as those which were used then. Everything has changed since 1914, even since the 1939-45 war. Weapons are not the same, means are not the same, systems of communication are not the same. Everything has changed, everything has evolved. Only the Conservatives are not following the times. They remain firmly seated in their place. They keep their conservatism: Let us keep outworn doctrines, obsolete methods, let us stand still; Let us show some stability. And what is the meaning of stability? To move neither forward not backward, but to remain always at the same place? But this is exactly what the Conservatives are doing at the present time.
The hon. member is making fun of Canadians, he is showing a complete lack of concern for the Canadian taxpayer in trying to prolong the debate. Tomorrow he will shout "closure" when a motion is brought in to put an end to the debate.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to accept that closure, to muzzle those irresponsible members of the house. We are certainly going to vote in favour of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.
National Defence Act Amendment
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member accept a question? A question now and again helps out a debater who is running short of ideas.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You could have used some yourself last night.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of the really grave problem that the hon. member raised yesterday concerning the dairy industry, and the opportunity that was afforded the government to debate the matter in the house yesterday, was it not the fault of the government that we continued on the unification bill? Second, does the hon. member not realize that the Liberals, whom he so slavishly supports on every occasion, do not really want his assistance; otherwise they would have permitted the debate on the dairy industry yesterday?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, as for the first part of the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I will say he is right. Yesterday, I believe, the Liberals dodged their responsibilities and I charge those of the province of Quebec-I can see some there-who were too scared yesterday, and it is very much in order to say this, to get up and stand for the farmers, for the milk producers of Canada. This I will repeat throughout the whole province of Quebec, and in any case the whole province knows about it.
I make an exception for those from Montreal who never saw a cow being milked in their lives and do not understand the dairy industry situation, but the others from the province of Quebec are responsible if the government's dairy policy is not more generous.
The second part of the question is to the effect that we have an understanding with the Liberals, to support them or to have them support us on another occasion; there is no question of that and there will never be any question of that. And the hon. member is very well aware that we have voted more often with his group against the government than for the government since 1962. It is a fact. We are not bound to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or to the Liberal members. The Liberal members from Quebec know that we are not bound to them. We are free. We can say whatever we like and we can vote as we see fit. But we want to vote in the best interests of the Canadian people.
April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
As far as the change proposed in Bill No. C-243 is concerned, I think it cannot be effected overnight. It will take ten or 15 years perhaps before unification can be accomplished. But I am pretty sure that at that time, the cost of national defence for the country as a whole will be less than it is at present. We shall then be able to take out of the billions saved through unification certain amounts that we could appropriate to agriculture, to our domestic expansion, to the development of our natural resources.
Then, as I say, we will have helped every class of our Canadian society, every Canadian, regardless of political consideration. I am convinced of that.
That is why we, of the Ralliement Credi-tiste, have decided to vote in favour of Bill No. C-243. There are no other reasons. It is not for the reason suggested by the hon. member, to the effect that the Liberals opposed the debate yesterday, though it is true that they did oppose it.
Had the ministers, had the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) suggested yesterday that we should debate the matter of the Canadian dairy industry, Mr. Chairman, we would probably be still at it today, had the house given unanimous consent. But no, there is no wish to-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe that the hon. member has no right to speak as he is doing at present, because we are quite familiar with standing orders on this side of the house and we knew that the motion introduced yesterday would be lost, as it actually was.
I would ask my good friends of the Ralliement Creditiste to learn the rules of the house properly and not to introduce to no avail motions for an urgent debate when the said rules do not allow it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. This might be a good time for the Chair to remind hon. members that the question before the committee is clause 2 of Bill No. C-243.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) rose last night and took the time to say what he had to say. Again this afternoon he is allowed to repeat exactly the same stupidities he uttered last night in this house.
I want to say this: if the Liberals had accepted the debate yesterday, we would have

had it. They know that the motion has not been ruled out of order. It was said yesterday specifically that it was not the proper time for such a debate but that it might be the proper time today.
When the time comes for a vote of nonconfidence Mr. Chairman, the member for Lotbiniere may take a position for or against the farmers of his constituency of Lotbiniere.
As far as the standing orders are concerned, I believe the members of the Ralliement Creditiste understand them as well as the hon. member for Lotbiniere who is 100 per cent wrong and far afield when he rises in the house to make a speech or on a point of order.


Auguste Choquette: Sure. That is because I like the fields.


David Réal Caouette: Precisely, but perhaps you do not like the same sort of things.
Mr. Chairman, I do not hold a grudge against the member for Lotbiniere, not at all. He is a fine fellow, a gentleman. His only weakness is being too Liberal. When he is not overly Liberal, he is otherwise intelligent.
* (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks here with a specific and clear reminder that we want to be objective in this debate. The Conservatives know that we are wasting the time of the house and that there are other important items of legislation to pass. They have been told that we could stand section 2 temporarily, in order to pass other sections, and that we could come back to section 2 later, but no, they do not want to do so; they are stubborn.
All I ask is that the debate make some progress, that we get on with our discussions and that we stop ridiculing the Canadian people and making ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the Canadian people. This question of unification must be settled. Very soon the government will be charged with dictatorship because of a motion calling for the end of the debate in committee. I do not consider that as the application of a gag but rather as the establishment of some kind of order to make us stop wasting our time here.
We must be objective and see the bill as it is. If we must try something new, let us go ahead. Something must be tried. If it does not work, it is possible to make a change, but let us try it. And if the experiment proves to be useless, unsuccessful, I will be the first to turn against it and to look for a new way of creating a Canadian army which will be
April 19, 1967

effective, which will not waste money, ol which we will be proud not only in Canada but throughout the world.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a contribution to this debate, because I think it is a most important and most interesting one, and because I cannot understand the stubbornness of the official opposition in fighting this legislation, particularly the stubbornness of the flying squad, if I may call it that, composed mainly of the hon. members for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis).
One of the arguments of the official opposition against Bill No. C-243, from the start of this debate, has been that all retired top officers oppose the unification of the armed forces.
At the beginning of my remarks I should like to put on the record some of the statements issued by officers who are surely as distinguished as those who are opposed to unification and integration, by high-ranking retired officers who give their unqualified support to unification.
The first is that of Air Vice Marshal Sully, as reproduced by the Canadian Press on November 9, 1966, and I quote:

When so many ex senior officers are bursting into print with emotional opposition to Mr. Hellyer's plans for unification of our defence services, it is time that some of us who support this forward movement spoke up.
As an experienced senior officer and as a businessman,-
And I emphasize "businessman".
-I find it difficult to understand how any rationally-minded man could oppose this excellent move to unification of our defence services.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He must be a Liberal. A Liberal must have written that.


Rémi Paul: Politics are not allowed in the Canadian armed forces.
Continuing:
I speak with intimate knowledge when I say that if the public was aware of the tremendous overlapping of effort, and the consequent inefficiency, and of the appalling inter-service jealousies and rivalries for status, they would rise as one and demand immediate unification and at a much faster clip than is now planned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member identify the author of that?

National Defence Act Amendment


Rémi Paul: In case the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wonders, I did my share in the Canadian armed forces. I was in Shilo, Manitoba, for two years, and I was in a position to see that what the minister advocates is correct. I shall now continue quoting:
Another problem that worries me and indeed frightens me, is that this plan was put forward over two years ago. Everyone was informed of it and the intention of this plan was obvious to any thoughtful man or officer. What were these senior officers doing in the last two years? They have had every opportunity to express themselves. Have they just finally found their way through on this business? This frightens me. Is this an indication of the lethargy in thinking in our services? Fortunately, I have spoken to many young and dedicated officers and they are all enthusiastic about the plan. Of course, some others will have to "pull up their socks" and perhaps they shudder a bit.

And he continues as follows:

To our politicians, please get thinking about Canada. Forget about your party status. This is a real opportunity and you will be happy and proud you had a chance to help.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who signed that article? [Translation]


Rémi Paul: I would ask you now to hear what Commodore A. B. Fraser-Harris has to say:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member identify the author?


Rémi Paul: This is by the Canadian Press of November 9, 1966.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But who is the author of the letter?


Rémi Paul: Air Vice Marshal Sully. [Translation]
Let us listen now to Commodore A. B. Fraser-Harris, who said the following in a telegram he sent to the Canadian Press, probably to Mr. David Macintosh, of whom I should like to speak later:

Heard from abroad the traditionalist uproar against service unification. At a time when enlightened people throughout the world are learning at last that the pigment of human skin is not a mark of quality, local concern over the colour of a uniform or the title of a man appears singularly unimpressive.
And please listen to this:
Let us always be willing to learn from history and be strengthened by tradition but let us never forget that history is made by the actions of men
April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment and that men create tradition and pride of title not vice versa.
Unification of the three services is undoubtedly sound and timely. Let interservice jealousy, personal rivalry and the extravagances of triplication give way to a single, effective and streamlined service in which Canadians can build future history and new tradition in the service of Canada, whether by land, sea, air or space.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the hon. member permit a question? It seems to me that the hon. member is talking about integration and not unification. If he talks of unification how can he bring the sea, land, air and space together.
tTranslation]


Rémi Paul: I very seldom rise to speak in the house and hon. members opposite have told me so. With your permission, I shall come back to this whole problem. As far as I am concerned, it is part of the same operation.
Those statements, Mr. Chairman, are those of retired senior officers. They know very well what they are talking about and they definitely support unification. Their number increases constantly.
As for members of the opposition, at a certain time, and even today, I count seven of them-which shows the extraordinary opposition they have raised against this matter which, according to them, will destroy our traditions-I count one, two, three, four, five and even nine of them in the house. Monday night last, April 3, there were only five. That is no doubt an indication of their conviction.
Wing Commander Yellowlees certainly put his finger on it when he said, and I quote the Calgary-Herald of December 10, 1966:

For months now Canadians have been watching military traditionalists arguing against unification. The dispute unfortunately, has been shamefully distorted by emotion, blatant politics and jowlshaking demagoguery.
This is written by a man called Yellowlees -not Lee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Lee's name comes into
everything.


Rémi Paul: That is the name I have heard many times since this debate started.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

However, I cannot understand those relentless attacks against a man by the name of Lee.


I have heard it said of Mr. David McIntosh of the Canadian Press that he is biased, superficial, and does not report objectively to the Canadian population. He may be biased yet many editorials are written on his reports, columns are based on them and cartoons are drawn. I do not wish it to be thought that when I speak I reflect the words of Mr. Lee, just as I do not think when the hon. member for Athabasca speaks he reflects the hidden words of Mr. McIntosh. I do not care to behave in that way. I shall now continue:
Modern-and future-military operations call for hard, business-like methods. The scientist, the engineer and the logistics expert will be allimportant.
That might have concerned the hon. member for Brandon-


An hon. Member:: Brandon-Souris.


Rémi Paul: Brandon has a nice
sound. I went there every week end for two summers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is close to Shilo.


Rémi Paul: I continue quoting:
The future demands the utmost in efficiency. Let us listen to Mr. Hellyer.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let us see briefly who is against this policy. They are of many categories. First, there is the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) who still endeavours to define unification but who did not bother to read the record of the committee proceedings in which, on many instances, the minister defined unification as follows:

When I refer to a unified force, I refer to a single integrated service encompassing the naval, land, air and support units necessary to carry out its assigned roles and missions, and operating under unified management.

That is clear enough, I think. And then there is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). I intended to take up every point of his numerous statements. I am not in the habit, on the other hand, of launching verbal attacks against anybody in an unparliamentary manner. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) must have noted that I have followed his remarks very closely. I have listened to his many interventions which are always made
April 19, 1967

courteously. 1 obviously disagree with the hon. member, but I must admit that he expresses his views in an acceptable and reasonable manner, at least in this house.
His participation in this debate is not to be compared with that of the member for Ed-monton-Strathcona who is constantly using insulting language and always suspecting conspiracies everywhere, behind the curtains, in the office of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and in the Liberal caucus.
I would rather not mention the hon. member's remarks, but I say to this house that whether or not we are in favour of the unification and integration of our armed forces, we ought never utter such words. That was unfortunate, and if I were allowed to do so, I would apologize for him before the house for the remarks he made here.
Next, there is the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). All hon. members know him.

He is a jumping member, always very devoted to his constituency, I would agree; but when it comes to these large and important questions I think he is completely out of order. I am sorry he is not here; I am sure we could have a good debate between us. Perhaps we shall have it at another time.

But for some reason, which is beyond my understanding, the member for Cape Breton South replaced the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) during some of the committee meetings.
The major contribution of the hon. member of Cape Breton South during the discussion was a personal and malicious attack against the minister. I took out several other epithets, because I want to concentrate on what I said earlier about the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. Mr. Chairman, I pass over three lines of the text which I had prepared and over all the epithets which I could have used to qualify, not the member for Cape Breton South personally, but his statements. So, he said these things about the hon. minister, and above all, he offered the fallacious idea that unification would lead to conscription.
Moreover, our hon. friend, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) said the same things last night. He also saw the dark cloud of conscription looming on the horizon.

National Defence Act Amendment He knows that his words may cause the people to follow him, the nation or the state call it what you will; I do not like semantics as much as that. He will try to arouse the feelings of the French speaking population which seems to be afraid of conscription. I think the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and for Cape Breton South get on well together. They will probably be conscripted, but certainly not in the army.
Now, I shall talk about the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, instead of dealing with Bill No. C-243, made a violent diatribe against the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) who, it seems, had written some articles in a magazine called Cite Libre. Therefore, I made a few inquiries. I remember when I was a student, regularly reading Cite Libre as all the University students did in the province of Quebec.
I particularly remembered that the new Minister of Justice was even then an impartial observer, and that he had not merely talked about Liberal members and the Liberal party.
In an article I will be allowed to quote-I will do exactly as he did-written by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in Cite Libre on April 16, 1960, here is what the author said of the then prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker now Leader of the Opposition:



DIEFENBAKER UP IN A BALLOON

[Stage Direction]
-Mr. Diefenbaker could have chosen-without being blamed for it-to govern quietly during the years required to learn the trade of statesman. If he had proceeded thus, by slow and thoughtful maturation, the Conservative leader might have eventually given his party a truly historic dimension. Whereas now, that party is in way of becoming the usual mixture of loud-mouths and adventurers, a collection of lawyers at so much per mile and contractors at so much per square foot, in short, the traditional party of Canadian politicians.
In fact, Mr. Diefenbaker has chosen to strain his talent. Elected by the greatest majority since confederation, this leader could hardly bear to think that some traces of the Liberal legend could subsist. He seemed determined to overshadow the very shadows filling our current political history.
First, there was Mr. Pearson, Nobel prize, highly respected in every chancery throughout the world and leader of the opposition.
William Heward Grafftey: That is because Mr. Trudeau was a socialist at that time.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Diefenbaker had to rush to overshadow him by rising as a giant on the international scene.
April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
You remember Mr. Chairman, his dream, his vision of a great commonwealth-
To go on:
Unfortunately, his balloon sprung a leak over Asia, notably in Pakistan where misery, riots and anti-parliamentary governments showed him a thing or two on the hazards of a common policy-
But there was also Mr. Howe, this satyr of trade and finance who had left his indelible imprint on the direction of our economy.
Mr. Diefenbaker decided that any trace of that man had to disappear, and he hurriedly announced a drastic 15 per cent reorientation of our international trade. In terms of political economy, it was very odd; but Great Britain made as though it played the game by proposing a free-trade system between our two countries.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There was also Mr. St. Laurent, one of the main architects of NATO and, who, in another field, was responsible for the repatriation of part of the Canadian constitution by amendment No. 2 of 1949. To outdo as fast as possible the achievements of the former liberal leader on strategic matters, Mr. Diefenbaker hurriedly led us into certain commitments towards NORAD with such an ill-considered zeal that our country finds itself in a state of military dependence which brings it back 100 years. And now, in the constitutional field, Mr. Diefenbaker announces that he will repatriate-
I spare you the rest, Mr. Chairman, but I wind up Mr. Trudeau's article, and I have many others anyway. Therefore I quote:
In all those instances, and in many others, those were generous measures but-one must regret it- they remained for the most part, just good intentions. They were balloons filled with hot air and pushed by the wind which invariably crashed with their operator before going too far.
Mr. Diefenbaker's good intentions have failed so often that we are justified to find in them the very nature of his style-
And he has not changed, as you will note.
-now, as Buffon said, the style is the man himself. Thinking that inspiration does for reflection, he lacks the patience or the modesty to hurry slowly, he does not find it necessary to gather around him men able to establish the Canadian policy on deeprooted reason.
I will spare the house this quotation and go on.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Asselin, Rich-mond-Wolfe):: Will the hon. member allow the hon. member for Rosthern to ask him a question?


Rémi Paul: When I have concluded my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I come now to retired officers.


William Heward Grafftey: He was giving his support to the New Democratic Party at that time.


Rémi Paul: Yes, and that goes to prove the open-mindedness of the Liberal party; he saw the light and joined the Liberal party. What can I do about it?
You know, Mr. Chairman, some people spend their lives dreaming. As for him, he is a practical man. He knew he could build something concrete, he realized that only within the Liberal party he could make his fair contribution to the greatness of this country, Canada, and that is why he joined the Liberal party. That also is the reason why the hon. member for Hochelaga became a member of the Liberal party, and that goes for the Quebec leader also. What is wrong with that?
The Progressive Conservatives cannot do that because they would rather look to the past than to the future.
I quote the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, when he said at the beginning of his remarks on April 5, 1967-


William Heward Grafftey: They are only good opportunists.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi wants to, he can tell it himself to the Minister of Justice who will surely reply.
I ask the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to note the essential difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties. I therefore quote the member for Winnipeg South Centre who said on Wednesday April 5, 1967:
I begin, by expressing my regret that in our centennial year we should be involved in a debate such as this. During centennial year, we are emphasizing the history and traditions of our country in every hamlet-
I will read no further, Mr. Chairman. But when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre rose to speak and set forth his theory on Canada, my speech was ready and I wanted to rise and say:
As we enter the second century of our existence, we must come up with bills such as the one proposed to us by the defence minister, which are oriented toward the future, without necessarily disavowing the past.
But the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was consistent with himself and with the policy of his party, which is to look to the past and ignore the world in which we live. He is consistent with the policy of his party. I do not blame him for it, I am not insulting him. Let us not disturb him, for he is listening carefully.
April 19. 1967

That is the basic difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. Perhaps, the Conservative party needs a unification and integration bill, for the integration of the forces which are scattered for unification.
There are retired officers. I think Group Captain Patrick-and I should like to insist, because I would not want the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or some other hon. members opposite to say that I am trying to speak against our British institutions, for I respect them-

-I will say that in English. I respect our traditions and our past. I am proud to be a member of this House of Commons where we have the British parliamentary system. I respect that; but I am not so blind that I cannot look to the future-*

-said exactly what I should have liked to say, but I prefer to quote his own words, which are at the bottom of page 1284:

One of the fears expressed about integration which does have a certain amount of popular appeal has to do with tradition-and tradition is symbolized by one word, "uniform".
We do not have a Canadian uniform, just as we did not have a Canadian flag. Many of the same kind of people who raised such a fuss about getting a new flag now do so over the uniform and for the same reasons.

I went to the trouble of seeking out the names of those who spoke in the flag debate. I went to the trouble of listening to the 290 speeches made in this house at that time. I was a brand new member of parliament. The same arguments were repeated then. The hon. members taking part in the present debate are the very same ones who spoke then. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) spoke eight times; the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) spoke three times; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) spoke five times; the hon, member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) spoke ten times; and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke 22 times. These same people, today, when we are studying a bill to Canadianize our institutions, are again rising to accuse us of wishing to repudiate our past.
I do not deny our past and our Canadian institutions. But I believe Canada is the coun-
National Defence Act Amendment try in the world which has known the longest and most peaceful evolution toward complete sovereignty.
And I say that this bill is part of this normal evolution of Canadian institutions. When I look to the future, does that mean that I jeer at the past? Does that mean, for instance, that I am not proud of the part played by my brother who served in the armed services and fought in Europe during seven years? Does that mean that those who died, whether they were French speaking or English speaking-

Personally I am becoming a little tired of speaking in both English and French. I should like to make this clear, however, that I am proud to be participating in this debate as a French Canadian. To correct myself, I will say I am proud to be participating in this debate as a Canadian of French culture. So I am going to speak in your language because I like you. At least you stand for your principles. I disagree with your principles, but at least you stand for them. However, as a Canadian of French culture I believe you know where I put the emphasis. I think this is a good bill; it is a bill for the young Canadians to be proud of.

I do not see why the hon. member would not be proud to take part in it. Air colonel Kenneth Patrick continues by saying;

We do not have a Canadian uniform.
The Canadian Navy uniform is a copy of the British Navy uniform.

And I have another quotation.

I think it was Admiral Brock or Admiral Rayner who explained that the Canadian Navy uniform is different because it has a zipper. Big deal.
I will continue with the quotation:
The Canadian Army uniform is the British Army uniform.
There is nothing distinctively Canadian about any of our uniforms and this has already caused some real problem in our peace keeping tasks. There is a quotation here which is very long and I do not intend to read it, but I suggest that hon. members might read it. During the last war and during the years since, Canadian servicemen have had a
15108	COMMONS DEBATES	April 19. 1967
National Defence Act Amendment problem to identify themselves as Canadians. One of the ways of doing this is with a distinctive Canadian uniform. Is it being antiBritish to ask for something that is proCanadian? I should like somebody some day to explain that to me.
There is evidence at the moment that in England there is a new demand for one armed service. I turn to the Morning Herald of Sydney, Australia.
You should read this article. It is very interesting.
The debate has been given impetus by the submission of annual plans by individual departments.
Critics are saying that Mr. Healey's latest reforms, mainly the abolition of separate ministers for each of the three services, do not go anything like far enough.
It is known that proposals for much more sweeping reforms have been put to Mr. Healey-
Not Hellyer-Healey.
-particularly for a unified policy on weapons.
Mr. Healey has rejected these proposals. He is a "strong" minister who feels he can overcome inter-service rivalries and he refuses to contemplate an ultimate unified armed service. He argues that tradition is too deeply embedded.
It seems that only Canadians could think that our minister could not do something good in this way. It seems to be the belief of some that everything the minister does, because he sits on this side of the house, is wrong. I have read the article in the Sydney Morning Herald where it refers to Mr. Paul Hellyer as the able and thrusting Canadian defence minister.

I conclude-I still have five minutes; I kept track of my time-with Mr. Patrick's last paragraph.

There is talk about the new uniform, the colour and what type it should be. I do not think anybody really cares so long as it is sensible and functional.

Mr. Chairman, a fortnight ago the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-he has a lot to say-asked that the Red Ensign be flown at Vimy. I respect the Red Ensign, but it no longer is the Canadian flag. The single leaf flag is Canada's flag.
Mr. Chairman, much is said, often blindly, within the bounds of tradition, with no possibility of escape toward new attractive concepts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Rémi Paul: I have just four minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) have asked for a pause in order to think things over and make sure we are heading in the right direction. But did they stop to think whether it was wise to clamour for the resignation of the chief of staff, General Allard, or to tell him in the house to "shut up"? Did they take the time to check the accuracy of the reports published in the press? Surely not. No more, indeed, than they apologize for the off-hand manner in which they handled this unfortunate affair.
On the other hand, we find on the part of headquarters nothing but sensible and effective planning, checked and double-checked, with the assurance that it is time to go ahead, that we are going in the right direction and that the time to act has come.
Mr. Chairman, I pass over two quotations, because I would like to read the last one. I shall not say-I do not think I will be forced to do it-who said this.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)

If you should like to know who made the statement let me read you the last paragraph of my speech. Before doing so I should say that I am not referring to any hon. member of this house. This is the quotation:
Any idiot can go on doing what has been done before, but it takes real courage, intelligence and character to assess the needs of the future, to devise a sound program and carry it into effect. This is particularly true of the armed services, which become merely an expensive luxury unless the process of improvement, modernization, forward thinking, and planning goes on continuously.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Rémi Paul: This was said in an address to the Royal Society of Military Engineers on July 20, 1962, by someone I hope my hon. friends will respect. It was said by none other than the husband of the Queen of Canada, the Duke of Edinburgh.


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Rémi Paul: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I still have three minutes so that-
April 19, 1967	COMMONS


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. gentleman's allotted time has expired. Does he have unanimous consent to answer questions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, my question is as follows: I admit that the hon. member for Saint-Denis' eloquence is proverbial, if I can thus express myself. He entertained us and was interesting. Why did the hon. member not show the same eloquence in favour of Canadian milk producers yesterday when I brought forward a motion to adjourn the business of the house to discuss the matter?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I know that I am probably out of order, but I will answer briefly. If the hon. member knew the work performed at the Quebec caucus, if he were aware of the representations made by the Quebec members at the national caucus, in short, if he knew the work done in a special committee of the Liberal caucus of Canada concerning farming policy-he is just coming from Montreal, he said so-he would not speak as he is doing now. Soon, however, he will recognize what has been accomplished, by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, Richmond-Wolfe and Levis, Messrs. Cho-quette, Asselin, Guay, in short, by all those who represent rural constituencies.


Auguste Choquette: Another $30 million for agriculture.


Rémi Paul: Then, the hon. member for Villeneuve will see that farmers will be delighted to meet unbiased members of the Liberal party who do not wish to be demagogic with respect to the dairy policy of the Liberal government.


David Réal Caouette: Ineffectual work.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The committee has heard the question and the answer, both of which are out of order.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, the same old story is coming from the Liberal side of this house; there is no need to discuss this bill further.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is always encouraging to receive applause at the beginning of one's speech. I am quite sure that when I have finished there will be little applause from that side of the house. I had not intended to begin 23033-955
National Defence Act Amendment on an emotional note, but the last speaker would be disappointed if I did not pay some attention to his remarks. Let me say a word or two in this regard. That hon. member was trying to present the same old argument. In doing so he was attempting to drive a wedge between loyal English speaking Canadians and loyal French speaking Canadians, and there are many in both categories.
It is not fair to say that because a man spoke on the flag debate or now speaks on the defence debate, he is necessarily a wasp. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that on June 13, 1940, I was not baring my little bosom to the spear in the outskirts of London. I was within 30 miles of Paris, and I was with a very specialized arm of the services, the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.


Some hon. Members:: Near the rear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not believe unification as it has been explained so far is at all necessary to meet the needs for men of tremendous experience, training and specialization. I am not one of those, nor shall I ever be, who would refuse to serve my country because of the colour of the uniform-and I know something about serving in a colourful uniform, as many hon. members are aware. I like to put first things first.
When I spoke on this debate the other day I was referring to the survival of Canada for Canadians. We must attack this whole suggested method of survival at its root. Are we willing as a nation to defend Canada to the last man? My answer is an unequivocal yes. I believe everyone who has accepted Canadian citizenship, whether of French, Ukrainian, German or any other origin, would accept anything that would increase the efficiency of our armed forces.
We are debating this bill because we want to satisfy ourselves that in the long term planning for the defence of Canada it will be sound in every last detail. I am not against any revolution which is evolutionary and will streamline our active forces.
As my last reference to personalities during this debate I should like to say that I find it a little tiresome to be lectured about my dedication or motivation by an individual whose great claim to military experience is two years at Camp Shilo and three years in Lafleche Caverne. I speak from experience because I was on the outskirts of Paris in 1940. I think that everyone should give credit to those who were there for having decent motives.
April 19, 1967
15110	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Let me paraphrase what Gibbon wrote in "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". He said that Rome fell when the young men would rather wear silk pants and play with dice in the streets than defend the walls of Rome. I appeal to everyone within the sound of my voice or who takes the trouble to read Hansard-and I know that I will not be quoted by the press-to realize that we are dealing with a very basic principle of survival. Surely we should all listen to anyone who wants to make some contribution to this debate.
The role of the defence department is unique and defence should not in any way be based on politics. This department should serve Canada. That is its only job and only reason for existence. If you will pardon my rather stilted French, it is the raison d'etre. I assure the minister and the defence department that I am not afraid of revolutionary changes which increase the efficiency of our armed forces.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As I said before, I do not think these things depend on the colour of the uniform. We have listened to many emotional appeals with regard to these wonderful uniforms, but I think any real soldier would serve Canada regardless of the colour of the uniform. If there is a policy, whether it is in the mind of the minister, the Department of National Defence as a whole, a political party or leaders in this country, no matter how eminent they may be, of looking forward with confidence to the peaceful existence of mankind on this planet, and that policy with regard to our defence is predicated on this wonderful dream, I say those who have devised the policy are selfcondemned and self-disqualified in respect of this very important job.
I believe the revolutionary ideas of the minister are pale, compared with some of my own. I am not the minister of national defence. Rather than the emphasis being put on unification and doing away with regimental mottos and regimental dress, I would like to see a standardization of defence for the North American continent. I would like to see our defence units interchangeable with those of the Americans, because nobody but a blind man, nobody but a deaf man would suggest that we can survive in the next 25 years on this planet unless we stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies. I say "American allies" because we are allies of theirs in two great theatres; I do not think you could call us allies of theirs in the Pacific theatre at


the present time. I believe very sincere efforts are being made by Canada to be a mediator in this conflict. I would like to see Canada able to mediate and be instrumental in bringing peace to Viet Nam, peace with honour, in the name of humanity. But I do not think a red herring should be dragged into this defence debate and that because we are trying to do something worth while in Viet Nam, Cyprus or the Gaza strip we should close our eyes to the need for taking a very, very hard look at establishing a fully effective armed force for Canada.
I believe it is not necessary to unify our forces in the way put forward in this bill. I would like to see this money spent in standardization, because I believe that standardization between us and the Americans on land, sea, in the air and even in space, would in the end result save us money; and who is there so base that they would not try to save us money-with apologies to Shakespeare.
The standardizing of training is extremely important. I cannot conceive of our taking part in another world war without our American cousins there to supply men at the ratio of 10 to 1, and probably 20 to 1 in dollars. It would be a sensible move on our part if, when we needed ammunition, we could get it from our allies; if when we needed spare parts for our tanks, the assembly lines in the United States were able to supply them; if when we needed shells, we could get them from our allies. We should be able to call upon our allies to help us when help is needed. In a total war, which we can visualize, the whole potential of Canada's manufacturing industry could be knocked out with one blow. With about three atom bombs you could knock out Canada's effectiveness in manufacturing.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we should go for standardization rather than unification. In my opinion it will not help Canada one bit to establish a small, very ineffective, unified force as envisaged by this bill. The colour of the uniform of this unified force will not help in the defence of Canada. I doubt very much whether changing the uniform to that of one solid colour, whatever colour it may be, will encourage us to stand together man for man and carry our burden man for man. We would all go for a standardization of uniform if it meant there would be no such thing in the future as a hyphenated Canadian and we were all just Canadians. Would the previous speaker have me believe that standardizing the uniform will mean we will get more volunteers from all the ethnic groups in
April 19. 1967

Canada? Does the hon. member think that for a minute?
I can see something in standardizing training. Certainly we should train all our officers so that they have a broad knowledge of military affairs. We live in a complicated world. In future wars we will probably want to transport our troops by air. It would therefore be very desirable if all our officers, and men if we could do this, had a working knowledge of airplanes, tactics and aerodynamics. However, as an ex-service officer I know this cannot be done. I know that you cannot make an expert artillery officer, an expert submarine commander and an expert jet pilot out of each and every one of us. We all know this, so why pretend? If we realize that we cannot do this, why not spell it out and say so? If we do not expect men to be jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none, let us spell it out and say that we still need specialists.
The minister does not say this; he uses ambiguous language in this bill. As we discuss the clauses of the bill we will take every word and deal with its significance. It is said that in an emergency servicemen can be transferred. Gentlemen, war is an emergency. The only reason for having armed forces at all is the threat of war. We are not spending $1.7 billion a year to maintain a gentlemen's club. The object should be to train men for war. That is the only reason for our having a Department of National Defence.
I would be delighted to make some contribution to a world peace keeping force. As hon. members know perfectly well, the recent suggestion by Canada has already been turned down. I have no doubt that as the United Nations gains in world prestige and as the communist nations in particular mature and recognize the need for world peace, nations will be willing to go along with the consensus of the world. I hope this will be the case, but we have not yet seen any indication that it will be. Russia has consistently refused to pay her way in the United Nations. China is not yet seated in the United Nations. We are not debating that topic at the moment; we must look at the world situation as it exists. Every move made by our Department of National Defence must be toward the security of this nation. The Department of National Defence should be taking a long term view in this respect. We must put wishful thinking in the background, which is its proper place.
The last speaker mentioned one or two things with which I cannot disagree. We need men of courage. We need men of character.
15111
National Defence Act Amendment We need men who are not afraid to lead. We need men who cannot be panicked in any situation. We need men who will put the defence of Canada first. We must have men whose characters stand up between wars, who are prepared to take a cold, hard look at the situation in the world and say that we must remain prepared and must remain strong.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I would like to see Canada so strong at home, so united, so well trained in our armed forces, and so well able to protect this sprawling northern half of the North American continent that she could afford to give some of her armed strength to the underprivileged nations of the world, in the name of the United Nations. I am proud of the contributions we have made so far, but if we t.;ke 29,000 men and spread them out to put out six spot fires in the world, what are we going to do if the ugly shadow of a war were to hang over Canada?
I do not know whether I am making my point clearly. I am not only criticizing; I am offering an alternative. My alternative to unification, as it is laid down in the bill, is standardization. It also means national service. This is supposed to be a dirty word; it is supposed to be one we are afraid to use in this country. Why should it be? What is wrong with serving Canada? I am not asking anyone to go off on Anglo-Saxon wars. I am asking that Canada be defended. Why should it be otherwise?
Some of my ancestors were in this country when Jacques Cartier landed. Let nobody give me the senior citizen act, in other words, "We were here first and you took our country away". We did no such thing. The Anglo-Saxon part of my family came out here looking for exactly the same thing as did the glorious French settlers. They were looking for a better life. They were looking for freedom. These people have made me proud to be a Canadian.
We Canadians of the two founding races stood together on two occasions when we were invaded by the now friendly nation to the south, something it has not seen fit to do again in 150 years. It was not because our soldiers were dressed in a common uniform. They had no uniforms: They fought in their overalls; they fought in their skirts; the women helped, the children loaded the guns. The only unification we had then was the unification of our dedication to Canada. We will not.
15112	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment achieve unification in Canada by branding everyone who does not speak the same language or is not of the same race. Name calling, whether it be between person and person or race and race, will never make Canada what I want it to be.
I hope the small contribution I made during the war will not be misinterpreted, because at that time I was fighting for the French Canadians as well as the English Canadians and the Indian Canadians. I fought for the little creek out west as well as for the little creek in Quebec, and the acreage surrounding it. So let us stop calling each other names. Let us take a good hard look at our defence. Let us not indulge in negative emotionalism, which is just as bad as positive emotionalism.
We should all be aware of the contribution made by the people of French origin in this country, the members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, which is second to none. I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected, but it is my understanding that an exception will be made in the case of the Royal 22nd Regiment so far as unification is concerned, in that it will be allowed to keep its proud traditions. If such is the case, why then should we ask all other units to give up their traditions? There is good reason for allowing the Royal 22nd to keep its name, and the reason is that in two world wars it has made that name immortal. There is no virtue whatsoever in burying traditions which are worth keeping, but I would be the first to bury those traditions which tend to divide us.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis did not take the trouble to remind the house that I spoke four times in the flag debate for a total of 160 minutes. I am not ashamed to advise hon. members to get out their Hansards and read my speeches. If anyone can find one word in those speeches which tended to inflame our differences, rather than to beg for mutual respect, which I expect and which I give to every Canadian citizen, I will resign my seat in the house. During those speeches I was interrupted and was told to my face that I would be "rubbed out". I did not lose my temper because I realized that those were emotional interjections which were not to be taken seriously by anyone who wants us to be a great nation-which we can be and which we are.
It is unseemly for us to put anything above the welfare of Canada. We need a department of defence which represents parliament and therefore the people of Canada. We need a minister who is not only daring but who

DEBATES	April 19, 1967
bends an attentive ear for all those people who can help him achieve this great end. Having served under men like Lieutenant General Guy Simonds I cannot believe that he would do anything but give the minister, directly or indirectly, the kind of advice which comes from the bottom of his heart.
I cannot believe that men, some of whom have served in the Royal Canadian Navy for more than 30 years, would do anything but give the minister the kind of advice which they believe will make Canada's navy even better than it has been throughout our magnificent history. The same applies to our air force. By the turn of this century we may have to move into a category of defence where space looms large. I hope that the other branches of our services, which relatively speaking are falling in importance, our land, naval and air services, will be given proper emphasis and the proper number of dollars in their kitties. Are we to be panicked into unifying our forces, without thought, merely because in the past there were those in the armed services who thought more of building a little empire of their own than they did of serving Canada, or those who would rather climb over the next in rank in order to get the brass. No doubt there would be such people in Canada but they are few and far between, or else Canada would not have the finest naval, air force and army personnel to be found anywhere in the world.
We are not happy to give up our traditions. We are proud of the gallant men whose ranks are thinning, men who made greater sacrifices and gave greater service to the country than I ever did. I had to see the Battle of Britain from the ground. I was in England for four and a half years and ate the rations which were brought across by our merchant navy, which has not as yet received the recognition which I think it deserves. Who would not rather have been an infantry officer in England stationed in the sunny south downs than chief petty officer in the stoke-hole? But these little things are not important. There is not a serving member in the Canadian armed forces who cares more about medals or uniforms than to serve the country and keep it free.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am sincerely worried about whether or not Canada will ever take her part again in fighting, if necessary, an aggressive war for freedom. I do not know when a war is aggressive and when it is purely defensive. The little training I received taught me that in
April 19, 1967

many cases the best defence is offence. You have to be trained therefore to last, as well as to retain your temper and to keep quiet. There is a time for fighting and there is a time for talking peace. The role of the defence department is not that of talking peace. They have one job, and one job only, and that is to make sure that in time of danger Canada and Canadians can give a good account of themselves.
Are the days of 1914 when Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty forgotten? In the first days of August the cabinet met and decided it was inauspicious -that is the kind of word we use in peacetime-for the British parliament to mobilize the British fleet. However, during the 48 hours before war was declared Churchill mobilized the British fleet on his own initiative. This was not very democratic but is was common sense. This type of common sense has not been bettered in 53 years. This is the kind of leadership we need, but we cannot legislate that kind of leadership.
I could not agree more with the hon. member who just spoke when he said that you need character at the top. Character at the top will sift down right to the last serving man, to the last taxpayer in Canada. When you get this kind of dedication, this type of character, then the battle is half won. I have nothing to say about the character of the defence minister except perhaps to suggest he should take a good look at this bill to make sure the idea behind it is based on this one, clear fact, that this change is the best change he could make at this time for the future of our country. He has to be able to do that, perhaps against the will of his own leader. His own leader has the job of being a world statesman; he has to go to the peace tables around the world to try to make deals. The defence minister in Canada cannot make a deal with anybody, except his own conscience, before God, because the life of every man, woman and child in Canada is on the table.
Personally, I do not believe anything short of some definite move toward national service is any good at all. I do not expect there will be general agreement with this idea. We are in between two wars and we see no enemy. Certainly, I know that the survival of Britain depended on the fact that four out of five in England had seen some service. It was the home guard of England which held her together in the darkest days of the blitz. Thousands and thousands of men, some of them as old as 70, knew what to do. They knew where to go and how to take orders.
National Defence Act Amendment The whole nation, at least mentally, was geared for war. It was the brass that let the people down then. The generals and the admirals did not speak out strongly but allowed the government to go to sleep. It was a miracle of character, a miracle of training, that held the British nation together. I unhesitatingly, therefore, believe it would be good for every young man in Canada to have a reasonable period of back straightening.
I have thought a lot about this matter. It would be a wonderful thing if every young man in Canada between the ages of 18 and 25 had an opportunity to put in, say, 18 months of national service. He could get out in the fresh air, meet friends from every corner of Canada and develop a little bit of physical fitness. He could get a little bit of discipline and be introduced to a pair of shears. You could clean him up and give him some soap and water. Who knows, he may get used to it. By the way, I am not pointing the finger and saying that I believe all young Canadians are long-haired slobs. They are not; but we should give every man, and today perhaps the women as well, not only an opportunity to do his or her duty but should give them the opportunity to undertake a national obligation by putting themselves at the service of their country for a short time. They should be given an opportunity, while they are young and active, not only to know themselves but to know other young people in Canada, who I know are basically just as good as we ever were, and perhaps in many cases a good deal better.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Finish your remarks.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Thank you. I have spoken to thousands of people in Canada and I know that this sounds like a politically hot issue. However, if we can get together to give our young people in Canada an opportunity to do this, I think it would be a nine day wonder. Before the turn of the century, people would look back and say that in centennial year we did some planning, that we gave up talking about the meaning of words like "unification", "standardization" and "morale", and all these other things and took some positive, sensible steps to see that when our test comes our young men will not be sitting in the streets playing with dice but will be manning Canada's walls.
April 19, 1987

National Defence Act Amendment


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to make a few comments with respect to what I consider to be a certain amount of discrimination against the women who serve in our armed forces. My comments are based on conversations I have had with women serving in the navy, army and air force, as well as a number of other persons who are interested in this question either because of their interest in the armed forces or their interest in the question of non-discrimination because of colour, creed or sex. What I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is related directly to the principle and purpose of this bill because it is related to the efficient development of integration and to the maintenance of morale in the armed forces.
I know the minister has spoken on this question several times during the debate. I know the associate minister is also interested in doing all he can to maintain the morale of the armed forces. In that connection and in support of the argument I wish to make very briefly later, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister in this house on February 3 when he annonced the appointment of the royal commission on the status of women:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The government has decided to establish a royal commission on the status of women.
The Chairman will be Mrs. John Bird of Ottawa. Other members of the commission will be announced when their appointments have been completed.
The royal commission will be asked to inquire into and report on the status of women in Canada and to recommend that steps might be taken by the federal government to ensure their equality with men in all aspects of Canadian society. Its findings will, of course, have to take into account the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments under the constitution.
The commissioners will be free to look into such matters as they feel are relevant and in particular the following areas:
-Laws and practices under federal jurisdiction concerning the political rights of women;
-The present and potential role of women in the Canadian labour force, including the special problems of married women in employment and measures that might be taken under federal jurisdiction to help in meeting them;-[DOT]
That includes the Department of National Defence.
-Measures that might be taken under federal jurisdiction to permit the better use of the skills and education of women, including the special re-training requirements of married women who wish to re-enter professional or skilled employment;-

That too applies to the Department of National Defence.
-Federal labour laws and regulations in their application to women;
-Laws, practices and policies concerning the employment and promotion of women in the federal civil service, by federal crown corporations and by federal agencies;-
That provision relates directly to the Department of National Defence.
[DOT]-Federal taxation pertaining to women;
-Marriage and divorce;
*-The position of women under the criminal law;
-Immigration and citizenship laws, policies and practices with respect to women.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the policy announced by the Prime Minister to which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has given his endorsement on many occasions in this house, as well as in speeches across the country. He is particularly concerned with the question of discrimination on any ground whatever in this country, and I support both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in their approach to this very important matter. I am bringing these matters to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, because they have been brought to my attention.
The committee may be interested to know that a number of women serving in the armed forces have informed me that they consider there is a measure of discrimination in the fact that women are not permitted to be trained for combat service in peace keeping operations. I was rather surprised to find that that was the case. I did make inquiries of certain sections of our armed forces, but I found no direct representations have been made to the navy, army or air force women's sections in this regard.
However, it has been suggested that the government should consider the policy adopted by the state of Israel and other countries whereby women have proven to be an effective arm of the combat forces of the country in question. I might say that in this respect there is a precedent in Canadian history. Anyone who knows the history of this country is aware that in the early days men and women fought together to defend this country from the invader and the enemy.
I am pleased to see that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is showing some interest in this question. I mention it here because it has been brought to my attention, and I always try to represent the views of persons in my
April 19, 1967

constituency and in other parts of Canada. As a result I agreed to bring the matter to the attention of this house. I would suggest to the associate minister, who I am pleased to notice is listening to me very carefully indeed, that he bring this question to the attention of the minister so that some consideration might be given to the inclusion of women in combat forces particularly used for peace keeping purposes.
I want to bring to the attention of the associate minister another matter in connection with the reserve officers training plan. I am informed that this does not apply to the army at all, and to the air force only when commissions are given from the ranks when the requirement exists. I understand that there is no discrimination as far as the navy is concerned with respect to their servicemen having the opportunity to take advantage of the reserve officers training plan.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is another illustration of a form of discrimination which requires the attention of the minister and the associate minister, particularly in view of government policy as announced in this house and by various ministers throughout the country, and also in view of the speeches made on this question by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the present Minister of Justice, both of whom are very interested in this problem. I trust that the associate minister will make note of this question for later consideration. There have been some complaints in this respect and I did promise to raise this matter in the house.
I should also like to deal with the medical students subsidy to those serving in the armed forces. I am informed that this subsidy is not applicable to women serving in the army, as they are considered a reserve. I am also informed that the air force has not received any applications for medical students subsidy and therefore does not consider it necessary at this time. I might point out that it has not received any applications because nothing has been done to promote any applications. In many cases people are unaware that the subsidy is available. I am also informed that the medical students subsidy does not apply to the nursing service. I am told that it is not the policy of the nursing service to subsidize young nurses in schools of nursing. This is the practice in the United States, where I understand very substantial subsidies are given for training, as is the case in other countries.
National Defence Act Amendment
I trust that the associate minister will correct me if I am inaccurate in this respect, but I understand that the Canadian defence authorities feel that many young girls would marry before completing the course. I am not sure that that is a valid argument because I know that there are a number of young women who would like to train for nursing in the armed services. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, once again I suggest there is discrimination in the application of the medical students subsidy, and I think this also merits the attention of the associate minister.
If I appear to be hesitating, Mr. Chairman, it is because I am somewhat at a loss for words and I am a little embarrassed to some extent. When I was on the defence committee following the second world war I made certain inquiries and discovered that the defence department had thousands of pairs of unused items described officially as "leg coverings, female, black". I inquired what these were, and I must say that this is a rather delicate question for a shy, old backwoods man like myself to deal with. However, when duty calls I am prepared to accept the call. I will try to be as lucid as possible on this rather unusual topic, but in order to complete my argument I must rely to some extent on the imagination of the members present. I have gone into this matter, Mr. Chairman, and I am pleased to say that this practice of distributing, by order, what were known as "leg coverings, female, black", has been discontinued. I inquired of the services most carefully, and I am glad to say that that has been discontinued, that at the present time another policy has come into force and that a grant of $15 is given to each woman on joining the armed services toward the cost of her unmentionables. In addition, the service is so generous-one ought to relate this to what the men get-that there is a grant of $1 per month to each woman in the armed services for the maintenance of these unmentionables. That is an improvement on the former policy. I note that, because I thought it was most improper for the general staff to choose the colour of a lady's unmentionables.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I understand that women in our armed services up to the rank of warrant officer first class are entitled to a clothing allowance of $8 a month. I find that there is much discrimination in the amounts allowed by the armed services, when one compares the allowances given to women as against those given to men. The small allowances given to women
15116	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment for the maintenance of their garments in question does show that the minister and associate minister ought to look into this matter carefully to make certain that this gross discrimination does not continue.
As I said before, this is a delicate and difficult subject. I promised the ladies in question that I would bring it to the attention of the house and I have done so, even though it has been difficult for me. I am sure you appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, knowing my usual modesty.
I also wish to deal with the question of disease and the population explosion, and here again I am somewhat embarrassed. I am informed that the men of the armed services are provided with certain devices to prevent disease and the population explosion. That information came officially from the department. On further inquiry of the women's services of the navy, army and air force, I find that nothing like this is done for the women of the armed services of Canada. While I would not suggest that a policy of providing these devices for our armed services women is necessary-I would not suggest that for a moment-I do think, Mr. Chairman, that as a matter of principle the minister, associate minister, and their colleagues in the department ought to inquire of the policies pursued in the defence forces of other countries. I understand that we have not gone as far as we ought to have in this respect, and here I refer particularly to policies in Great Britain, the United States and other European countries.
This is only a theoretical matter at this point, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to make certain that there is no discrimination in this respect. I will not suggest that pursuing this policy is necessary from a practical point of view, but in theory it ought to be pursued. The government might implement some policy in this respect.
In conclusion I urge the minister and the associate minister to inquire into the complaints I have advanced on behalf of the women in the armed services of Canada, so that they may share in the equality of women in all aspects of Canadian society, in accordance with announced government policy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise to take part in this debate after having listened with great concern to much talk on the unification of our armed services. I am still amazed that the minister wishes this house to permit unification of the services when he has not suggested the name that the new armed service of

DEBATES	April 19, 1967
Canada will have. Perhaps General Allard had a good name when he advocated it be called Finks, using the four letters to denote Infantrymen with naval knowledge. Surely the minister and his capable public relations man, Mr. Lee, can invent a better name.
This debate has shown how parliament may be hamstrung. Before Christmas, when the matter was before the house, I talked, trying to convince the minister that the principle of unification ought to be sent to the committee for study. The matter did not go to committee. It is now an accepted fact that nearly all senior officers of the three services are against unification.
While Air Marshal Miller was the minister's assistant he was prepared to support integration, but was against unification, which he alleged would cost the Canadian taxpayers more money than the old, three service system had cost them. The committee studies bore out Air Vice Marshal Miller's contention. The unified services will be more expensive, not less expensive than the three separate services.
It is interesting to note that the Ottawa Journal recently has said that this debate ought to be limited and that the guillotine will be applied for the first time on Thursday. Great haste is being made to cut short the debate or to limit the freedom of speech. One would expect that something terribly important hinges on the passage of the bill, that it must be implemented almost immediately, or that conditions are such that the passage of this bill is extremely important for the armed forces of Canada. On page 14927 of Hansard for April 14, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, addressing the Minister of National Defence, asked this question:
Is it not a fact that in the committee General Allard told us that he would like to see the proclamation of the bill postponed for at least four months, and that until the bill is proclaimed no action can be taken with regard to the steps toward unification. That is the advice of the senior officer in the defence forces.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As the question shows, there is a demand that the bill be not proclaimed for at least four months after passage. He went on to say categorically that until the bill was proclaimed no action could be taken toward unification. I ask the associate minister this: Why in these circumstances should we have to read in today's paper that the guillotine blade will fall on Thursday? As to suggestions that further evidence may be brought out, is any further evidence necessary after all the
April 19, 1967

senior officers have given evidence and declared, practically to the last man, that they have grave doubts as to the need for unification or where unification will take Canada? This is made clear in an editorial which appears in today's Gazette-an article by Mr. Arthur Blakely. The author says the minister agrees the chiefs of staff are predominantly opposed to unification of the armed forces. And the minister is quoted as saying "Chiefs of staff all over the world are opposed to unification of the armed forces."
The evidence before the committee has made this abundantly clear. Senior military advisers who have spent years and years in the forces and who know the military art, are opposed to unification and wonder where it is taking them. In the light of their views and the hope expressed by General Allard that after the bill is passed it will not be proclaimed for four months, during which time no action could be taken toward unification, what need is there for haste? The minister himself said on Monday that integration will only be achieved as a result of a series of steps and may not be complete for seven or eight years. We live in a democracy where we cherish freedom of speech. Why then, should we have to read in the papers that the guillotine will fall unless we pass this legislation immediately? What is the urgency?
It was once commonly thought that the minister of defence wanted to pass this unification measure, believing he could do so without any great difficulty, in order to improve his own position as a contestant for leadership of the Liberal party. It was his idea that if he could effect savings in the Department of National Defence, the public would believe him capable of realizing savings in every department of government.
Most of those serving in our armed forces firmly believe that this was the idea in the minister's mind when he began this process of amalgamating the three services into one unified force-a force for which he has not yet found a name other than the one given it by the chief of staff, General Allard-Finks, that is, fighting infantrymen with naval knowledge. I am sure this name does not well suit the men in the forces today.
One could talk a good deal about esprit de corps-how it arises, and how it is maintained. It is interesting to note the minister's statement that putting our forces into the same type of uniform would not affect their morale or fighting spirit in any way. Yet what is happening throughout the world? In the

National Defence Act Amendment present conflict in Viet Nam we are witnessing the creation, shall I say, of the Green Berets. What is significant about that? It is significant because it is a move to add something, an article of headgear, to the uniform which part of the force is wearing-to provide something which is just a little extra in order to enhance esprit de corps. This is important. Songs have been written about it. Books have been written about the special training these men must take.
The significant point is that these men are proud of having taken these courses and passed these examinations. They are proud to wear this particular piece of uniform. So here is a nation that has fought in many wars throughout its history, coming up with something new to maintain or build up esprit de corps among their servicemen. On the other hand, we in Canada are proclaiming that the generals and the vice marshals are all wrong and that uniform does little for esprit de corps. The minister says our forces can be dressed in green sacks, if necessary, as long as whatever they wear has some sex appeal about it. The associate minister agrees with this. Well, it is not enough. It is not enough to call them Finks and say they must be fighting infantrymen with naval knowledge. This is borne out by the fact that even today United States is creating special distinctions in uniforms to build up the esprit de corps of its fighting forces.
The whole question of the unification of the armed services was considered by the Russians shortly after the second world war. They carried out the initial steps and for all I know they may have gone as far as integration. But they did not go the whole way. They shrank from taking that particular step because they found it was not workable and would not provide for the best possible defence of their country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is really what we are concerned about, and this is why taxpayers contribute toward a fighting force. They want it to defend Canada first of all, and then to play a role in keeping peace throughout the world.
May I call it six o'clock?


Gordon Minto Churchill: So that there may be no further delay imposed by hon. members such as the hon. member for Saint-Denis and the hon. member for Villeneuve, I propose we let clause 2 stand and go on with clause 3 the
April 19. 1987

National Defence Act Amendment next time this bill is before the committee, which may be next October.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of National Defence suggested this last night and others of us have suggested it two or three times. If there is now unanimous agreement, let's do it.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: There is no objection if the hon. member wishes to stand clause 2 and call clause 3.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to allow clause 2 to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of clause 3.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Rise and report progress.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I called it six o'clock.


George James McIlraith: In order that there may be no embarrassment as to procedure, let me say that I did not intend in any way to cut off the speech of the hon. member who was speaking at six o'clock. If he wishes to continue his remarks on clause 2 I will put the suggestion forward again at the conclusion of his remarks. I will transmit the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to my colleague the Minister of National Defence. It can be done in whichever way the hon. gentleman who was speaking wishes.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Is it the suggestion of the Minister of Public Works that the hon. member for Acadia be permitted to conclude his remarks and that then clause 2 will stand?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, my embarrassment is this: The hon. member for Acadia had the floor. He sat down on the assumption that it was six o'clock, but did not appear to have concluded his remarks. The suggestion then was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that we stand clause 2 and proceed to clause 3. I agreed to that suggestion without realizing that by so doing
1	was cutting off the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia. I rose to explain my embarrassment in that regard. I had no intention to cut off the remarks of hon. member for Acadia.
I am agreeable either to have it understood that we still are on clause 2 until the hon. member completes his remarks or that clause
2	stand now. I am agreeable whichever way hon. members of the opposition wish to have it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. As chairman, I should like the members of the committee to come to some very definite determination so that there will be no misunderstanding when the committee meets tomorrow or some other day.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to proceed with the bill. I think that tomorrow I would take probably five or ten minutes to conclude my remarks on clause 2 and then we could go on to clause 3.


George James McIlraith: Then I take it that we are still on clause 2, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will still be on clause 2 when it meets again.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 20, 1967