1967-04-07

VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in continuation of the question I asked yesterday regarding the unusual situation created by the Republic of France in failing to provide a guard of honour on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary ceremonies at Vimy, has the government, either through the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, communicated with the government of France to point out that what has occurred is regarded by veterans and their dependants as a slap in the face to Canada?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the details of the arrangements are being worked out with the French government, as I indicated yesterday. I have nothing to add to what I said on this matter then.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it a fact that the reason for the stand is as reported in certain elements of the press, namely as a means of indicating to Canada that General de Gaulle does not regard the Queen as Queen of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-REPORTED AGREEMENT ON FREE WORLD MARKET AFTER JULY 31

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding press reports to the effect that at the meeting in London the wheat importing and exporting countries have agreed by majority
decision that after July 31 importing countries will not be required to take a prearranged minimum quantity of wheat, and there will be no predetermined price range.
Since this was a majority decision I take it there was some disagreement. I should like to ask the minister what position the Canadian delegation took, whether Canada voted in favour of this free market after July 31, and whether this is the government's policy with respect to this matter.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned yesterday and as I have said on previous occasions, our major effort is being made through negotiations for a new cereals agreement presently in progress at Geneva. At Geneva we have been seeking a substantially increased price for wheat and an increased price range. Under the circumstances we are unwilling to agree to a continuation of the price and the price range as provided for under the present international wheat agreement. So all we would agree to in the London discussion was a continuation of the framework of the agreement, but not the price structure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the negotiations in Geneva are not likely to be concluded before the beginning of the new crop year, do I take it that at the London meeting the government voted to have a free market after July 31, and to remove the protective provisions which are contained in the present international wheat agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: Under the terms of the negotiations at Geneva they must be concluded by mid-year, so it is entirely likely that the present arrangements under the international wheat agreement will be succeeded by new arrangements under a cereals agreement as part of the Kennedy round of negotiations. So anything that is being done in London now does not in any way commit us to a price structure or a marketing arrangement; it simply keeps in being the framework of the I.W.A. and no more.

April 7, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



NATO-DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform us whether at the meeting he attended yesterday in Washington any decisions were taken with regard to the installation of an anti-missile defence system?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there was a wide ranging discussion covering all aspects of the possible use of nuclear weapons and their effects, both strategically and tactically. This included a discussion of an anti-ballistic missile system. No decisions have been taken in this respect, but in view of the fact that the meetings are continuing this morning I do not think I should comment further until a communique has been issued officially by the meeting at noon today.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Who is representing Canada at these meetings now that the minister has returned?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Our ambassador to NATO, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In announcing on March 22 the dairy policy providing a total price of $4.75 for manufacturing milk, the minister promised that complete details of the program of the dairy commission would be provided by the commission in a very short time. That was over three weeks ago. I wonder whether the minister can tell us now just when the dairy industry can expect these regulations to be brought down.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Canadian Dairy Commission issued a statement on the same day I made my announcement with respect to the government's dairy policy, regarding the level of support of dairy products and the question of quotas which, taken in conjunction with the government's policy statement,
[Mr. Winters.!
encompasses the entire dairy policy for the ensuing year, subject to any changes that the dairy commission, on its own authority, may wish to make from time to time.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that in the 1966-67 dairy year the small creameries were almost wiped out, and in view of the fact that at the present time the fluid milk producers are worried about this dairy policy, will the minister take every possible step to ensure that all segments of this important industry will be given comparable treatment?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture today, and the cabinet met with the farmers' union yesterday to discuss various aspects of the policy. With regard to the fluid milk producers, they are essentially the responsibility of the provinces. Under last year's agreement the federal government agreed to take responsibility for the support of the manufacturing milk industry. The fluid milk producers, of course, come under provincial quotas and provincial authority where there are provincial boards set up. I believe therefore the question of fluid milk producers is largely one for provincial authorities.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe-Bagol):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the general discontent amongst milk producers, can the minister tell us whether he will agree to modify and improve the dairy policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the present dairy policy is the best Canada has ever had. However, I am always glad to meet the farmers and take their suggestions into consideration.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Welaskiwin)):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Have the agriculture ministers of the different provinces agreed that they are responsible for that portion of milk shipped by fluid milk producers that goes into manufacturing milk?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge in all provinces fluid milk quotas and fluid milk prices are set under provincial authority. I believe it is quite obvious, therefore, that within the constitutional practice as it has evolved the provinces have assumed
April 7, 1967

responsibility for the price level and support in the fluid milk area.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the self-gratulation the minister has given to the dairy policy and the happiness it has brought to Canadian dairymen and farmers in general, would he let the house know the secret that explains why there is a greater upheaval among farmers today and a greater distrust of this government than ever before?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are now getting into a debate.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: A point of order?


John James Greene: I might point out to the right hon. gentleman that in the four years-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The right hon. gentleman made an allegation that of course has no basis in fact, as is true of so many of his allegations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister stating his question of privilege?


John James Greene: I point out to the right hon. gentleman that during the short time we have been in office we have taken the national average price of manufacturing milk from $2.66 to $4.75.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I
should say now that the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his opinion on the matter and the minister has expressed his, and there appears to be some divergence of opinion between them. However, I do not believe there is a question of privilege, and I think we should go on to another question.



INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTIONS IN HULL AND SUDBURY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforfh):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him if he is prepared to announce the dates for by-elections in the constituencies of Hull and Sudbury some time within the next month or two, so the new members from those areas can participate in the defence debate.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be able to do that within a day or two, I hope, but I assume the defence debate will be over long before five new Liberal members can join this house.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Having received representation from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will the government now rehire workers laid off at Fortress Louisbourg?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is making a suggestion or imputation. I do not want to be difficult, but I do not think the question as asked is acceptable. Perhaps the hon. member might want to rephrase it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will
rephrase the question. I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether the government will now rehire the workers laid off on the Fortress Louisbourg project.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have informed the hon. member on a couple of occasions very recently that beginning in May it is our intention to rehire, with first preference being given these people who were laid off.


Malcolm MacInnis: As
usual the minister has been misinformed. Ten o'clock Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should bring to the attention of the hon. member that to the best of my knowledge he has already asked this question twice and it has been answered twice. I am not too sure whether the rules of the house allow the same question to come up regularly in the adjournment debates, but I will look into the matter and consider the situation early next week.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brefon South):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that I have asked a different question on each occasion, and the answers are becoming more confused. I had given notice to debate this question at ten

April 7. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry o'clock on Tuesday, but because one hon. member had made arrangements to use the ten minute period on Tuesday I could not get the floor that night, though there was a ten minute period for discussion. However, I give notice that I will debate the matter on Monday at ten.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member consults the rules he will ascertain that the matter is still in the hands of the Speaker to decide.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on Monday respecting the regulations of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Regulations pertaining to certificate applications have been approved by the board and will be published in the April 12 issue of the Canada Gazette. Regulations pertaining to dispute settlement specification, grievance process and adjudication procedure, complaints procedure and references on questions of law or jurisdiction have also been approved by the board, and it is anticipated that barring some unforeseen circumstance they will be published in the April 26 issue of the Gazette.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister will recall that I asked about the regulations under two acts, both the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act. Can he tell me about the latter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will have to take that supplementary question as notice.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the government give consideration to establishing statutory safety limits on the use of two specific pesticides, aldrin and dieldrin, so that foods produced with their use may not carry a residue above health safety levels?


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



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. My question is based on criticism and considerable annoyance expressed by some Canadians and in newspaper editorials with respect to the necessity for two carloads of F.B.I. men to come to Canada to protect United States Vice President Hubert Humphrey on his recent visit to Canada.
My question is this. Will the minister inform the house whether in his opinion it was necessary for the F.B.I. to come to Canada on this occasion? And would the minister inform the house whether he considers that our own R.C.M.P. are not just as capable of protecting any distinguished visitor to Canada as imported bodyguards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No doubt the Solicitor General would like the opportunity to reply at least to the second part of the question, but I suggest to the hon. member, with respect, that the question is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of that question I ask the minister this. Is it a fact that because of an unprecedented influx of mafia gangland thugs into Canada, at the present time United States officials and those of the R.C.M.P. are meeting with a view to arriving at some plan that will control this kind of immigration that Canada does not want?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept as a fact the preliminary part of the question. I will say, however, that the R.C.M.P. are co-operating closely with law enforcement agencies in the United States to keep crime under control.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask specifically whether at this very moment and in the last week there have been meetings between the R.C.M.P. and United States officials of the F.B.I. and the like, to prevent or do something to prevent the influx into Montreal and Toronto of United States mafia figures.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman is referring to a press report that appeared this week in one of the daily newspapers, I am informed that the reference was not to R.C.M.P. officials but, I believe, to
April 7. 1967

municipal officials who were visiting New York state.


John George Diefenbaker: I am referring to the New York Times, which refers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing to my attention the reference in the New York Times. I was also referring to the same press report. It is my understanding that the reference was to a municipal police force and not to members of the R.C.M.P., though the report referred to them as being of the R.C.M.P.
I wish to reassert my original statement, that the R.C.M.P. are in continuing close cooperation with law enforcement agencies in the United States. It is my understanding that there has been no significant increase in organized crime since I assumed my responsibilities. I say this being well aware of the serious nature of crime, but the fact is that crime has been held under control owing to measures which have been taken over the past 18 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the right hon. Leader of the Opposition by an ingenious method has brought this topic to the attention of the minister, could the minister now answer my question which would appear to be in order?


Lawrence T. Pennell: If the answer to one question can bring the answer to another in order, I am pleased to say, first of all, that I have every confidence in the ability of the R.C.M.P. to discharge their duties in this and every other matter. The presence of persons accompanying distinguished visitors to Canada is a matter of liaison, and arrangements are reciprocal in visits of this kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Since when did the
Canadian Prime Minister have that protection in his visits to the United States?


Mr. Maiheson:: He wouldn't need it anywhere in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As yesterday was the deadline date
Inquiries of the Ministry set by teachers in the Northwest Territories in regard to their contract commitments with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, can the minister say whether a decision has been reached by the government with respect to these demands? If so, have the teachers accepted the government's offer?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear the use of the word "deadline", because I do not think there is a serious core of acerbity between the teachers and the department at the present time. With respect to the teachers in the Northwest Territories during the past year, there has been agreement to improvements in the terms of their employment. One item involving a small amount of money and reducing the contract period from 12 months to 10 months remains outstanding. This will be taken care of quickly, to the satisfaction of the teachers.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on a report that the United Nations mission to Aden is to be withdrawn. Has there been any suggestion from any source that the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs should use his good offices in this troubled area, or has be been overlooked by his friends in international circles?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he will be giving us some time today any instructions which he may have received from Mr. McNamara.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his sponsorship of the showing last night of a very interesting film on pollution on parliament hill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

April 7. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask whether arrangements are being made through the council of resource ministers or otherwise to have this film shown in various centres across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest this is a question which should be placed on the order paper. The information should be obtained in some other way than by asking a question at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a most important question for the Minister of Agriculture related to similar questions asked by my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island. Has the minister yet received a resolution unanimously adopted by the Prince Edward Island legislature urging an improved program for dealing with the current potato surplus? If so, is he giving favourable consideration to this reasonable request of the legislature?


John James Greene: The resolution which was forwarded to me indicated that the Prince Edward Island legislature supported the appeal of the province of New Brunswick with respect to a program of relief in connection with the heavy surplus of potatoes in those provinces. Such a program has been evolved, and we are considering representations made by various organizations to determine whether an improvement can be made in the program which would make it more satisfactory in those areas.
[Translation!



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that Expo '67 will open in a few days and also that the legislature of my own province, a great number of members of parliament and even Expo's General Commissioner have asked the C.P.R. to operate a night train between Montreal and Quebec City, could the minister tell us if he has been asked, in the last few days, to do something to secure that service during Expo?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: To the best of my knowledge I have not received any such requests recently; at least they have not been brought to my attention. But I have listened to the hon. gentleman's question, and in view of the urgency which he feels should be attached to the matter I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the Canadian Pacific Railway.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any comment to make on reports that a United States air line will gain a big lead over Air Canada in developing the Toronto-Los Angeles route because of delay in aircraft deliveries to Air Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is asking for a statement by the minister, this is not a question which can be permitted at this time.
[Later:!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might try to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When will Air Canada begin flying the route between Toronto and Los Angeles?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The latest target date I heard was some time in August. However, as a previous question-one which was indicated as being out of order-did suggest, there is a problem in connection with delivery of aircraft which is having an effect upon all these plans, I regret to say; it is not peculiar to Air Canada but it is being experienced by virtually all air lines with expanding traffic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister now indicate the precise date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is some date in August, and if the hon. gentleman will put the question on the order paper I will be able to ascertain from Air Canada precisely what it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the answer given by the minister is indicative that my suggestion that the question should be placed on the order paper was a correct one. We should go on to another question.
April 7, 1967



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. At an earlier date the hon. gentleman advised the house that his department expected to call tenders for the four new helicopter destroyers in March. I wonder whether the minister can now tell us when he expects tenders to be called for these ships.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some time later this year, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR MEDICAL OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Verner Noble: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. When will the medical doctors in the army receive a pay adjustment which would be commensurate with their skill and which would at least bring them the advantages now being enjoyed by the dental officers?


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



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to adress this question to the Prime Minister. Having in mind the recommendation of the committee on justice and legal affairs calling for the establishment of a federal board to promote motor vehicle safety in all its aspects, can the right hon. gentleman say whether consideration is being given to this recommendation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was discussing this matter with some of my colleagues yesterday.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In the
Inquiries of the Ministry light of the fact that at the present time mail is travelling by ice boat between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, does the minister think this situation reflects satisfaction with the quality of the service provided by the Canadian National Railways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, but I will pray for sunshine.



BENEFIT TO CONSUMER OF REMOVAL OF SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it concerns the recent proposal to remove the 11 per cent sales tax from the cost of drugs. Has the minister in mind any way of ensuring that this 11 per cent saving will be passed on to the consumer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this is a question of a general nature which cannot be asked at this time.



QUEBEC-POSSIBLE SALE OR LEASE OF ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would he assure the house that the grain elevators in the city of Quebec will not be rented to foreigners?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this question should be regarded as urgent, because the matter is under discussion at the present time. I do not think I can give an assurance in exactly the form desired by the hon. member, but I can give an assurance that this elevator will not be leased to anyone unless adequate provision is made for the proper handling of domestic grain for the farmers of the Quebec area.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act
14650	COMMONS DEBATES	April 7. 1967
National Defence Act Amendment and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer-Mr. Richard in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was under discussion.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian Armed forces.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to pursue much further the few comments I made yesterday as to the inaccuracy of the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the confidence which the House of Commons should have in the Minister of National Defence. Today I intend to proceed with a few general comments as to what the position is in this chamber now with respect to this bill, particularly in view of the apparent confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River, and in the minds of some other hon. members as to what are the issues before us that we should consider.
First, of course, I am aware that we are in the awkward position that the house gave this bill second reading and then held committee hearings to determine whether the house should pass the question of unification in principle. Having held many committee hearings and having had the benefit of the advice of the best and most senior military minds in Canada, most of whom unfortunately were prematurely dumped by this amateur minister, I think we should now consider the evidence we have obtained. We must approach this on the basis of the evidence itself, the credibility of the witnesses, their experience and the sum total of all evidence on each point that may be in issue when we are considering whether we should adopt any clause of this bill on unification.
There was much comment in the House of Commons and in the defence committee, while we were trying to get more witnesses who could give more valuable information, to the effect that we had heard enough witnesses. I heard Liberal members on the defence committee suggest that we were getting one for one on each side, and that it seemed to be balancing out.
Liberal members seemed to have the feeling that if they could call one witness from within the Department of National Defence who would follow the minister's instructions, this would balance off the testimony of another witness who had the freedom to speak and give that committee the benefit of his experience and knowledge as one who had no motive
[Mr. Plckersglll.l
but his own wish to assist his country by expressing his views. Those witnesses called who were no longer in the department were motivated only by a desire to bring to the attention of the committee all the facts and information and knowledge they had accumulated, the benefit of their years of experience and wisdom, so that we in the House of Commons and in the defence committee might be in a better position to judge the facts and decide on the basis of expert military testimony what was best for us to do with this bill.
Having pointed out the position of those people, and having mentioned the position of the Liberals on the defence committee-that it was a case of one from each side-I think we should now refer to the evidence of General Allard, particularly his opening statement which gives the House of Commons its most valuable indication as to the strength of the evidence presented by various people. If my hon. friends on my right would continue their conversations behind the curtain, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could make myself heard in this chamber.
We first became aware of how difficult this problem was in the Landymore incident when I charged the minister with tampering with the evidence. You will recall that at that time the minister said or gave the impression that he felt that because this witness was a serving officer responsible to the minister he, the minister, had the right to review his evidence; that the witness was appearing as a representative of the minister; that that made the minister responsible for his evidence and therefore that was the only kind of evidence that could be given. I believe each witness who has appeared from the defence department has believed in this course of conduct. I believe that if a serving officer feels-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I would appreciate very much if hon. members who are in this chamber or close by would refrain from loud conversations so as to give an opportunity to the hon. member who has the floor to make his remarks, and so that at least some of us may hear what he has to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may carry on with what I was saying, it is not a case of numbers of witnesses on each side. It is a case of looking at each witness, his ability to speak not only from the point of view of his experience and general knowledge
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
but whether he is giving us the benefit of his experience and whether he is speaking freely for himself.
It is my contention that the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Department of National Defence-all of them-were acting under the restraint of their positions and mainly following the official departmental line, and therefore not one of them can be counted on as an officer of experience in that position who has given us the benefit of his own personal opinion and personal experience.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite irresponsible on the part of the hon. member to reflect on members of the armed forces who are not able to come into this chamber and defend themselves. I think he should withdraw any allegation he has made, or any suggestion whatsoever that anyone who appeared before that committee and who is presently in uniform said anything other than the absolute truth as he believed it to be, and I would urge the hon. member in the name of human decency to withdraw the suggestion he has made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Considering the behavior of the Minister of National Defence concerning those under his power and the way in which he has treated them, I consider the minister the oddest source from which any appeal to human decency can come. Not only that, Mr. Chairman; it is I think evident from the remarks I have made-and if the minister will allow me to continue-that I have been very fair to those individuals. I have not suggested in any way for one minute that any one of them has lied to the committee. What I have suggested is that they had a duty to the department-and that is the way they seemed to believe it-to give to the committee that viewpoint which represents official departmental thinking, and that they are not permitted to say otherwise.
Certainly the Admiral Landymore case was a classic example. The minister changed the testimony. Admiral Landymore, being duty bound to follow the advice of his minister, found himself unable to challenge the authority of the minister to do this because he had to be guided as to the authority of the minister by the minister himself. But that did not stop him from feeling resentment and later on, when he was attacked by the minister, revealing the facts.
National Defence Act Amendment [DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I was going to quote from the testimony of General Allard who gave us a very clear warning as to the limitation on his ability to speak before the committee. This quotation appears in volume 27 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on national defence at page 1759. I shall read the whole paragraph because I think it is worthy of consideration by this house in respect of the credibility, importance and weight that should be placed on the evidence given by various witnesses. General Allard said this:
It is with mixed feelings that I appear before you today. I say this because although I know this will make no difference to the prerogatives and privileges of this committee-nor should it-I personally think that some of the practices and methods of operation are paradoxical. On the one hand, there are called before you officers of the forces, like myself, who are responsible for the organization, efficiency, and morale of the forces for your defence, and who can speak only within the bounds of these responsibilities under the policies set forth by the government.
Perhaps I should repeat that last sentence, because it represents in essence the attitude taken by General Allard and the other witnesses from the defence department who appeared before the committee. It gives us a clear indication of the limitation on their evidence and the extent to which we are able to find out the personal feelings of those testifying. Let me repeat the last sentence, or the last part of it:
-who can speak only within the bounds of these reponsibilities under the policies set forth by the government.
General Allard then continued:
On the other hand, other people are called before you, who have no responsibilities to anybody but themselves, and therefore can make statements on matters for which they bear no responsibility.
I pointed out to General Allard at the time that as a gentleman he might like to change those last words by saying instead of "no responsibility", responsibility only as to themselves on their honour as gentlemen and former officers. If we ever lose sight of this limitation on the ability of serving officers to speak when assessing the evidence given before the committee we will fail to recognize the value of that evidence.
General Allard gave a clear warning in that statement. That is quite different to what the minister said I was suggesting, that officers were not being honest before the committee. The general's statement indicates that he has gone as far as he can to tell the committee
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment how his evidence must be read. The treatment of Landymore is an indication of how careful we must be in reading the evidence of those witnesses who are under the thumb and direction of the minister. The minister's attitude has been consistent in this regard. I suppose he still feels he had the right to tamper with the evidence of the witnesses, to keep witnesses from giving their own personal opinions and to restrict them to giving the official party line.
I still contend that he has no right to do that. General Allard has told us clearly and simply that he accepts the minister's direction in this regard. It is my submission that if the chief of staff accepts that direction, then every officer under him and the minister must accept it. For that reason the skill and experience of an officer who has given testimony is of assistance to us only in understanding his technical knowledge and thorough appreciation of his department's work. The evidence gives us no clue whatsoever as to the personal feelings or beliefs of those officers who testify.
In view of the clear warning given us by General Allard I submit we do not obtain his personal opinion at all from the answers he gives to questions regarding the practicability of unification and whether it will work. He indicated that his job when testifying was to present official government policy. Therefore it was his duty to answer in the terms he did. In support of this submission I suggest we have the testimony of others, including retired officers, to the effect that as long as they maintained their positions they had to accept direction. They have said that when they found they could no longer go along with policy they had to resign. For this reason the first lesson to be learned from the committee hearings is how the evidence must be weighed.
The suggestion by members on the Liberal side that the evidence of one group of officers to the effect that unification will work balances the evidence of the other group who said it will not work is pure nonsense. The only indication we have had that unification is good has come in statements put into the mouths of certain officers by the Minister of National Defence. In my submission those statements are completely worthless as evidence. Therefore the only statements we can count on as representing the experience and honest opinions of the gentlemen giving evidence are those statements of the officers who were in a position to speak freely and honestly without restriction and without fear of

reprisal. Those gentlemen were not compelled by a sense of duty to say certain things in order that they might remain in their positions.
Having made those remarks, let me say it is the duty of all members of this house to examine very closely the evidence given by those honourable gentlemen who appeared before the committee. Admiral Landymore presented two very excellent briefs. He was torn between the conditions of his service and the resentful position he was put in by the minister. Whether he liked it or not he found himself in the spotlight of a mounting quarrel.
None can doubt Admiral Landymore's excellent service to this nation over the years. Certainly his promotions over the years to the position he held in the navy, together with the evidence of other people as to his military ability and the way he handled himself before the committee, bear testimony to his integrity. I am sure we were all impressed by his general demeanour and bearing during the time he appeared before the committee.
Admiral Landymore and many other witnesses made a clear distinction between integration and unification, and this brings me to the second point I wish to touch upon. Perhaps I will go into it in detail on another occasion, but at this time I will indicate the nature of this point. The committee in considering this bill, must clearly understand that integration is one thing and unification is another. Unification is another entirely different concept, and until we learn to distinguish between the two we cannot properly understand this legislation.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to make a few observations during this debate, which I consider to be one of the most historical in which we have had the opportunity to participate. At the outset in speaking on Bill C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts consequential to it, I should like to pay tribute to the forthright and courageous Minister of National Defence.
It is my belief that over the years the defence policy of this country and all its very complicated aspects have been allowed to slide. Very vexing problems have arisen but they have now been faced courageously by the present minister who has brought forward solutions.
April 7, 1967

[DOT] (12 noon)
In following the proceedings of the committee and the debates in the chamber we have witnessed democracy in action. I do not doubt the sincerity of hon. members opposite in the remarks they have made in participating in this debate. It is their duty to find out whether the legislation placed before them can be improved. However, I feel that at times some of the remarks made my hon. members opposite verge more on personal invective rather than constructive criticism. I believe the role of the opposition is to improve legislation, rather than trying to damage those people who are trying to bring forth legislation which they are convinced is the right thing for the country.


Mr. Lambert:: Physician, heal thyself.


Stanley Haidasz: I know hon. members opposite are in a very difficult position. The record of the Liberal administration of the right hon. Prime Minister is an enviable one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Haidasz: It is an outstanding record which has met with the support of the majority of the members of this house and the majority of the Canadian people. I am also convinced that the defence policy of this government will eventually meet with the approval of the majority of the members of this house and the majority of the Canadian people.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Party discipline is like military discipline, isn't it?


Stanley Haidasz: May I also say without reservation that I have confidence in the ability, the integrity and the credibility of our Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Haidasz: I also have confidence in this legislation to integrate and eventually unify the armed forces of our country. It has been clearly explained and effectively defended by the minister, by the associate minister and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am also convinced that the defence policy of this government is in the best interests not only of our national security but also of international peace.
In the press last week there was a great hubbub about the remarks some people had made with regard to Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony before the standing committee on national defence. Some people said
National Defence Act Amendment they found his testimony very interesting. I should like at this moment to bring some of Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony to the attention of this committee. One of the more interesting aspects of that evidence is the fact that this former chief of defence staff contradicted his former vice chief, Lieutenant General Moncel, on at least three occasions. The first contradiction is the following. General Moncel claimed that he had written four plans for unification, and that the one the minister had selected was one he had "rejected out of hand." The following exchange took place in the committee on national defence, as recorded at page 2299 of the committee's proceedings. The hon. member for Vancouver East asked:
Did you, as chief of staff, ever see the four plans on unification drafted by General Moncel?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: No.
A little later on Air Chief Marshal Miller stated:
As far as four plans prepared by General Moncel are concerned, I am not aware of four formalized plans put up for comparison.
Next the hon. member for Hamilton West intervened by saying:
If there were they would have gone through you as chief of staff, would they not, sir?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Normally, yes.
Air Chief Marshal Miller's answer corroborates General Allard's statement to the effect that in so far as he knew, no such plans existed. They existed perhaps only as a figment of General Moncel's nimble imagination.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member accept a question? Is the hon. member suggesting that General Moncel lied to the committee?


Stanley Haidasz: The second contradiction is the following-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is disgraceful.


Stanley Haidasz: -and it can be found on page 1309 of the proceedings where General Moncel claimed that we required a force of 150,000 men and a budget of $2 billion to meet our commitments. When asked about that Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
I do not know where he got those figures; they do not ring any bells with me-
The third contradiction-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is that a contradiction?


Stanley Haidasz: -is the following. With regard to communications the following exchange
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment took place between the hon. member for Edmonton West and Air Chief Marshal Miller, as reported at page 2323 of the proceedings of the committee. The hon. member for Edmonton West said:
General Moncel has indicated that he felt one of the difficulties encountered was a breakdown in communications between headquarters and field commanders.
Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
I do not agree with that; that is conjuring up a drastic picture that I do not think ever existed.
This is absolutely contradictory testimony as between the chief of staff and his vice chief. We saw no such exhibition with those officers presently serving. A great deal of talk has also centred on unification as a prime reason for a decrease in morale and subsequently a problem in recruiting. In the April, 1967 issue of Saturday Night, in an article entitled "Mr. Hellyer and the officers. Why unification is not the issue," James Jackson, I believe an ex-wing commander, states the following at page 23 of the magazine:
While unification may bother those for whom the colour of their uniform or whether they call the place they drink in a mess or a wardroom are articles of faith, it isn't in itself an issue worth serious consideration. The United States air force, after all, changed both its name and its uniform after world war II. Members of the United States marine corps wear a common uniform and operate land, sea, and air weapons systems.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What sea weapons?


Stanley Haidasz: The article continues:
Neither body has suffered noticeable loss of morale as a result. The true defence crisis of 1966-67 is not an integration crisis. The true crisis is that the Canadian military community-particularly at the medium and senior levels of the officer corps which should provide its main vitality and direction-has almost completely lost its moral coherence. And this disintegration has in fact been going on since 1945, the year Canada ended its last war as a colonial participant and began unsuccessfully to act as a national military power.
Mr. Jackson goes on to say in this article:
To blame Mr. Hellyer for destroying morale is in fact ridiculous. It has been destroyed by a succession of defence ministers and governments since 1945 who failed to provide intelligent policy direction. It has been destroyed by senior service officers incapable of giving sound advice or of implementing sound personnel policies. Mr. Hellyer has aggravated the problem, but he is not solely responsible for it. Today's irony is the spectacle of ex-ministers and retired ancient militarists furiously condemning Mr. Hellyer for a state of chaos they themselves were busy creating while he was still a backbencher.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What are this man's qualifications, other than the ability to write with a facile pen?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Stanley Haidasz: Air Chief Marshal Miller concurred with this view when he stated, as reported at page 2293 of the committee's proceedings:
First of all the diagnosis (that) was causing this-
He was referring to the recruiting problem.
-was basically the time away from home, pay of the people who were separated from their families, shore-sea ratio; all these problems existed and required rectification. We could not do all the things to repair them as we wanted to do, but quite a bit has been done for the man in the navy now to make his lot a little happier one and therefore make it easier to recruit people into the navy.
To me this is an indication that the Minister of National Defence is carrying out his responsibilities, and is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Canadian servicemen will have the best possible environment in which to perform their duties.
Much of the committee's time was spent on the subject of the operational effectiveness of the services, and I believe the quotation I have just read leads nicely into this subject. I should like to quote an exchange on this topic between Air Chief Marshal Miller and some of the committee members at page 2306, where Air Chief Marshal Miller and the hon. member for Edmonton West spoke about the drop in numbers in the air force. It reads as follows:
Well, through the natural process of growing older, our forces were largely world war II forces- the officer category, and the NCO category-and there was going to be a bust of releases starting about now but going on for the next four or five years in which there will be a real bleeding-off of skilled people through normal retirement.
This was a worrisome thing and one of the things we had to look at was to try and string out the younger group coming along, because there was a period there from about 1945 to 1950 where an increase in new people coming into the forces was very very small indeed.
At one point in the questioning the hon. member for Hamilton West and the air chief marshal explored the question of the actual effectiveness of the forces. I will read from page 2322 where the hon. member stated the following with regard to the navy:
We would have greater fire power with the new equipment and with reduced personnel. It does mean to say that we are less effective by having reduced personnel.
At another point the hon. member for Hamilton West asked another question. He
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
asked whether in the opinion of the air chief marshal the operational effectiveness of our land contribution to NATO has been enhanced since 1962, to which the air chief marshal said it has. The hon. member for Hamilton West asked him in what way, to which Air Chief Marshal Miller replied "more modern equipment in practically every phase of it. The hon. member for Hamilton West then asked:
Would not this more modern equipment and increase in aircraft make us better able to carry out our assignment to the UN, should they come to us for additional commitments?
The air chief marshal replied:
I would be of the opinion that it would, certainly.
Then the hon. member for Hamilton West asked "are we better off operationally today than we were in 1962? Air Chief Marshal Miller replied: "Yes". Later on the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek asked the following question:
Now in answer to Mr. Macaluso's question, you said that the Canadian forces have greatly increased their combat effectiveness-all the services-in the last phase since 1962 to 1966, at the time you retired. Did I understand correctly that you felt there was quite an increase in the combat effectiveness of the Canadian troops?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Yes; I had a little joust with Mr. Macaluso on that.
Earlier in the deliberations the air marshal had stated "Certainly the quality of weaponry in all three services is better than it has been in the past." The air chief marshal concurred also with the article he had written while chief of defence staff. He said the following, as appears at page 2294 of the committee's proceedings:
-throughout the period of reorganization we have maintained our operational capability. There has been no loss of efficiency, no cutting of commitments. Indeed, we have accepted new responsibilities and taken them in our stride.
I believe the air chief marshal's assessment corroborates the picture presented to us by the defence, staff, that Canada has never had a more effective force for the money being spent. With regard to our commitments, the air chief marshal and the hon. member for Greenwood exchanged the following opinions, as reported at page 2330 of the committee's proceedings:


Mr. Brewin:: Is it a fact, then, that within the existing budget limits you are saying that you can put more emphasis on both a mobile intervention force with greater transportability and carry out the existing commitments?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Yes, because you do it with the same force.
National Defence Act Amendment
Therefore it seems that once again the air chief marshal and the defence staff concur in the opinion that our military force is in excellent shape and that we are effectively and efficiently meeting our commitments and fulfilling our roles.
With regard to the planning for unification the air chief marshal said the following, as appears at page 2296 of the committee's proceedings:
Yes, there certainly had been discussion on it-
Later the hon. member for Kootenay East asked the following question, as reported at page 2302:
Air Marshal Miller, is it your understanding that the government policy outlined in the white paper is one of ultimate unification of the forces? Is that a fair statement?
Air Chief Marshal Miller replied:
Yes, that is what the white paper says.
There was certainly no doubt in Air Chief Marshal Miller's mind as to what the end result was to be. Again, much ado was made about the stage to which integration had progressed. When the hon. member for Simcoe North stated that he understood it was "just now getting into the clear planning stage", Air Chief Marshal Miller corrected him by saying the following, as reported at page 2304:
Well, we are fairly well down the road on integration.
I believe my time is almost up, Mr. Chairman, but I will take only a few moments to finish my presentation. I should like now to quote one more passage from Mr. Jackson's article which appeared in April, 1967. It reads as follows:
Mr. Hellyer may be far from solely responsible for the military community's predicament. But he is responsible for resolving it. Over-ridingly, this calls for national military aims clearly related to foreign policy, and for military rules that make sense in terms of weapons and force assigned. More immediately, swift and decisive action is needed in personnel policy. However unpalatable the final criteria for promotion, rank structures, retirement ages, and terms of employment generally, the chief immediate need is that they be promulgated in specific detail. The date of 1970, which Mr. Hellyer has set for unification becoming a "total reality", is far too remote.
Mr. Jackson summed up the situation rather nicely. The Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the whole cabinet and its supporters know their responsibility to the Canadian people. Major evidence was presented by the defence staff. It is definitely an
14656	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment argument in favour of unification. The Prime Minister and his supporters will fulfil their responsibility to the Canadian electorate.
Mr. Chairman, may I appeal to the members of this house that without further delay we get on with this legislation to unify the Canadian armed forces, which I believe will be in the best interests of national security and international peace.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: I regret that the hon. member who has just taken his seat has seen fit to cast doubts on the honesty of General Moncel and the correctness of the testimony he gave before the committee. General Moncel was one of the most distinguished officers during the last war, and has been so since. I do not believe the hon. member adds anything to this debate or to his own stature by casting such doubts on General Moncel's honesty.


Stanley Haidasz: I rise on a question of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman. If any remark I have made casts such doubt on the integrity of General Moncel I wish to say that such was not my intention, and I withdraw any such allegation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad the hon. member has withdrawn the allegation or the implications of the remarks he made. I might point out to the hon. member that the so-called contradictions which he mentions as between the evidence given by General Moncel and that given by Air Chief Marshal Miller are not in actual fact contradictions at all.
General Moncel said he had prepared four plans. Air Chief Marshal Miller did not for a moment say General Moncel had not prepared four plans; he merely said they had not come to his attention. This is a different thing altogether. In so far as the estimate of the number of people that would be required is concerned, General Moncel gave his opinion of the size and cost of the force necessary to meet our international commitments. Those were General Moncel's calculations. He was asked for them and he gave them. Air Chief Marshal Miller did not agree that as many men would be required or that the cost would be as great. There was a difference of opinion between the two in their judgment on that matter. However, this was not a contradiction in the evidence given; it was a difference of opinion as to the cost. Air Chief Marshal Miller did not for a moment say that more men than we have at the present time were not required. In fact I think had he been asked a question in that form he would have

DEBATES	April 7, 1967
said that certainly we require more people than we have at the present time.
I also deplore the fact the hon. member attempted to give the impression that Air Chief Marshal Miller was in favour of the bill we are discussing and in favour of the unification plans of the minister. He was asked a specific question with regard to that, to which I will refer later, and his reply indicated he was not in favour of this unification plan. After the questioning was over Air Chief Marshal Miller made a submission in the form of a plea to the committee and to the government not to proceed with unification at this time. This plea is found at page 2342, and I should like to read a portion of the evidence on that page to indicate that the general impression the member has tried to give that Air Chief Marshal Miller is in favour of this unification bill is contrary to the facts:
I feel the next step that was forecast in the white paper, that of doing away with the services, will cause the loss, against this business we have been discussing recently, of a lot of people we cannot afford to lose and that we will not get very much of a benefit from this single service proposal. Maybe after the lessons of integration have been learned and the team has worked out- and they are not through the integration learning process-the follow-on then of a single service will be a natural and non-argumentative course.
He says "perhaps", of course.
But I make a plea for you to interpret my position as being in favour of integration as we have it now, as it is developing. I am not closing the book at all on some future unification but would not want a disruptive influence such as unification to be thrown into the machinery at this time. That is my personal view and I want to make it and leave it very clearly with you.
Mr. Chairman, the Associate Minister of National Defence and a number of other Liberal speakers have all made the plea that we should now get on with the business of getting this bill through. Last night the Minister of Public Works spoke along the same lines. These people leave out of their consideration the fact that the government itself has initiated a general defence, and to some extent even foreign affairs, debate on this particular bill. During his long speech the other day the minister spent most of his time on what I might call general defence policy, equipment matters and things along those lines. Under those circumstances I think it is only proper that all members of the house who are interested in these matters should have an opportunity to express their views, not only on the matter of unification itself but on all these other matters which have some
April 7. 1967

relationship to it and which have been really injected into the debate by the members of the government.
When I was speaking earlier in the week I was dealing with some of the things the minister had said in his speech which in my view were incorrect, and upon which some comment needed to be made. The last of them was in regard to equipment. Following that the minister went on to say something about the equipment and the situation of the navy. This is a matter which has been the subject of argument between the minister and myself as well as other members for some considerable time. The minister has continued to maintain that the anti-submarine capability of the navy is the greatest it has ever been in history. I and a number of other people have maintained the opposite.
Without actually saying so the minister has implied, and the hon. member for Lincoln devoted his whole speech to this, that the evidence given before the committee supported his view. Mention was made of only one witness, and that was Commodore Porter. The allegation was that our anti-submarine capability now is greater than it has ever been. I feel, Mr. Chairman, there is no question but that is not the case. As a matter of fact the witnesses we had before the committee who were in the best position to give evidence on this matter told us that the anti-submarine effectiveness of the Canadian navy and the maritime command-it is not only a matter of the navy but of the navy and the air force -had considerably declined. This was the evidence of Rear Admiral Brock, of Rear Admiral Landymore and Vice Admiral Rayner.
These three senior officers have all been in command of maritime command or of Pacific-Maritime command as it used to be. In the case of Vice Admiral Rayner, he was in addition the last chief of the naval staff. I should like to put on record some of the evidence given by these officers. I will not read too much, although there was a great deal of it, but I want to indicate that our anti-submarine effectiveness has materially declined. On page 985 of the committee evidence, when Admiral Brock was on the stand, I find this:


Douglas Scott Harkness: On Thursday the minister informed us in answer to questions that we now have 28 ships in commission, 8 of which are under refit, and of the 20 remaining, 16 are ready for immediate operations. Now, in spite of that the minister stated in this committee, and he stated repeatedly in the House of Commons and other places, that our anti-submarine capability is greater now than it

National Defence Act Amendment ever was at any other time in Canada's history. What would be your comment on that?
Rear Admiral Brock: Balderdash.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I ask you this particularly as one of our-I think everyone will admit-chief experts as far as anti-submarine warfare and general fighting naval operations are concerned, and I take it from your answer that you believe there is no validity in that contention whatever.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Rear Admiral Brock: Mr. Harkness, I would have to examine very carefully the words of the minister because, as I was trying to explain this morning, there is a difference between the fighting effectiveness of just a single unit and the capability of the whole.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, following this up, of these 28 ships which we still have in commission, how many have been completed as new ships since you first took over command in 1963?
Rear Admiral Brock: Well, none. Some have been modified. There are modification programs and some of them have been completed. I do not think the whole program is yet complete. Again, better testimony on this subject is available from other more senior officers recently connected with the service.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In effect, your evidence is that these 28 ships are the same ships that were in commission in 1963?
Rear Admiral Brock: Oh yes, indeed.
Then the admiral went on to deal with the amount of time it takes to lay down a ship. I continued:


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister's contention is that the present ships are so much more modern, so much more up to date, that the total anti-submarine capacity is greater than it was before but, in effect, these are the same ships. Now, what improvements have been made to them, to your knowledge, which would make them much more effective?
Rear Admiral Brock: I do not know of any improvements that have been made that had not long since been planned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think this is correct. Helicopters have been added to some ships which is a program that was under way at that time. Improved sonar has been added which was another program that was in hand at that time. Have there been any other improvements in their anti-submarine capabilities that you are aware of?
Rear Admiral Brock: Not that I know of. It may be helpful to have colonels in command, but there is nothing else I know of now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As an expert in this field, then, you would say the contention that our anti-submarine capability is greater than it has ever been before just will not stand up to examination?
Rear Admiral Brock: It does not appeal to my judgment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I say that as an expert in this field you would say that is just not the case: that the present 28 ships which are the same ships with, in some cases, some improvements cannot do nearly as good a job as the 45 to 47 that we had in the beginning of '63?
Rear Admiral Brock: That is so, yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The admiral is a year out of date with his information.
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister can complain about that as much as he likes, but one of the great difficulties in dealing with him in the past has been that he keeps reiterating the same story no matter how often it is disproved. One of the advantages of the committee was that we were able to get the views of experts such as Rear Admiral Brock, Rear Admiral Landymore and Vice Admiral Rayner. We asked them specific and direct questions about the effectiveness of the antisubmarine role of maritime command and the navy at the present time, and their evidence was that it had very definitely declined, which is quite contrary to what the minister has maintained and is still maintaining, in spite of the evidence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Their evidence is quite wrong.


Mr. Starr:: Everybody lied but the minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This shows the hopeless mess of the situation when dealing with the minister, Mr. Chairman. He is not an expert on maritime warfare or any other type of warfare. When we have the evidence of perhaps our three greatest experts on anti-submarine warfare in the committee, the minister simply says their evidence is wrong and he is right, in spite of the fact that he has no experience whatever in that field. Vice Admiral Rayner gave evidence on this same question, and his evidence is to be found at page 2029 of the committee reports.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He is even further out of date.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister says he is even further out of date, but Rear Admiral Brock, Rear Admiral Landymore and Vice Admiral Rayner all said-and nobody said anything to the contrary-that all of the improvements which have been made in our ships since the minister took over his present office were already under way, had been planned for and were already being put into operation at the time the hon. gentleman became minister.
Yet the minister still says these people were out of date. They have only been out of naval service for two or three years, and in the case of Admiral Landymore he had only been out of the navy about a month at this particular time, or even less than that. The minister still says they are out of date and do not know what they are talking about. I believe the members of this committee as well as the Canadian public will know whose judgment and evidence to accept in this matter. I think very few people will accept the

judgment of the minister as opposed to that of these three senior naval officers who have devoted most of their lives to this particular form of naval operation. As reported at page 2006 of the committee report Vice Admiral Rayner stated:
I believe that a strong Canada requires a strong Canadian navy. Although the Minister of National Defence has issued reassuring statements concerning the navy's anti-submarine capability, it cannot be denied, that the navy has been reduced in size and effectiveness since 1964.
I asked the admiral a number of questions about that, but I am not going to take the time to put them on record. They indicated how the effectiveness of the navy had been reduced. As reported at page 2030 of the minutes I asked this question:
Can you give us any estimate of the extent or the percentage which in your view the effectiveness of the navy has declined?


Mr.   Rayner@: I do not think I could give you a figure for that. I can only say that the personnel have been reduced by about 20 per cent and in quality I would say that they have been reduced by more than that, much more than that.
That is the evidence of two of these officers. I am not going into Rear Admiral Lan-dymore's evidence, but it is along the same lines. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no question but that the anti-submarine effectiveness of our navy has very materially declined.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says that is not true, but I have just put on the record the evidence of the experts in this field.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not evidence, that is opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman let me ask him a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened attentively to the extracts the hon. gentleman has just read to us, and they were new to me. However, they appear to me to be merely assertions of opinion. There was not one piece of hard statistical evidence among them. Could the hon. gentleman read us not the opinions of Vice Admiral Rayner but the actual evidence on which he claims to have reached these opinions?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I could take the rest of today's sitting reading the evidence given in this regard by these three gentlemen.
April 7, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just give three examples.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the evidence given was quite hard evidence. These are people who know. If the minister wants an opinion about the ability of the Canadian Pacific Railway to move a certain amount of freight, he goes to the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway and asks him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would expect him to be biased.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister would ask him whether he could move it or not. That is the only way he could get an opinion, from people who are experts in that particular line and know what they are talking about. As far as this matter is concerned, that is the situation. Apart altogether from that-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The director general of maritime forces said the capability is better now, and he is very expert.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you read the director general's evidence, he was very careful in what he said. He was also under the direction of the minister and was brought in for this specific purpose. He has never been a maritime commander, though I am not casting any doubts on his knowledge and so forth.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman says he did not cast doubt on the testimony of Commodore Porter, but he has just done so. He said the commodore was not a maritime commander, and that in presenting to the committee evidence that our maritime force was now as good as or better than it had been at any time previously the commodore specifically presented a view that had been prepared in conjunction with the present maritime commander, who is the most up to date and most knowledgeable person in the anti-submarine business in Canada today. The hon. gentleman therefore cast reflections on that evidence. I think that is not justified.


Michael Starr: The minister cast reflections on everybody else's evidence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This evidence was presented under the direction of the minister. Naturally one would not expect it to be contrary to what the minister has been saying. One would not expect it to contradict the minister's repeated statements that the anti-submarine capability of the navy has increased.
National Defence Act Amendment


Paul Theodore Hellyer: One would not expect a serving officer to give evidence that was not true. It was true, and I resent these constant suggestions from hon. members opposite that the serving officers did not put the facts before the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can I get in this fight, too?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: No, I think you had better not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the minister has made a very serious error in bringing serving officers before the committee. This was referred to by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. The minister has had serving officers come to the committee to give evidence on essentially political questions, and questions of policy. It is in order to bring officers before the defence committee to give evidence on purely technical matters, for example on how maritime command operates, on how air defence command or any other command operates.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the effectiveness of maritime command.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To do as the minister has done, to bring in officers to give evidence to back up statements he has made about matters which are politically controversial is completely unfair to those officers. It puts them in a hopeless position, and I hope this will not be done again in future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask my question now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. I have a limited amount of time, and the question the hon. gentleman tried to ask was not a question at all. It was just a means of trying to interfere with what I was saying, and to delay proceedings.


An hon. Member:: The minister can make his own speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister gave figures before the committee of the number of ships in commission and in operation serving in the anti-submarine role. The number of those ships is very much reduced from the number in commission three or four years ago. At the present time we have only 16 ships actually in operation. Another four could be in operation had we sufficient crews to man them. Another eight are being refitted; were they not being refitted they would not have crews to man them. With only 16 ships in operation now our anti-submarine capability is materially reduced.
14660	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment These are the same ships that were in operation four or five years ago. They are not new. They have been improved by adding helicopters and variable depth sonar, programs which were in operation when the minister took over, but I get very tired indeed of the minister continuing to reiterate something with respect to this matter that is directly contrary to even the most casual examination and application of common sense to the question.
I turn to another matter. On page 14436 of Hansard for April 3, 1967 the minister said:
The advantages which would result from the passage of this bill have been stated.
I do not know when they were stated. They had never been stated in a definite or clear form. Certainly I defy anybody on the other side of the house to state in any short and comprehensible form what are the advantages of the bill. I continue quoting:
Perhaps, however, I should go over them again today. The first is identification. All these people working together in the headquarters and in the unified commands will be identified with the force as a whole. There are some very serious disadvantages in doing it the other way. If people are in unified staff organizations as representatives of different services, the service representation becomes the significant factor in the choice of personnel. It becomes a matter of the ratio of personnel between one service and another, the balance of people by colour.
In any unified staff organization such as we now have at national defence headquarters it is not a matter of ratio, per se, among the three services. In any staff, particularly in one which deals with combined operations or with operations in which more than one service is involved, there must be representatives of all three services, to have available the expert opinion required to make the operation reasonably possible.
Whether or not all people serve in one uniform, there must be on national defence headquarters staffs or command staffs, officers from the sea element, as the minister prefers to call it, the land and the air elements; otherwise there will not be the expert and balanced advice and judgment which is essential in deciding a large number of matters. This matter of identification has no validity whatever. It does not matter whether the staffs are in one uniform or in six different uniforms, there must be experts from each branch of the service in any staff for it to operate effectively. On the next page the minister goes on to say this:
The other side of this coin relates, of course, to career opportunity. The more staff jobs that [Mr. Harkness.l
DEBATES	April 7, 1967
are opened up to qualified people from all specialities the more opportunity there will be for employment for gifted people who want to progress, who are well motivated and have the necessary qualifications. Therefore there will be broader employment opportunities and consequently greater chances for the kind of person who should be advanced and should have greater responsibility in an integrated force of this kind.
The minister cannot have it both ways. He has argued that this measure will cut down the size of staffs. He is combining the navy, army and air force staffs into a single staff, thereby saving manpower and reducing the number of staff jobs. If he reduces the numbers of people holding staff jobs it is evident that he is reducing the opportunities people will have for those jobs. Completely the reverse of what he argues will happen in fact; there will be fewer opportunities for staff jobs.
Personally I think the staffs are too big. When I was minister of national defence I undertook a considerable number of measures to cut them down. This part of the minister's program I agree with; but the argument that by cutting staffs he will create more opportunities for staff jobs does not stand up to scrutiny. It is like saying that by reducing the number of ministries you allow opportunity for more people to become cabinet ministers. The reverse is true.
My next quotation follows immediately after my last one:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Next let me refer to adaptability of change, and this is related to the other two. When roles and missions change, and this will be of interest to hon. members of the New Democratic Party, it will be much easier to meet government requirements with a single force.
Well, I think the exact reverse is the case, and in my opinion the balance of evidence we heard in the committee was to this effect. Instead of this unified force having greater flexibility, as the minister has maintained, it will have less flexibility. This is one of the arguments a large number of people have used against the single unified force; it will not be able to meet the roles laid down by defence policy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. gentleman not realize that our argument was based on the fact that in the opinion of this group unification does not make sense unless Canada is willing to change its role with respect to defence?
April 7, 1967


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I understand that argument perfectly, and if I agreed with the premise I would agree with the argument. I believe the argument is correct. If it is desired to get rid of some of these present roles, as the members of the hon. gentleman's party wish to do, the formation of a single unified force might make sense. But if these roles are to be maintained a single unified force is not capable of discharging them successfully.


The Chairman:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday that in his view if unification is permitted to develop as planned it should in no way hinder our ability to fulfil our foreign policy commitments. I pointed out that all the senior retired officers who appeared before the committee and gave evidence in this regard disagreed with this opinion. The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say it was a fact that all the leading officers in the department at the present time took a different view.
I do not think this is the case. As a matter of fact I know a considerable number of officers now serving who have indicated to me the reverse. They are not likely to come out publicly, of course, and I have not asked them for their opinions; I have been careful since I ceased to be minister of defence not to ask serving officers to express their views on any matter. However, a number of them feel so strongly on this issue that they have volunteered information, and there are to my personal knowledge a considerable number of serving officers who disagree completely with the idea of unification and who believe that if it is put into effect Canada will not be able to effectively discharge the roles which the objectives of defence policy impose on the armed forces.
There is only one other matter I will mention at this moment because I see we are due to adjourn in a very few minutes. As reported on page 14438 of Hansard, the minister said:
The suggestion that Canada cannot meet its commitments is not true. Again, evidence has been provided to the committee which indicates specifically that we can meet our commitments- 23033-927
National Defence Act Amendment


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is simply not so. I defy the minister to cite evidence which was adduced to show that we can meet our commitments. There was no evidence given along that line whatever. Once more I take objection to loose, general statements of this kind. As reported on the same page the minister stated:
The suggestion has been made that we shall have to resort to compulsory service to maintain this kind of force. I think this is absolute nonsense.
The minister may think it is nonsense, but a number of responsible people think the reverse. Brigadier Malone who is vice president, manager and a director of F. P. Publications Limited, feels so strongly about it that he wrote an editorial on the subject which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 22; and I do not think he is one the minister will accuse of talking nonsense. He states:
Of all the damaging consequences of Defence Minister Hellyer's proposed program for all out unification of our armed services, this conscription issue is almost inevitable, if and when unification becomes law in Canada.
This consideration alone, apart from all other errors in Mr. Hellyer's plan, should give parliament serious reason to pause and consider before blindly endorsing his amateur military fantasy.
In passing on the Hellyer legislation now, members must recognize their subsequent responsibilities for providing, by one means or another, for maintaining our national defences and defence treaty obligations at an effective level.
It would be foolhardy in the extreme to blandly assume that recruiting, poor as it already is, will not drastically deteriorate further under unification of the regular services. Our reserve or militia formations of army, navy and air force, as well as our various volunteer cadet services, will in the future have little if any recruiting value for any amalgamated or unified regular force where all unit and service identification has been lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman's time is not limited any longer, and perhaps he will permit me to ask him a question. Does he suggest that his opinion, my opinion, Brigadier Malone's opinion or the opinion of the Minister of National Defence on whether conscription is likely to result from a certain course requires military expertise? Is this not a matter for a purely political judgment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not a question of a purely political judgment. Brigadier Malone bases this assumption on our present ability to recruit as a result of the existence of the militia, cadet forces and so on. The point is that these units will now be divorced from what one might call the general military organization. While there will continue to be a navy, an army and an air force as far as the
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment reserve units are concerned, in effect there will be only one single force as far as the regular services are concerned. The view of Brigadier Malone and of others with great experience in connection with the militia is that as a consequence there will be a drying up of recruits, an inability to recruit. Thus if we are to meet our commitments it will be necessary to put into effect some form of conscription.
I am not even saying that I agree with Brigadier Malone in this regard. Nevertheless I am bringing to the attention of the committee that a great many responsible people are thinking along these lines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a further question which with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I might direct to the hon. gentleman at this time. He suggested that the testimony of certain serving officers was coloured by the fact that they were still serving. Does he really mean to tell us that in the committee certain officers failed to give honest testimony uncoloured by any association with the administration? If so, would he name the officers against whom this serious allegation is made?
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not make any allegation. What I said was that an officer, a serving officer, being brought before a committee and required to give evidence in regard to what are really political policy matters, is in an extremely unfair and impossible position, and I hoped there would be no repetition of this. The whole history of Admiral Landymore's appearance here, last June I think it was, and the fact his testimony was actually altered by the minister or the minister's officials before he was allowed to give it, indicates the position an officer is in. He is not, by the whole traditions of the service and the position that he is in, able to do anything but support the policy laid down by the minister and the government whether he personally believes in it or not. It is not a matter of his personal belief; it is a matter of the system being such that he has to support it.
When I was minister of national defence I expected the officers to support the policies I was following, which they did. It was their duty to do so. I expect them to support the policies the present minister is following because it is their duty to do so, but that does not mean they cannot have their personal views. However, when they appear before a committee they cannot, by virtue of the system we work under, express their personal views.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being one o'clock-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On this very interesting point would the hon. member allow one quick question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. An order of the house was made yesterday that the sitting would be suspended from one o'clock to two o'clock. I suggest the sitting be suspended now.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. When the committee was suspended at one o'clock the hon. member for Calgary North was speaking on clause
2.	I understand he now wishes to continue his remarks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon recess I had been dealing with matters which arose during the debate and with certain remarks made by various other speakers. I should now like to deal directly with clause 2 which contains the most important concept of this bill.
Part I contains the material matters of the bill but the matter giving us most concern is the proposed amendment to Section 15 of the act. The proposed amendment reads as follows:
The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one service called the Canadian Armed Forces.
The act now states that the armed forces consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force. The basic purpose of this bill is to replace these three services by one unified service. All of the arguments we have heard in this regard and most of the testimony given before the committee have related to this concept. Most of the remaining clauses are consequential upon that concept or involve other matters being dealt with at the same time.
What we are trying to decide at this time is whether a unified force is desirable. The weight of the evidence given before the committee was in opposition to unification at this time. I do not think there can be any question in that regard. There appeared before the committee 12 senior, retired officers, all of whom had very extensive and wide experience. The evidence of nearly all of them was completely against unification. They did not
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
believe it was a good concept. They believed it would impair the efficiency of the forces. They believed it would put us in the position of not being able to carry out our defence roles effectively, and so on.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Nearly all those who were not completely against unification said that it should not be proceeded with for at least three to five years, that there should be a period of delay of at least that length of time to enable the integration processes which have been set in motion to be completed, to be modified as experience shows modification is necessary and to get the whole system really working properly. They said that after that had been done was the time to make an assessment of the situation and decide whether or not to proceed with the concept of unification.
The only evidence in favour of unification heard by the committee was given by the minister and the officers that he brought in to support his position, plus the evidence of a Mr. Patrick from Montreal who I believe was concerned with supply matters in the R.C.A.F. during the second world war. But as I say, all of what one might call the expert evidence, apart from that given by the officers serving at the present time, was very much against unification. Practically all the senior, retired officers were asked what advantages, either financial or military, would be gained from putting unification into effect. The reply in all cases was "none" or that the advantages would be minimal, that no significant advantages would be gained either from the financial point of view or the military point of view. On the other hand, they all saw very great disadvantages from the military point of view if unification were put into effect. As examples of their attitude on the financial and military aspects I will quote the evidence of only two of these officers. First I quote the evidence given by General Fleury, which is to be found at page 1506 of the committee proceedings. I asked him this question:
As Comptroller General you were, of course, particularly concerned with the financial end of things, and in your view and in the light of the experience that you had in that position, do you consider that there are any financial advantages to be gained by doing away with the navy, army and air force as separate services and combining them into one single unified force?


Mr.   Fleury@: I cannot see it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, any financial
advantages that could be gained would come entirely from the integration process which has been going forward?


Mr.   Fleury@: This is the way I saw It.
National Defence Act Amendment


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you think there are any military advantages to be gained by the formation of this single unified force?


Mr.   Fleury@: Not with the defence roles being what they are now.
Then we come to the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller. I asked him the same question, and the evidence in this case is found at page 2296:
I do not know whether or not this is a fair question, and if it is not, of course do not answer it. Did you or the other chiefs of staff advise that unification should be proceeded with? I make the distinction here between unification and integration.
Air Chief Marshal Miller: I do not think there was any advice of that sort given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Have you any knowledge as to any plan that was produced in regard to unification, say, at the time the white paper was produced or shortly thereafter?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: No, there was no plan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Was there any plan, to your knowledge, produced subsequently?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: I would say that there was no comprehensive plan.
I put that evidence on the record because it has been said that expert advice was given to the minister in regard to unification. In actual fact we had no evidence, none whatever, that the minister received any advice from his senior officers that unification should be proceeded with. In fact, all the advice he received was the direct opposite, that unification should not be proceeded with. Following that I asked:
Do you, yourself, see any financial advantage accruing from the proposed scheme of unification?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: There are no significant financial advantages whatsoever as far as I can see.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you see any military advantages flowing from it?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Again, there are no significant military advantages.
I could go on and quote the evidence of other witnesses who appeared before the committee but I think that is sufficient to establish the fact that those who were in the best position to give evidence in this regard were definite that there was not only no financial advantage in putting unification into effect but also no military advantage. If that is the situation, that there is no financial advantage and no military advantage in putting unification into effect, why should we proceed with this bill?
On the other hand, the same gentlemen were asked what financial or military disadvantages there were in unification. They were
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment asked particularly about the military disadvantages because as they had said definitely there were no financial advantages there was not much use pursuing that question. A good deal of evidence was given by all the witnesses who appeared before the committee in regard to the military disadvantages of unification, and they were very numerous. Every one of these witnesses pointed out disadvantages from the military point of view of proceeding with the plan of unification.
The reasons for their believing there were military disadvantages can be grouped under several headings. First, they nearly all believed there would be a decline in morale, that the decline in morale which has already taken place would be accelerated and as a result recruiting would be difficult.
Second, their evidence was that there would be an inability to meet the roles laid down for the Canadian forces, those which our defence policy provides as being necessary and with which I agree, that is, the defence of Canada itself, our NATO obligations and commitments, the air defence of the North American continent under NORAD, and assistance to the United Nations. Practically all these people gave as their view that a single, unified force would not be able to meet all these commitments, or meet them effectively. This is the direct contrary, of course, of the belief expressed on Wednesday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The third general heading under which they thought there were military disadvantages in unification was in regard to our ability to co-operate with our allies. They said that with a single, unified force, and with all the allies with whom we have to work who have their forces organized on the basis of a navy, army and air force, co-operation with our allies would be much more difficult and much less effective than has been the case in the past.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The fourth general group of reasons could be put under the heading of a decline in expertise. Nearly all these people believed that with the disappearance of the three separate services there would be a gradual decline in the amount of expertise in naval, land, and air warfare and as a result a gradual decline in the general effectiveness of the forces.
The fifth of these general military disadvantages was that insufficient expert knowledge would be available to the minister in national defence headquarters and on the staffs of commands. Those were the general

areas of military disadvantage which all these people thought would result from unification.
Once more I should like to refer to some of the evidence given in that regard. First of all I will refer to Air Chief Marshal Miller. After asking him whether he saw any military advantages in unification I went on to ask him the following question:
Do you see any military disadvantages flowing from it?
He answered me in this way:
The disruption is an unknown factor, and one which I have always rated rather highly. I did not want to have anything occur that would cause disruption in the services. I felt a lot of careful planning was necessary, and that probably time to educate people was required before the next step of unification was taken.
Then the following exchange ensued:


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have had a considerable amount of evidence here in regard to the amount of time that will be required to fully integrate materiel commands, the technical services and various others of the functional commands, and it has been raised that this will range from three to five years.
In your view, do you think there should be a period of something like three to five years to consolidate the integration measures before any further steps could logically be taken?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: That is my feeling completely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, there should be a pause at the present time.
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Let us get the integration process further along the road before we rock the boat.
I could go on with more along that line but I will leave it at that point. The evidence is absolutely conclusive. It was the opinion of Air Chief Marshal Miller that unification should not be proceeded with at the present time. In view of the position that he occupied for so long and in view of the fact that he was the chief architect under the minister's direction in putting integration into operation, I think we have to pay very serious attention to what he has said. I think members of this house should be very wary of proceeding in disregard of his advice and his evidence.
I asked General Fleury the same question, namely:
Do you think there are any military disadvantages in the formation of such a force?
He replied:
I do indeed, and I think I have already outlined some of them. How we are going to operate in conjunction with our allies in the future is certainly one that looms very large in my mind. I do not know that this is going to have nearly the impact, in this and other areas, on the army and the air force as it will on the navy. I cannot for the life of me see how the navy, which has
April 7, 1967

traditionally and of necessity worked much more closely with allied navies than it has with either of the other Canadian services, will be greeted when they put into port A or port B or port C.
He goes on to describe what he envisages is likely to be the embarrassing position and the difficulties which will ensue if unification is proceeded with and the naval people are put into a uniform which has no connection with the sea. Then I went on to say:
I must say that I agree with you. You consider that there would be a decline in the specialized military expertise of people in the sea environment, the land environment and the air environment once you had this unified force?
General Fleury then said:
Well, this is one of the areas I cannot see my way through at all. We have not yet recruited into the armed forces, as I see it, the calibre of genius who can command a squadron of fighter-bombers, a flotilla of destroyers and a regiment of tanks. Obviously, you are going to have to have a great deal of specialization, therefore what do you accomplish by insisting that everybody sort of looks alike and belongs to one force? Even in the army, I need hardly remind you, we never insisted that everybody be called "private". We had privates and we had drivers and we had gunners and we had sappers. They were all paid as privates and they all looked like privates, but they carried a variety of titles and names. If this works in a single service I cannot for the life of me see why it should not work with three services.
I think I have perhaps trespassed long enough on the time of the committee so I will conclude my remarks by saying that with the great bulk of the evidence being against unification, and particularly against unification at the present time, I appeal to the government and to members of the house to pay due attention to the opinions of men whose lives have been dedicated to the service of their country and who spoke with great feeling and conviction on these matters. As General Fleury said, I do not think there is any advantage whatsoever, and certainly none has been demonstrated, in doing away with the three services by unifying them into one. On the other hand, there are all the disadvantages which have been brought out. I think it would be doing a grave disservice to Canada's armed forces and to Canada's security to proceed with this measure and therefore I hope that the bill will be withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, anybody who hears me speak today on the subject of the armed forces might perhaps say "he should be certified" as I have had no military experience since the days in 1922 when I was in the officers' training corps at the University of Manitoba before many of the members

National Defence Act Amendment of the house were born. I have never had any doubt that a great strategic career in the armed forces was thwarted by the obsolete and ridiculous rule which the war office had in those days that one ought to be able to hit a target with a Lee Enfield rifle or one was not fit to command troops. I could not hit the target at the old St. Charles range in Winnipeg so I was wiped out of the armed forces and denied the possibility of having as distinguished a career in the last war as has the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, the hon. member for Calgary North.
I will not presume on my experience in any war to express any views on this matter. I cannot forbear from pointing out, that on the basis of the standard on which the hon. member for Calgary North put this matter, next to the Prime Minister I am probably the greatest expert in this house on the relations between politicians and officials, because he and I have both been officials and politicians longer than anyone else in the house and, if expertise depends upon length of service, and even in the case of the Prime Minister upon distinction of service, this constitutes a qualification. Of course I do not accept the view of the hon. member for Calgary North on this point. I think that the fact that somebody has sat in a chair in a particular position for 20 years may have the exact opposite effect from the one that he seemed to suggest. It seems to be his view that nobody who did not fight in the last war is entitled to have any opinion about how one should organize the defence forces which now, as I understand it and as I have understood ever since the North Atlantic alliance-
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are putting words into my mouth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member says that I am putting words into his mouth but he is so good at putting words into his own mouth there is no necessity for me to duplicate the process.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Words are better than a foot.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will listen to me with the same respect and attention as I always listen to him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I seldom learn much but I will listen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is good exercise, especially when, like me, you have only one
14G66	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment good ear. However, I rose to say something about the rather extraordinary position taken by the hon. member for Calgary North about serving officers. He suggested that serving officers should not comment on policy. He referred to Admiral Landymore, and I must say I do not have the rather low view of Admiral Landymore the hon. member apparently has, when he suggests the admiral stayed in the service when his testimony was being changed. If that is his view of Admiral Landymore he is entitled to have it. However, it is not mine. I do not mean to cast aspersions on any officer.
My view is that we would be a lot better off in this house if we assumed that there was the same high sense of duty, the same honour and the same honesty in the service witnesses, both those who have retired from the service and those who are still in it, that we assume about ourselves in this house. Instead of casting reflections and indulging in personalities during this debate we should assume, unless there is concrete, detailed evidence to the contrary, that all of those who have given evidence have done so honestly according to their lights.
I must say I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North completely in what I take to be his view, namely, that witnesses who are officials are to be expected to provide evidence when they are called before a parliamentary committee on questions of fact but not on questions of policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is my position exactly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that applies equally to any official who has recently left the service if he has been in a confidential relationship with a minister. It is surely just as wrong for someone who has recently retired and who, as in the case of some of these witnesses, is still on retirement leave, as it is for serving officers, to express views about policy merely because he disagreed with the views of the minister. Otherwise, of course, you simply stack the cards totally against any policy. You say that anyone who is retired may disclose all the secret discussions that took place in the formulation of policy, but someone who is still serving must do nothing of the kind. If this rule is followed you will inevitably get a preponderance of evidence on one side, but that will mean absolutely nothing.
I take the view, and in this respect I am perhaps more conservative, with a small "c", than the hon. member for Calgary North-I

DEBATES	April 7, 1967
was going to say a British view but that is an old fashioned word-


Gordon Minto Churchill: A Liberal cannot use that word.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I have pretty good titles as a Liberal, and I use British in a certain sense as opposed to other forms of democratic government. I take the view that officials should be seen but not heard on questions of policy. However important it is to have expert advice before a decision is made, once a decision is made that decision is the minister's. A minister who is not capable of making a decision should not be a minister. The idea of parliament prying, probing and trying to get at the advice the minister received instead of discussing the question on its merits, without any of these personalities and without any of these comparisons, some of which are rather odious, of one person with another, does not seem to be an effective way of reaching a conclusion.
In so far as the question of unification is concerned, I have listened carefully to most of the citations of the evidence before the committee given by the hon. member for Calgary North and I must say that most of it was sheer opinion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You should read it all; it would do you good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman has read all the evidence before the transport committee or is willing to read it over the week end, I would make a bargain with him. Otherwise, I do not intend to. Many hon. members voted on the transport bill without examining all the evidence in the committee and many members, including me, are going to vote on this bill without examining all the evidence. This is inevitable under our parliamentary system when complex questions are before us.
All I am saying is that I believe that if we are going to have recently retired senior officers who have advised the minister in a confidential way exposing this advice to the public gaze and we are going to say at the same time that no serving officer shall express any view about the policy he is directed to carry out, then we are weighting the scale predominantly on one side. This is all I am saying.
It seems to me this fact has escaped the notice of many hon. gentlemen opposite. However, I suggest that it does not matter vitally. This is not a question, really, of expert military knowledge at all. I believe that
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
with respect to integration it may well be that it is quite important-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: What are we
on?


John Whitney Pickersgill: For whom the bell tolls.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Are we talking about transport now? Have I missed something.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am just speaking as an ordinary member of this house-


Thomas Miller Bell: Very ordinary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -trying to restore the balance a little bit.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Every inch a sailor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right. I must say one does not necessarily have to wear a blue uniform to be a good sailor. I know something about that.


Thomas Miller Bell: As one landlubber to another.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point I am making is that in so far as the progress on integration is concerned, that has been going on for three or four years and the evidence of military experts is, of course, of great relevance. However, in so far as unification is concerned it has no relevance whatever. I want to repeat that. The evidence of experts is of no relevance whatever because there are no experts. There never has been, under modern conditions at least, a unified military force. It is like every step forward, and I believe this is a step forward; it is a step into something in which nobody has any experience. I suggest that generally we are apt to get the most imaginative views from young people who have a sense of adventure and not from people who fought the last war, however gallantly. I say that as one of those who, like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, is rather a "has been". I recognize that I, like the hon. gentleman, who was born like me practically in the 19th century, have moved steadily more slowly, and as in the case of the hon. gentleman sometimes even backward.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not turn somersaults though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is well known that there were colonels, brigadiers and even generals
National Defence Act Amendment who were in their thirties in the last war. Why was this the case, instead of taking the people who had fought in the first world war? It was because they wanted youth, they wanted imagination, they wanted people to be looking forward. For that same reason, sir, I suggest-


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Will he name the most successful generals, British and American, in the second world war and tell me whether or not they fought in the first? Now, come on, you are a military expert.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would arrange with the C.B.C. or C.T.V. to
conduct a quiz program on which both of us would appear, I would appear with him at any time and answer his irrelevant questions. All they indicate is that he is moving further backward all the time. Like every military critic who has opposed every advance, the hon. gentleman wants to fight the last war or the war before the last.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are just so ignorant, that is all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that we do not want-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let me ask the minister another question. He is having a lot of fun making fun and casting supercilious remarks about people who participated in warfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I can stand a lot of this nonsense and I am not thinking of myself, but there is a limit to this. Was it my good fortune or was it my ill fortune to serve in two world wars? I could have sheltered in a university in the first world war and I could have sheltered at home because of age in the second world war. Let us get away from this nonsense, this casting of aspersions on people who were fortunate enough to survive. I did nothing of any extraordinary capacity at all; I just happened to survive. But is that something that is wrong? I am fed up with this stuff from non-combatant people who are making fun of fighting men.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. gentleman has just said is the best argument I can think of for the point I was making, which was that we should keep personalities out of these debates and that we should discuss this question exclusively on its merits. I am not going to defend my lack of
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment record in the first world war and I am not going to defend it in the second world war. I made one or two jocular references to my experiences in the O.T.C., and it is my misfortune that I could not hit the target and the hon. gentleman could. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had one of the most distinguished military records in the second world war.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, not distinguished; I make no such claim.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never questioned and I have never intended to question his devotion and service to his country. If I said anything, in a somewhat facetious and jocular fashion, that implied this, then I withdraw it unreservedly and I apologize to the hon. gentleman because there was no such thought or intent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the minister very much. But when I spoke in rather a personal fashion I was not speaking for myself, because I do not care much what is said around here. However, I am disturbed about the attacks that are made upon men who served much better than I did in both wars. People are making scurrilous remarks about them, talking about them as being out of date and all the rest of it. They are attempting to pretend that these men were not good servants of their country, and that is what I object to.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to defend them in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman may object if he likes, but there is nothing that I said along that line except a rather jocular reference to him personally. If it was misinterpreted I withdraw it unreservedly. All I was saying was that when there really was a war on there was very rapid promotion of young people because it was felt that in battle, notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's record, young, vigorous and imaginative people were needed-and I do not think anyone questions that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was a question of endurance to a large extent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Maybe it was. Perhaps this is not a very good or strong argument, but whatever it may have been it does go back to the point that I have been trying to make all along, that I suggest the subject of unification

should be divorced from all these questions about whether this expert is better than that expert or the other expert and looked at on its merits as a possible course of action in itself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what we have been doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We should not say that my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence, who although he was very young in the last war did serve in the forces, is incompetent and incredible, as I think some hon. gentleman said, merely because his age was such that he could not become a general or even a colonel during the last war. It seems to me that that is totally irrelevant; and I hope that members on both sides of the house will cut out all this kind of thing from now on and concentrate on the point.
The point is really a very simple one. The point is that, having regard to the conditions in 1967 and the conditions we envisage until 1972 as far as we can envisage them by trying to penetrate the mists of the future, would it be a good idea or would it not be a good idea to have a single, unified armed force instead of three services? That is the sole question involved in this debate. Ridiculous considerations such as the colour of the uniform and even the titles of the ranks seem to me to be totally irrelevant to the basic question which is; Will it be better to have one unified force or will it be better to continue to have three services?
On this question, Mr. Chairman, I do not pretend to have any views that are worth contributing to the committee and therefore I am not going to express any views on that subject. But this is the question that we have to settle. That question, I repeat, under our British parliamentary system, is not to be settled by generals, however eminent, or admirals, however distinguished their service, or civil servants. It is to be settled by politicians, and by politicians who were elected by the people. That is the way our British system works. The decisions have to be made by the government of the day and the government has to stake its reputation and life upon them.
If the minister accepts the wrong advice and adopts the wrong course, of course he should be defeated. But we should not confuse the issue and avoid discussing the issue itself by engaging in this measuring of the evidence of this witness or that witness who may or may not have given a piece of advice.
April 7, 1967	COMMONS


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The really important thing is whether, on balance, in the judgment of those in this house who have to make the decision, our proceeding with another stage of this policy is the right decision or is not the right decision. I noted the words of the hon. member for Calgary North.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Calgary North took some words from the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller who said that we should consider everything carefully before we took the next step. I do not know whether that was just a lapsus linguae on the part of Air Chief Marshal Miller, but the next step is not a step that you do not contemplate taking. I wondered whether by saying "the next step" Air Chief Marshal Miller was not admitting that in fact unification was the next logical step but that it was merely a question of timing. That might be so. There may be many different views on that point, but that is not the point of the bill.
Everybody knows that, if this bill passes, there will not be any change from yesterday to tomorrow and that the process of unification will be a slow one. It will take several years. The minister has said that on several occasions. It should not be assumed that the minister or any member of the government is trying deliberately to decrease morale or to make the armed forces less effective or anything of that sort. All I say is, let us try to look at this question on its merits, without personalities colouring it, and let us assume that we all are anxiously trying to reach the best possible conclusion for the Canadian people in this difficult aspect of our public affairs.
This is perhaps a more difficult measure in many ways than any other. All other activities of government are, so to speak, civil activities. This is an activity where a certain line is drawn between military and civil life, but in all British countries and in all free countries, civil primacy has always been a requirement. I am sure no one on the other side of the house has any more desire to change that situation than has anyone on this side of the house. I am not suggesting that 23033-928
National Defence Act Amendment anyone has that desire. All I am saying is, let us look at this question on its merits. Let us try to forget our emotional feelings about it and let us see whether this objective is not a sound one. If it is, then let us have whatever safeguards are necessary for there to be the time required to reach that objective. If, as Air Chief Marshal Miller suggests and as has been suggested by others, timing is important and if all we are debating is the time at which we should take the step, it seems to me that much of the feeling generated in this debate is rather misplaced.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister a question. As I understood the proposition he put, it was that no senior retired officer, civil servant, official or other person who has been in a confidential position should be free after retiring to express his personal views in regard to matters or to give evidence with regard to them? Is that the proposition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I think the hon. member has overlooked a subtle difference. I did not question their right to give evidence. I think what I said was that if those who have retired gave evidence opposed to the policy and if serving officers were not able to give evidence in support of the policy there would be a preponderance of evidence opposed to the policy. That would not prove anything except that the serving officers could not give evidence and that those who had retired could. I did not question the right of retired officers to give evidence. I merely questioned the effect of their giving it upon the preponderance of military evidence. That is all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the hon. gentleman if his proposition is not directly contrary to what has been British practice for the last 150 years? Sir Winston Churchill, Lord Alanbrooke and goodness knows how many other prominent people who took part in the first and second world wars have published books and reminiscences giving details of discussions that went on. At the same time it has been completely accepted that serving officers and civil servants shall not under any circumstances be called on to express views about a policy being followed by the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not question anything the hon. gentleman has said. I go back to my original point. If you have a controversy about policy and if certain officers or officials because they disagree with that policy retire and express their disagreement, with those
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment still in the services being inhibited from expressing their agreement-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is our system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not questioning the system. All I am saying is, if you have a lot of evidence on one side and no evidence on the other that proves nothing. That is all I am saying. I am not saying whether this is a suitable or good rule.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the minister maintaining that the evidence does not prove anything?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am maintaining that if the witnesses on the one side of the case are allowed to speak and the witnesses on the other side are inhibited by the rule from speaking all the evidence will be on one side. That is all I am saying.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Inasmuch as the witnesses on the one side are all witnesses who have retired recently because of their disagreement, would the minister not say that their evidence should carry weight and that it proves their case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the same token I would say that because all the officers who are now in the forces have remained in the forces, whether they give evidence or not it shows that they are all in favour of the policy. That argument would be about as logical as the argument of the hon. gentleman, and just as unimportant, I might add.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the minister was never a prisoner of his pension.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could I put a question to the minister? I cannot help saying that I am surprised at the minister, a historian, taking such an unhistorical position. The minister is now forming a coastguard training school and is trying to interest people to look toward the sea in its many aspects. As a Newfoundlander does he not feel that the submerging of the identity of those who serve at sea will be a retrograde step? I appreciate what the minister said about young people but surely in wiping out the separate identity of the navy an obstacle to the minister's intentions is being created.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman should not have included his preamble because he may get a speech in return.


Thomas Miller Bell: That may have been my speech in this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I remind the hon. gentleman that history would be very dull if it were nothing but repetition. It is because, once in a while, something new is done that history is interesting. I say this just to deal with the hon. gentleman's preamble. No, I do not, of course, agree at all with the view of the hon. gentleman. If I did agree with it I would not be in the government and I would not be supporting my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence, in his bill. I believe quite strongly-and I say I believe because I have no expert testimony-that it will be just as easy to have pride in belonging to a single, unified Canadian force as it would be to have pride in belonging to the Canadian Navy, Army or Air Force. I believe that quite strongly. I also believe that in the absence of the artificial boundaries which now exist between the services-and we know that many people do not choose their right calling at the beginning-there will be better scope for the most effective use of the manpower required by the forces because there will be the widest possible field of choice open to those who are recruited.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Then why do we need a coastguard training school for young fellows going to sea?


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. The time allotted to the hon. gentleman expired a while ago and unless the hon. member for Queens wishes to relinquish his time-


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I will not be diverted for long by what the Minister of Transport has said. I found his comments interesting, humorous in some places and in others perhaps ill-considered. But with regard to the evidence given by serving officers before the committee it is obvious that it was limited to evidence which does not contradict government policy.
Generally speaking, and I am sure this applies to the Department of Transport, if a senior official of a department appears before a committee with regard to something which involves government policy it can be assumed that he was asked for his advice on the technical considerations which led to a decision as to what policy should be followed. But this has not been the case in connection with this legislation. This is why senior officers are disturbed and unhappy. This is why 79 officers of senior rank got out of the armed services before the normal retirement age.
April 7. 1967


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Many of them young men.


John Angus MacLean: That is true. This is why we on this side of the house have such grave reservations about this legislation and about this policy.
I was shocked to read some of the evidence which was given in the defence committee with regard to the question of advice. I shall refer to one passage in this connection, to be found at page 2328. The witness on that occasion was Air Chief Marshal Miller, the chief military adviser to the government until a very few months ago. Here is the extract from the evidence that I should like to read:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did you have an opportunity as chief of the defence staff to discuss with the defence committee of the cabinet, or with the Prime Minister, the proposal with regard to unification?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: As far as I am aware -and I would not absolutely swear to this without checking records-I never discussed the problem of integration with the cabinet defence committee or with the Prime Minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And unification? You say integration.
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Integration or unification.
So the chief military adviser to the government, according to his own evidence, was not asked to discuss this most important change in policy with the cabinet before the policy was ennunciated, a shocking situation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, I think I should set the record straight once again on this matter. The white paper on the policy of integration-unification as envisaged at the time the white paper was published and presented to the House of Commons, was discussed on two occasions by the cabinet committee on defence and the cabinet took a decision with respect to the total policy after hearing the views of the chiefs, Air Marshal Miller and the senior staff at headquarters when he was chief of defence staff. He did not discuss this present bill with the cabinet committee on defence. That was done later by the present defence staff, because the bill was prepared subsequent to the changes in personnel which took place last summer. The concept of unification-integration-and both words were used in the white paper as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-was referred to the cabinet committee on defence and discussed there and the decision was taken after hearing the views of the chiefs, and I can assure the committee that their views were expressed in some depth.
National Defence Act Amendment


John Angus MacLean: I might say first of all that this is not a question of privilege. In the second place I should like to point out to the minister that Air Chief Marshal Miller was chief military adviser to the government at the time the white paper was produced.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And his views were heard.


John Angus MacLean: I have put the evidence on record as it was given.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then you might put the correction on the record too.


John Angus MacLean: I am not responsible for the evidence given before the committee.
I was interested in the proposition put forward by the Minister of Transport that we should examine this issue in an objective manner, weighing the merits of the case. I agree with the hon. gentleman 100 per cent and I should like to say that this is the very argument the opposition has been making right from the start of this discussion. My view of the supporters of the government is not so low as to think that if this question had been discussed in caucus, and the pros and cons of it evaluated before the policy was announced, this bill would have ever seen the light of day. This was not the sequence of events.
My reason for rising at this time is to make my own position clear. I said during second reading that it would have been better if the subject matter of the bill had been referred to the committee so that it might have been studied in an objective way before the minister and his supporters locked themselves into and inflexible position laid down in black and white in this bill in terms from which in his judgment there could be no retreat. Speaking on second reading, as reported on page 12544 of Hansard, for February 1, I said:
All the opposition ask in connection with this very important matter of unification is that it be thoroughly examined, that we have the evidence of witnesses, without prejudice, without trying to force the outcome one way or the other. If unification has the merits the government claims for it, it will stand up under that examination. If it has not, it should not be perpetrated upon the Canadian people.
I still maintain that position.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
When the defence committee, after the House of Commons committed itself to accept the principle of unification, considered the question, the evidence given to it was overwhelmingly against unification. I do not think
14672	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment any objective person can quarrel with that statement. I am not saying that all the evidence was against unification, but the great preponderance of it was. The evidence presented by expert witnesses has demonstrated that unification does not have all the merits claimed for it. It will not produce the economies claimed, and I could quote much evidence to that effect if I wished to take up the time of the committee. I shall just give one short quotation to this effect, to be found at page 1452 of the evidence:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would you agree that in order to carry out the roles at present laid down for our defence forces, a navy, an army and an air force of some sort is required, whether you call these forces by that name or not?


Mr.   Hendrick@: I do, indeed, I believe that the existence of fighting forces in the media of the army, navy and air force, by any name, which are unique and trained and not interchangeable with the others, will always be necessary in a military force.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you see any advantage in doing away with our present three forces and putting them into one force called just a defence force?


Mr.   Hendrick@: Not the slightest bit; it baffles me completely. I think the economies could be achieved by much more simple means and I do not understand the advantages of this proposal at all.
Similar evidence was given to the effect that unification will damage morale and there is evidence in the bill itself to this effect; otherwise clause 6 would not be included. If this bill were as popular with the armed forces as the minister claims, our airmen, sailors and soldiers would be only too anxious for the day to come when they could rejoin the unified force. There would be no need for compulsion. They would be itching to become "unimen", or whatever you want to call them, and cease being sailors, airmen and soldiers, but there seems to be some suspicion that this may not be the case because there is a clause in the bill that says they have no choice. There is going to be compulsion in that the bill says: "Bingo, as soon as this becomes law you are in a unified force whether you like it or not, regardless of what service you joined when you became a serviceman." The bill introduces a form of compulsory service which has been traditionally alien to our armed forces except in one or two cases of dire national emergency.
There is also evidence, which I could quote at length but I will not, to the effect that unification of our armed services will increase the difficulty of working smoothly with our allies in military combination because our system will be entirely different from that of

DEBATES	April 7, 1967
any other ally with whom we are associated. In this connection the evidence given by General Moncel is interesting. I was a member of the defence committee at the time he was giving evidence and I asked him this question, as recorded at page 1320:
Do you believe that our opportunity to gain from the experience and resources of our allies, which you mentioned some time ago in reply to a previous question-chiefly, Great Britain and the United States-will be lessened if we have an entirely different organization in the form of a unified force?


Mr.   Moncel@: Of course, it will. I will give you an example. When I was vice-chief there was a large and important conference down in the United States, which the vice-chief of the air staff would normally have attended. I went off and I was greeted extremely politely by the U.S. Air Force. I knew a lot of them by name, but we could not talk business.
Now, if I had not gone myself, as the vice-chief, who was I going to send? My next available senior air force officer was an air commodore and he would not have cut much ice in that league.
There is evidence of other examples along the same line but I do not want to take up the time of this committee putting them on the record.
I am greatly concerned about the ill effects that the policy of unification will have on our armed forces and on the return which the Canadian taxpayers will get for the money they spend. But I have a deeper concern, of which this procedure is symptomatic, because in this situation we have a government which has proven itself to be completely devoid of objectivity, unaffected by logic, and has not listened to expert advice when forming its policy. We see a government locked on a course which General Moncel has described, I thought extremely well, as follows:
The conditions which I specifically refer to are as follows. At this stage of the operation, the lines were pretty well drawn and its was abundantly clear to me that we were going to force ahead with this process of unification which, to me, appeared to be moving on an uncharted course at a very, very high speed toward a very, very dim destination -
That is the evidence of the man who when he was in the armed services was responsible for planning for the services.
Recently I read a newspaper article which said steps were being taken by the Liberal caucus to allow its backbenchers to become more involved in and informed on government policy before it was announced. If that is the case I only wish it could be made retroactive because I am sure that if the implications of unification had been thoroughly understood by Liberal members this bill
April 7, 1967

would never have been introduced in its present form. They would have realized that this policy is unwarranted.
Many expert witnesses agree with me that unification will be destructive to morale in the armed forces, thus causing the Canadian taxpayers to get a lesser return for their defence dollar. I am somewhat disappointed at the interventions of government supporters in this debate, not because they have intervened but because more of them have not intervened. The course this debate has followed indicates that many supporters of the government are not enthusiastic about the government's policy, and those who have intervened have found it very difficult to provide substantial evidence to support the policy. In many cases they have embarked on sophistry and rhetorical quackery to divert attention from the real crux of the matter.
I am not taking objection to the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West, at least no more than I do to other speeches purporting to support government policy, but let me take an example from that speech to indicate what I have in mind. That hon. member said that the official opposition is not looking for a pause of three to five years but rather for a permanent halt to the modernization of the Canadian military establishment. Because this step is new he ascribes to it the very attractive advertising term "modernity" and says that if one belongs to the forward looking generation it should appeal. The hon. member equates newness with merit. Obviously there is not necessarily a connection between the newness of a thing and its value. As a matter of fact, all the grave mistakes of history, and there have been many, were as modern as tomorrow the day before they were made. I believe we are making yet another grave mistake at this time.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We are now engaged in a program which will provide a unified force with everyone serving in that one force wearing the same uniform. We have yet to hear any compelling or convincing argument why this should be so. As a matter of fact witness after witness, all senior officers when this whole matter was being considered, has said that they were completely at a loss to know why we were embarking upon this policy. Let me quote from only one of these witnesses. The evidence is to be found at page 1452 of the proceedings of the defence committee. This is what was said:


Douglas Scott Harkness: What are some of the disadvantages that you see in it?

National Defence Act Amendment


Mr.   Hendrick@: First of all, if you preserve the fighting forces in the shape it is suggested you are going to, I do not see why you should change their identifications, their appearances and their symbols. There is a lot to be said for loyalties and traditions and the things which motivate men to go and take hazard. This is a long, historic thing and everybody, I think, will accept it and there is no reason to change these motivating things.
I think it is also essential for the fighting man to have a leader-someone he can look up to-a leader whom he knows has been through the mill; somebody who he can identify as part of his team. That is why the chiefs of staff being done away with for an army, a navy and an air force is such a sad thing, in my view. The junior officer, the airman, the soldier or the sailor does not have his outfit that he can look up to and, if he is an officer, even aspire to succeed. All this is part of having a viable force that has an esprit de corps and a purpose. It has been done this way for many, many years and there are very good reasons for it and I do not see what we gain by upsetting it.
I agree with that point of view and I am at a loss why we should have-I was going to say a navy but that will be lost-men acting in the role of sailors who will be different from sailors of any other navy in the world. Sailors of every navy I know of are recognized immediately as sailors. There may be a difference in the details of their uniforms depending on whether they are French, British, Russian, Japanese, German or Chinese, but they still wear navy blue. That seems to be traditional and these men can be immediately recognized as sailors. They take a pride in being seamen.
Ordinarily when the electorate puts a government into office, regardless of the party constituting the government it has the right to expect that when important decisions are made all the evidence will be carefully weighed and the whole situation will be looked at objectively. The electorate has the right to expect its government not to fly in the face of reason against the overwhelming weight of evidence. The electorate which put this government into office has misplaced its trust in this regard.
We are now embarking upon a tremendously important policy but this government has not recognized the right of the electorate to have the matter looked at objectively as to its merits and demerits. National defence is a very expensive proposition. It should not be a toy to be played with by one man or a group of men without all the technical and expert advice obtainable. In round figures Canadian defence requires the expenditure of $1J billion per year. If one says a billion dollars fast most of us associate the figure with a million
April 7. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment dollars. A billion dollars is a tremendous amount of money. Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean by something said by a United States congressman. He suggested that if someone gave his wife $1 million and she spent $1,000 per day she would be back for more in three years but if someone had given his wife $1 billion in 500 B.C. and she spent $1,000 per day from then on she would still not be back for more. We sometimes forget that $1 billion is one thousand million dollars.
This is the time we should consider the gravity of what we are doing. There is a great deal of evidence to indicate that what we may be doing is spending $1J billion half as effectively as we should. The expenditure of that much money places a terrible onus on parliament and it should be taken seriously.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is being spent about 10 per cent more effectively.


John Angus MacLean: The minister suggests that it is being spent 10 per cent more effectively. That is the kind of statement we hear from time to time without proper substantiation. As I said, the evidence, as I understand it, is contrary to the minister's statement. No evidence has been given that unification, even in a theoretical sense, could be advantageous. It is true, of course, that articles in the press have said that the Minister of National Defence is an activist who likes to get things done. He introduced integration which was in process anyway. We agree with integration, and always have. But I think this notion of his being a great activist always doing something spectacular has perhaps gone to his head a little. The minister has taken this as a compliment and it is not necessarily so. Even a bull in a china shop is an activist. It depends on whether what you are doing makes sense. That is what qualifies one to take spectacular action.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I can see the minister, in the competitive atmosphere in which he finds himself, picking up the morning paper and discovering, or perhaps knowing beforehand, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, for example, is going to introduce a minimum income bill. I can imagine the minister saying to his executive assistant: We have to do something spectacular today to get the headlines, to stay in the news. Let's scrub the navy today, abolish the army tomorrow, have a general or an admiral for breakfast every day in the process and eventually do away with the air force.

I think this matter is too important to treat in this way. If the minister wants to be an activist we could find him some type of activity that would not be so expensive to the taxpayers. I have nearly finished my speech, Mr. Chairman; I suppose my time has almost expired. We could find the minister some activity which would be less damaging and less costly to the Canadian taxpayer. Perhaps this week he could climb Mount Kennedy in a green uniform and next week he could set out from Halifax to Esquimalt, sailing preferably around the Horn, in a green uniform if he likes. But let him not indulge his whims in regard to something that is costing the Canadian taxpayers $1 \ billion a year without his being prepared to accept the best expert advice available and to convert it into policy in the interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, one of the starting points of the integration and unification program of the Canadian armed forces is the creation of a distinctively Canadian force.
Canada is a young country. In the past we have had the good fortune of obtaining from our founding nations all sorts of information and knowledge which have accumulated through the centuries. But, in the life of every nation there comes a time when things past are no longer suitable or sufficient, where the umbilical cord must be severed. Our armed forces are one aspect of our foreign policy, and our foreign policy differs from that of other countries in the word. So why should this not be reflected by our armed forces?
In the last few years Canada has proved great efficiency through its contribution to maintaining peace and order in the word. This was made possible through our participation to alliances and peace keeping operations. We have examples of such operations in places like Suez, Cyprus, Yemen, Kashmir and the Congo.
As our country grew, particular interests and new requirements developed. Canada acquired a unique gratitude almost everywhere in the world. African, Asian and South American peoples know that we have no territorial ambition and that our only interest, in wanting to keep the peace, is to offer an opportunity to men of goodwill to work toward the solution of the problems of sickness, poverty and illiteracy facing humanity.
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
So why maintain armed forces that look like foreign troops? Why should we not have armed forces that would be really Canadian in really Canadian uniforms, and that would meet Canada's real needs?
As Canadians and taxpayers, we want our armed forces to really represent Canada, ourselves and our interests, and I am sure that many Canadians share my opinion.

During the hearings of the defence committee some hon. members asked: Why should Canada unify her services when no other country has done so? I should like to ask these people: Can Canadians not do something that they need without the assistance and the guidance of a foreign country? Can they not stand on their own two feet or are they still unsure of themselves and their rightful place in the world community? We have the experience, the training, the intelligence and the men to reorganize our forces to suit our requirements to lead the world in defence organization. Why should we hesitate to grasp this opportunity? Why must we always follow and not for once lead? Our participation in two world wars, in Korea and in peace keeping operations has given us as much experience as other countries of the kind that will be useful in the future. We have the calibre of people. Our troops in NATO are recognized as one of the best trained, if not the best trained, contingents within the alliance.
We have the men, men of the calibre of General Jean-Victor Allard, a most distinguished soldier who has been awarded the C.B.E. and four foreign decorations as well as his gallantry awards. He was the first Canadian officer to command a British division, a former vice chief of the general staff, a qualified jet pilot, fully bilingual, a true Canadian, an experienced and loyal officer, as well as a man of foresight and imagination. Any country would be fortunate to have such a distinguished gentleman as the head of the armed forces. We have units such as the famous Van Doos, to name only one-a regiment with numerous battle honours and a record second to none. I believe that the calibre of Canada's armed forces as a whole is second to none but their effectiveness depends on their organization.
It is the intention of the minister and the defence staff to provide the Canadian forces with the most streamlined, efficient structure. There are a number of hon. members who oppose this bill in spite of its obvious benefits.
National Defence Act Amendment I can understand, even if I do not agree with it, opposition to this program when it stems from emotion. For some hon. members who have served in the forces it is a matter of sadness to see the disappearance of the services, and I appreciate that for some it is a matter of genuine regret. But time waits for no man and progress can only be achieved by recognizing problems and producing solutions to fit them. As the minister wrote in November, 1966 in an article in the magazine Saturday Night:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
When tradition overshadows effectiveness, it is time to draw the line. When tradition overburdens our forces so that they cannot be properly equipped we must take another look and decide which is more important. We will continue to retain as many worth-while traditions as possible but not to the detriment of the force as a whole.
Opposition to this bill on emotional grounds is understandable but I cannot condone it. Opposition on logical grounds indicates a lack of information, but opposition to this program when hon. members have had as much information and evidence as has been presented to them by the standing committee on defence is nothing short of obstruction and is a reactionary attitude.
Hon. members should think back to the flag debate. As bitter and acrimonious as it was the result was the production of a national symbol which is appreciated and respected from coast to coast and has become in two short years a symbol of Canadian unity. The same members who opposed the flag are now opposing the unification of the forces, and for the same reasons. They are rooted in the traditions of a foreign country, but I suggest that they are out of step with the times and with the vast majority of Canadians. I predict that the unification of the forces will become a matter of pride to all Canadians in the near future. It will become a symbol of all that is youthful, vigorous and progressive in our country. When I say "progressive" I do not mean Progressive Conservative.
I have one further point which I wish to leave with hon. members opposite for their consideration, and that is the question of expenditures. There have been considerable savings as a result of the integration program, whether or not hon. members choose to recognize it. The fact that we have been able to hold the line in defence spending despite rising costs, particularly in the military field, is a remarkable achievement. We have been assured by the minister, by the chief of the defence staff and by the vice chief that
14676	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment unification will result in an even more efficient organization. As members of parliament we have a direct responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent in the most effective way. I suggest that to ignore the advice of experts as to ways to save money and make this country's armed forces more effective is a very serious dereliction of duty.
I look forward to the passage of this bill because I believe that the unification process will produce a force which will be recognized throughout the world as Canadian, and not just by two-inch shoulder flashes, a force which recognizes and welcomes tradition but is not blinded by it, a force which will create new traditions, new precedents and world leadership in the science of military technology, a force that will be second to none in its ability to change with the time, a force whose uniform will denote members of the most modern up-to-date force in the world, and a force which will be distinctively Canadian and designed to meet future Canadian needs.
f Translation]
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote a very brief excerpt from a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson), during the debate on interim supply, on November 10, 1966:
We are sincerely convinced that the policy of this bill is a wide policy for Canada in connection with defence matters in the future. We are staking our existence as a government on this policy.
Mr. Chairman, that statement made by the Prime Minister reflects the opinion of the members of our party, and you may rest assured that we all stand behind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Langlois: Now, Mr. Chairman, the speakers who preceded me, on the opposition side, have attempted to make us believe that, during the sittings of the committee on national defence, which I attended, the only witnesses in favour of unification were those from the department, and that all the other witnesses, that is former members of the armed forces, former senior officers, were all against the unification bill, that is against the Bill No. C-243.
I should like to remind members of the opposition that retired military men appeared before the committee mainly at the request of the opposition members and not of the government. Second, that they were anxious to tell us at the outset of their testimony-and they were the ones to say it, not we-that

DEBATES	April 7, 1967
they had left the armed forces because they did not approve the unification project. In inviting these military people to appear before the committee on national defence, it was obvious that they would say: We did not approve it. Naturally, since they had retired on that account.
Mr. Chairman, this closes the few remarks I wanted to make.


Mr. Ormision:: Mr. Chairman, normally I would not make any comments on the remarks of a previous speaker but I would like to comment on one sentence in the speech made by the hon. member for Chicoutimi when he said that the arguments of the opposition were rooted in the traditions of a foreign country. This seems absurd to me. Possibly the hon. member might learn a lesson from one of the members of the front bench, the Minister of Transport, when he praised British justice and British attitudes. There is nothing more detrimental to co-operation among the people of Canada than to demonstrate such an attitude in a debate.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Having said that, I should like to remind the Minister of National Defence that he and I have more in common than would meet the eye. Neither of us has achieved field rank in the army but we have been closer to the rank and file, to the N.C.O.'s and the junior officers, than most of those who have taken part in the debate. While it is fine to rely on the remarks of serving senior officers who have presented their opinions before a committee of the house, we seem to forget the thousands in other ranks Who are seldom identified but who have minds and wills of their own. I suppose that when ex-servicemen of the second world war get up to speak on unification they might well be accused of letting sentiment overrule common sense. However, I do suggest that in connection with the unification program there has been indecent haste. There may have been political motivation, but certainly we can think of other situations in which speed is detrimental. I do not suppose there is very much connection between unification and agriculture but when one enters upon the process of changing a dry land farmer into an irrigation farmer one finds that it takes many years. The human element and human nature require a bit of processing. I believe the same situation applies to unification.
Naturally, for the best efficiency of commands I think it is necessary that they be
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
collectively organized at the level where people can work together. When the minister introduced his bill I wondered whether some of the experiences of the past had been analysed sufficiently. Those of us who served in the second world war can recall the innovation of combined services. Certainly this had not been tried to any extent before but it was carried out on many occasions. The three forces worked very well together, and I imagine that today there is a projection of this scheme in the battles being fought in Viet Nam. With the rapid changes being made in the conventional type of fighting, I wonder whether it would not be a good idea to have an observer in Viet Nam at the present time? This might, of course, violate Canada's role in so far as the truce team is concerned but certainly with so much at stake it would seem that the experience Canada might gain through having an observer on the fighting lines would be of the greatest importance when we are in the process of changing the structure of our forces.
When the minister says there is such enthusiasm amongst all ranks, I sometimes wonder what those who have no oppportunity to voice their opinions would say. It is obvious that the junior officer has a great deal at stake. He may feel it is necessary, in order to preserve his position and his pension, to go along with unification. As one who has tried to keep in contact with the forces during the past few years, I can say honestly that I have found all this talk of integration is welcomed. I can recall visiting some of the forces, various branches of the army and navy, and there was no conflict at all. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder about the position of all those officers who are forced into new positions and who are at the same time giving advice to officers under them. They are placed in a position of trying to act with experience and intelligence in that office to which they have been called. Those who are trying to adjust to this new type of unification must find it most difficult. We must commend them for their initiative and for their perseverance.
The minister has made a great deal of the fact that there will be many economies because of unification. I recall one instance where an alleged economy was simply a bookkeeping entry. My mind goes back to the time when the armed forces were relieved of the task of looking after the northwest highway system. Here was a task the army could use to train personnel to handle materials at their command and whereby the troops who
National Defence Act Amendment were employed could operate under various climatic conditions.
In the last few years the northwest highway system has been under the jurisdiction of public works. I remind the minister that in that area there is a great deal to be gained by having the army operate the highway system, in fact just as much as from operating the facilities at Churchill. Much of the defence of Canada lies in the northern area and the ability of troops to operate under severe temperature conditions could be tested very easily on the northwest highway system. It seems ironical that with all the facilities available in that area the work has to be done by public works because the army could be used to the best possible advantage in training troops to work under conditions which might prevail in many parts of northern Canada whenever they might be called upon to defend our country. This is only one area in which I think there might be some improvement. Needless to say, there are others.
I feel that the haste with which the minister is pressing this bill is against all normal requirements. The attitudes which we become aware of in discussing the matter, particularly in so far as junior officers are concerned, are not conducive to promoting the unification of the armed forces at the moment. Integration has been accepted by all and sundry. Certainly a waiting period, possibly longer than the minister has indicated, would be of considerable advantage if the unity of the armed forces is to be maintained.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks on Bill C-243, I should like to state right away that I believe in three or four basic principles. First of all, I should say that parliament is for debating, the opposition to oppose, and that it can be done sincerely on both sides.
Considering this whole debate as objectively as possible, I believe that we have sufficiently debated both sides of the question and that we have had enough opposition. At this point, everyone is thoroughly convinced that nothing would be gained by continuing the debate since all members of the house have already made up their minds and to continue this discussion indefinitely will simply confuse the issue still further. So, the purpose of my contribution will be to call on the good sense of all my colleagues. The government seems determined to stand on their
14S78	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment position. To my mind, they have already accepted some amendments suggested by the opposition. The opposition seems determined to back the government against the wall.
In any case, the question will be settled on division.
Listening to many speakers who preceded me, I was thinking that most of them have repeated things that have already been said a hundred times over, have been printed in the Debates and in the proceedings of the parliamentary committee.
I was recalling, in jest, some sayings in French which are rather concise and pregnant with meaning for instance the following: "Silence is golden." I heard from the government side as well as the opposition side speakers who tried very hard to oppose the evidence given by some senior officers before the parliamentary committee by taking a few words here and comparing them with a few there in order to prove that the statement was illogical or did not make sense. Both sides played that game and it could go for a whole year.
Mr. Chairman, those who are used to debate know that one can get a man hanged by lifting a few words out of a statement and giving it some fancy interpretation; explained by five different speakers, they would mean five different things. That game does not lead anywhere.
I also recalled that other saying to the effect that "Silence is golden". It is a fact that during the present debate, silence would be golden, speech only silvern and that it is costly for the taxpayers. As a matter of fact, when I add up the number of days taken to repeat the same things, the tons of paper used to report and publish our discussions, I feel it is getting to be costly for the country to settle nothing, because I would be most surprised to find one member who has not yet firmly made up his mind and is not ready to vote.
I was also thinking of another English saying: "Too many cooks spoil the broth". If we have too many defence experts who come and express, ex cathedra, their own views on the method that should be used in 1967, 1970, 1975 or 1980, I am sure we will find a great many contradictions, and if the government allowed itself to be stopped by such things it would never manage to find an acceptable solution. I think the question is simply being buried under a deluge of words. It would therefore be wise for everyone to exercise a little self-discipline and say to himself: Fine, we will stop all this, ask for a division and 
DEBATES	April 7, 1967
settle the question; if the government is wrong, it will take the consequences.
I heard things which I find a little childish coming from serious minded people-and I think all the members of this house are serious minded-such as: "Who thought of this plan", insinuating thereby that one fine morning, after a lovely dream, the minister decided to introduce this sort of plan in the house.
Those who have observed the public scene for many years realize that integration and unification have slowly been taking place since the last world war, through natural evolution. The times call for it, Mr. Chairman. It is somewhat childish to ask such questions. Everybody knows that the ministers of this government, as did those of previous governments, are not bringing in such a revolutionary bill without having consulted all the experts at their disposal who, after all, are not all talking through their hats.
And, a little further on, this: This plan should have been prepared by competent people. Mr. Chairman, it is unbelievable that such remarks should be made after all that has been said on the matter. I am referring, for instance, to the statement I made last April 4, as reported on page 14516, speaking of the war service and the vast experience of the commander in chief of our armed forces, Mr. Jean Allard. I outlined an impressive picture, and it is there for anyone to read. Besides, it is an official statement. Mr. Allard is only the spokesman for the whole general staff which includes a lot of experienced officers. Now, to insinuate that they support the government because they do not want to compromise their future, their promotions in the army, is, I think, doing them a great injustice which they do not deserve. Most of them have risked their lives on many battlefields. They have surely proven that they are not fainthearted; besides, they are about to go on retirement. I mentioned the case of Jean Allard because I have known him personally for over 30 years; I know he has the intestinal fortitude to resign rather than advocate measures in which he does not sincerely believe-as others did. But it is permissible to hold different views in such a case, and I say that if the minister-as I said earlier-has relied on the advice of experienced people like Jean Allard and those about him, one can say that his intentions are well motivated.
It was said, a little further, that the minister was being stubborn. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a vicious circle; if the minister was not
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
stubborn in defending his bill, he would be charged with a lack of leadership, with back tracking. He would never be able to satisfy the opposition. I believe, and I speak in an independent way, that he made several concessions to the opposition. He listened patiently to them and I think he deserves a special reward for the virtue of patience which he displayed in listening to everything which is said about him. I saw him squirm in his seat two or three times only. If I had been in his place, I confess that I would have jumped up two or three dozen times to protest.
What is called stubborness is, in my opinion, steadfastness which a leader, in government as ours, should have, which he should display before the nation. That is what the nation expects from its government: leadership and determination displayed by those who have character and know where they are going.
But I did not find it so nice, Mr. Chairman, when they started questioning the integrity of the minister; when they suggested that he was not honest, that he was making false statements. I believe that it is to demean oneself to say such things in this house.
Well, I, for one, Mr. Chairman, would be horrified to hear some day, for instance, that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not a man of his word, that you cannot trust his words, and that the same applies to any other party leader or any crown minister. It would be insulting. Now, then, to hint such things in the course of a debate is to degrade oneself in the eyes of the public, and it is far from enhancing the prestige of this parliament in the minds of those Canadians who are following our discussions.
I like very much how many hon. members opposite have spoken on that bill. Several have maintained the tone of the discussion on a high level; they have brought forward some serious arguments which they sincerely believe. Personal attacks merely contribute to bring discredit not only on those who launch them but also on parliament.
It was stated yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that not one shred of evidence had been brought forward to the effect that the bill would be beneficial. On the contrary, it seems to me that tons of evidence have been brought forward for people of goodwill. The question was asked: "What will happen in the future?" [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We know certain hypothetical circumstances cannot be foreseen with mathematical precision, but if the action we propose
National Defence Act Amendment through this measure is based on the evidence of those who are competent in military matters, who apply their knowledge to our needs in our relations with other countries, I feel we can say that we are adopting a progressive measure.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, this is not new. Since the beginning of time, upheavals have led to change. Let the students of history recall, for instance, how when cross-bows, arrows and spears were replaced by the blunderbuss, by firearms, one would have thought the world was coming to an end. Of course, parliaments in those days did not have as today transcriptions systems to enable the citizens to read in the archives of the heartbreak of those who opposed the change. But history ever repeats itself.
For instance, when the decision to abandon the cavalry was taken, some generals and marshals threw their uniforms away and resigned from the army, with tears in their eyes, their hearts broken, because they realized that another era was disappearing. Periodic evolution is the most normal thing since the beginning of the world.
When the Maginot line was invented, for instance, and troops were forced to dig themselves in like rats, it was such a novel method that governments were brought down. It proved efficient for a time, and then they came up with mechanized war. In fact, one remembers what trouble General de Gaulle stirred up when he tried to explain to a great number of his colleagues, French officers and parliamentarians, how much mechanized war was a necessity. It took him years, and there again governments were defeated. The world finally accepted what was evident, that mechanized war was a must, something essential.
The same thing happened in the field of aviation, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, it is said that Marshal Petain himself did not believe that aviation could be efficient, and this gave rise to homeric debates in the French parliament of that time.
We have the same process today, except that the revolution is deeper. This is the age of nuclear or atomic war; we are in the age of electronics to the extreme and we must give the Canadian army people whose competence will exceed everything we have imagined to date. We will have to co-ordinate the services, to unify them into a central administration, if our armed forces are to give maximum efficiency.
It seems to me that it is obvious, Mr. Chairman, and it seems to me also that those
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment who oppose the bill are dead set against it. In any case, even if those who oppose the bill are convinced that some things are not as they should be, why prolong the debate? Everyone knows that the government will introduce the bill as amended. Everyone knows also that some opposition members will oppose it. Everyone will know what the score is when a vote has been held on the matter. Let us take it as quickly as possible and go on to something more constructive.
Some basic truths should be recalled. The government is there to govern. It must govern. And to govern it must decide what legislation is called for. It comes to an opinion after hearing its experts, its department heads, also the opposition. It seems to me that it has been listening to the latter with great patience but, sooner or later, it must decide that the debate has been going on long enough and put a stop to it. I feel that enough has been said on that matter. Parliament speaks, it is the right of parliament to discuss and that of the opposition to oppose, but the debate must end, especially when it is obvious that it does not lead anywhere.
I do not think that deep down any opposition member feels that at this stage of the proceedings he will be able to bring the government to agree to any major amendment, except possibly on some details, when the bill is considered clause by clause.
Mr. Chairman, if the government is making a mistake, after getting advice from all its experts, after reading the evidence for or against the measure, after taking into consideration advice given freely by the opposition, there is a tribunal to which it will be accountable in the years to come. The electorate is, in short, the court of last resort.
Now we have told the government everything we had to tell them, I think it would be only fair to let the government implement its legislation.
Moreover, I do not think we are asked to implement unification overnight. It seems that this process which began spontaneously before the passing of any legislation, simply by the pressure of things, some time after the last war, and which unfolded itself normally, will have to go on unfolding itself and will not be completed before five, six, seven, eight or ten years.
But the government must be authorized by Parliament to go ahead and implement everything involved in this bill on unification and integration.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want, once again, to challenge the sincerity of those who are opposed to the bill and lengthen the debate; I merely want to point out that by attacking personally the minister, they take an unjustifiable attitude.
Personally I am not under any obligation to any party, to anyone in this house. I must say that I respect most members of this house, at least those I know, and among them, to a high degree, the Minister of National Defence. I admire his frankness, his honesty, his firmness and his patience in spite of all the criticism heaped on him for many weeks.
It is time, in my opinion, to put an end to those endless discussions and ramblings and take some positive action, that is vote, so that we may study the bill item by item and perhaps suggest some minor amendments which will probably be well received, and then proceed with some other piece of legislation.
If I rose today, Mr. Chairman, it was to appeal to all men of goodwill in this house. As a matter of fact, I know that all men of goodwill realize that everything worthwhile has already been said and that not one iota will be changed by extending the debate for hours and days. On the other hand, this will simply help to discredit Parliament a little more in the eyes of the public, at a time when it has managed to rehabilitate itself somewhat through the constructive work done in the last few months.
Even the opposition has been doing constructive work these last few months. Parliament has been rising in the esteem of the public. We should not destroy these achievements by interminable discussions, personal attacks and theories built on perhaps doubtful competence.
As we were saying, now that everything has been said, let us act, let us vote, and the electorate will judge whether this government is right or wrong.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if by having the unanimous agreement of the Progressive Conservative party that I have the floor my credibility will be impugned. I was moved to speak in this debate by statements made earlier by the Minister of Transport, who exhorted hon. members to deal with this matter on its merits. I thought everyone was trying to do so. Judgment on the merits of the legislation differs, that is all.
April 7. 1967	COMMONS
I want to begin by saying that integration, so far as it has progressed, seems to meet with the almost complete support of most people who have considered defence policy and organization. The emphasis on mobility and the acquisition of new ordnance-hardware, as the Minister of Defence calls it-in support of a mobile role has received general and wide approbation.
From my study of defence policy and organization I think what has been achieved in the department during the last three years is commendable. Where commendation is deserved it should be extended: I extend it to the minister here and now.
The acquisition of Provider class vessels for logistic support; to supply our mobile forces with vertical envelopment capability, was logical. I have not heard of anyone in a command position challenging this kind of development. It is a pity, with the consensus which has been reached about integration thus far-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could I ask my hon. friend a question?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend stated to the committee that there seems to be a consensus that most of the things we have done in the last three years have been good, that integration is a good idea that it is producing a more effective force, that it is in the interest of this country, and that we are moving in the right direction. If that is the consensus, and if that is the view held by so many people in hindsight three years later, why would the hon. member now think that our judgment is incapable of producing in the future the kind of progress that we have achieved in the last three years? I say this particularly in view of the fact that some people who are now so strongly in favour of integration and of everything which has been accomplished in the last three years, were not at all in favour of it at the time we began it.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Rather than attempt to reply briefly to the minister I would ask him to bear with me while I try to answer that question in the course of the next 20 minutes. If he is interested in obtaining a reply from me in this connection I will really try to give him one. But it cannot be done in a few sentences or a few minutes.
I say it is a pity that this consensus seems to be disappearing, but there Eire good reasons
National Defence Act Amendment why this should be the case. I, for one, like many members in this quarter of the house, feel myself to be in a very uncomfortable position. We have been placed in that position by the insistence of the minister and his colleagues on proceeding at this time with the bill now before us.
I support the proposition that unification of the armed forces is desirable. However, I must admit that this support is based on incomplete knowledge of the situation; so it has to be qualified, particularly because some of the testimony of the experts in this field has been divided. There is obviously a good deal of disagreement among the experts, and this should be a signal for every one of us in this house to proceed with prudence and caution with respect to this phase of armed forces reorganization. The ordinary mortal when confronted with conflicting testimony by people who presumably are in the know would wish to proceed in a careful, pragmatic and experimental way. The logical course of action when confronted with conflicting testimony would be to proceed step by step, with measured pause and with measured pace. This is a concept which I believe is often popular among certain members of the front bench.
But when it comes to this particular measure hon. members opposite do not seem interested in proceeding with measured pause and measured pace. The Minister of National Defence has left the impression that he will not proceed step by step in the same way as ordinary mortals, but that he had decided to make a great leap forward. Beyond him he has supporters who are making blind obeisance to his command. It is not asking too much to urge this government not to place parliament in the position of becoming a rubber stamp and blindly approving the final phase of this reorganization process without having before it all the available evidence as to the progress made in the initial stages. Unless the minister is prepared to say that integration has proceeded through all its phases and that all the information is at hand for evaluation, he should be prepared to hold this legislation in abeyance until such time as integration has been completed and information has been collected on the basis of actual experience.
Though I support the concept, I still cannot bring myself to approve the pace with which the minister and the government are trying to put this legislation on the statute books. I do not feel there is any great degree of urgency
14682	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment attaching to it. I cannot escape the impression that this measure is being introduced prematurely. The Minister of Transport admonishes us to be dispassionate in our analysis of this legislation and to deal with it on its merits. I ask how this can be done when the merits of the policy cannot be determined with any degree of unanimity by those who are in the best position to know, namely, the senior service personnel.
How can we deal with this legislation on its merits unless we are in a position to analyse all the facts-and we do not have all the facts in our possession because, as I have pointed out, integration has not yet been completed in all its various stages? There is no need to use the language of overstatement; there is no need to impute motives or question the loyalty of career personnel in the armed forces, as has been done. There is no need to talk about the credibility of one officer as compared to that of another. Yet I did hear one hon. member opposite doing precisely this. Unless I am placing a connotation on the word "credibility" which is not warranted, I think the use of that word with regard to evidence given by senior officers who appeared before the committee is altogether unfair.
I wish to join with others who have spoken in this debate in imploring the minister to reconsider this legislation. I ask the hon. gentleman's colleagues to use their influence to this effect. I do so, not because the objective is something with which I disagree but because it would seem to me that the wiser course of action would be to hold this legislation in abeyance for a year, 18 months, or some such period.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why?


Edward Richard Schreyer: There are at least two reasons I can think of. One is simply that there is no urgency about this bill. Unless the government of Canada is considering changing its defence role or trying to renegotiate its commitments within the alliances, there is no urgency. If it is the intention, as I gather from the minister is the case, to maintain unchanged our existing role and our existing commitments, there is no urgency.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One senior officer who appeared before the committee said that the maintenance of our existing commitment and role within NATO would be made more difficult by unifying our armed forces. Unlike other hon. members I do not intend to make specific reference to many

DEBATES	April 7. 1967
of the statements made by senior officers appearing before the committee. That would be fruitless in this debate because in many cases the statement of one senior officer or retired officer is cancelled out by contradictory and opposing statements of opinion by another. But I would like to refer to the argument advanced by the minister, that there is no need to delay unification until integration has been effected, and that unification is not to be regarded as subsequent to integration but really as part of the same cycle.
This argument gets us bogged down in a war of words, in semantics. It is pretty ingenious to say unification is really part of the same cycle as integration, and should not be regarded as coming after it. I can see the minister making that argument, because it was a particular point of emphasis by members of the official opposition. But I think he is really trying to kid us, because even if one wants to use a word such as cycle, as opposed to sequential, the fact remains that cycles do have a sequence. I maintain that with integration, which is presently being worked out, it is no more than logical or reasonable to wait for a period of time to see if it turns out to be as effective as all indications show at present.
On repeated occasions the minister has stated that unification will bring about some economies and savings to the taxpayer. I agree with that statement, but in my opinion the savings that can be realized through unification will not be of the same magnitude as the savings achieved through integration. To suggest that unification will effect savings of comparable or equal magnitude to those effected by integration is overstating the case by a long shot.
There can be only one overwhelming argument in favour of unification and the passage of this bill now, and I digress to say we are proceeding with this legislation in a rather unnatural way. We are proceeding with it at a forced pace. It is legislation that has been introduced prematurely. It offends one's sense of what is logical and reasonable. Therefore any argument in favour of it would have to be very powerful, such as one suggesting that the government had decided on a foreign policy-defence policy combination to the effect that we should re-evaluate and renegotiate our existing military role and commitments. In that case it could be said that it was urgent to proceed with changing the organic structure of our defence forces. However, although the minister has said this may be a possibility at some future time, the
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
fact remains that our policies are the same as they were three years ago.
I believe it was General Moncel who testified that if a political decision were taken by the government to adopt a different role within NATO then a unification policy would make sense, but unless such were the case he could not find any merit in this proposition. I think I have already said that some other officers when testifying said that if we were going to maintain our present role within NATO, then unification would cause difficulty in organization in the sense that it would make it that much more complicated to relate our forces within NATO to those of our allies in that organization.
The other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the military planning committee of the NATO council was in accord with the Canadian policy of unification, and that unification would not impinge upon the contribution of Canadian forces to the NATO commitment. That minister is not in the chamber now, but I would like to know from him, or some of his colleagues, on what basis he made that statement? Did he make it on the basis of some documentation, on an exchange of notes, or on the basis of an impression which he somehow gleaned when speaking to the officials of our allies in NATO, or to officials of the NATO command?
Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs just indulging in some wishful thinking? I do not think we need accept an important assertion like that from him without some indication as to the basis for it. Is it his mere ipse dixit that this is the attitude of our allies in NATO? It is of crucial importance to our understanding and attitude toward this legislation that we know how the officials of the NATO alliance feel about it. If this or any other minister makes the statement that this policy has the support of our allies, he should be a little more specific and indicate the basis for such a statement.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This fact brings me logically to a reference to a speech the other day by the Associate Minister of National Defence, who exhorted and pleaded with us to have faith in the policy of this minister and this government. It seems a bit strange that the associate minister should advise members of the opposition to have faith in this legislation, since it is our prime responsibility to evaluate legislation placed before us to the best of our ability on an analysis of related opinions, data and facts. We have not been given very much in the
National Defence Act Amendment way of hard facts by the minister. He has spoken at great length and at times even with eloquence about changes taking place in the Department of National Defence. He has waxed very enthusiastically about some of them, but most of his remarks have related to integration.
The minister has not explained why it is absolutely imperative to pass this legislation now. He has not satisfied me as to the urgency of this matter. Without such an explanation and unless we are changing basic roles, what possible argument could be made for passing this bill this spring, this summer, or even this year? The minister of defence and other ministers have suggested that unification is something which cannot take place overnight. They ask us to pass this legislation now, in order that full planning for unification can take place, with complete unification being implemented in something like seven, eight, or nine years. That request undermines and defeats their own position and then-desire to pass this legislation now. Unless I am drastically wrong in my understanding of how government departments operate, it seems that the department of defence can now engage in contingency planning. Perhaps that is not the jargon of the defence department but it seems to be an appropriate term.
It is my belief that all government departments are engaged in contingency planning every day of every month. Surely they do not require legislation before engaging in planning in respect of hypothetical circumstances. It would not be a violation of the law of the land or the chain of command if the department of defence engaged in planning for unification within a number of years. They are engaged in that kind of planning now. If I am wrong in that regard I hope someone with an intimate knowledge of what takes place within departments of government will correct me.
Surely the United States department of defence is engaged in formulating long-range plans for any possible contingency of hypothetical circumstance. That department must be actively engaged in planning for the future. The formulation of the framework within which unification will fall can properly take place now. At the present time integration is being implemented at various stages and the department can profit by the experience gained as integration takes greater effect.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.
April 7, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence ol the committee I could complete my remarks in two minutes.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Richard): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: In conclusion, let me say I accept the statements of hon. members opposite that the morale of the armed forces is not low. I am not in a position to say that it is high, but I will accept the assertion that it is good. For that reason, I cannot understand why this bill must be passed immediately. Surely it cannot be argued that we must pass this bill quickly because of a state of uncertainty which is causing some disquietude. Either the morale of our forces is good, or it is bad. If it is good, in spite of the so called period of uncertainty which has existed in recent months, why is there a necessity to put this legislation through at this time?
One is placed in a difficult position in supporting the objective or principle of this legislation, when that support must be based on incomplete evidence. For that reason it is logical and prudent to oppose the immediate passage of the bill until some further evidence in support of the measure comes to light. We should not be asked to support this legislation with a blindness to the differences of opinions and judgments expressed by those who are technically competent to judge. I plead with the minister to make a more comprehensive and conciliatory statement regarding this measure than has been made in the past few days. I do not do so with stubbornness, but with the interest of the nation in mind.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks this afternoon will be parochial. I should like to ask the minister, in the two or three minutes of my time I shall leave to him to tell me why there will be no undue effect in the Halifax-Dartmouth area as a result of base consolidation. I ask the minister to answer that question, in light of the assurances given to the house and the standing committee, as well as to community leaders in Halifax and Dartmouth, by the minister and the associate minister. I want to tell the minister, in case he does not know-I am sure he does-that the people of Halifax are very much concerned about this matter. The minister wonders why at times we question his credibility. This afternoon Fairey Aviation, E.M.I. Cossor, Sperry Gyroscope, and indeed every technical [The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard).]
undertaking in Halifax that has civilian employees at H.M.C.S. Shearwater advised that by April 17 they are to remove these workmen. Mr. Minister, what in the name of all that is holy and good are you doing under the base consolidation program? Air Marshal Sharp, as reported at page 540 of the defence committee proceedings of February 8, answered a series of questions from myself about base consolidation. I said:
I have drawn the inference that the minister has suggested that indeed a base consolidation program is under study.
Air Marshal Sharp: Yes, sir.
On page 542 we got what we thought were some comforting words from you, Mr. Minister. Referring to a statement that had been made by the associate minister, the minister asked me:
Which statement is this?
I replied:
It was the statement-and I can only paraphrase it-in which he gave assurances to the civic community leaders that there would be no undue economic impact from base consolidation in the Halifax area.
Your reply, Mr. Minister, was:
I think this is the fact. It is perhaps not fair to single out Halifax and say, "You are all right" and leave the impression that some other areas are not, but, as I have indicated, because of the singular nature of the Halifax area and the proportion of the fleet which is stationed there, I think that is a fair statement.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Minister-and if you can answer it I am sure I will be grateful, and so will a lot of other people in Halifax-why it is that we have a creeping and very apparent move on the part of the Department of National Defence to remove all the civilian employees from H.M.C.S. Shearwater, or I suppose I should dignify it and call it C.F.B. Shearwater. Why have you done this? Why are you continuing to do it? You said you were not going to do it. Why are you pussyfooting on this question and not coming out and telling us that you are going to close the base? Late last fall we had the spectacle of all the civilian firefighters, some of whom had been working there for many years, being transferred to other centres in the maritimes or to Dockyard. We were told this was a continuing pattern of change within the military concept. It had the effect of removing that phase of civilian employees from the base. And now we have this program which involves over 100 men.
Is the minister suggesting that it is more efficient to bring the aircraft and pieces of
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
equipment that need work done on them down to the civilian plants in order that these repairs may be carried out? Will this bring about greater efficiency and save money? If that is what you are after, Mr. Minister, you had better stand up and tell us, because that is not the impression we have. Indeed, I think any study ever undertaken by any military group in any of the western countries has shown that work contracted for by civilian personnel under an on-base contract is a lot cheaper than when it is carried out by the military people themselves.
We have had the removal of the firemen, and now the removal of all the technical people employed by the various firms at this one base in the Halifax area. What makes this a matter of very grievous concern is the fact that there have been persistent rumours for many months that the balance of the civilian employees will be removed from Shearwater.
I am referring to carpenters, plumbers, and electricians. The rumour is that they will be sent to Dockyard and brought back to the base at Shearwater as and when required.
I can tell the minister.-he knows it and should not have to be reminded by me-that a very serious economic situation is developing in the Halifax area. There is a great deal of uncertainty, confusion, and indeed disgust on the part of the military people. They are fed up, and indeed they would like to see the minister go on with his unification program. Even hell is better than this uncertainty. Stand up and tell us now what is going to be done in this area. Stop pussyfooting. Tell us what bases you are going to close, when you are going to close them and what you are going to do about the civilian employees and the economic imbalance that will be left. You know that 30 per cent of our economy is dependent on these bases, and yet you do things like this.
What are the 100 families going to do? We will lose them from our work force. What will happen to the helicopter work at Fairey? It will wind up at United Aircraft, Montreal. We have had the phasing out of the Neptune program; there are plans for the replacement of the Argus; there have been vague promises that some time later in the year you, Mr. Minister, will call tenders for the first of the new D.D.H.'s. This is already five years too late. I suggest that if the minister had the courage of his convictions, Mr. Chairman, he would stop acting like Hitler did. I say to him, don't be afraid to admit that you have
National Defence Act Amendment made a mistake once in a while. If you admitted this, perhaps the people in Halifax would be happier and your program of nonsensical unification could be accomplished.
I will leave you for a minute, Mr. Minister. I hope you will give me some answer. The people of Halifax are very anxious to have an answer as to what you intend doing with these bases.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I do not really think this intervention has been worthy of the hon. gentleman, and I do not think a reply at this stage of the bill, on something of this nature, would be worthy of me.


J. Michael Forrestall: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.


Mr. McNulty:: Mr. Speaker, may we, by unanimous consent, stand public bills under items 1 to 10 inclusive, and may we consider now item No. 11, Bill C-46 in the name of the hon. member for Carleton?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to standing orders Nos. 1 to 10 and proceeding with order No. 11, Bill C-46?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton) moved: 
Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat I wonder if I could ask him a question. I thought his speech was excellent, if he is not too embarrassed at my saying so; I think he served a highly useful purpose in putting on the record a clear statement of the original purpose of the office. He made reference in the early part of his speech to the resolution on the order paper which provides simply for increasing the number of parliamentary secretaries or parliamentary assistants, as the case may be, beyond 16, the present limit.
Would he be agreeable to having his bill amended to provide for that increase? It would, of course, require that the house revert to public business for the purpose of adopting the resolution required, because of the added cost involved. Would he consider that proposal?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question can be very simply stated. My objective is to get this bill and these principles adopted. I believe that the changes which the government are proposing are equally proper. Whatever technique would achieve this end would meet with my approval. I can only say that I speak for myself alone.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not generally approve of the proposition that in private members hour ministers should speak, but there is a resolution on the other paper dealing with this particular subject. If hon. members will bear with me, I will try to be very brief in my remarks.
The resolution simply asks the house to permit an increase in the maximum number of parliamentary secretaries to one for each minister having a portfolio and two for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The present maximum is 16. Nothing more is involved in the resolution.
As I indicated in my question earlier, I was quite taken, frankly, with the useful purpose served by the hon. member in restating the purpose and function of this office, whether it is called that of "parliamentary assistant" or
Parliamentary Secretaries Act Amendment "parliamentary secretary". I was glad because I am one of those who has had the honour, if you like, or responsibility or privilege, of serving in the two different capacities, that of parliamentary assistant for some years as well as that of minister. I believe that if this office is carefully handled by parliament it can be a great help to our parliamentary processes, both for the reasons offered by the hon. member, as well as for other reasons which I will not presume to take up the time of the house to give at the moment.
I view his bill as acceptable, subject to one problem that confronts me at the moment. We would like to amend the bill to put a ceiling on the number in accordance with our resolution. I am advised by the Law Clerk that this can be done by the house reverting to public business and adopting the resolution. Then when the resolution is adopted, according to the precedent that I have here, the resolution then adopted is referred to the committee of the whole house on the bill, its having been given second reading and referred to the committee of the whole house. Then, Mr. Speaker, when we reach the appropriate clause, an amendment will be moved changing the number, plus imposing the additional financial burden forecast by the resolution.
That is one procedure that can be used, Mr. Speaker. I have quite a lengthy manuscript here from the Law Clerk; and I believe that this is the correct procedure. I also have the precise precedent available. I am quite willing to do this if it meets with the wishes of hon. members. If not, I will not presume to take up more time in this private members hour.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear about this. I do not want to defeat any of the thinking here, but the government's proposal on the order paper is in the form of a resolution which will be followed by a bill.


George James McIlraith: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: By amendment to my bill.


Mr. Lamberl:: The point is that the government's proposal is by way of resolution, which would have to be followed by a bill to amend the Parliamentary Secretaries Act. Because the payment of public funds is envisaged here we must proceed by way of resolution.
14690	COMMONS DEBATES	April 7, 1967
Parliamentary Secretaries Act Amendment
The difficulty I foresee in telescoping the two things is this. Although I may be wrong, my thinking about this is that this government resolution is tied to a particular bill. The provisions in the bill of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) could be brought in because it does not envisage the payment of funds. I doubt very much if we can telescope the two by moving from the government's resolution to my colleague's bill.
I would think we should proceed rather the other way, and I put this forward for consideration. To my mind a bill must follow the government's resolution. Even if the government's resolution were adopted, it could not be imported into my colleague's bill.


George James McIlraith: If I may deal with the point of order that has been raised, I had this matter turned up this morning and I got an opinion on how to proceed from the Law Clerk, as I have said. Undoubtedly, the method suggested by the hon. member could be followed. But the other method that could be used is to give the bill now before the house second reading and refer it to the committee of the whole house. At that stage-or at some earlier stage, but preferably at that stage-the government resolution, which can be dealt with by reverting to public business, would be adopted. Immediately on its adoption the resolution would be referred to the committee of the whole house on Bill No. C-46.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when we come to the relevant clause we then would have the authority, having met the requirements of the resolution stage, to amend the private member's bill on the private member's item of business by changing the number of parliamentary secretaries from 16 to the higher number proposed in the bill which would have been based on the resolution. We can proceed in that way and there is a precedent to substantiate it. That is an outline of the precise procedure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask another question, Mr. Speaker. Supposing the private member's bill which is now before us is accepted by this house; would not the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) then be able to carry on with his resolution at the appropriate time and in the normal way at some future date?


George James McIlraith: No. The difficulty that we then would run into is this. We would have decided in this session to fix the number at 16.

Therefore we will get into the old question of the same question being dealt with twice in the same session, because a decision would have been taken on the point. This is the difficulty with that procedure. It could then be argued that the government's resolution could not be proceeded with this session. That is the nub of the difficulty.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we are fairly close to a new session. If the private member's bill is passed now, it might be only a few weeks before there is a new session, and the government could introduce the measure at that stage. There would be no prolonged delay.
If that is not acceptable I have to say this: I do not think the house should be asked to revert to government business at this stage and give up the private members' hour. There should be no attempt to carry on government business which has only been brought to the attention of the house during the last ten minutes. This is contrary to the practices of the house. We require notice as to when matters will come before us and we were not notified at any time of this.
I do not want to detract in any way from the work of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). I listened with interest to his presentation and will read in Hansard the tables and comparative figures he gave. I hope that he will be given the full credit for the proposal he has brought forward. It appears to make good sense and would correct a situation which should be corrected. I do not think we should go beyond that and attempt to deal with government business enlarging the scope of the private member's bill materially, and bringing in a further matter of debate, the increase in the number of parliamentary secretaries, concerning which there might be considerable expression of opinion in the house when the time for that comes.
I regret that I cannot accept the idea of the Minister of Public Works that we proceed from this stage to government business. There must be some other way of getting around this difficulty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point made by the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), but I wonder if we do not in effect have an opportunity to see a private member's public bill get passed. This is something that happens in this House . of Commons, but not very often. This is centennial year; let us do something different.
April 7, 19S7	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think this proposition might be considered. If we were to revert to public business and take a great deal of time, then of course the arguments advanced by my hon. friend might carry some weight. But if we agree to accept the bill of the hon. member for Carleton and amend it, then it will take only two or three minutes to pass the other resolution. I would assume if we were to approve the procedure suggested by the Minister of Public Works and go into committee of the whole house on Bill C-246, that on arriving at the appropriate clause a minister of the crown would have to move the amendment. The result of the procedure proposed by the Minister of Public Works is that the bill before us would pass, with one amendment being made to it.
The bill itself would do two things. It would change the name from parliamentary secretary to parliamentary assistant and it would change the appointment from being an annual one to being one having "at pleasure" status. In addition to that, the governments' idea of increasing the number of assistants would be added, by an amendment to the bill proposed by the hon. member for Carleton. That would make sense. It would be interesting to see one of our private members public bills getting through. Let's do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: That the bill be read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Richard Albert Bell: In view of the manner in which the house has dealt with the bill might I ask for unanimous consent that it now be referred to the committee of the whole house rather than to another committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is automatic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: As I
understand it, it has been suggested that the other resolution be brought forward at this time.


Richard Albert Bell: My remarks refer only to this bill.
Parliamentary Secretaries Act Amendment


George James McIlraith: It was suggested that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole house. That we may be clear about the procedure, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the motion should be that this bill be referred to the committee of the whole house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, this is a private member's public bill and the automatic referral is to the committee of the whole house.


George James McIlraith: I stand corrected.


Richard Albert Bell: I stand corrected, also. I have been misled.


George James McIlraith: For the purposes of regularizing the procedure, this is the stage at which I would ask to revert to public business to move the resolution standing on the order paper dealing with this subject. If that is not agreeable to the house I would have no objection, because this is a somewhat unusual procedure. But this is the point at which it should be done. It requires unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it
agreed that the house revert to public business?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I raised my objection earlier and I do not want to be pressed on this. I am quite content to proceed with the bill presented by the hon. member for Carleton, but not beyond that.


George James McIlraith: In view of that I withdraw my request.
The house in committee, Mr. Richard in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Short Title.


John Ross Matheson: I wish to say a word on clause 2.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like to endorse from a personal point of view exactly what we heard from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). I think that we have heard today an extremely thoughtful speech. The fact that this bill was on the order paper impelled a number of members to carry out research to some extent into the office of parliamentary secretary, originally that of parliamentary assistant. What has been presented to the house is so factual and well documented that it almost
14692	COMMONS
Parliamentary Secretaries Act Amendment compels most of us now to remain in silence. This was a very scholarly address we heard, and a useful one from a comparative point of view.
My predecessor as parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, (Mr. Davis) was able to carry out duties of a unique character, as I saw them, during the period at the beginning of the present administration while I was serving as chairman of the standing committee on external affairs. My predecessor as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, a man who holds five university degrees to the level of doctorate, high post-graduate degrees in different disciplines, was able to devote many thousands of hours of work for Canada at the time of the exhaustive study which was being conducted into the Columbia River treaty.
It was not easy for a new administration to step in and discuss adequately at the political level an arrangement which had been the subject of months of research by the previous administration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is a matter of opinion.


John Ross Matheson: I see that my dear friend from Kootenay West does not share that view. But I believe the country as a whole would agree that this great step forward was assisted substantially by the expertise of a parliamentary secretary who was both an electrical engineer and also, through his training at Oxford, a highly qualified economist.
During my period of service to the Prime Minister, since January 9, 1966, I have had until very recently the privilege and honour of sharing accommodation with the person who is now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau)-another ardent scholar, the product of Harvard University, the University of Paris and the London School of Economics.
I know something of the work this parliamentary secretary did for Canada and if he had never assumed the high appointment he presently holds his contribution to Canada, as I see it, would already have been substantial.
Whatever may happen in the future to any parliamentary secretary, the experience of serving actively in one of the departments or in the department of the Prime Minister is no cause for bitterness-I think that is the expression in one of the quotations used by the hon. member for Carleton. On the contrary, it represents a great challenge and one which stretches most of us to the very limit of our

DEBATES	April 7, 1967
abilities. I fully agree with the view expressed by the hon. member for Carleton in that the name has been an inconvenience. It is true that the word "secretary" has certain connotations in the United Kingdom which it has never enjoyed in Canada. Indeed, upon my appointment as parliamentary secretary I received a number of letters of congratulation upon my stepping out of politics into the civil service. Some people thought I would never have to go through the rigours of a political contest again. The name certainly has been a cause of confusion. Many people misunderstand what the office is. I feel this bill makes a useful contribution to parliament.


Mr. Faulkner:: I would agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that in the centennial year there are grounds for greater co-operation and that when the house is presented with an opportunity, as it was a moment ago, to do something constructive which is recognized on both sides as having merit, it is regrettable we do not seem to have the stuff necessary to do it. As a new member of parliament and, no doubt, an inexperienced one, I think this is regrettable.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) presented cogently and at times movingly a compelling argument for improving the status and the role of parliamentary secretaries. I cannot but concur in the argument he presented on behalf of this bill. The practice in Canada has been that parliamentary secretaries or assistants are not junior ministers as is the case in Britain. Their roles are determined largely by the ministers themselves and necessarily vary from one ministry to another. If I felt that a change of title would lead to an improvement in the status I would agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Carleton.
If the words which the hon. member quoted from our late distinguished prime minister, Mackenzie King, were put into practice by ministers there is no doubt that the role of parliamentary secretary could become a more useful and positive one both in government and in the House of Commons. We shall not bring this about simply by increasing the numbers of parliamentary secretaries. I object to the provision which speaks of 16 and envisages possible changes in the future.
This is a role which has to be examined. At present it is something of a no-man's-land. It is not clearly defined and, as I said earlier, it seems to vary from department to department depending on the particular portfolio to
April 7, 1967	COMMONS
which a parliamentary secretary is attached. My main point is that the role of parliamentary secretary or assistant has not been developed as fully as it should be. Every minister needs a parliamentary assistant and I cannot think of one good reason why any minister should refuse one. The responsibilities which ministers of the Crown presently bear must really be back-breaking and there are areas in which a parliamentary assistant could clearly be of help.
What are those areas? I was surprised to learn of some of them as put forward by Mr. Mackenzie King, in what I thought was a highly contemporary piece of thinking. Parliamentary assistants could do a lot more in the way of receiving briefs from interested parties and from pressure groups outside government circles. They could also do a great deal in the way of receiving individuals who always seem to want meetings with ministers. If their role were clearly laid down they could serve as effective liaison between members of parliament and their ministers.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It would be difficult for me to make suggestions about departmental responsibilities which they might assume. I am not familiar enough with what happens in this area to know, but I would think there would be areas where a parliamentary assistant could do some useful work within a department itself.
In respect to duties in the House of Commons it is perfectly clear that what we expect of our ministers today is more than we should reasonably expect in terms of attendance and responsibility. I would suggest it is unrealisitc and inefficient to expect ministers to attend here as well as to administer the large and complex government departments it is their lot to administer. Parliamentary assistants could serve an extremely useful purpose in relieving their ministers of some of the time those ministers are presently required to attend in the house.
In fact I would hope that parliamentary assistants could be charged with the responsibility of piloting through the House of Commons bills which are not of a particularly controversial or political nature. The hon. member for Carleton very rightly expressed the possibilities for apprenticeship that open up in this area. We are all too cognizant of how important that apprenticeship is in preparation for ministerial responsibilities, and particularly for duties within the House of Commons.
Parliamentary Secretaries Act Amendment
In recent years it has been our sorry lot to witness what can be the consequences to individuals who are over-worked or, in some cases, inexperienced when faced with the responsibilities and the challenges posed by becoming members of the front bench in the House of Commons. No one needs to elaborate on that point. No one needs to apportion blame. It is a fact of life of which all of us should be cognizant and about which we should be concerned. Therefore I would see considerable possibilities for parliamentary assistants in the role that I have just described, that of relieving ministers of some of their duties and responsibilities within the House of Commons.
Another area where a parliamentary assistant could do some very useful work, if given the opportunity, is in assuming some of the responsibilities we presently require of ministers outside the House of Commons and outside their departments. I am thinking of official openings, speaking engagements, and the like. These are very important functions which have to be performed. National organizations, and indeed constituency organizations very often like to have ministers present at their annual meetings to discuss departmental policies, and how they relate to those organizations. Parliamentary assistants could do useful work in this regard.
One final area in which they could do some useful work is in the area of long term policy planning within departments. It is not realistic to expect civil servants to be responsible for projecting in what direction a department is to move in the future, and what are the alternatives or options in policy matters. These are things which are a political task and a parliamentary assistant could do some useful work in this regard.
All I would like to say in closing is that I fully support the arguments presented by the hon. member for Carleton. However, I feel that if this bill passes, the authority vested in parliamentary assistants must be made much greater. Not only must a parliamentary assistant appear to have the confidence of his minister, but he must have that confidence. He must have access to confidential papers and to meetings which his minister has with departmental officials. In short, a parliamentary assistant must become the alter ego of his minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my support for the bill and to congratulate the hon. member for Carleton on his speech, but I do hope it will not take
146S4

April 7. 1967
Business of the House
another 100 years before we exhibit this centennial spirit, when private members bills are being considered in the house. I hope this will establish a precedent whereby bills will be dealt with on their merits, and I hope we continue the practice of referring them to committees more and more in the days ahead.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with other hon. members in congratulating the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) on this bill. Having had some experience in a minister's office I can assure the hon. member for Carleton of how important it is. As a result of this debate and of the negotiations that went on across the chamber it would seem to me hon. members are in favour of the objectives of the provisions in the hon. member's bill, and I would hope that when the government resolution, and the bill based on it, come up for discussion, the hon. member's bill could be introduced by way of amendment to the government bill.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian system has resulted in a somewhat too inflexible bureaucratic control over the government. In the United States when a new president and new administration take office, the senior officials are replaced by adherents to the party coming in, which provides them with a greater flexibility. We can attain a greater amount of flexibility by having parliamentary secretaries working deeply within
their departments. As it is now, ministers tend to be overburdened by a combination of administrative and political duties, which does not allow them properly to fill all their functions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have talked the bill out.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I am wondering about the business of the house. Do we take up this particular private members bill on Monday, or is there something else?


Mr. Pepin:: The order on Monday will be the same as today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And next week will be the same as this week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 10, 1967