1967-01-30

Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement concerning housing policy.
Additions to the housing stock in Canada reached a record level in 1966, with the completion of 162,192 new dwellings. Constructions starts, however, at 134,474 units were down 19.3 per cent, and this decline is reflected in the number of units under construction at the end of the year.
The reasons for the decline in starts and dwellings under construction are well known, I think, to most hon. members in this house. On more than one occasion I have indicated that demands on private capital resources were exerting undue restraint on residential construction in most parts of Canada. For this reason assurances were given that direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would provide for at least as many starts and new dwellings in 1966 as in 1965.
I should like to draw to the attention of members that in actual fact direct federal loans in 1966 increased by more than 10 per cent in terms of units and 18 per cent in terms of dollar volume. With some moderation in prospect this year in other demands on the economy and with an additional source of mortgage funds provided, I hope, by the proposed amendments to the Bank Act, we can, I believe, be somewhat more optimistic concerning housebuilding in 1967. Other incentives should arise from the November amendments to the National Housing Act and from the formula introduced to automatically adjust the interest rate on loans under the act.
However, Mr. Speaker, it will take time for these forces to exert maximum impact in the residential construction field, and the government has authorized Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to institute a spring program of direct loans to builders. This program will be similar to recent annual fall direct lending activity that was so successful in encouraging winter construction and stabilizing
employment during winter months for workers generally.
Effective March 1, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will accept applications from merchant builders for loans to be made in the period April 1 to May 31 inclusive, without a presale requirement. Federal funds will be available for up to 20,000 new dwelling units during that two month period. I would estimate that some 16,000 of these units will take the form of single family dwellings for home ownership and about 4,000 will be rental units in smaller communities and in new resource areas.
While we hope it will be possible to introduce this special program without a quota arrangement, loans to any builder will not exceed his physical and financial capacities nor will lending in major centres be permitted to drain off excess amounts at the expense of resource or growth areas and smaller centres where the need for both home owner and rental housing is acute.
Of necessity, the program will be kept under close review. Its purpose, simply stated, is to ensure immediate stimulation of housebuilding activity.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister started off by stating that he was going to make an announcement on housing policy. Well, Mi. Speaker, if the housing policy of this government consists of merely providing 20,000 direct loans, then in my opinion it is no policy whatever.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, when the government raised the National Housing Act interest rate by a full 1 percentage point last year they increased the cost of housebuilding to the point where today a person with an average income cannot afford to buy a house under the National Housing Act. This cost was aggravated by the 11 per cent sales tax. Because of the shortage of housing there was a tremendous competition for the available housing, and that competition again raised the cost of houses. For many months we have been urging that the government should have made available more direct loans. When the minister raised the interest rate to 7J per cent he certainly implied that this should make available from private lenders all the money
January 30, 1967

Housing Policy of Direct Loans that would be necessary. Now he admits that this is not the case, and makes provision for another 20,000 houses by way of direct loans.
The minister has not made any proposal to solve the problem of those Canadians who earn in the neighbourhood of $5,000 annually. It is impossible for these people to build under the National Housing Act. I believe also that the provision for loans up to an amount of 10,000 in respect of existing houses, as we warned the minister, also has proven to be insufficient. It is my understanding that very few applications have been received. I submit that before long the minister will be forced to increase that amount in order to achieve the objective the government has in mind.
The government has not made any mention of further measures to assist low income families. Last year not many more than 2,000 rental units were provided for low income families in Canada. The Senate report on aging showed there are something in the order of
300,000	Canadians who are in immediate urgent need of low cost low rental housing.
Mr. Speaker, I think there will be nothing but disappointment in all parts of Canada with this minor change in the policy of the government in respect of housing.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, whether the government is aware of it or not this country is facing a housing crisis. The proposal the minister has announced today is about as adequate to meet the housing crisis as it would be to feed a peanut to an elephant in the hope of assuaging its hunger. The proposal the minister has outlined to make direct loans to the builders to enable them to construct some 20,000 housing units certainly will be of help to the builders, but it will be of little assistance to the people who really need houses and who are in the moderate income brackets.
As the minister himself has admitted, one would need an income of $8,000 or more per annum in order to buy a house today. The latest figures show that a house which cost $25,000 in 1966 could have been purchased in 1965 for $20,000. The cost of property is going up, and the housing program the minister has announced will benefit mainly those persons whose incomes are such that they can afford to pay the very large price that is involved here.
My colleagues the hon. member for Dan-forth and the hon. member for Broadview have been urging the minister over the past two or three years to announce a housing

policy of direct loans to persons desirous of becoming home owners and not just to builders; that is, to the people in the middle income groups. The government is in a position to borrow money at much lower rates than the average individual can borrow money even under the National Housing Act. Unless the government is prepared to make very large sums of money available to prospective home owners by means of direct loans, the people in the middle income groups are not going to be in a position to buy or build homes.
We hope the government will take some cognizance of the request that homes be made available, by means of direct lending, without a down payment and at low interest rates. We hope some such action will be taken to reduce the cost to those people who want to buy lots.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The last report carried in the Toronto Daily Star indicated that people in the metropolitan Toronto area were paying as much as $10,000 per lot. That price makes it prohibitive for individuals with incomes of $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 per year to purchase homes.
We have been urging the government, and urge them again, to embark upon a large scale public housing program which will make homes available to a great number of Canadians who today have no hope of owning homes under the present provisions of the N.H.A. It is not enough for the minister to compare housing starts and housing completions with those of 1965. Under present circumstances there has to be a greatly accelerated program. It is estimated that something over a million new homes are needed in Canada. The present tepid and inadequate approach will not give very much encouragement to those Canadian people who are looking for homes in which to live. There is little value in having an affluent society when at the same time thousands of young couples have no means to build houses in which to live and raise families.
We hope the government will make some announcement very soon in respect of a housing policy rather than give us bits and pieces which, added together, indicate that it really has no policy and no imaginative approach to this very serious housing crisis.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish on this occasion I could congratulate the Minister of Labour, but I am afraid I cannot. Following the mini skirt budget brought in by the Minister of Finance, we have observed the Minister of Labour
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
attempt to apply a band aid policy to a serious situation. That is a "band aid" policy rather than a "bandit" policy, but perhaps the second meaning is not far off the mark.
I think the announcement is somewhat ambiguous and falsifies the facts. Some 20,000 new starts are to be made, but it is clearly understood that they will not necessarily have to be sold prior to the commencement of construction. I understand why the minister has made that provision. The new houses will not be sold to that category of individuals we desire to help. They cannot afford them.
Perhaps it would be of value for the Minister of Labour to consult with the Minister of Finance, because this whole problem is of a financial nature. This government appears to be operating much like a finance company. The cost of money and of construction in respect of houses is so high they are beyond the means of the ordinary wage earner in this country. I suggest that we are not helping to solve the housing crisis which exists at the present time in Canada.
The difficulty now faced in the housing industry in Canada is not the result of people not wanting to buy houses, but results from the fact they cannot afford them at the present time. We have serious credit restrictions in effect, and we are faced with an 11 per cent tax on building materials. This increases the cost of construction and is an influencing factor in respect of weakening our economy. The minister has suggested that this might be counteracted or resolved when amendments to the Bank Act are passed. I do not believe that will be the case, because banks do not necessarily have sufficient funds to make available mortgage money in respect of the number of houses we need to solve this shortage in the country. We saw them a year ago asking permission to lower their reserves to permit them to operate, because they were working with a tight-belt system. They are not in any better position at the moment, and the situation will not get any better in future. The cost of living is too high to allow the situation to improve.
This policy does not contribute to lowering the cost of living. The fact that we can build
20,000	houses does not mean they can be sold. The contractors will be asked to support this cost, and it will not help the situation one way or the other. It is just a band aid solution or a band aid applied to a major problem for which we need a major cure. The minister certainly has not given us that major cure today.
Housing Policy of Direct Loans


Mr.  A. B. Paiterson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I have been told on many occasions that we ought to be thankful for small mercies. Even though I agree with many of the criticisms that have been voiced today I want to express appreciation for the small step that has been taken by the government in further attempting to meet the housing problem that exists in Canada today.
I remember the Liberal party proclaiming the fact that they were interested in assisting Canadians to own their own homes. That was a very commendable objective, but we have found during the past months, and indeed the past two or three years, that many of the policies that have been followed by the government have really worked against this objective. Instead of helping our people to own and live in their own homes, these policies have practically placed homes beyond the reach of many thousands of individuals.
In his statement the minister referred to the demands on private capital resources which were exerting undue restraint on residential construction. We in the Social Credit party have maintained for years that the government ought to make use of the Bank of Canada for its social capital requirements. We believe that if the government would use the Bank of Canada to meet its social capital requirements it would take the pressure off the private capital supply, so there would be substantial amounts of money available to carry on the business of this nation and also to enable our people to acquire housing and the other facilities that are required.
I agree that the price of housing today is far beyond the reach of many thousands of would-be home owners. One reason among many is the fact that interest rates have climbed to such an extent as to pretty well take housing out of the reach of those in the middle or low income brackets.
The suggestion that this measure will provide for 20,000 new dwellings is, I think, entirely inadequate. The minister of manpower, I believe, has announced that additional endeavours will be made to encourage immigration to this country. If with this consideration you couple the need of housing for new family formations in Canada, I suggest that 20,000 units is far, far too few to in any way meet the demand in this field. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while expressing appreciation for small mercies, we are looking for bigger mercies in the days that lie ahead.

January 30, 1967
House of Commons HOUSE OF COMMONS



MOTION TO AMEND PROVISIONAL STANDING ORDER RESPECTING ADJOURNMENT FOR MEALS

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this stage to move a motion based on rule 41 affecting the times of meeting of this house. The motion is expressed in the following terms. Moved by myself, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That provisional standing order No. 6 be amended by adding after subsection (1) the following:
(2)	At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays and at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on Thursdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair until 8:00 o'clock p.m.
(3)	At 1:00 o'clock p.m. on any day upon which a morning sitting of the house is held Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair until 2:30 o'clock p.m. and that the present subsections (2) (3) and (4) be renumbered (4) (5) and (6).
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As some members will suspect, there is some doubt as to whether this motion is acceptable at this time, and I would certainly like to hear the hon. member on the point of order. I suggest to him that this is a type of motion which can hardly be moved without notice, even at this time. If the hon. member wants to submit an argument refuting my suggestion I would be pleased to hear him. If not, I am prepared to enter a ruling on the point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something on that point of order. The reason for not giving notice of my motion is based on standing order 41 and on the precedent in 1951 when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) presented a motion to extend the sitting hours, which was followed by a debate on the point order which I am now raising. Mr. Speaker Beaudoin found that it was within the right of a member to make such a motion without giving prior notice because it dealt with the hours of sitting of the house and not with days of sittings or with the adjournment.
My motion is based on the standing orders, with the sole exception of that section of my motion which deals with the retention of the private member's hour on Thurdays from 6 to 7 p.m. I admit that this could have been expressed in another way, namely by saying that the hours of sitting of the house shall be on Mondays and Tuesdays from 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. and on Thursdays from 2.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., and on Fridays from 11 a.m.

to 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. However, the wording of the two parts of my motion which indirectly determine the hours of sitting of the house by informing the house that the Speaker may vacate the chair at certain specified periods is based on the standing order.
I suggest that since my motion deals solely with the times of sittings of the house it is covered under standing order 41 and therefore is in order. Standing order 41 reads as follows:
Forty eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
It was under that standing order that I felt I was within my right in making my motion without giving prior notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to support that argument?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I was going to say that one further consideration might be taken into account by Your Honour, namely that the standing order says-
-this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
I doubt very much whether Your Honour would reject the motion on these narrow grounds; however, if Your Honour were to say that this standing order does not apply to the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre one could say equally well that a motion having to do with a dinner recess has nothing to do with the actual hours of meeting or adjournment of the house. This is the only ground on which it could possibly be held that the motion is not covered by standing order 41. I am sure Your Honour will not rule on that narrow ground, because surely the words "times of meeting or adjournment of the house" include the hours of sitting and the arrangements for the sittings of the house.
There is one other point I should like to ask Your Honour to consider in making your ruling. If Your Honour were to say, for instance, that this motion has nothing to do with the hours of meeting or adjournment of the house but is a motion to suspend the standing order, and Your Honour were inclined to rule against the motion on that basis, would you then give us a moment to change the wording
January 30, 1967

of the motion so it would read "for the balance of this session the hours of sitting shall be"? This might bring the motion into line with what may be Your Honour's feeling as a result of its present wording. We would appreciate the opportunity to reword the motion if Your Honour feels that it is not in order under standing order 41.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: 
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I know I am not in order in speaking on this point after you have given your ruling, but I think this is a very important matter, which will save a great deal of time in the days ahead if these particular hours of sitting are agreed to. There is considerable discussion about whether we should or should not have a dinner adjournment. I should like to ask whether there is unanimous consent to the adoption of this motion. I think we would be able to proceed in a more orderly fashion in the days ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am completely amazed at the method of proceeding today. There has been no request made on this subject, and no intimation on the part of the hon. gentleman opposite that any such proposal would be made. Under these circumstances I do think it would not be appropriate to adopt this motion. Since we are to consider the second reading of a bill, I do not believe any hardship will be imposed on any hon. members if we refuse consent at this time.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege to refute the statement made by the house leader. This matter was discussed before Christmas, and the house leader informed me that when the house opened in January he would get the consent of the house so we would not be faced with the situation of repeatedly asking for a luncheon or supper break. Nothing has been done since to obtain that consent, so we are still going through this silly procedure. On some occasions a minister will grant the request and on other occasions a minister will petulantly refuse it. This is the situation in which the house finds itself. Members generally do not want to sit through the luncheon or supper period. It was for this reason I tried to have the situation corrected.
January 30, 1967

Concurrence in Committee Report



INDIAN AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier) moved:: That the fourth report of the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration, presented to the house on Thursday, January 26, 1967, be concurred in.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: This motion, Mr. Speaker, gives us an opportunity to draw to the attention of the house something which I think is not good both in so far as this particular committee and committees in general are concerned. In order to give effect to a decision of the house made in July of last year, this report asks that certain actions be taken with respect to the operations of the committee. I want to point out some of the proceedings that have taken place with respect to this committee in relation to its desire to visit Indian communities. I am not the least bit happy about most of the things that have taken place.
It may well be that the house will want to make a different kind of decision with regard to the motion before us, and accordingly, I think we should look at the record of the committee. On May 19 last the committee met and heard an opening presentation by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At that meeting I suggested, and I quote from the committee proceedings, page 11:
-by establishing a subcommittee and requesting permission of the house to visit these native people in their homes and villages to find out, at first hand their various problems.
The minister was quite amenable to that suggestion, except in a larger context, and he made reference to it on page 13 of the committee report as follows:
-I want to comment on Mr. Howard's suggestion. I do not think that I would be wrong in telling you that a suggestion has already been made to us along a parallel line of something in the nature of a continuing committee to do just this thing.
Farther down the page he is reported as saying:
But a continuing committee to make a check here and a check there, Mr. Chairman, I think has tremendous merit.
The committee proceeded along until June 16 of last year when it made a report to the house. I think this report is worth quoting

because it indicates the desire and intention of the committee last summer:
Your committee recommends:
(1)	That it be granted leave to resolve itself into three subcommittees composed of seven members each, to be named by the chairman in consultation with the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, for the purpose of obtaining further information relating to matters affecting Indians and living conditions of Indian communities, and so report from time to time to the house through the main committee.
(2)	That these subcommittee be granted leave to sit while the house is sitting when meeting outside the precincts of parliament and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house-
I do not know what happened to that report, but the first thing we knew the government came along with a substitute motion. Somehow or other this substitute motion was imposed upon the legitimate desire of the committee to break into subcommittees and another order of reference was passed on July 13. This order of reference, conceived somewhere in the back room, I submit, made no mention whatever of subcommittees. Instead it authorized the committee itself to adjourn from place to place for the purpose of obtaining information.
We went from July 13 until November 18 before there was a possibility of the committee even meeting to decide to what extent it was going to visit the Indian communities. This meeting did not come about even then until a question was asked in the house as to when the committee was going to meet to consider these matters. The committee met on November 18 but there was not even a quorum, not even enough interest amongst members of the committee to try to work out something practical.
Subsequently there was a meeting on November 22. At that meeting, as members who were present will recall, an itinerary was presented. This itinerary was either developed by someone who did not know the first thing about Indian affairs or did not want the committee to make an in depth examination of the problems of the Indians. The itinerary, to which I objected as did other members of the committee, was a brush-fire operation. It involved the spending of an hour here and an hour there in Indian communities except for one visit to the Indian community of Caughnawaga. In any event, the committee went ahead and endorsed the idea of that particular visit, even though most of the time would be spent in travelling and little time in meeting the people. However, there was not a
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
sufficient number of members of that committee who expressed a desire to go on the trip, so it had to be cancelled.
Now, near the end of January, many months after the matter was raised in the committee and a desire was expressed to have meetings of this sort, the committee once again is making a report and a recommendation which in substance repeats the report that was made in June of last year and was pushed to one side by the government. It was superseded by another motion which the government said would better serve the interests of the committee. The report before us now reads in part as follows:
In order to facilitate the implementation of this order-*
That is the government order of last July.
-your committee recommends that it be empowered to appoint subcommittees of not less than five members, which will report to the main committee but will enjoy all the other powers which have been granted to the committee.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I submit that there has been an inordinately long delay in the operations of the committee, a committee which has within its grasp the full range of social and economic problems confronting the Indian people. This committee is concerned intimately with the welfare of human beings in this nation, not with something apart from the rights of people.
I think it is a sad commentary on the interest of members of the house, of the committee members and of parliament in general that the legitimate desires of those who wanted to do something worth while, constructive and instructive in the field of Indian affairs could not be met. The Prime Minister made a pronouncement the other day about the business between now and the end of the session. I think his deadline was March 10. If the session is to conclude by March 10 I submit it serves no great purpose to pass this motion because there has been procrastination and the government has been permitted to interfere in the operations of the committee ever since last June, whereas the committee might have been doing something worth while and constructive in looking into these matters during that time.
It is up to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to bring to us something which will put into effect the suggestion he made on May 19. The minister suggested a form of continuing committee, as he put it. I submit this is what we must now do by legislation or otherwise. We must give
Concurrence in Committee Report authority to the Indian affairs committee to establish itself in such a way that it will be in continuous existence and operation. It should be a committee whose roving commission extends beyond the end of a session because we know that, under the present rules, once the session prorogues that is the end of committees for the time being and we have to start again.
I want to say also that last June the committee members, having passed the motion recommending the necessity of establishing subcommittees, desirous of and anticipating the opportunity to travel to Indian communities for the first time in the history of Canada, acting in good faith and thinking that this would be one way to make an incisive inquiry into Indian affairs, to become acquainted with the Indian people and their problems in different parts of the nation, gave only a passing scrutiny to the estimates of the Indian affairs branch with the understanding that they would have the opportunity to visit Indian communities and meet the Indians there. The committee gave a scanty examination to the estimates. In common with other committee members I also scantily examined the estimates. We felt that the motion that committee had passed in mid-June asking for authority to set up subcommittees would be agreed to. In fact, information was given to us that the government had supported that concept.
Then on July 13 we found that was not so but that there was another motion involving the full committee. The consequence was that the desires the committee had expressed last June were stifled. Now, many months later, an attempt is finally being made to try to undo the damage the government did to that committee and get back to the situation in which we were last June.
I submit that mere passage of the motion, with the time available to us between now and the end of the session, will give the committee members and those interested in the matter not much time to make any sort of examination in depth or to search out some of the crucial difficulties existing in Indian affairs. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, they are many. I do not want to go into the concern of Indian people with respect to the activities of the Indian affairs branch, but there is a growing insistence by the native people that they run their own affairs. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has just shown me a newspaper clipping indicating that the Indian band at Alert Bay, not having had an
January 30, 1967

Concurrence in Committee Report Indian agent for some time because the gentleman resigned or was transferred, has passed a motion to the effect that they will go ahead themselves and appoint their own agent, and to heck with the federal government.
I fully support that attitude. In many cases it would be just as well to have the Indian agents chosen by the Indians because this was the original concept. I only point to that as an example of the great dissatisfaction developing among Indian people. Their dissatisfaction is noticeable across the land. There was the massive march of the Wabasca people a while ago and the march of the people of the Cowichan reserve on Vancouver island who, trying to obtain redress for their housing problems, tried to march to the Indian affairs branch headquarters in Vancouver. It is shown by the situation on the St. Regis reserve, and by the complete collapse and blowup of community development.
All these things show that there is a festering discontent. The time has long passed when parliament and the government can ignore the demand of the Indian people to do things for themselves. To look at the interests of the Indian people was the concept the committee members had last year. If the committee had had an opportunity to visit the Indians, to see some of these communities, undoubtedly it would have been able to speed alterations and changes in our Indian legislation. May I say in passing that when we heard the Prime Minister declare the business for this and the subsequent session a few days ago it was a matter of extreme regret to me and many others that he made no reference whatever to Indian affairs. This is another indication of the lack of interest of the government in this matter.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I also have been disturbed by what has happened in this committee. I intend to support the motion because it may do something to remedy the damage that has been done. The difficulty that has arisen in this committee and in the committee system generally arises from the fact that the whole system has broken down. Too many committees have sat at the same time. There have been too many meetings and too many members trying to be in two places at once and not managing to do so. Too many committees have travelled at a time when other committees have been trying to sit.
This committee, as has been said several times, made an effort to organize itself to

make trips to Indian reserves. Departmental officials tried to organize the trips in some instances but the results were not satisfactory. The timetable was too short. Frankly, the members did not co-operate to make these trips a success.
I support the motion only because, by reducing the number of members who will go to Indian reserves, something may now be done. It was well that the hon. member for Skeena raised this point because he has shown not only what has happened in this committee but what has happened to many committees of the house during the session. The whole affair has been badly managed. Too many committees have sat at the same time and too few members have been able to attend each committee. I believe that all of us have to reconsider our position in connection with committees. If the members on the government side in charge of the organization of committees cannot arrange to cut down their number, then we shall have to insist on more members making a tremendous effort to get to these meetings.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I believe I am a member of five or six committees and sub-committees, but I find that the situation in this particular committee is the worst of all. I understand that through no fault of the chairman or of any individual it has been jammed in with other committees. This has led to a bad experience for those who serve on it, and for the Indians, too. On at least one occasion, and perhaps on two, the Indian representatives were prepared to appear before the committee and the meeting had to be cancelled.
I support the motion, and I certainly hope that in the new session a great deal more thought will be given to the amount of committee work members of this house can handle. The number of these committees will have to be reduced, and members will have to attend the meetings better if they are to be successful.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I wish to support the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Skeena and referred to by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, and I want to do so in a non-partisan fashion. Behind the bland facade of this motion lies one of the most shameful chapters in Canadian history.
The intent of this committee, approved by the minister, constituted a genuine effort on the part of members of this house to direct attention in a really positive way to some constructive suggestions. The trouble is there
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
has been a mere trickle of facts and help concealed in a veritable waterfall, a Niagara of words. There is need for more than that. This was to have been an attempt by members of this house to take justice out to the areas where justice was needed, an attempt by members of this committee, divided into subcommittees, to go to areas where there were genuine problems, really serious and difficult problems.
I know that when I went back to my constituency in the summer I spoke to band councillors five or six hundred miles north of Edmonton saying that this was what the parliament of Canada intended to do, and that in due course there would be official visitors in the shape of members of parliament going to those areas, as subcommittee members, to talk to the people. The very fact that a microcosm of parliament was ready to appear on an Indian reserve and was willing to entertain objections and complaints, the legitimate complaints of the people in that area was a wonderful thing.
I know the minister's views. I think he felt the same way. I think this illustrates the almost complete breakdown of our committee structure. We hear a lot of talk about parliament reforming itself. I do not think parliament wants to reform itself. I do not think it knows how. I will not refer to matters which have been decided by the house. I did attempt to inject a method by which members of the house could take some authority into their own hands and deal, in committees or subcommittees, with urgent problems as they rose without having to wait for government action. This suggestion was rejected.
I hope the committee on procedure which is being set up will take due note of what has been said here today, and direct its attention to this serious problem. If the committees are to work properly a great deal more attention will have to be paid to their organization. If they do not work, then I do not think parliament will work.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I will support this motion in the spirit in which the hon. member for Fraser Valley supported the minister earlier when he dealt with the statement on housing. I will support this motion because there is really nothing else one can do at this stage. It should be obvious to every member of this house that there is not much a committee can do during the short period of time which remains before this session of parliament comes to an end.
Concurrence in Committee Report
As happens toward the conclusion of every session, we are confronted with a heavy backlog of work. Members find it difficult to agree upon a time at which they can be away from the house. It seems to me the house should approve the motion proposed by the chairman of the committee, but that the government should give consideration to setting up the new committee very early in the new session so that in 1967 the committee can do the work it was unable to do in 1966.
I wish to join with the hon. member for Skeena in deploring the kind of itinerary which was proposed for the committee. The major reason I said I would not make the trip when I was asked to do so was that it is completely useless for a member of a committee to spend an hour or two on a reserve. Those of us who know anything about Indians-most of us are not very knowledgeable, and this includes all members of the house on all sides, including most of the people we have had as ministers; this is not a criticism-know that if a committee goes into a reserve for two or three hours the only things members have an opportunity to learn are the things which the department wants them to learn, the things which the deputy minister, the commissioner and the agent want them to learn. The agenda is lined up. The speakers are lined up. What members of the committee hear is the official line. Surely every member of the house recognizes that often there is nothing so misleading as the official line.
I was one who attended the meeting at which members of the Ontario Union of Indians made representations regarding their hunting rights. I can tell the minister that the Indians who were present were most dissatisfied with the response they received. I can tell the minister, in case he does not know, that there is a great feeling among the Indians across this country that the community development program announced with such great fanfare a couple of years ago is now in a state of complete disorganization, and that among Indians and people interested in Indian problems there is a feeling that the whole program might as well be washed out altogether because it is nothing, really, but a paper plan.
One merely needs to look for the people who came into the department to plan this program to see that hardly any of them are left. They have gone. One went to the Prime Minister's anti-poverty secretariat, another to a teaching post at a university; a third, who was on contract, did not have his contract
January 30, 1967
12390	COMMONS
Concurrence in Committee Report renewed. Why did all these people leave? This is something the committee should look into. I hope the committee will look into this matter in depth after we have had the opportunity to visit some of the reserves.
I will support this motion. I hope the committee will get on and do its work not only in the next month or two but very early in the 1967 session.


Raymond Langlois: On this issue, my hon. friends and I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Skeena has stated. I do this even at the risk of being called an N.D.P.'er. I do not mind that. I have been called worse than that; I have been called a Liberal.
The minister himself might well do something about this matter. Possibly he would agree to the establishment of a permanent commission to look into these problems and follow them up day after day so that parliament may have a correct understanding of whatever measures may be called for. It occurs to me that such a commission might not only be set up immediately, but that it might be carried on in the session which lies ahead so as to avoid any interruption to its work.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The committee was in favour, as pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena, of making contact with these people, who at the moment are under the impression that they are completely forgotten by the federal government and their fellow Canadians. After all, Mr. Speaker, they were the first citizens of this country, and I think they should receive justice and that the demands they have the right to make should receive attention.
I think the minister should take under due consideration at this time the representations made by hon. members, including his own colleagues in the committee, to the effect that the committee could very well be set up now.
I am only sorry that it has not been set up before this date because it could have been making very useful reports. We have lost many months, and it would be a shame to lose more time as a result of procedural difficulties or because someone is holding the cart from behind. I say, get that guy away from the cart, get the wagon rolling and let this committee do its work.
Whether this should be a standing committee, a special committee or whether a royal commission should be appointed does not matter so long as it is able to do its job. I do not see why the minister cannot agree to its
[Mr. Orllkow.l

establishment today and to its carrying on its work in the new session. For my part I wish to state that I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena and I also think that this is the opinion of my colleagues.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of this committee and I can endorse everything that has been said by those who have spoken up to this moment.
There is one observation I should like to make which I think has some significance. One of the reasons for the difficulties into which this committee has fallen arises from the fact that the members who are interested in Indian affairs are to a large extent also interested in the activities of another committee which covers the functions of the new Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I serve on both the northern affairs committee and the Indian affairs committee. During the past year the northern affairs committee has been most active in travelling through the north and visiting some of the national parks. It is for this reason that many of us who found ourselves on both committees were unable to divide our interest and participate in the planned itinerary of the Indian affairs committee. I have raised this point before, and it is the responsibility of the government to resolve the dilemma.
Many of our committees are still functioning on the basis of the old organizational set-up of the various government departments. I believe we can partially resolve the dilemma of the Indian affairs committee if we organize a single committee to cover all the activities of the new Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Hon. members have mentioned the point that the announcement that subcommittees of the main Indian affairs committee would be making personal visits to reservations was received with great enthusiasm by the first Canadians across the country. Nothing has happened and a sense of disillusionment has inevitably resulted.
This has been the case with other announcements which have been made during recent months with respect to Indian affairs. Elaborate programs for housing and other amenities on reservations have been announced, but up to the present time it has not been possible for the people on the reservations to get details from Indian affairs officials in the field about these programs and how they are being implemented.
January 30, 1967

Because of these difficulties, and because of this growing disenchantment, over the week end I organized a meeting in my own constituency which brought together the representatives of all the neighbouring reservations, some five in number, in a face to face confrontation with officials of the department. As a result of this meeting I can agree with the hon. member for Skeena that our Indian citizens are disappointed, disenchanted and extremely vocal in expressing their opinion of the recent announcements, all of which have tended to support their belief that the white man speaks with a forked tongue. Last Saturday, Mr. Speaker, I listened to complaints which have been re-echoed in this chamber this afternoon. We had Senator Gladstone, the Indian senator, with us. He was able to speak to his people in that part of Canada and try to open channels of communication. I can assure the minister responsible as well as hon. members that more than words are needed in dealing with the problems of our first citizens. We need action. We can no longer proceed on the basis of propaganda which is announced with a great fanfare and publicity and which creates a vacuum of expectations resulting in the sense of disillusionment that now prevails. The sooner we can get this resolution approved and can visit some of these reservations and have face to face contacts with the Indians, the sooner will the problem be resolved. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I heartily endorse the motion.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this brief debate but there is one point I should like to make. There is no doubt that the government is responsible for some of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. With regard to the particular instance with which we are dealing here, the question of the Indian affairs committee visiting the reserves, I should like to submit that there is only one group at fault and that is the members of the committee themselves.
As a member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I recall when we tried to organize these trips. We were not very successful. The first attempt we made was a meeting with the elected Ontario Indian chiefs in Toronto. The government went so far at that time as to provide an aircraft for our transportation. Six or seven members went, not more. It was only a one day effort.
It is very nice to know that hon. members are now taking renewed interest in the affairs of the department of Indian affairs since it
Concurrence in Committee Report has run into a certain amount of political hot water, but I would suggest that instead of listening to a lot of the nonsense that has been said here this afternoon hon. members of the committee should take a look at themselves to see what they have done in trying to organize visits by the committee.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I support this movement. I should like a much more active interest to be taken in Indian affairs, and it seems to me that the people who should take this more active interest are the members of the committee themselves.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention in becoming involved in this discussion until I heard the last speaker. .He is a young member, but I think he should be ashamed of the representations he has made in the last few minutes on behalf of his riding. I say that for the simple reason that he comes from an area where there is a very great problem, as there is in all northern Ontario, in relation to Indian affairs.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think most members of this house were of the opinion that the new minister was going to do something which had not been done before. We were willing to allow the committee members to make the decision concerning how this problem should be solved. I do not think there is anyone in this house who is not aware of the fact that the agents on the Indian reserves have failed to relate the problems of the Indian to modern society. In some areas the problems of the Indian are handled in such a way that one might think we were still living in the days when the treaties with the Indians were signed.
The young member who just spoke referred to the fact that members of the committee should be criticized because they did not participate in the trips which were outlined. I think it is his responsibility and that of his colleagues on that side of the house to violently protest the operations of the Indian affairs branch and the direction they give. It will be no more apparent to anyone than it is to him that the problems will not be solved for some time, and must be solved by individuals.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member aware that the committee was not bound by the proposed itinerary which was set out by the Indian affairs branch.


William Arnold Peters: Yes. I am also aware of the fact that the committee made the decision that
12392	COMMONS DEBATES	January 30, 1967
Concurrence in Committee Report they would have subcommittees of seven or eight members which would attend these Indian reserves on an itinerary on which they decided some time early last summer with the co-operation of the minister.
I should like to refer to the itinerary which most of the members of the committee were not interested in following. On Friday they would leave for the Caughnawaga reserve. They would leave here at seven o'clock in the morning and spend eight or ten hours on the Caughnawaga reserve where they would have a tour and meet with the chief and the council. I have been to the Caughnawaga reserve many times and I am sure I speak with some knowledge when I say it would be impossible in that time for an organized group to meet with the chief and the band council and complete an investigation of the many things that would be brought up in respect of that reserve.
The next day they would be at the Caradoc agency from 12.45 p.m. until 1.45 p.m. when they would meet with the Oneida council in the council hall. Between 2.30 and 3 p.m. they would meet with the Chippewa and Muncey councils at Mount Elgin school. Then between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. they would meet with the Moravian council at the band hall.
On the second day they would have three hours during which they would meet with the Indians at a formal meeting and, in my opinion, would have no opportunity to speak to the people there in order to discuss their problems. On Saturday they would have from one to one and a half hours to meet with the chief and council of the Sarnia reserve. They would have a maximum of three hours in which to meet with the chief and the council and tour the reservation on Walpole island. At 3.30 p.m. they would have an hour or an hour and a half after arriving at Kettle Point to meet with the chief and council and tour the reservation. On Sunday they would have approximately five and a half hours in which to meet with a large number of band councils and would have very little time in which to observe and investigate the problems which are facing the Indians. On Monday they would be on Christian island and would have a maximum of four and a half hours in which to tour the island and discuss problems with the band council.
Mr. Chairman, if the young member is wondering why some of the members were not impressed by this kind of a tour, then he fails to understand the real problem. As the hon. member for Skeena said, this is what the

Indian agents submitted as to how members of parliament should investigate the problems which affect Ontario Indians. This is the kind of inspection the mine inspectors made of the mines which I worked in. They would phone to the mine and say that they would be there to make an inspection. They would arrive and make the inspection the following day. In the meantime the part of the mine which would be on the inspection tour would be all cleaned up. The safety conditions would be no better than they were before the inspector arrived except along the route that had been planned.
In the case of this itinerary it is no wonder that some hon. members objected. I have not given the complete itinerary but merely the time in which members would have an opportunity to hear the objections and representations made by the Indians. Considering the time involved in arriving and leaving, they would have ten hours to hear the representations by the councils.
I think every member of parliament is concerned about the problems which face the Indian today. I am certain there is not a member of this house who has not read with interest and certainly a great deal of shame the reports concerning the Indian community in Kenora over the last year. I am sure there is no one who is not of the opinion that the House of Commons must give direction to the Indian affairs branch through the minister. With the advice he received from the committee the minister must modernize the treatment which is provided for the Indian population.
Yet we see members of the committee being critized. I am not a member of this committee, so this criticism is not directed to me. However, the members of the committee are criticized because they will not participate in the Cook's tour engineered by the Indian affairs branch which obviously will not accomplish anything. Such a tour would show the members of the committee that we have Indian reserves at five or six places. They would receive a first class view of those places and would have an opportunity to hear some of the leaders outline the problems which the members of the committee have heard over the years when Indian delegations have appeared before them.
I think it behooves us to exert more influence on the chairman of the committee and on the government so that instead of having motions such as this we will see some action in respect of the things which I believe the
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
minister has in mind. On a number of occasions in this house the minister has outlined some proposals which I thought were very useful. I was pleased about the support he gave members of the committee when they wished to break up into groups so they could go out and spend two or three days mingling with the Indian people on the reservations in order to find out from the Indians who are not necessarily members of the council what problems they have. The hope was that in this way they would have an opportunity to get to know these people and hear about their problems at first hand. I approve of the support the minister gave to this suggestion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I now am surprised to find that this has not been brought to fruition, and rather that the committee now is asking for permission to do something which they had permission to do back in June. It is time we faced up to our responsibilities and insisted that the Indian affairs branch must not dictate to the committee, but that the committee should have a free hand to draw up its own agenda and decide what steps should be taken to make conditions more palatable for our Indian population across Canada.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say a few words on the motion now before us.
Judging the remarks we have just heard, it is quite clear that the whole committee system does not seem to work. In fact, after 12 and even 13 months of this session, we have not yet succeeded in organizing this committee. I have also noted that on all sides, the main complaint is that too many committees are sitting and that members are sitting on too many committees.
I just heard the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) say a while ago that he is sitting on five or six committees.
Not so long ago the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) also admitted that he was a member of five or six committees, so that he was unable to attend them all which of course keeps them from having a quorum. I admit that the members who were chosen to sit on various committees have the required experience and competence to do so.
Concurrence in Committee Report
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to point out that two members do not sit on any committee. Complaints are made that too many committees sit simultaneously and that it is difficult to have a quorum. Well, I remind the house that the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and myself do not sit on any committee, that we are systematically deprived, voluntarily and deliberately, of membership on any committee of the house whatsoever. The house is faced with some problems but let it not complain about it for it has only itself to blame for that because it refuses to accept two members who want to do some committee work, as they have shown and proved in the past.
Mr. Speaker, we attend committee sittings and we question and seek information. For my part, while I am not a member, and while I cannot help make a quorum, which is not even reached at the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, nevertheless I attend the sittings and ask questions. This is surely evidence of a member's eagerness to do his job and the same is true for the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). While the other members are all complaining that there are too many committees sitting simultaneously, the hon. member for Sherbrooke and I are denied any participation in committee work; in my opinion, we are victims of systematic discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the main problem with regard to committees-if their work poses a problem-is that they are badly organized and that no effort is made to appoint those who can serve and are interested in doing so. People are named simply so as to make up the total number of members, and therefore I think the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) was right when he said over the week end that almost half the members of this house are no more than rubber stamps.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to another point. I feel that committees do not serve their purpose, precisely because the ministers concerned have no interest in them. A while ago members of the New Democratic Party made very appropriate interventions, showing their concern for problems relating to Indians and Eskimos. One would wonder if the minister himself is as much concerned as the other hon. members.
Here is a typical example to illustrate what I am saying. Ever since the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs began consideration of Bill No. C-222, the hon.
January 30, 1967

Concurrence in Committee Report member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has been trying to find out either from officials or all the other witnesses, the exact meaning of the word "bank", and what the minister means by "banking". Surely, the repeated inquiries of the hon. members for Edmonton West and Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and those of others, with respect to the meaning of the words "bank" and "banking", have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp); but the hon. minister has yet to attend a sitting of the committee, even though this is probably one of the most important bills to be presented this year, if not the most important since he was appointed Minister of Finance. Are they going to tell me that the minister is interested in the committee?
The committee is trying to study, to analyse and to vote on the legislation proposed by the minister who does not even attend the sittings. If the minister does not come to the committee sittings, how can you ask the hon. members to be interested, when the one mostly concerned, that is the Minister of Finance, does not even attend? The minister has not yet attended one sitting of the finance, trade and economic affairs committee when we are studying his bill to amend the Bank Act, which, in my opinion, is probably the most important that the Minister of Finance will ever present during his career.
Mr. Speaker, obviously one does not have to look very far to realize the stagnation in which the committees are floundering. Why have the committees floundered into stagnation? It is first, because the ministers are not concerned about the committees, are not concerned about the legislation they send to the committees, and also because there is a whole group of members who try and protect the bills in the absence of the minister rather than work out measures acceptable to everyone and accepted by all.
Furthermore, there is another committee problem. At the present time, the government-and I am not afraid to accuse the government, the house leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the whip of the Liberal party-practises a discrimination and an intolerable injustice, in a so-called democratic country, against the hon. member for Sherbrooke and myself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Cartier speaks now he will close the debate.
[Mr. Gregoire.l


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I think at the outset we must agree that the number of our committees is too large, as a consequence of which it is difficult at times to obtain a quorum. In respect of the situation now under discussion, it was impossible to obtain a quorum to make these trips. As just pointed out by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, one reason for these trips not being made is that many members of the Indian affairs committee are also members of the northern affairs committee, and at the time these trips were to be made the northern affairs committee was slated to make a trip to the northern part of Canada.
The fact that these trips did not take place is a reflection on the members of all parties in this house. Perhaps the reason they did not take place can be related to the fact that they were not glamour trips. Had they been trips to Paris, France. I am sure we would have had no difficulty in getting a quorum. Members on all sides of the house were not interested in making these trips, and that is the fact of the matter.
I am amazed that the hon. member for Skeena should raise this issue in the forceful manner he did today. He is the hon. member I have found it most difficult to get to attend steering committee meetings. When he attended those meetings he always apologized for being late. It is just as much the duty of a member of a steering committee to see that a committee functions as it is of any other member. The hon. member never raised this matter at a steering committee meeting or at a full committee meeting. He waited until there was a full press gallery before raising this in the manner he did.
Let me inform the hon. member for Skeena that I have bent over backward to please him on every single occasion we met. The fact that these trips did not take place can be directly related to the fact that he could not attend. If some of the trips did not occur, it was because he could not come. We wanted everybody on that committee to come. It is shocking that the hon. member should stand up here and make the kind of spectacle that he made of himself this afternoon.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: He was looking for headlines.


Milton L. Klein: But we have come to expect that from that section of the house, which must now be recognized as the angry old men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
January 30, 19G7	COMMONS


Milton L. Klein: The committee met in Toronto with the Indian chiefs of Ontario, and the hon. member for Skeena was not there. We suggested a trip to Caughnawaga, and the hon. member for Skeena said he could not make it on a certain day last week, so we did not proceed with the trip until the hon. member for Skeena was able to make it. We did this because we wanted to rely on the experience the hon. member for Skeena has in matters of this nature. But to use this occasion to play that kind of politics is something that the country ought to know about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Milton L. Klein: We ask that this motion pass. It is the intention of the committee to divide itself into small committees and visit as many communities as possible throughout Canada. While we are laying blame I must mention the co-operation I have received on this committee from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), for which I compliment him. He has been present at every single meeting. I am not asking him to do so, but I think he will bear me out when I say that at numerous steering committee meetings the hon. member for Skeena never presented himself, never came to the meetings, and when he did come he apologized for being late.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the only way I can do this is by way of a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena now rises on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: I do that, Mr. Speaker, because it is the only way I can get the floor to refute what are a number of untruths.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The only way the hon member can rise now is on a legitimate question of privilege. He cannot tell the Chair that he is using this as a subterfuge to carry on a debate. If he has a question of privilege I will hear him out.


Frank Howard: I would not presume to do things by way of subterfuge, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: The chairman of the committee indicated that I never attended steering committee meetings. The one I missed was on December 7. I have a note of it here. I missed that because notice of the meeting came to my office late in the morning and the meeting
Concurrence in Committee Report was to be held at three thirty o'clock that day. I did not have the opportunity and time to attend that particular meeting.
The hon. member accused me of not wanting to go to Toronto in order to meet with some people there. I was unable to go, and got in touch with my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who went in my stead, to make sure that someone would fully represent us at that particular meeting. With respect to the meeting to be held at Caughnawaga, the hon. member said it was not held because I could not go on a particular day. I would point out that the committee went to pains to ask whether I would be available to go at a particular time and I told the committee, in full view of the chairman, who was there and heard it, that the committee should not make its plans to make visits rotate around my ability to go, that if they wanted to go they should make the plans and I would try to fit in with them.
The hon. member also made reference to the fact that I had not objected to the committee calling a vote with regard to the itinerary which the hon. member for Timis-kaming placed on the record. I point out that I was the only member in the committee who objected to that, and when the vote was taken I said I wanted to record my vote against the particular trip because they were one hour visits. I was followed by the vice chairman agreeing with me and the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie (Mr. Watson) who when asked the same thing agreed that it was the wrong type of thing to do.
When the chairman of the committee points out that one of the reasons the committee has not been able to function properly is because of its conflict with the northern affairs committee.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the government house leader rising on a point of order?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully suggest that what the hon. member is now doing is taking a second opportunity to debate the subject matter of this motion, and he is not dealing with a question of privilege. He has not mentioned any question of privilege so far in his remarks.


William Arnold Peters: The Speaker will decide that.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I realize the desire of the house leader to protect his members who are in error-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
12396	COMMONS
Concurrence in Committee Report


Frank Howard: -but the fact of the matter is, and I say it to the chairman of the committee, that he has told in this house a number of falsehoods in respect of my activities on that committee, and I am refuting those by reciting what occurred.
May I say that one of the major reasons there is not now a conflict between the membership of the northern affairs committee and the membership of the Indian affairs committee is that as of last Wednesday there were only six members of the northern affairs committee who were also on the Indian affairs committee. The conflict come about because the chairman of the committee is also the chairman of the immigration committee and is far more concerned with people coming from other countries than he is with our Indian people here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not at the moment, in my estimation, dealing with a question of privilege. He is obviously refuting the allegations, alleged to be wrong, made against him, and I am wondering whether this is proper debate. Allegations were made by the hon. member for Timiskaming against the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and allegations were made about the hon. member for Skeena which he is trying to answer now. This might lead to a rather protracted debate.


Frank Howard: I would just wind up my question of privilege by pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that it is obviously partisanship, because everybody who spoke on this side of the house agreed with the points I was making.


Mr. Roxburgh:: I rise on a point of privilege, please, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will first rule that there was no obvious or apparent question of privilege in what was raised by the hon. member for Skeena. I will now hear a second question of privilege raised by the hon. member.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, as deputy chairman of the committee I have listened to what has been said, and had absolutely no intention whatsoever of taking part in the debate, because this is exactly what it has turned out to be. But the last statement made by the hon. member for Skeena is, I think, absolutely incorrect, because he knows that the hon. members on this side of the house, and he has also already mentioned-

DEBATES	January 30, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member-


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, I will now talk about myself personally. The hon. member for Skeena has also mentioned my name, and that is the reason I have risen. I, along with other hon. members on this side of the house, have been and am as keenly interested in the Indian people as any hon. member on the other side of the house. There has been possibly a certain amount of misunderstanding on a number of occasions. But as far as the over-all picture is concerned, I just wanted to say that when he makes the statement about hon. members on this side of the house, he is absolutely wrong. I just wanted to clarify that matter. I am sure if he is the gentleman I expect he is, he will acknowledge that fact.


Frank Howard: I wonder, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the contribution of the hon. member for Norfolk has closed the debate and that we can now go on to another matter. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Stanbury: 1.	Has the government assessed the proposals made to it on June 22, 1966, by major Canadian trade associations regarding overpaid employer contributions under the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	Have all these proposals or any of them been found to be feasible, and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1 and 2. The proposals made at the meeting of June 22, 1966, by Canadian trade associations did not relate to the interpretation of the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan but rather to the effect of their application as presently enacted. The implementation of any of these proposals would require amendments to the Canada Pension Plan as passed by parliament and, therefore, if considered in the public interest, will be introduced in the usual manner at the appropriate time.
January 30, 1967


STATISTICS RESPECTING DEATH SENTENCES
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Since the publication of the supplementary table, capital case statistics for Canada at page 65 of the white paper on capital punishment, how many persons, by years, (a) have been sentenced to death (b) have been executed (c) have had sentences of death commuted (d) have been sentenced to death but whose cases are (i) before the courts (ii) awaiting decision of His Excellency the governor general in council?
2.	What disposition has been made of the cases of the persons shown on the said supplementary table as still being before the appeal courts, showing by years, how many (a) had their appeals granted (b) were executed (c) had sentences commuted?
3.	In respect of all cases subsequent to May 6,
1965,	what were the leading characteristics of the case, the information being classified on the same basis as table D at pages 100 to 103 inclusive of the white paper?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1. (a)
May 25, 1965 to December 31, 1965, 10; 1966, 12. January 1, 1967 to January 27, 1967, 1. (b) May 25, 1965 to December 31, 1965, 0;
1966,	0, January 1, 1967 to January 27, 1967,
0.	(c) May 25, 1965 to December 31, 1965, 3;
1966,	2. January 1, 1967 to January 27, 1967,
0.	(d) (i) May 25, 1965 to December 31, 1965, 3; 1966, 9. January 1, 1967 to January 27,
1967,	1. (d) (ii) As of January 27, 1967, 0.
Questions
Note: In accordance with the practice in recording such statistics, each case is carried through to its conclusion under the year in which the sentence was imposed. Thus the two cases shown under 1 (c) for 1966 were actually commuted on January 24, 1967. The cases shown under (d) (i) are presently before the appeal courts. It should also be noted that in the period May 25, 1965 to January 27, 1967 there were five capital cases in which new trials were ordered which did not result in subsequent convictions for capital murder.
2.	(a) 1962, 0. 1963, 0. 1964, 1*. January 1, 1965 to May 25, 1965, 0. (b) 1962, 0. 1963, 0. 1964, 0. January 1, 1965 to May 25, 1965, 0. (c) 1962, 1. 1963, 1. 1964, 0. January 1, 1965 to May 25, 1965, 4.
* In this case the accused was again convicted of capital murder on his second trial.
Note: Two of the cases shown as sentenced to death in the period January 1, 1965 to May 25, 1965 are still before the appeal courts.
3.	The cases subsequent to May 6, 1965 up to and including January 27, 1967 are shown on the following table.

Annex to Table D of Appendix I entitled "Capital Punishment: Matters relating to its object and its Value", SO AS TO INCLUDE THE RELATED DATA UP TO JANUARY 27, 1967
Date of decision by Governor in Council	Recommendation of mercy	Murder Weapon	Whether murder premedi- tated	CommutedCase	Age	Motive	Jury	Judge	Murdered	Mental condition	Executed86	18	Nov. 10, 1965	Escape arrest	Yes	Yes	Policeman	Revolver	No	Non-psychotic and no evidence of neurosis	Commuted87	21	Nov. 10, 1965	Robbery	Yes	Yes	76 year old man	Boot-lace (strangled)	No	Mentally defective and severe alcoholic	Commuted88	43	Nov. 29, 1965	Sex (pervert)	No	No	13 year old boy	Hands	Yes	Sexual psychopath showing psychotic behaviour	Commuted89	64	Nov. 29, 1965	Revenge	Yes	No	Middle aged farmer	Homemade bomb	Yes	Psychic enfeeblement of psychotic character	Commuted90	25	Nov. 29, 1965	Robbery	No	No	Bank customer	.308 calibre rifle	No	Paranoid schizophrenic	Commuted91	19	Jan. 14, 1966	No immediate motive	No	No	Penitentiary guard	Knife	Yes	Sociopathic personality disturbances	Commuted92	25	May 12, 1966	Jealousy	*	Yes	Estranged wife	.22 calibre revolver	Yes	Psychopathic personality	Commuted93	24	Aug. 3, 1966	Robbery	No	No	Asst, manager of Trust Co.	.357 revolver	No	Sociopathic personality disturbance, neurological cripple.	Commuted94	28	Oct. 6, 1966	Robbery	Yes	No	Bank manager	.32 calibre pistol or revolver	No	Refused to be examined	Commuted95	31	Jan. 24, 1967	Jealousy and revenge	Yes	Yes	Sister-in-law	.303 calibre rifle	Yes	Not psychotic but neurotic complex, disturbed and irrational	Commuted96	36	Jan. 24, 1967	Jealousy and revenge	Yes	Yes	Common law wife	.270 calibre rifle	Yes	Not psychotic but emotionally unstable	Commuted
Note: 'The classifications "Whether murder premeditated" and "Mental Condition" are in accordance with the foot-notes to Table D. The latter classifications are Departmental assessments based upon the opinions of various medical experts not all of whom were engaged by the Department of Justice.
12398	COMMONS DEBATES	January 30, 1967
Questions
January 30, 1967


CANADIAN PRODUCTION AND SALE OF NUCLEAR FUEL
Mr. Schreyer: In each of the last five years what was the total Canadian nuclear fuel production for each category or kind and of this amount, how much was sold to (a) European Atomic Energy Community (b) other sources?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The information requested is not available as its publication would involve disclosure of information with respect to individual businesses obtained by the atomic energy control board under or by virtue of the atomic energy control regulations.


BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES IN IMMIGRATION OFFICES ABROAD
Mr. Allard: Regarding the answer to question No. 2,186, what is the number of civil servants or employees whose mother tongue is French and what is the number of bilingual civil servants or employees, in the 34 cities abroad where the Department of Manpower and Immigration maintains immigration offices?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Within the department's knowledge of its Canadian employees now posted to the offices referred to in question 2,186, there are 25 whose mother tongue is French and 68 who are bilingual in French and English.


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total number of vacancies listed by employers with the National Employment Service during the period from January 1, 1965, to November 30, 1965?
2.	For how many persons did the National Employment Service find employment during the period from January 1, 1965, to November 30, 1965?


John Carr Munro: 1.	The total number of vacancies listed by employers with the National Employment Service during the period from January 1, 1965, to November 30, 1965, was 1,517,084.
2.	The National Employment Service found employment during the period from January 1, 1965, to November 30, 1965, for 1,144,749 persons.
Questions


MANPOWER DIVISION, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total number of vacancies listed by employers with the offices of the manpower division of the Department of Manpower and Immigration during the period from January 1, 1966, to November 30, 1966?
2.	For how many persons did the offices of the manpower division of the Department of Manpower and Immigration find employment during the period from January 1, 1966, to November 30, 1966?


John Carr Munro: 1.	The total number of vacancies listed by employers with the offices of the manpower division of the Department of Manpower and Immigration during the period from January 1, 1966, to November 30, 1966, was 1,440,578.
2.	The offices of the manpower division found employment during the period from January 1, 1966, to November 30, 1966, for 1,071,160 persons.


MONT-JOLI AIRPORT
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	In what year or years was the Mont-Joli airport constructed?
2.	What was its total cost?
3.	What was the cost of construction for the three runways?
4.	What major improvements have been made to it since its construction?
5.	In what years were these improvements made?
6.	What was the cost of each of these improvements?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Airport construction extended throughout period 1940 to 1947.
2.	$3,059,491.
3.	$1,735,019.
4.	5 and 6. Runway improvements, 1949 to 1951, $322,780; Runway improvements, 1955 to 1956, $251,652; New buildings and services, 1956 to 1958, $77,921; Standby power plant, 1959, $19,829; Lighting runway 16-34, 1961 to 1963, $22,848.


DESIGN OF NEW INCOME TAX FORMS
Mr. Smallwood: 1.	Were tenders called for the design of the new income tax forms?
2.	If so, how many were submitted and who were the firms, and the respective amounts?
3.	Why was the Department of National Revenue not capable of this assignment?
4.	Was $44,000 expended on the design of the new forms and, if so, why?
5.	Which firm was the successful bidder?

January 30, 1967
Questions


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: 1. No, the
creative work on the new forms was incorporated as part of the over-all advertising contract for the filing period relating to 1966 returns.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The Department of National Revenue does not maintain its own graphic arts design staff.
4.	A total of $43,711 was spent developing the new returns and guides, in English and French. A large part of this expenditure was for typesetting, the preparation of preliminary drafts and for early colour proofs used for checking, for testing and improvement.
5.	Not applicable.


BADGES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. McCleave: Is the Post Office Department proposing to issue new badges for postal employees and, If so, what words and symbols will the badge contain?
(a)	Less than $ 20.00 per month
(b)	$	20.00	to	$	29.99 per month(c)	$	30.00	to	$	39.99 per month(d)	$	40.00	to	$	49.99 per month(e)	$	50.00	to	$	59.99 per month(f)	$	60.00	to	$	69.99 per month(g)	$	70.00	to	$	79.99 per month(h)	$	80.00	to	$	89.99 per month(i)	$	90.00	to	$	99.99 per month(j)	$100.00 to $149.99 per month(k)	$150.00 to $199.99 per month(l)	$200.00 to $249.99 per month(m)	$250.00 to $299.99 per month(n)	$300.00 and over per month
3.
	Retired civil servants	Widows
Newfoundland	338	121
Prince Edward Island 177		94
Nova Scotia	1435	742New Brunswick	878	472Quebec	5376	2748Ontario	13443	6740


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: The Post Office Department is not proposing to issue new badges for postal employees.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants presently residing in each province?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2.
	Retired		
civil servants			Widows
	458		1698
	1201		1903
	1866		1869
	1865		1612
	1882		1448
	1790		1322
	1644		1213
	1531		834
	1429		672
	5982		1911
	4137		493
	2949		135
	1806		73
	2382		56
Total	30922	15239Manitoba	1479	636Saskatchewan	949	425Alberta	1652	773British Columbia	4576	2130Territories	45	11Outside Canada	574	347Total	30922	15239
January 30, 1987


FRENCH EDITIONS OF BUREAU OF STATISTICS PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Are publications of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics numbered 61-203 and 61-204 published in French?
2.	If not. for what reason?
3.	Is it the intention to publish French versions or bilingual versions and, if not, for what reason?
tTranslation]


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. No.
2 and 3. It is the policy of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to produce as many reports as possible in both languages, bearing in mind the amount of translation resources available. In increasing the number of bilingual reports, an effort is made to give priority to the translation of those with the greatest known demand.


CONVENTIONS OF COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many general meetings or conventions has the Company of Young Canadians held since incorporation?
2.	Where were they held?
3.	How many people attended each convention?
4.	What were the hotel or accommodation charges for each convention, including telephone, room service, etc.?
5.	What were the transportation charges for each convention?
6.	Is there a report available for each convention and, if so, from whom?
7.	Who are the auditors for the Company of Young Canadians and what yearly audit fees have been paid?


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:	1. Apart from staff meetings,
of the provisional council and the two training programs, the company has held one general meeting since incorporation.
2. This meeting was a regrouping of volunteers already in the field, and was held at Orillia, Ontario, from October 29 to November 5. The purpose of the meeting was to provide new training and orientation information to the company's volunteers, to provide those volunteers with an opportunity to discuss common field problems, and to assist the company develop plans for its third training program based on actual field experiences.
Questions
Other volunteer regroupings are planned on a regional basis. No further centralized regroupings are planned.
3.	69.
4.	Food and accommodation $3,930.79
Telephone charges	226.78
Other charges	Nil
5.	Transportation charges	$ 112.00
Council members	4,117.20
Volunteers	180.00
Consultants	329.00

6.	No report is being published but a record of the sessions of the Orillia meeting was kept by the staff. The executive director reported on the regrouping to the provisional council.
7.	The Auditor General. No fees are charged.


EXPANSION OF TRADE REPRESENTATION IN AFRICA
Mr. Tolmie: Has the Department of Trade and Commerce any plans to expand its trade representation in Africa so as to stimulate a greater flow of exports to this developing area?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The department will be opening a trade office in Nairobi, Kenya, early in the new year to service Kenya and the surrounding countries of Uganda, Malawi, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia. It will become the commercial division of the new Canadian high commission there.


LOANS BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Godin: During the financial year ended September 30, 1966, how many loans were granted by the Industrial Development Bank in each of the provinces and in the county of Portneuf in amounts of (a) over $50,000 (b) under $50,000 to (i) manufacturers (ii) wholesale and retail establishments (iii) tourist establishments?


Mitchell William Sharp: The annual report of the Industrial Development Bank for the year ended September 30, 1966, contains information regarding the number and amount of loans by size, by province and by type of business. A further breakdown of the information is not a matter of public record.

January 30, 1967
Questions


CANADIAN FORCES TRAINING BASE, RIVERS, MAN,
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	What are the future plans for the Canadian forces training base at Rivers, Manitoba?
2.	If it is the intention to close this base, on what date will it be closed?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. As was stated in the white paper 1964, the aim of the reorganization of the Canadian forces is the achievement of increased efficiency and economy based upon the overall national interest. The proper positioning and grouping of activities and forces, and their amalgamation where practical, is now under study, and it is anticipated that this study will extend over a considerable time. In any event no major bases, including Rivers, will be closed out during 1967. Of course this does not preclude the possibility of moving units or activities from one base to another. If, and when, a decision is taken to close out a specific base the maximum possible advance information will be will be provided to those who are directly affected.


GASPE CONSTITUENCY-REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF F. R. SAMS
Mr. Keays: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,204, was Mr. Frederick R. Sams, Gasp6, P.Q. removed from office for any of the following reasons (a) has attained the age of sixty-five years (b) ceases to reside in his electoral district (c) is incapable, by reason of illness, physical or mental infirmity or otherwise, of satisfactorily performing his duties under the Canada Elections Act (d) has failed to discharge competently his duties, or any thereof, under this Act, or (e) has, at any time after his appointment, been guilty of political partisan conduct, whether or not in the course of performance of his duties under this Act?
2.	If not, why was he removed?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. Mr. Frederick R. Sams is still the returning officer for the present electoral district of Gaspe. Hence, he has not been relieved of his duties; (a) not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable; (d) not applicable; (e) not applicable.
2. The Elections Act requires that a returning officer be named by the governor general in council for each electoral district. However, as the limits of the present electoral district of Gaspe have been modified,

under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (13 Elizabeth II, chapter 31), a returning officer was required for this new electoral district and Mr. Ludger Gagne was duly appointed.


MISSIONS ORGANIZED BY TRADE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Walker: How many trade missions have been organized by the Department of Trade and Commerce during the past year, and how many are planned during the current year?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The department's trade missions
program for fiscal year 1966/67 (April 1-March 31) now includes 28 missions, of which 13 were outgoing and 15 incoming. Thirty-three missions, including 14 outgoing and 19 incoming, are presently planned for the 1967/68 program.


FRUIT-REQUEST FOR TARIFF ON IMPORTS FROM U.S.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the secretary manager of the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association, has it been brought to the attention of the Department of National Revenue that Ontario fruit growers are being adversely affected by large scale imports of processed fruit and is the government considering the imposition of a tariff on fruit imported from the United States?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check but it is my impression that I received a communication about this matter within the last few days. I will be glad to look into it. May I also say that this matter has been brought to my attention by one or two hon. members on this side of the house.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Prime Minister said last fall in Hamilton, namely that the situation was being considered, is any action being planned to provide relief to Ontario fruit growers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into the matter and answer the hon. member's question as soon as I can.
January 30, 1967


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the unfortunate bombing of the Yugoslav embassy in Ottawa and the Yugoslav consulate in Toronto. In view of the fact that the United States authorities have announced that they propose to pay for any damage done to these properties, will Canada be paying for the damage done in this country and will payment extend to the buildings in the immediate vicinity which have also been damaged more or less severely?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nature of the question perhaps I will be permitted to give a longer answer dealing with one or two other aspects of the unfortunate incident mentioned by the hon. member.
The explosions in Ottawa and Toronto are being investigated by the Ottawa and Toronto police in co-operation with the R.C.M.P., and I have already seen a preliminary report. There is every reason to believe that in both cities this was a terrorist act. It is our hope and determination to do everything we can to ensure that those responsible will be apprehended. There has been obvious international co-ordination and Interpol has therefore been consulted.
We shall do our utmost to ensure that these atrocious incidents do not affect adversely the relations between Canada and Yugoslavia, and we have assured the charge d'affaires of Yugoslavia of this. Our deep regret that such senseless acts could have occurred has been conveyed to the Yugoslav government both in Ottawa and by our ambassador in Belgrade.
As host country Canada is under an international obligation to protect foreign embassies and other official premises in Canada. Yugoslavia of course recognizes a similar obligation with regard to Canadian premises there. It goes without saying that Canada accepts and honours its obligations under international law and practice with regard to the protection of foreign representatives and compensation for damages to official premises.
The hon. gentleman has raised another question, namely the obligation if any which
Inquiries of the Ministry attaches to the government in respect of damages to adjoining property. Before replying I should like to look into that aspect of the question.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Calvin Macdonald has been told he can testify before the commission on national security in order to clarify his case. However, he has stated that he was asked to keep a file on Hon. M. J. Coldwell, who is at present a member of that commission, and this charge has never been refuted either by the government or the R.C.M.P. Does the government plan to replace Commissioner Coldwell, since he might be involved in the case, or does it intend to give Mr. Macdonald a private hearing as was done in the Spencer case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, Mr. Macdonald has made representations to the commission either verbally or in writing, followed by an appearance. These hearings, if they dealt with security matters, would have been held in camera. Mr. Coldwell is an important member of the commission and there is no intention to interfere with his membership on the commission.


Raymond Langlois: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this not come into conflict with the principles which were laid down long ago in the Magna Carta, and does it not put the two parties in a very peculiar situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we will not have to settle this question this afternoon.



PRESENCE IN CANADA OF PERSON EXPELLED AS SECURITY RISK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it a fact that approximately five years ago one E. Ritzig was asked to leave Canada because he was a security risk? Is the government aware that at the present time this same E. Ritzig is back in
January 30, 19G7

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada with one of the embassies or legations? If so, does the government intend to do anything about it?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary ol Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Having regard to various statements made by cabinet ministers and more particularly the announcement made by President Johnson last week, of the appointment of a commission to study proposals for the establishment of a guaranteed minimum income, and in view of the problems which could arise if that nation proceeded with such a program before Canada, is the Prime Minister considering the formation of a similar commission in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this government along with other governments has been giving consideration to the very important matter of a guaranteed annual income for all. My hon. friend will recall that we have made what I think is a very important and useful first step in that direction in the legislation which was passed a few weeks ago. The broader aspects of the matter are still under consideration and will require a great deal of study before a guaranteed income can be implemented in this country.



STEPS TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of his temporary absence it might be taken as notice and he could give an answer when he returns to the house a little later or tomorrow. In view of the Levy report entitled "The Outlook for Canadian Crude Production and Markets", have the minister or officials of his department had any consultations recently with representatives of the oil industry on steps to be taken to increase markets for Canadian oil in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is a question of a very general nature. I do not think that this type of question can be asked on orders of the day.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter of importance and I hope that the minister will be able to answer the question tomorrow.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the question raised by the hon. member for Calgary North I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would look into the situation and determine first whether the targets laid down for the export of crude petroleum will be reduced at the rate of 100,000 barrels of crude per day and, second, whether a method is being considered in conjunction with trade groups in the United States to increase the export of crude which is of such importance in the trade between our two countries?


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that the second question is of the same nature as the first one and the minister may wish to answer both by way of a statement on motions. However, I doubt that the question can be asked in the way it has been.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR DELAY IN SALE OF ELEVATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. The first part is simple. Has the minister received a telegram today from the minister of agriculture of Quebec asking that the sale of grain elevators in that province be held up until there can be some sort of meeting with the minister?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the hon. gentleman has also received such a communication. I have received one. I have not had time to reply to it, since it reached me just as I came into the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister consider replying to the effect that he will consider holding a meeting not only with the minister of agriculture for Quebec but also the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development who has charge of the feed grain program, so that the problem
January 30, 1967

can be looked at as a whole rather than on a piecemeal basis?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no question, sir, but that before any such sale, if there is a possibility of such a sale taking place, it would be considered by all agencies of this government which would be concerned and that would include the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Canadian Wheat Board.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I assume the Prime Minister is familiar with the speech given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the York-Scarborough Liberal Association in Toronto on Saturday since it was reported with headlines at the top of the third page of the Globe and Mail this morning. Was the minister expressing government policy when he said that the government should first offer more generous grants to those who move to another locality to find work, second, expand the designated area program and, third, increase its spending on industrial research? If this is government policy, can the Prime Minister advise the house when he expects to introduce legislation to implement this important change in government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows it would be improper for me to comment on press reports, especially headlines, devoted to my colleague's statement. I will be glad to examine the text of my colleague's statement on this matter. I would remind my hon. friend that he is aware of the imaginative and important steps that have been taken by the government in this field, and we are I think making these steps more effective.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Was the minister misquoted by the Globe and Mail in its report which appeared on the third page today?


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



SEAFARERS UNION-CHARGES LAID IN U.S. COURT AGAINST CANADIAN OFFICIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour, based on information I have received from Chicago, in the United States. Has the minister been informed that Donald Swait, secretary treasurer of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada, has been named a co-conspirator in a United States court in Chicago where five persons are charged at present with the bombing of a Canadian ship, with the bombing of port tracks and the interstate transportation of dynamite for this purpose? Has he any information to give the house with respect to this very serious case?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the only information I have on the subject matter of the question is contained in the notice of the question which was sent to me by the hon. member for Kootenay West. The facts put forward in the question will be investigated and I shall be glad to confirm them or otherwise when I have more accurate information.
I also wish to say that if the statements are true they bear out the statement made by my predecessor, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the Canadian authorities were receiving co-operation from their opposite numbers on the other side of the line, that these bombings were being investigated by the proper authorities and when they were in a position to make charges same would be laid.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question. Are arrangements being made for the appearance of the maritime unions trustees before a standing committee of the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thought I had answered that question. I said the trustees were engaged on their annual report for 1966 and that when it was available I had no reason to anticipate that arrangements could not be made for the trustees to appear and be examined on the contents of that report.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

January 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact it is virtually impossible for residents in many of Canada's mining communities to receive loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, would the minister elaborate on his statement that loans will now be available to new resource areas?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because it gives me the opportunity to deny completely the premise upon which the question is based. The residents of new resource areas in Canada, according to my information, have had no serious difficulty in getting the necessary loans either for home construction or even for some rental housing.


Raymond Langlois: Make inquiries in Thetford Mines to see if that statement is true.


Robert Simpson: Would the minister take the time to look into the situation at Thompson, Manitoba, where the International Nickel Company has had to guarantee all loans?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That fact does not alter the statement that I have made that in the mining or resource towns there has been no difficulty in getting loans from C.M.H.C. I have been assured that responsible mining companies give the necessary guarantees that are called for by the regulations.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Last week he announced a pilot training project for adult training in areas of slow economic growth in Canada. Inasmuch as almost 50 per cent of the adult male Indian population in Canada is unemployed, will the minister consider, in co-operation with the department of Indian affairs, establishing a division in each provincial project which will deal specifically with training and employment opportunities for adult Indians?


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to suggest to the hon. member that the question appears to be of a very general nature. Unless there is some urgency which I fail to see, I do not think the question should be allowed.


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-La-prairie):: I submit there is some urgency in that last week the program for these pilot projects was announced. I think it is important that as these projects are brought into being there be an Indian division in each of them from the start. Surely 50 per cent unemployment represents an urgent matter.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisier of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to study this suggestion.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the manpower services of his department. Can the minister tell the house what steps he has taken or intends to take to ensure that in the staffing of offices throughout the country wherever there is a significant Indian population, there will be officers particularly qualified to help Indians requiring employment? Has he in mind recruiting staff from amongst the Indian people themselves for this purpose?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard in the department to upgrade our own personnel. I cannot answer for this particular aspect of the subject. Perhaps I could take the question as notice and inform the hon. member later of what is happening.



REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION ON STATUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. During the presentation of their brief this morning did the National Council of Women ask for the establishment of a royal commission into the status of women in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, they did not bring that up. It was not the subject of one of their resolutions at the last meeting of the council. I did have the pleasure of telling them at the end of the meeting on Friday last that the government would be making a statement on this matter in a day or two.
January 30, 1967



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question as a warm-up pitch for the Minister of National Defence. Is the department now adopting a policy of preventing the distribution of publications unfriendly to unification while allowing distribution of others, and who acts as censor? I refer specifically to the case of maritime command bulletins.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has indicated himself that he has in mind the debate which will be continued later today. Perhaps at that time the problem could be considered.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether circulation within the service of publications that are uncomplimentary to the minister are prohibited by him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that if they were there would be a lot fewer publications. We have tried not to interfere with freedom of speech with respect to publications.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question. It is true then that the minister and his program are quite unpopular with the services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Manitoba government, again this year as for many decades, has refused to include Manitoba separate schools in its school budget, contrary to the procedure followed in the province of Quebec, does the Prime Minister intend to resort to section 93 of the B.N.A. Act in order to meet the situation and allow Manitoba separate schools 23033-785
Inquiries of the Ministry to cope with their present difficult financial situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is very interesting, of course, but I wonder whether it is appropriate on the orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: After the orders of the day, then, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to re-phrase my question to the Prime Minister once again, so that it will, I think, be acceptable.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Manitoba has decided to leave out the separate schools from the school budget of that province for another year? Is it the Prime Minister's intention to invoke section 93 of the B.N.A. Act to make a decision on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me, that the second question of the hon. member is strangely similar to the first and my conclusion will be the same, that is to say: it is not acceptable at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: I shall bring it up at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, because I feel it is an important matter that must not be concealed.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is based on the remarks he made to a Liberal meeting in Toronto over the week end. He is reported to be advocating changes in the municipal winter works incentive program. Will the minister make a statement to parliament as soon as possible outlining the proposed changes? Will he say whether he is anticipating a new policy or new legislation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have already announced in the house that we are revising this program. It can be seen in Hansard that somebody asked me a similar question a couple of weeks ago and I said we were revising this program.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the minister advise parliament what the revisions are to be?

January 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: I did not say in York-Scarborough what the revisions were or were intended to be. As soon as I know, the house will be the first to hear of it.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, based on the same speech. Inasmuch as the minister referred to some municipalities which are participating in the municipal winter works incentive program but are doing unnecessary work-he said the scheme was being misused by them-can he say whether the projects he referred to that are unnecessary or where there is misuse of the scheme were approved by his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, projects are approved by the department but the administration is under provincial jurisdiction. As soon as the matter is approved by provincial authorities we simply pay. The provincial governments, as I say, are responsible for administration.


Michael Starr: Is it not a fact that of necessity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: -the approval of the federal government has to be obtained before payment is made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is not in keeping with the spirit of this period.


Michael Starr: The minister is just passing the buck. That is the trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not comment about speeches made outside the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a related question, apropos the speech he made in Toronto over the week end, with reference to the expansion of the designated area program? As this matter comes under the aegis of the Minister of Industry, is it his intention or the intention of the Minister of Industry to make an announcement fairly soon about the expansion of the designated area program? If so, how soon can we expect that statement?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I said in York-Scarborough was, I think, that this program should be expanded but in collaboration with the provinces and the municipalities.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the last few minutes have not been productive. To my mind this is not the type of question which should be belaboured. The hon. member for Ontario has asked three questions on this subject, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has asked a question, and now the hon. member for Ontario wants to ask a further question.


Michael Starr: I want to ask another supplementary question having to do with the subject brought up by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Will the expansion of the designated areas include areas where there have been lay-offs and stoppages of work owing to the auto pact?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did not give any detail. I just said that the program can be expanded but with the co-operation of the provinces and municipalities. If we go farther than that we would have to discuss the matter with the provinces and municipalities to know exactly to what extent they are ready to co-operate with us.


Michael Starr: Are these speeches checked with the Prime Minister before they are delivered?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. It really follows a question of last Friday put by the hon. member for Queens when the minister was not in the house. The Minister of Fisheries said he would bring it to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. It relates to possible design changes in the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway and is of great importance to all residents of Prince Edward Island. A report appeared last week in Prince Edward Island that an engineer had said that the proposed causeway designs are inadequate. Are design changes to be made?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, none are contemplated.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister also assure us that the completion date is still 1970? Is that correct?
January 30, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	12409
National Defence Act Amendment


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. gen-member might put that question on the order tleman is making a representation and not paper.	asking a question.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. While the minister was absent last week I placed a question on the record asking whether any provinces have signed agreements yet to implement the Canada Assistance Plan, and I referred particularly to British Columbia.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



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. With the naming of Yellowknife as the capital of Northwest Territories I ask the minister whether he will be able to announce the level and type of assistance to be available from the federal government to the community of Fort Smith to ensure that no disastrous economic effects will be felt by the latter community when many families are moved from Fort Smith to Yellowknife.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not pessimistic about any area in the Northwest Territories and I hope the hon. member is not either. With all the things that are going on there and the evidence of the resources that we have, the outlook is very bright indeed.
We have said that in the interim we shall be thinking in terms of putting some of the institutional buildings in Fort Smith that we might have planned for other places to take up the slack. I expect to make an announcement in about a couple of weeks in this regard.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister approach his colleague, the Minister of Industry, to see if the Area Development Incentives Act might be applied to the community in question?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman had an opportunity to look into the question I asked on January 18? I inquired whether consideration was being given to the advisability of asking the United States to renegotiate the migratory birds convention?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the advisability of approaching the United States government with a view to the re-examination and renegotiation of the convention is now under consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, December 7, 1966, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this debate was interrupted by the six o'clock adjournment on Wednesday, December 7, seven weeks ago, and one might feel it is almost anticlimactic to come back to the question. However, perhaps the house would permit me to recapitulate briefly the remarks I made on that occasion after having heard the minister deliver a carefully prepared speech lasting an hour and 50 minutes, a speech which was, I understand, distributed at public expense in great numbers-40,000 I am told, or have read-to the various service personnel. I was wondering whether the minister would do us the courtesy of distributing an equal number of the critiques of his speech so that the servicemen might have an opportunity to form an objective conclusion rather than be forced to rely on a wave of propaganda from the minister's office.
The points I am making are, briefly, these: first, that since the government and the minister are making the proposal for the change and since, we hope, change must be for better
12410	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment and not merely for the sake of change, it is strictly up to the minister to prove his case. It is not, as suggested by some of those who no doubt are influenced by the minister, up to the opposition, to prove the hon. gentleman's case wrong. After all, the Department of National Defence and the armed services existed and operated efficiently long before the present minister reached the scene. On the basis of the speeches made in this house, as well as on the basis of speeches made elsewhere, I say that evidence to justify the need for change has not been produced. It is true there have been grandiloquent statements from the minister in that white-paper type of language which lends itself so conveniently to varying forms of interpretation as the need arises.
This leads to the second point I made. There was a great deal of confusion about the concept held by the minister when he spoke of a single unified defence force. There may have been some obscuring of the facts. I do not know. But certainly at the committee hearings which will follow this debate his use of the term "single unified defence force" will be questioned.
Speaking at various meetings, addressing either the general public or members of the armed forces, the minister has said in effect: do not worry too much about the question which is worrying a lot of people, whether this means a single service. But now we are presented with a bill whose basic principle is the establishment of a single service-not a single unified defence force because a single defence force does not necessarily mean a single service. One could have unification at command level. Our forces could be unified in their operations but it does not need to be composed of people in the self-same service wearing the self-same uniform and operating within the self-same rank structure.
Third, I contend there has been a not so subtle change in the objectives of Canadian defence policy. Peace keeping has been upgraded at the expense of the defence of Canada and our commitments under international treaties. The whole concept of the mobile force and the reasons given by the minister for the acquisition of certain equipment and for many of the things which have been done have always been based on peace keeping. However, we know that at the present time peace keeping has a low priority in the organization which alone has authority to despatch a peace-keeping force. After all, Canada is not planning to become a world policeman with an armed force ready to go about on its own initiative to knock heads

DEBATES	January 30, 1967
together. And we know that the concept of peace keeping is having a very difficult time at the United Nations and that unless there is almost a reversal of attitude by some of the principal nations belonging to the United Nations peace keeping will have an increasingly difficult time over the next few years.
This is not the occasion on which to raise some of the problems which go with peace keeping. But they are there. The first, of course, concerns the extent to which Canadian forces would be at the disposal of the United Nations untrammelled by any limita-tation as to their use. In other words, just how much authority over Canadian forces would Canada give to the United Nations without the right of veto with regard to their use? Unless it were guaranteed that the commander in chief of a peace-keeping force would be one of our own officers, the force might easily pass under the control of someone else.
Fourth, I spoke about the adverse effects on the navy. I will leave it at that. My remarks are on the record and many of my hon. friends will wish to speak about that subject.
Fifth, I inquired why so many senior military officers had retired prematurely or been relieved of their duties-13, as a matter of fact in three months. In the first of a series of articles written by General Foulkes last summer the writer asks: why is it that the whole of the command structure was completely changed in less than two years, something which has never happened before in Canada's military history? Many of these men were exceptionally young. They had been promoted by the minister. They had a brilliant future ahead of them, and certainly they did not fit into the category of officers who were the darlings of some rather ill-informed editorial writers or cartoonists-senior officers well past the age of retirement who had somehow or other become semi-senile. This, of course, is an altogether improper representation of these men.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Then I spoke of the uncertainty, the frustration and the demoralization in the armed services as a result of the minister's action or inaction. There was the frustration caused by delayed decisions. There was the inconsiderate action with regard to the release of the 500 pilots. It could have been done in another way if there was an excess of air crew. There was the minister's statement that there would be a compulsory reduction of some 10,000 in all ranks of the armed services. We know
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
what a demoralizing effect the "golden bowler" program had. Certainly it did not require the retirement of 10,000 service personnel, and we remember the jockeying that took place. Some of those who were in a position to benefit from it did so, and this was the case in a number of unfortunate instances.
Before proceeding further I want to go into what General Foulkes said in the second of his articles. This is a question that the minister must answer. Why is it that Lieutenant-General Fleury said in the the committee that it would be three to five years before the logistic framework of Canada's armed services could be completed? Here we are rushing headlong into the amalgamation of field forces. Not only did General Fleury speak about this but so did General Simonds and Air Marshal Annis. We would like an answer to that question.
The minister has on many occasions both inside and outside the house alleged that other nations are also moving toward the same end, that they are moving toward a single unified defence force composed of a single service. We even have the highly laudatory phrases-self-adulation, I call them-at the conclusion of the minister's speech in which he stated that this is the goal of the armed services of the rest of the world.
What countries have shown any interest, Mr. Speaker? There has been a remarkably strange silence. I believe at one point the minister said that two countries were taking a look at the proposition. We know that New Zealand did take a look at the proposal but rejected it as not being appropriate. With regard to Great Britain the minister will have to explain some of the passages in the book written by the former naval minister, Christopher Mayhew, about the minister's concept of a single service and some of his other reorganizations of the defence forces of Canada, which Mr. Mayhew says will not work in the United Kingdom. Therefore the United Kingdom may be ruled out as being one of the countries that would emulate Canada.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the supremo principle has been thoroughly rejected by the British. In their white paper in 1963 they did not go along with the idea of unification or integration at all. I know that the problems of each country are not the same, but somehow or other the minister has given the impression that we are the shining light, the northern beacon that other nations will
National Defence Act Amendment rush to for guidance. The only northern beacon there is is just the gleam in the minister's eye, and it has blinded his own vision.
Let us see what Mr. Christopher Mayhew is reported to have said as found in a review of his book published by the Canadian Press. Mr. Mayhew said:
It seemed clear to me, and Mr. Hellyer readily agreed, that the degree of dislocation which he had cheerfully and deliberately created in Canada-
I could use other terms, Mr. Speaker.
-would be too much for a country like Britain, with a larger and more complex defence organization, and with immediate, widespread operational responsibilities-
He says Hellyer has dismantled and rebuilt the defence forces on functional lines.
"He has built an effective machine for allocating scarce resources on rational principles, and for steamrollering inter-service differences."
In the short run, Mayhew writes, the reforms meant increased demand on money and manpower instead of economies, with the centralized departments supplementing rather than replacing the three service departments.
"A member of the department commented sardonically that he doubted whether Canada could find the money needed to finance Mr. Hellyer's economies."
This, Mr. Speaker, is certainly a question to be considered. Admiral Landymore referred to the cost involved and also to the number of persons required in maritime command.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was his quote.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not his quote.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, the minister can say it is if he wants to, but the former commander of maritime command would know far more about what is going on in his command than would the minister, who after all never paid it a visit to find out what was going on.
To explain all these difficulties with generals and admirals, Mr. Speaker, the minister maintained there was a breakdown in the lines of communication with the various commanders. If there was a breakdown in the lines of communication, how could he find out what was going on at these commands?
Let me now turn to what the United States has to say with regard to unification. I think the minister is well aware of an article published in the April 1966 issue of "Foreign Affairs" written by Mr. Zuckert, former air force secretary of the United States. I should like to make some rather extensive quotations from this article because I think it helps to place certain things in perspective. It must be
January 30, 1967
12412	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment remembered that Mr. Zuckert was at one time a great exponent of unification. He signed the Symington committee report in this regard but since has changed his mind, he says. I should like to quote Mr. Zuckert's article:
The Air Force Secretary's specific job, as it evolved between 1961 and 1965, embraced the formidable management task of phasing no less than six major strategic weapon systems in or out of operational status-the B-47, B-52, B-58, Titan n, Minute-man I and II, as well as their trained manpower and all their supporting logistic facilities. He had to be mindful at all times of retaining a proper balance of skilled personnel and resources, without slackening total operational effectiveness.
These considerations shaped my decision to stay on the job. They helped to change my views. For a decade or more, I had been an ardent advocate of more unification. But I came to acknowledge, as did Deputy Secretary of Defence Roswell Gilpatric in his farewell press conference in January, 1964, that further unification of the Department of Defence is neither practical nor advisable.
It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the United States proposals did not go half as far as the minister's present proposals. There was no question at all of a single service. To them unification meant the combining of the forces under one chief of staff' one chief of defence, one minister. That is what they were aiming at, and they have not even gone that far. The minister is proposing not only to follow up the organizational changes he has made but he also wants a single service.
I continue with Mr. Zuckert's article:
In any circumstance that I can foresee, unification of the U.S. military establishment has gone about as far as it ought to go. This statement recognizes that some residual areas of service separatism have so far defied reform.
Then he goes on to outline some of these areas which on the face of it suggest that there could be room for improvement. In this regard those of us on this side agree with the government that certain changes could have been made in the administrative and supply echelons of the armed services in 1964. I continue:
Looking at the big picture of service roles and missions, no reason for separate services seems more important than the freedom to apply many years of thinking and experience to operational concepts and weapon requirements.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In the army, navy and air force, and in the marines, too, a sense of professionalism has been distilled to: develop each requirement; design and produce the suitable weapon; devise the doctrine to govern its proper use in battle; then train and supply the troops to operate that weapon effectively in a familiar medium. This collective effort by each service is then funneled to the unified commander in the field for use in his co-ordinated military machine as approved by the joint ehiefs.


Then, the last quotation:
From a purely management view, retention of service identity is wholly consistent with the most sophisticated corporate organizations in the United States.
He gives the example of General Motors. This is precisely contrary to the argument which the minister made in his speech the other day that for the setting up of weapons programs, structures, computer analyses and so forth one requires a single service. Mr. Zuckert says quite the contrary. I would think perhaps he has had as much if not more experience than the minister in handling a very great machine. The quotation continues:
General Motors, for example, maintains separate divisions for the production of Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile, etc. They operate within the policy framework of the parent organization, which even encourages healthy competition within reasonable limits to keep everybody on his toes.
A structure embracing a centralized authority at the top and decentralized management responsibility at the service level is very close to being the most responsive to our need.
He continues:
The military services, essentially organized around the medium in which each one operates, offer through the service secretaries precisely that middle level of management which cannot be discharged as well anywhere else in the department of defence.
This article deals with the objections to unification at the ministerial and management level, which is a long way from what the minister proposes. Therefore it shows even greater strength in its logic than what has been advanced by the minister. Then we come to the other NATO countries. What are they doing about following Canada's plan? Nothing.
How does the minister envisage Canada's force operating with allied units which are organized into three environmental services, navy, army and air force, when Canada proposes not to have a navy, an army and an air force? He says he is going to have sailors called privates, airmen called privates and soldiers called privates, all in the same uniform indistinguishable one from the other, all arising from the same amorphous mass.
The minister has attempted to make a case for his reorganization but even the speech which he made last December contains very little in the way of a concrete plan for the complete reorganization of the forces. This is the same problem which arose during the month of October in the debate on interim supply. Although we knew the minister had something in the back of his mind nothing
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
was forthcoming except his insistence that the whole principle of-I do not know what one might wish to call it-integration and unification must be accepted before one can examine the plan. If the plan has in it one iota of anything which is worth while, it will stand on its own feet and does not require acceptance in principle before examination. One might think the minister is afraid that the plan might not be acceptable or workable and therefore that the legislation must be enacted before the adverse effects of the plan become more and more apparent. In his speech the minister spent a great deal of time talking about the advantages of a single service. It was blocked out paragraph after paragraph. This showed again the confusion which exists in respect of the concept of a unified force and the concept of a single service.
If we go back to pages 10828 and following in Hansard we will see some of the advantages which the minister outlined in respect of the single service. These are: 1. Identity; 2, careers; 3, adaptability of change; and 4, demands of modern warfare. In his argument in respect of identify he claims that while sailors, soldiers and airmen will have a common identity and loyalty to their ships, regiments and squadrons, they will have an overriding loyalty to the whole force and its total objectives on behalf of Canada. What unadulterated piffle! Does the minister suggest there is going to be an improvement in loyalty and that there will be a higher loyalty, for instance, to one's country because there will be a single service? I am afraid that the minister shows how woefully short on experience he was in his country's service.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is insulting to the men who are in the service now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is he suggesting that because the men were organized into regiments or because they were in the air force or the navy and attached to a particular service, their loyalty either to the service or to the country was one whit less? Remember, the minister must show that there is going to be a greater loyalty because they will be under a single identity. This is the first argument. His second argument is:
For able and highly motivated Individuals, both officers and other ranks, wider, more challenging and rewarding career opportunities will be available.
National Defence Act Amendment
Again I say, what unadulterated piffle, because in expansion of that statement the minister said:
When people are able to move in a broad stream, which does not confine employment opportunities to narrow specialties or to the individual naval, army or air force entities, both the individual and the force as a whole will clearly benefit.
More Rand corporation language. I should like to give a comment on that, and I believe the minister will agree with this assessment of the degree of specialization in the forces:
Specialization is essential to maintain competence in today's technical and complex world and this principle applies as fully to defence as it does to industry. Therefore, the special training, equipment and experience to fight in each of the three environments, land, sea and air will remain segregated in our defence forces.
The minister has said that we will still have sailors, soldiers and airmen. Then, to continue:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
There is nothing new in having common training or common support facilities provided by one service for the other by the service best equipped so to do or in placing elements of one service under the operational control of another for the specific exercise of commitment. It is obvious too that the spectrum of common training and operations is much narrower than the present service policies would imply. The cost of the multiple specialist training courses required to produce a universally employable service man in terms of dollars and time is prohibitive.
By this it is not meant that the minister proposes to turn out jacks of all trades. Even a four year old would recognize that that would not be feasible.
Let me continue:
It follows that unification of the field forces into a single service is inconsistent with the complexities of today's military facts.
That is a definitive answer to the minister's arguments in this regard.
We then swing away from the idea of a single force back to the idea of a single unified defence force. When the minister talks about adaptability of change he talks about a unified force permitting a much more objective analysis to be made as to the employment of this force. He suggested that because an individual belongs to a single unified force with a common uniform, with no tradition, and because he is one of a great mass, indistinguishable from any other, our defence policy, our weapons systems and all those other matters related to an over-all policy will be more flexible and easier to change. I fail to find any connection in this regard or any relationship between these two theses. The
January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment proposition advanced by the minister in regard to adaptability to change must surely be a non sequitur. He says it is true because when a man has a common uniform his mind is open to change.
If the minister is talking about a defence force being more adaptable to change because of a common command structure, then I am prepared to concede that there may be some merit to his suggestion, but it does not necessarily follow as a matter of course that because a man has a common uniform and a common rank structure he will have any loyalty to the mass structure and will be more easily changed. I fail to see any merit in that argument put forward by the minister.
Let us now refer to the demands of modern warfare. How on earth could those demands be met more satisfactorily by a man in a common uniform operating under a common rank structure? The minister is not asking for a common command structure or common field commands by this legislation. We are talking about joint or combined service headquarters. The demands of modern warfare are continually changing and there is continuing change in the operations of our land, sea and air components. There is no basis in reason for the suggestion that because all servicemen wear one uniform there will be greater cooperation.
Another strange argument put forward by the minister is that because a man in the air force, army or navy has a loyalty to that particular service he will allow that loyalty to override his objective analysis of the greater requirements of weapons, strategy and so forth. What is suggested is that there may be some ingrained selfishness, preference or prejudice toward one service. Let me suggest to the minister that he has entirely overlooked the feeling, philosophy and the attitude of the fighting man. The minister has been surrounded by people at the command level and has failed to understand that morale, tradition and loyalty to one's regiment have some meaning, although he may have paid lip service to this fact in his statement. He has suggested that this can all be wiped out and that some sort of higher loyalty to the Canadian Armed Forces can be developed.
The word "Royal" is being dropped, but a strange situation will develop if and when we again use it in the new name because again we will have "R.C.A.F.". Perhaps as a former member of Her Majesty's armed

forces I might as an ex-soldier feel that there is some plot here, although I am sure that members of the R.C.A.F. would insist that they would not participate in such a scheme and that there would be nothing equivocable about such a move.
A great number of my colleagues wish to speak on this bill and there are only one or two other points I should like to raise. The minister did say something in an effort to assuage certain fears about the continuing use of ranks. He stated that under certain conditions warrant officers and other ranks could continue to use those ranks. That will apply only until these men are promoted because the rank structure of the navy and air force will be wiped out. An individual will never be able to move from lieutenant commander to commander because the rank of commander will no longer exist. He will only be able to maintain that rank until he is promoted. Unless the minister suggests that the regulations will provide otherwise, that rank appellation will continue for perhaps a generation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The minister has undertaken that no member of the forces today will be called upon to serve in some other branch or role than that in which he is presently engaged except in an emergency. In other words, one cannot convert a seaman into a soldier except in the case of an emergency. I ask this question: When would they be called upon except in an emergency? I admit that on a parade square you would not expect to suddenly convert an airman or a sailor into a soldier but where the difficulty comes-and this is what the services are concerned about-is that you will take soldiers and put them on a ship, when there is a solemn undertaking not to do this, because the bill says "except in an emergency". Every time out it would be deemed to be an emergency if there was such a requirement.
There is a further point. I refer to the integration of the service bases. I contend that it is quite illegal for the minister to have carried this out. He has presented it to this house, the armed services and the country as a fait accompli, in the same way as I found the phrase "Canadian forces" in a bill that came here from the Senate after being passed there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is in the present act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is in Bill S-50 which deals with the rights, obligations and what have
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
you of the armed forces of friendly countries while they are visiting Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The term is also in the present defence act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But not in the same way, not "Canadian forces." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it boils down to this. The minister is asking us to accept this measure, not a bill to create a single, unified defence force but to create a single service with a single rank structure. He has not demonstrated the advantages such a step will achieve. I am opposed to the bill on many grounds but principally on this one. I have no hesitation in opposing the bill and that is how I intend to vote in regard to Bill C-243. I refuse to accept what the minister is trying to do to us at the present time by means of this bill.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: National Defence Act Amendment conflict here. We say the statement does not give any clear indication of the future role of the Canadian forces or the forces that the minister and the government want to have. The government indicates that, after two world wars, a small populated country like Canada is going to have an over-all air force, an over-all army and an over-all navy. Obviously Canada cannot do that because we have neither the money nor the manpower. Obviously the government has to decide the future role of the forces on the basis of the best contribution Canada can make toward world peace. Having reached that decision, then we can understand at least to some extent what is meant by unification.
In view of the minister's own outline and the stress he places on mobility, what it means in men, equipment and training, we feel there is a strong argument for a definite statement of policy from the government so that by the time the new NATO agreement comes up in 1969 Canada will have removed its forces from Europe. We believe it is time to give real consideration to that, particularly in view of the fact it takes a while to accomplish this after the decision is made, and because the new agreement comes up for discussion and signature in 1969. Surely after so many years and all the redevelopment after the devastation of the second world war, those countries are basically able to look after themselves, especially with the Canadian mobile force at hand as outlined by the minister.
We in this group are not the only ones talking about withdrawing troops in two or three years. This has been discussed in the United Kingdom. If you want to bring it closer to home I would refer to an article in the New York Times of January 20 with a Washington dateline. It reads:
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield, criticizing the administration for "marking time" on European policy, has reopened his campaign to bring about a substantial reduction of U.S. forces in Europe.
With the support of most of the Senate Democratic leadership, the Montana Democrat reintroduced a resolution saying a substantial reduction could be made in the present six U.S. divisions in Europe without "adversely affecting" North Atlantic Treaty commitments.
It was identical to a resolution last year that the Senate leadership decided not to press after the administration gave assurances that it was studying future U.S. troop levels with the NATO allies.
The resolution is to be referred to the armed services and foreign relations committees, and


Mansfield said he expected the two committees to hold joint hearings and act on his proposal some time this year.
Should the resolution reach the Senate floor, the appraisal of Senate leaders is that it would receive approval by a large majority.
Canada should think not just of renegotiating its position in NATO but of getting out of NATO. The only phase of activity I can see where we might continue is in that having to do with the anti-submarine specialty of the Canadian navy on the Atlantic coast.
The future role of our forces is not made clear, is not outlined in any way by the Minister of National Defence. Having mentioned NATO I ought to mention NORAD. It is understandable that there should be a close relationship between the United States and Canada on defence matters. No reasonable explanation can be given why, in regard to defence co-operation and our relations with the United States under NORAD, we should have nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadians and on Canadian soil.


An hon. Member:: It is a matter of policy.


Harold Edward Winch: When the Liberals came to power, following our friends on the right who had agreed to the introduction of nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadians and the storage of nuclear bombs on Canadian soil, the Prime Minister made it clear that Canada would move immediately to negotiate out of that commitment. We have not heard a word about it since. We accept our Prime Minister's word. We tell him to negotiate out of that commitment and to remove atomic weapons from Canadian soil and from the hands of our troops overseas. I do not know how the Minister of National Defence can maintain the present position of having these weapons in face of the absolute contradiction contained in those beautiful, constructive yet sanctimonious speeches prepared by the Department of External Affairs and delivered at the United Nations. One was made at a NATO conference in Paris not too long ago. The speech warned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons of any kind. As a matter of fact, the whole thing becomes ridiculous.
Having said what we urge, let me now refer to something that appeared in a newspaper. This article deserves to be printed in every newspaper in North America and possibly throughout the world. It is datelined Washington and reads:
The United States, Britain and Russia signed a treaty Friday which bans nuclear weapons in space-
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
Oh.
-and reserves the moon and other celestial bodies for peaceful purposes.
Is that not beautiful? They have reserved the moon and other celestial bodies for peaceful purposes. When will they get together and reserve this earth for peaceful purposes? Can nations not get together, can some country not take some action at least that will mean peace on earth, that will stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons? We do not want those weapons in space, nor do we want them in Canada and we do not want them in the hands of Canadian forces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is our policy.


Harold Edward Winch: We want a different government policy from what we have had. Canada should lead the nations along the lines we suggest.
We must know the future role of the army, the navy and the air force. We must know how our forces are to stand in regard to NORAD and NATO, nuclear weapons and mobility. The role of our forces we must know before, as responsible members, we can say whether unification is or is not good for the forces, or for Canada. Other speakers from this group will go into this matter in greater detail. I have spoken for almost 40 minutes but I have not covered the entire field because that is impossible. Other speakers will talk of defence policy and other organizational matters.
In concluding I repeat that Bill C-243 should have been sent to the defence committee after first reading. That was not done. I hope the minister will rid himself of some of his dogmatism, dictatorship and arrogance and will recognize that it is unfair to ask us to vote on second reading on such an important principle without the matter having been discussed by the committee and without the minister and his officials having placed every last bit of factual information before that committee. We must have the complete plan of unification and integration.
1 hope I see the spirit of co-operation in the minister's eye, and I urge him even now to adjourn second reading and refer the subject matter of this bill to the defence committee. The policy of integration seems logical and reasonable to us, but the House of Commons should not be asked to endorse the principle of unification until the government has clearly outlined its attitude toward existing military alliances and its reasons for same; and
National Defence Act Amendment the anticipated role for Canada's armed forces.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I do not intend to go into details I want to deal with defence policy and with the proposal to unify the armed forces.
It has been brought to our attention that the objectives of Canada's defence policy are, first, to preserve peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression; second, to support Canadian foreign policy including that arising out of our participation in international organizations and, third, to provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air space and our coastal waters. When we turn to the white paper which was tabled in 1964 we read the following statement on page 6:
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In these circumstances, there have developed four parallel methods by which the objectives of Canadian defence policy have been pursued. They are:
(a)	Collective measures for maintenance of peace and security as embodied in the charter of the United Nations, including the search for balanced and controlled disarmament;
(b)	Collective defence as embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty;
(c)	Partnership with the United States in the defence of North America;
(d)	National measures to discharge responsibility for the security and protection of Canada.
I believe there is general agreement across the country with respect to the first objective outlined. I do not think anyone will disagree that we must seek to preserve peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression. Nations have reached the point in the word's history where they realize the futility of trying to guarantee the integrity of their own borders and maintain their national sovereignty completely on their own. In seeking to accomplish this objective they have realized the importance of banding together with others who are interested in the same goal, pledging mutual support in case of an attack by an aggressor state.
Nor do I think anyone will disagree with the proposition that we ought to support Canadian foreign policy, including that arising out of our participation in international organizations. Reference has been made to one of these organizations, the United Nations. I believe that Canada has played an important and vital role in this assembly. The United Nations is not a perfect organization, nor has it achieved all its objectives all the
January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment time, but I think we must agree that in the final analysis it has served a very useful purpose in endeavouring to substitute the conference table for the battlefield. It has not always succeeded but I believe it has succeeded in a number of instances.
When we think of one of the most important operations of the United Nations organization-I refer to peace-keeping operations -we can all be proud of the contributions our men have made in various areas of the world. Moving in without any massive organization and without any large amount of military force, they have established a presence which has contributed greatly to the maintenance of at least a semblance of peace in troubled regions. All members of the house recognize this and agree that we must support Canadian policy with regard to at least some of these areas of activity.
Furthermore, I believe there is general agreement that we should provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air space and our coastal waters. It is this aspect which is causing the greatest concern to those who have been speaking and writing about the proposed unification program. Doubt has been raised as to the effectiveness of such a force in fulfilling these important obligations-the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air space and our coastal waters.
While I do not agree completely with the submissions of Rear Admiral Landymore, I believe one of his main fears is that the proposed unified force would be unable to carry out effectively the protection and surveillance of our coastal waters in particular. There will be fairly general agreement that the three objectives of policy to which I have referred are to be commended. But though general agreement may be reached as to objectives there are wide discrepancies of opinion as to how these objects can best be achieved. One of the reasons for this lack of agreement may be differences of opinion as to the type of military challenge which may confront us in the future.
Will we be faced by a nuclear threat? There are many people who have come to the conclusion that as far as Canada is concerned this is not a very serious prospect at the present time. A few years ago there was a great deal of discussion about the degree of probability of a nuclear attack in which Canada would be involved, and we have gone to considerable expense in order to meet that

challenge. Whether or not that expense was justified is open to question.
In the course of the hearings before the defence committee shortly after it had been set up, a former military officer, now a military analyst, appeared before the committee. This gentleman, Mr. John Gellner, wrote an article which appeared in the magazine Executive, of February, 1966. Referring to the cut-off date of 1964, he said:
Until then, Canada had followed the American lead and concentrated almost entirely on means of deterring the big, i.e. the nuclear, war, and if it came to the worst, possibly fighting a limited kind of such a war.
Later in the article he states: "It all resulted in a fantastic waste of effort and money". I think there are a great many people who would agree with Mr. Gellner's observation.
So there are those who envisage a nuclear war in which we must participate and there are others, in my estimation by far the larger group, who suggest that Canada is more likely to find itself engaged in wars of a conventional or local type.
The question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is most important. What is Canada's role to be in any future conflict? If the minister could outline for us in some detail the role Canada is likely to play in the event of such a conflict, I believe it would help the members of this house as well as the public in general and those serving in the forces to understand his policy better.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
In order to meet the challenge, whatever it may be, there are those who would like to hold to the status quo. They contend that what we have at the present time has served us admirably in the past and will continue to serve us effectively in the future.
Without question, Mr. Speaker, Canada's armed forces have proven themselves in the last two world conflicts adequate for any and every situation. Those of us who had the opportunity of going overseas with the veterans affairs committee some months ago to visit various countries and meet the people there who came to participate in the memorial services which were held can testify to the fact that these people stated very clearly and definitely their appreciation of the role that Canada played in those two major conflicts. One man asked members of the committee on one occasion to convey to Canada the thanks and appreciation of his countrymen for the contribution that the Canadian forces
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
had made in securing and providing for the maintenance of liberty and freedom so that they were able to bring up their families to enjoy the benefits of a democratic system of government. I am sure that every member of this house whether he has served in the armed forces or not, as well as every other Canadian, would agree that Canadian forces have made a tremendous and effective contribution to the defence of freedom and liberty in days gone by. Therefore it is logical that there are those who say that what has been good enough for Canada in the past is good enough today. They contend that what has served us so effectively in the past will continue to serve us effectively in the future and that our forces should remain as they are.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker-and this is the position that the Minister of National Defence and the associate minister are taking-there are those who contend there must be a radical change or reorganization of Canada's armed forces if they are to meet the demands and challenges of the future. As a result we now have before us the proposals which are incorporated in the particular bill now under discussion.
I should like to refer to the defence committee which was established some time ago.
I suppose this present proposal was a new concept, and I remember in the 1950's, before my enforced holiday following the 1958 election campaign, making the suggestion that Canada should have a non-partisan defence policy just as it had been following, generally speaking, a non-partisan foreign policy. I suggested that a committee should be set up to study the whole matter and to give advice and counsel to the minister and the government in arriving at defence policy. That suggestion was not accepted. Later, Mr. Speaker, it was suggested that a committee ought to be set up and the government was urged to do so. We then found during an election campaign that the Liberal party picked up the proposal-I am not sure whether they took it solely from us or from us and somebody else as well-and established a defence committee.
It was my privilege to serve on that committee for a time and I appreciate the experience that was gained. However, I must say I was sadly disillusioned in a very short time over the role that the defence committee was to play in the formulation of policy or in a study of defence matters. The minister stated before the special committee on defence on June 27, 1963, that the committee would give
National Defence Act Amendment hon. members an excellent opportunity to inform themselves on defence matters and to contribute to the determination of defence policy for the years ahead.
Perhaps the first part of his statement has proved to be true. At least, it has as far as I am concerned because I must admit that my understanding of defence matters was very limited and in fact is still very limited even today. Therefore it did give us an opportunity to study defence matters and to inform ourselves. However, as far as contributing to the determination of a defence policy for the years ahead is concerned, I can see no such contribution anywhere.
I can remember the minister coming to the defence committee or into this house on occasion and making statements setting out policy even on matters under discussion at the time by the defence committee. Whether he was anticipating the views of the committee or not is open to question, but I think some members of the committee and some members of the house took it that the minister was just going ahead on his own without reference to the committee, laying down policy and then saying: "Well, you can inform yourselves on the policy and here it is but you are not going to have any part in the determination of the policy".
I suppose I was rather naive in expecting such a thing would happen, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps other hon. members were naive too. But I insist that as far as the committee's work is concerned I cannot see that it has had any effect whatever on the determination of a defence policy for Canada.
Having said that, as a general principle we support the course that is being followed in the reorganization of the defence forces of Canada. I would make the reservation that we do not necessarily agree with everything contained in the bill, but we have taken the position on other bills before the house that debate on second reading involves the policy or principle and is not a debate on all the details and provisions of the bill. In discussing this question with my colleagues we have agreed that this course if desirable and advisable.
Many distinguished officers have voiced opposition to the program. We have read constantly in the newspapers of this or that officer making such and such a statement in criticism of the unification program. We have had a mass of material sent to our desks outlining their objections in great detail and why they are objecting. This matter has been raised
January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment in the house on many occasions. In fact, the question was asked today: Why is it that so many eminent military leaders have found it necessary to resign or be ousted because of the position they have taken in respect of the unification proposals. Even though many distinguished officers have voiced opposition to the program, there must surely be equally distinguished officers who support the course that is being followed.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I have come up against a problem. On November 1, 1966 the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) quoted an article written by General Foulkes in support of the concept of unification. Yet I have heard this same gentleman referred to as one who opposes the concept of unification. I do not know which to believe. Perhaps I might refer to the statement to which the associate minister referred, as it appears at page 9395 of Hansard. He stated that General Foulkes was reported to have said the following in the Star Weekly magazine of November 14, 1961:
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
We need one single armed service under one supreme chief of staff in one uniform. We need to organize our armed forces in the form of task forces designed for their particular jobs, at home or off our coasts or in Europe or with the United Nations. They should each be given the strength they need for their particular job at a given time. They would have no fixed establishment with rigid ladders of promotion, as the three services have now. They would all come under one system of administration, and by this means-and only by this means-I believe, the taxpayers' legitimate complaints of extravagance, duplication and waste can be removed and Canada can start to get real value for its defence budget.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I say, I am having some difficulty in reconciling this statement with some of the statements which have been attributed to this same eminent officer by some of those persons who argue against unification. I have several articles here. One which appears in the Ottawa Citizen November 12, 1966, is entitled "Top officer gives support to Hellyer's defence plan". The article is referring to Air Marshal F. R. Sharp, vice chief of the defence staff. There also is an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of November 15, 1966, which quotes the chief of the defence staff, General J. V. Allard as supporting the policy of the minister. Perhaps I might read just the first two paragraphs:
The chief of the defence staff. General J. V. Allard, yesterday defended the integration and proposed unification of Canada's armed forces and said it is not the intention to make the forces a melting pot of individuals without identity or pride in their environmental and functional affiliation.

He insisted that each of the three present services will continue to operate in an environment of their own "keeping the traditions associated with their operating environments at the unit level".
Are we to assume, Mr. Speaker, that those who are serving officers at the present time support the principle of unification, but when they get out of the service they state something completely different. It almost would seem that way. Therefore if that be true, then it would seem that we cannot believe the officers who are presently serving. It would seem that they are being required to state government policy and say that they agree with it, and believe it is the only thing. I think possibly the minister might refer to some of these contradictory statements and perhaps clarify them for us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not think my hon. friend wishes to make that suggestion. It would be grossly unfair to the officers who presently are serving. It also would be grossly unfair to the minister and associate minister, because we have not required anyone serving to make statements in favour of the policy, nor would we expect them to make such statements if they did not believe in them. I believe that is only a fundamental courtesy which we might extend to them and others who have retired, and who have different views.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I certainly would like to agree with the minister, but as I say, I am in a quandary because here we have an example where in 1961 General Foulkes apparently stated his full support for a single armed service with one chief of staff, one uniform and so on, and yet he is being quoted as being in opposition to the unification program, now that he is retired. The minister shakes his head. Perhaps I have misunderstood some of the statements made by members of the official opposition. However, may I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in any way trying to decrease the stature of those who have served or who are serving; I am not attempting to do that. I am just trying to state my position in an attempt to understand just why these seemingly contradictory statements are being made by the same individuals.
I have stated that generally we support the policy as outlined in the bill, but I believe the minister is to be blamed for being so closemouthed in the past, if he in fact was clear headed enough to know where he was going and what he intended to do. I should like to go back to November, 1966, and read two or
January 30, 1967

three brief sections from an editorial which appeared in The Legionary regarding this particular matter. I do not intend to read this consecutively, but will pick out portions here and there. In doing so, however, I am sure I will not be doing a disservice to the entire article:
The Legion's request was contained in a letter to Prime Minister Pearson, dated August 26, from Donald M. Thompson, the Dominion Secretary and read as follows:
"The members of the Royal Canadian Legion have always taken a keen interest in developments affecting Canada's defence forces. One of the purposes and objects included in our Act of Incorporation states: ..'.to strive for peace, good will and friendship among all nations, at the same time advocating the maintenance by Canada of adequate and sufficient forces on land, sea and in the air for the defence of our country.' "
I shall now skip two paragraphs:
"We have been deeply concerned at some of the public statements which have been made lately, both by those opposing and those proposing complete unification of the Canadian forces. In spite of our best efforts to understand the situation we are compelled to say that, because of the lack of authoritative, clearcut information and explanation we find ourselves unable at this moment to form a sound judgment on the whole question.
The Royal Canadian Legion is not interested in the partisan politics which appear to be developing in connection with this question."
At this point I shall move down to the next paragraph:
"The Royal Canadian Legion urges your government to make clear, without further delay, the detailed plans connected with the integration, and particularly the proposed unification, of the forces so that the judgments made by Canadian organizations and citizens will be based on frank and comprehensive official information and fact, not on rumour and supposition, as seems to be largely the case at the present time."
So it is evident from this editorial that the Canadian Legion was very perturbed over the fact that although there had been a great deal of discussion and debate, and many statements made for and against, they had not been given the necessary information upon which to base their own conclusion and decide whether the program was or was not worth while. 1 shall not take the time to read the statements made by Admiral Landymore, but I should like to refer to pages 6 and 9 of the brief he prepared for the committee on national defence. Here he states his concern that sufficient information has not been given to enable them to arrive at intelligent decisions and recommendations. There was a lot of talk about unification and integration, but as far as unification is concerned there was nothing to indicate just what the minister had
National Defence Act Amendment in mind. This was one of the things which really disturbed Rear Admiral Landymore. He stated that this disturbed his officers and his men. While I do not agree with his attitudes, his words, his actions or his influence, I realize there was some excuse for his position. Perhaps this could all have been avoided by some clear-cut statement of policy on the part of the minister.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The minister must be blamed therefore for allowing this state of uncertainty to exist for so long. The natural consequence of that was the building up of resentment and antagonism. This would not have occurred if accurate information had been given to those vitally concerned. In this way the rumours, reports, misinformation and misstatements would have been eliminated.
The minister must also be blamed for proceeding so far in the implementation of this policy, which has not as yet been approved by this parliament. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) stressed this point to a considerable degree, so I will not refer to it further. I do believe the minister must be blamed in this regard, and that he should not have proceeded so far before obtaining the approval of this parliament.
We are in support of the principles of the bill and unification. Let me refer to a statement of Social Credit objectives, principles and policies which was published I believe in 1958. This is Social Credit policy, so I should like to put it on record here. Let me quote from page ten of this booklet which states that the Social Credit party in respect of national defence would adopt-
(a)	A realistic defence policy based on the following premises:
(1)	Canada is and intends to remain a nonaggressor nation.
(2)	Canada's geographical factors and small population make sustained effective defence against a major aggressor impossible without the aid of other nations.
(b)	Having regard to these facts, a Social Credit government would:
(1)	Re-design Canada's defence strategy and military forces to eliminate useless expenditures on forms of defence obsolete in the light of modem circumstances.
(2)	Concentrate on establishing powerful well-equipped, highly mobile forces strategically deployed and capable of immediate airborne transport to any area of Canada.
Having supported a statement of policy such as this it would be difficult for us to turn around, even if we had any desire to do so,
12424	COMMONS DEBATES	January 30, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment and oppose the measures proposed by the minister. We still believe that in the light of modern conditions this is a commendable, satisfactory and logical position to take in the re-organization of our forces.
One reason suggested for unification was economy of operation. Some members of the house during this debate went to great lengths in an endeavour to prove that economies would not result. I have not gone into this particular matter, but the minister has said that economies have and will be effected. I suppose the only thing we can do is wait and see, and then make a judgment.


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


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. gentleman compare the estimates from year to year, which show there has been no decline in expenditures, or savings as a result of this policy.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Perhaps that is the case, but we must recognize the fact that the minister has already stated that we would save money so far as administration was concerned, but that money would be used to update our equipment. When that has been achieved it is hoped there will be a saving. Even if we just update our equipment in this way, I think this is a worth-while step so far as the operations of our defence forces are concerned.
Perhaps many members of this house, if not all, will agree that this policy is desirable and worth while from the standpoint of administration. In the final analysis this is a proposal which is somewhat commensurate with Canada's resources. We must admit that we have a relatively small population and do not have the tremendous resources which would enable us to move into the big league, as it were. We must therefore fulfil the vital and important role to which we can adapt our forces.


Harold Edward Winch: Specialized, though.


Mr.   Paiferson@: Yes, that would be right.
I believe that this bill embodies a move in the right direction, and in conclusion I should like to ask the minister to clarify for us, for the people of Canada and for the armed forces what the role of the Canadian Armed Forces will be in the future. If we can obtain the answer to that question perhaps we can more intelligently discuss this whole matter of national defence.
The special committee has its work cut out. Reference has been made to the attempt to put this bill before the committee before second reading. At that time, commencing on that suggestion, I stated that would be contrary to the usual procedure of this house, but I also said perhaps this is one instance when we should depart from usual procedure. Perhaps by doing so we might have allayed the fears of those who are apprehensive about this whole program of unification. We trust that as a result of the studies to be conducted by the committee when this bill is referred to it, the information gleaned and the recommendations made, an effective program will be developed which will safeguard and promote the freedom and integrity of not only Canada but the entire free world.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). I was pleased that he referred in the course of his remarks to the visit by the veterans affairs committee to many of the battlefields in Europe. It was certainly my conclusion, after the briefings we received in places such as the Somme, Dieppe, Arnhem, the Normandy beachhead, Mount Cassino and Ortona, that military science is constantly in the process of change. If we are to progress and accomplish those high aims for which our armed forces were established, namely the maintenance of peace, we must constantly re-examine basic issues and have the courage to deal with them.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
There was the suggestion in the remarks of my hon. friend that the Minister of National Defence has not been frank. To me this is, with respect, a ludicrous assertion. I wonder when in the history of Canada, even during the period of the two wars, Canadians have ever received as much information with respect to defence as was given to this house on December 7, 1966, in the lengthy, detailed, almost exhaustive statement of the Minister of National Defence.


Harold Edward Winch: It is what was left out that bothers us.


John Ross Matheson: I wonder when in the period prior to 1963 we ever heard between 100 and 200 extraordinarily able people of this country, and elsewhere, giving evidence on defence matters. Where else has any group of parliamentarians been able to hear defence

January 30, 1967
policy discussed from every aspect-tactical, strategic, logistic-and intelligence of the quality that we received in the defence committee?
I am reminded of John Walker's comments on C.B.C. in the program "Preview Commentary" of September 20, 1966, when he said:
When the session adjourned recently, the Conservative member for Halifax, J. M. Forrestall, was accusing Mr. Hellyer of "illegal" actions in unifying the services before the bill is presented this fall and charging him with putting things over on the members.
His argument, like that of the military men who claim they never knew unification was planned to begin in 1967, is a hollow but desperate one. It was reasonably clear from the white paper of March 15, 1964, that unification was supposed to begin some time between March, 1967, and March, 1968, the details and extent to be worked out by the new single defence staff, as Hellyer repeatedly told the defence committee.
Incidentally, if I may interpolate for a moment, because I wish to continue with Mr. Walker's comment, if we examine the address of the Minister of National Defence of December 7 last, it seems perfectly clear that a period of years will still intervene before there can be anything like complete unification. This is a process that will tend to continue and improve as each year goes on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not with the same minister, I hope.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps not with the same minister. He may be prime minister by that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, may I continue with what I think is very fair comment by John Walker on the C.B.C.:
This was confirmed in a long directive sent out to all the forces April 2, 1964, repeated by Vice Admiral H. S. Rayner the next day in a personal notice in every naval wardroom and barrack. "The end objective of a single service is firm", he said, although Admiral Landymore apparently didn't get the message for another two years.
And on April 9, 1964, Mr. Hellyer told the Commons that it was correct that for planning purposes the defence department "considers July 1, 1967, as an acceptable target date for the unification of the three forces".
I believe that in military matters, as in other matters, if you are to move you have to decide to move, you have to get the engine into gear and have the courage to move. This is precisely what has happened. John Gellner
National Defence Act Amendment gives us an idea of the administrative background of this whole situation. The only satisfaction we as Canadians can take from a review of our situation is that similar conditions have prevailed in most other western states. John Gellner says:
To understand the revolution in national defence management, one must first look at what the practice used to be.
I am pleased that my hon. friend the former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), is in the chamber. I think we can describe the situation that prevailed for a long while between wars. John Gellner continues:
In the past, in peacetime, the defence minister of a western democracy was only the spokesman of the services in the cabinet and in parliament, and the interpreter to the services of the government's policies. He did not usually take a hand in planning strategy. He was not even the co-ordinator of planning. Co-ordination was done by a chiefs of staff committee, and by other joint committees of the services (in Canada, there used to be about 200 such committees).
This is the sad way in which defence policy developed during the peacetime years. John Gellner continues:
These, split by service rivalries, were not the best instruments for common action.
Each service drew up its own budgetary requirements, usually on the basis of its own conception of what its mission was.
Invariably, the requirements submitted totalled much more than the government was willing to spend. After much haggling they were pared down so that each service got its piece of the pie.
This may have been 40 per cent for one service, 40 per cent for another and 30 per cent for the third, with not much more logic to it than that. Gellner continues:
The size of it, however, was as often as not determined on the basis of arbitrary ratios rather than on rational division.
The tendency to look at a military problem in isolation was also prevalent when it came to judging individual equipment programs.
I like what Ron Collister has said by way of summary in his excellent series entitled "The Unification Issue," when he sums it up in this way:
Unification is on its way because it makes sense to the new generation, in or out of uniform, on the grounds of economy and efficiency in 1966 and the age of science.
My hon. friend from Fraser Valley was challenged by a member of the official opposition a few minutes ago on the question of whether the Minister of National Defence was in fact effecting economies for Canada in this program of unification. I am reminded of a

January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment visit I had to our brigade in NATO and talking to a number of friends, some of whom had been servicemen in world war II and old comrades. It was a very sad picture that we received attesting to the depletion of materiel. We did not have adequate guns, we did not have adequate gun tractors or recce equipment. It was entirely inadequate. One could refer to every branch of the services and find that we had failed to keep up with our materiel requirements. I am speaking off the top of my head, but I believe for a while we were spending only about 17 per cent of the defence budget for equipment. While our total defence costs remained constant we were in fact disarming.
During this period administration costs tended to climb, costs for personnel were very much larger; so there was the piling one on top of another of administration staffs. Finally we were so overloaded with overhead costs that we were becoming an army that could scarcely have fought any decisive action anywhere. Perhaps we were fulfilling a useful role as a diplomatic force, and I do not minimize the importance of this. Our attempts to meet our NATO commitment must always be regarded partially in this light. But if our presence in Europe is important or is to be regarded seriously anywhere, we must equip a force in such a way that it can in actual fact perform its task effectively.
I should like to refer, if I may, to the conclusions of people who are not in the public service at this time, either here or elsewhere, but who stand out as giants I think in the field of military science. I feel that many of these people have in their own way and as a result of their experience, some of them in world war I, world war II and Korea, come to the certain conclusion that for optimum military efficiency unification is necessary.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested that we rise from seven o'clock to eight o'clock to permit hon. members to have dinner. If this is unanimously agreed, it might be so ordered.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), unemployment insurance-request for increase in maximum benefits; the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard), bankruptcies -consequences of bankruptcy of Prudential Finance Corporation and subsidiaries; the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack), Canadian National Railways- inquiry as to remuneration for fire damage.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the second reading of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, just before the dinner recess I presumed to suggest that what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has done for Canada's defence policy is to implement the recommendations of some of the most prophetic and knowledgeable people in the military field known to our times. May I refer to an article which appeared in the Canadian Army Staff College Journal, period 1959 to 1961, written by J. G. Forth of the Royal Canadian Engineers under the title, "Unification, when, how, why?". The author of that article concluded that the existence of three or more separate services in modern national defence forces is an illogical relic of the past perpetuated by inflexible thinking, vested interests and individual service fear of extinction. He said that a clear distinction of roles for each service is no longer possible; that as time passes this overlapping of function continues to increase with resulting waste in research and development programs,
January 30, 1967

in manpower and time. He said that the ever expanding area of overlapping of functions and the continual development of new weapons and concepts of war point clearly in the direction of service unification.
He concluded that the development of a single, unified service would lead to an increased efficiency both in logistics and operations; that unification would eliminate the need for combined staffs; would eliminate interservice jealousy and rivalry, and it would make possible the more efficient use of resources available at every level. What was required here or anywhere else where this problem was under consideration was a person with a very sharp mind and an appetite for action, and that is what Philip Smith of Weekend magazine concluded was our happy fortune in the Minister of National Defence, a person possessed of the courage to act on the conclusions of past experience.
Hon. members might be interested in some of the quotations that are available from different authorities. General of the army Douglas Mac Arthur said:
The great lesson for the future is that success in the art of war depends upon a complete integration of the services. In unity will lie military strength.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is integration.


John Ross Matheson: I am not interested in semantics; I am interested in the development of an idea. I should like to quote what Dwight D. Eisenhower, General of the army, said:
Unity of command in the field so vital to our success was not easily achieved. When war came at Pearl Harbour we had joint command. It was not until we surprised the enemy in North Africa that the first large scale example of unified command emerged. But it was a new device and there were many difficulties which yet remained to be overcome. All of these had to be met and surmounted during actual operations when lives were at stake-
The navy, the air force and army must work as a unit. If I had my way they would all be in the same uniform.
This is General of the army Dwight D. Eisenhower speaking, and many of us in this chamber had the satisfaction of serving under this outstanding military leader of this century.
President Truman said:
We should establish the most advantageous framework for a unified system of training for combined operations of land, sea and air.
All of us can remember what Lord Lovat did with a united task force and what Mountbatten did in difficult days and what
National Defence Act Amendment Wingate did in the east. General of the army, Henry H. Arnold said:
Not only unity of command is required, but unity in the preparation of programs, preparation of supplies, preparation of ships and allocation of ships, and movement of supplies.
There was a reference a little earlier by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) to our visit to Europe during the summertime. I remember studying for some hours the landing beach at Dieppe. The tragedy which developed from that fateful operation-I say this with humility and respect -would not have happened had there been the unity we are seeking to provide for our forces by this piece of legislation.
Then, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Arthur Harris, known as "Bomber" Harris, said:
There is only one answer to this otherwise inevitable tendency in each of the services to get tied to a particular and invariably obsolete weapon, and all weapons are obsolete as soon as they are in use. There must be only one service; the survival of three of them at this stage in the development of armaments is wholly idiotic, and there never was any reason or need for them at any time.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Some years ago when talking to some friends from the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in Europe I was told precisely the same thing. I was given to understand that some weaponry used in the army was used also in the air force and in the navy.
Lord Louis Mountbatten said:
I do not believe that a committee composed of the respective commanders-in-chief, even if it had been under the chairmanship of a minister of state, could have functioned with the advantages which the Supreme Allied Commander enjoyed.
Field Marshal Montgomery said:
It is a grave question whether any large military organization which is not closely integrated and gripped tightly at the top can adapt itself successfully to the required speed of modern life.
The Duke of Edinburgh, respected all over the scientific world, tells us this:
Any idiot can go on doing what has been done before, but it takes real courage, intelligence and character to assess the needs of the future, to devise a sound program and carry it into effect. This is particularly true of the armed services, which become merely an expensive luxury unless the process of improvement, modernization, forward thinking, and planning goes on continuously.
He was speaking at the Royal Society of Military Engineers. Some of my friends might be interested in reading the book "Three Continents" by Field Marshal Montgomery of Alamein, published in 1962 by Collins of
January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment London. In the chapter "The defence organization of Britain" he writes under the heading "One fighting service: not three". Montgomery concludes:
Progress and development in the modem world have outmoded the old conceptions of the organization of armed forces; but we cannot see this, so strong are our habits and traditions. The separate existence of the three services, sea, air, and land, automatically results in waste of money, waste of manpower, waste of time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense.


John Ross Matheson: Nonsense, is it? Perhaps my hon. friend sat too long reflecting about war and the tragic circumstances of Dieppe, because if unification had been implemented earlier, if he had more assistance on the beaches of Dieppe he might not have been a prisoner of war for so long.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It would have taken more than that.


John Ross Matheson: I suggest that listening to Montgomery, who had some experience in war is worth our while. He said:
The separate existence of the three services, sea, air, and land, automatically results in waste of money, waste of manpower, waste of time...
But the greatest fact of modem times is that change is inevitable;...
Progress depends on courage to make decisions to meet the needs of the times.
He says that this confusion in military thinking is the result basically of the old feudal system of three services. He said:
The old feudal system, first of two services and now three, has existed for too long-
He says this, and I quote:
It seems to me to be ridiculous to go on in this way. Obviously we cannot today go over to one service-
He is speaking about the United Kingdom. He suggests that the final step must be to abolish the three services and organize them into one fighting service under a single war department.
I notice in another statement he concludes:
If the United Kingdom were today a recently created state organizing the fighting forces it is inconceivable that they would be separated into three services.
This step of course invites all kinds of opposition. I can understand people who love tradition being upset. I do not believe there is any person involved in the implementation of this operation who does not care about tradition. I should like to touch on some of this in a minute. Nevertheless, we are compelled to

come to certain conclusions. I was interested to read the observation of a prominent Canadian who, when speaking of the Minister of National Defence, said:
He has perhaps more integrity than any man I've ever met in public life,-
These words were spoken before the Christmas recess. I think we are exceptionally fortunate in Canada to have this minister at this time willing to undertake this difficult and in some respects unpopular task which must be done.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Disastrous.


John Ross Matheson: Disastrous, the hon. member for Carleton said. Well, General Charles Foulkes, former chairman, chief of staff committee in the Star Weekly magazine of October 14, 1961, said something about this-and my hon. friend from Carleton was sitting over here in those days where he might have done something about it. The Star Weekly article I refer to states unequivocally:
We need one singled armed service, under one supreme chief of staff, in one uniform.
The author General Foulkes, says that only then can Canada start to get real value for its defence budget.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You had better read what he wrote in 1960.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps my hon. friend who formerly had responsibility in this regard would listen. Perhaps it was not his fault that his defence policy was so utterly paralysed, going in opposite directions. Perhaps he would not mind listening to our Minister of National Defence who has put his reputation on the line. Our minister is prepared to carry this through. Believe me, many Canadians feel this makes good sense.
One of the things that appeals to me in this program is that it will undo the confusion in trades. John Gellner tells us that there are 346 separate trades in the services. A careful, study, conducted since October, 1964, has shown that there need be only 98. Of these, 28 are unique to one service and will exist only in one. The remaining 70 trades will be common to two or all services. He says:
To integrate these trades was the only sensible thing to do. It should have been done long ago.
Some of us have had an opportunity to discover how, for a period of years there was an oversupply in some trades, and a great
January 30, 1967

shortage in others. Continuing quoting from John Gellner:
The purpose of consolidating the service trade structure is the same as that of the whole unification drive; to achieve economies in manpower and money, which then can be plowed into the acquisition of more military muscle. There is no doubt that the integration of the 70 common trades will make the whole force more flexible; will allow the keeping of a simple manpower inventory, and will reduce costs of training and administration.
I like the way the minister dealt with this matter at page 10829 of Hansard on December 7, 1966, when he spoke about careers. He says:
For able and highly motivated individuals both officers and other ranks, wider, more challenging and rewarding career opportunities will be available.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we never need to have a large service force in Canada, but it is imperative that men who are gifted militarily ought to be able to serve in some challenging capacity. They should be trained so that they might make their best contribution to the development of the force. This was spelled out by the minister, in my view, in a very satisfactory fashion. Blair Fraser, writing in Maclean's magazine of August 20, 1966, says that nobody has yet made a case against unification. He says:
The subject has been debated for 20 years, but the argument has always been between reform on the one hand and inertia on the other. Nobody has ever risen to explain, in terms a civilian could understand, why the services should not be united.
In a few minutes we shall hear from the former minister of national defence. His own defence policy was a tragedy-perhaps not through his fault, but because of divisions inside his own government. Perhaps for the first time during this debate he will present the case against the principle of unification. I shall be interested to hear him because on the unification side we have some men for whom I entertain the greatest respect. One of these is Lieutenant-General W. A. B. Anderson. He was born in 1915 and graduated from R.M.C., which he attended from 1932 to 1936. He was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, was promoted to lieutenant-colonel in April, 1942, and from there on he held first grade appointments until appointed to command the 15 Field Regiment, R.C.A.
My hon. friend will be interested in this, because I am sure that he recognizes that Anderson is now one of the outstanding military men of this continent. He served as a general staff officer, Grade 1 (operations)
National Defence Act Amendment headquarters, Canadian army in northwest Europe from May, 1944, until his return to Canada. He was promoted to colonel in February, 1946, and he was appointed director of military intelligence, and later director to the Canadian Army Staff College. In 1962 he was promoted to major general. In 1964 he was appointed chairman of a senior officers study group. In 1966 he became a lieutenant general and commander of Mobile Command.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Or consider a man like Michael E. Pollard, a man with a fantastic record as a medium bomber pilot, decorated on several occasions for gallantry during the war. In 1952 he was posted overseas to command the R.C.A.F.'s fighter wing at Grostenquin, France and in the following year he assumed the duties of senior air staff officer at 1 Air Division headquarters, Metz. We remember our visits there and the reputation Pollard enjoyed, within the European theatre.
In the summer of 1966 the headquarters of Canadian Forces Air Defence Command was moved to North Bay to be re-located with the headquarters of the Northern NORAD region. At that time Air Vice Marshal Pollard was appointed commander of both Air Defence Command and Northern NORAD region.
All of us know Major-General Robert P. Rothschild, known 7.11 over Canada, as the "Baron". He was born in Cochrane, Ontario in 1914, and educated at the Royal Military College and at McGill University. Commissioned in the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in 1938, he went overseas with the 1st Canadian Infantry Division. He returned to Canada in 1916 when he was appointed commandant of the Canadian Army Staff College in Kingston, Ontario. In 1951 he was appointed a commandant of the National Defence College and two years later was named deputy co-ordinator, joint staff, at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. On March 15, 1960, General Rothschild was appointed commander, Canadian Army Liaison Establishment and army member of the Canadian joint staff, London, England. He was appointed quartermaster general of the Canadian Army in August, 1962 and promoted to the rank of major general. In August, 1965 he was appointed Commander, Materiel Command. We are so fortunate to have Rothschild where he is now as one of our top planners.
And what about the brilliant Canadian who is in command of our defences, General Jean Victor Allard, the holder of the CBE, the Distinguished Service Order and numerous
12430	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment other decorations conferred by governments here and abroad. He is a young man; he was born on June 12, 1913, in Ste. Monique de Nicolet, Quebec and commissioned in the nonpermanent active militia in 1933. It is a matter of great pride to those who served, or still serve, with the militia that General Allard has got where he is today. I remember him as second in command of the Royal 22nd in 1943 while the regiment was serving in Italy. In December, 1943 he won the D.S.O. for gallantry, initiative and military skill in the battle of the Arielli River, near Ortona. In January, 1944, he has appointed commanding officer of the regiment and in September of that year was awarded the first bar to his D.S.O. for outstanding service during the breakthrough of the Gothic Line. In 1945 he was given command of the 6th Canadian Infantry Brigade in Holland where he won a second bar to his D.S.O. After a year at the Imperial Defence College in England, where he is still well remembered, he became vice quartermaster general for the Canadian army.
Jean Allard returned to the field of action in April, 1953 as commander of the 25th Canadian Infantry Brigade Group in Korea. He represented Canada at the truce signing ceremonies at Panmunjom on July 27, 1953. In 1965 he became the first commander of the newly created Mobile Command and in 1966 he was promoted to general and appointed Chief of the Defence Staff.
Or we could consider navy people such as Vice Admiral Ralph Lucien Hennessy, D.S.O. Born in 1918, Admiral Hennessy is still a young man. He entered the navy as a cadet in 1936 and joined the Canadian destroyer Assi-niboine in 1939, serving in her for the next three and a half years. As executive officer he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross in August, 1942, for his part in the sinking of the German submarine U-210. In 1944, while in command of the Assiniboine he served on North Atlantic convoy duty until the end of the war. When H.M.C.S. Micmac, the first Canadian built Tribal class destroyer, was commissioned in September, 1945, he took command. In 1956 he was appointed in command of H.M.C.S. Niobe, R.C.N. headquarters in Britain, and additionally as chief staff officer to the naval member, Canadian joint staff (London).
Admiral Hennessy served as director of naval training in headquarters from September, 1958, until he became deputy chief of naval personnel in June, 1960 with the rank of commodore. In August, 1963, he became

DEBATES	January 30. 19G7
commodore, personnel, Atlantic coast. In July, 1966 he was appointed comptroller-general having been promoted to vice admiral. Let us bear in mind the influence, at least, that the party now in the official opposition used in the making of some of these important appointments.
I could go on. I could deal with the records of Commodore Fraser-Harris, or of Air Marshal Edwin M. Reyno, or of Air Commodore Gerald Gordon Diamond, or of Rear Admiral John Charles O'Brien, a man with a particularly brilliant list of achievements. O'Brien entered the Royal Canadian Navy as a cadet from the Royal Military College in 1937, he trained and served with the Royal Navy in monitors, battleships and cruisers. In October, 1940, he joined the Canadian destroyer Saguenay for North Atlantic escort duties. In 1942 he specialized in communications and served as flotilla signals officer in the R.N.'s fourth destroyer flotilla. After a period in command of the destroyer Cresent, which vessel I have visited at sea, and a year spent on the staff of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, he became executive officer of H.M.C.S. Stadacona, R.C.N. barracks at Halifax in 1953 and was later executive officer of the aircraft carrier Magnificent.
Admiral O'Brien took command of the aircraft carrier Bonaventure in September, 1959. Two years later he became naval member Canadian joint staff (Washington) and commanding officer H.M.C.S. Niagara, R.C.N. establishment in Washington. He was appointed senior Canadian officer afloat, Atlantic, on August 24, 1964. In July 1966 he was promoted to rear admiral and appointed commander, Maritime Command.
So we have a pretty strong team.


An hon. Member:: It was a lot stronger four years ago.


John Ross Matheson: I did not hear that interruption.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Would the hon. member tell us just what the purpose of all this irrelevant name dropping might be?


John Ross Matheson: I do not think it is irrelevant. Sometimes the admiral who makes the loudest criticism can be heard from coast to coast, in broadcasts and newscasts everywhere, while those able leaders who build day in and day out, year in and year out, are not heard from at all.
January 30, 1967

Having examined this matter from my vantage point in parliament, I am firmly of the opinion that today we have as fine a team as we have ever had in Canada's proud history.
Anyone who knows anything about General Allard's background would I think, be bound to agree. It was my privilege to serve with the Royal 22nd as a gunner officer while he was in Italy. This man is legendary. I do not think it is wrong for Canada to take a great pride in those who are now in charge of our defences. But perhaps I have said sufficient.
We must decide whether or not we shall venture upon this new ground and set the example which, some people believe, will be followed by a number of our western allies, and possibly by countries which are behind the iron curtain. This is something dramatically new. Indeed, we believe that even outer space is militarily no longer remote from the air, the land, the sea, and the waters beneath the surface of the sea. We believe that unification is a means of rendering more efficient, and giving greater clarity of purpose to, a force which we wish it were not necessary to maintain at all. But since this force is engaging the services of many of the finest elements in our nation, prepared to live their lives and give their lives for their country, then let us try to give them, as far as possible, the advantages which come to any who are engaged in civilian occupations.
We want nothing but the best for them. I believe with all my heart that in this unified program Canada is ushering in a new era in defence policy, venturing upon a policy which is fresh, creative, constructive, and designed to lead, ultimately, to world peace.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In
introducing the bill to create a single Canadian defence force the minister made a brief reference to the aims or objectives of Canadian defence policy. But he did not go deeply into those matters or indicate how the proposed reorganization of the defence force would enable these objectives to be pursued. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of defence forces is to carry out defence policy. Unless we start from that basic proposition as to what is Canadian defence policy and what are the objectives of Canadian defence policy, to a large extent we are really thrashing around in the dark.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I was very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the minister spoke for an hour and three quarters and devoted about half a minute of

National Defence Act Amendment his speech to what are Canadian defence objectives. I was glad that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) both had something to say about Canadian defence roles and objectives. I did not agree with what they had to say in many respects, but in any event I thought that they were on the right line in discussing what I think must be the essential starting point for any discussion of this bill and its implications, namely the unification of the defence forces and the forming of one single defence force, rather than the organization we have had.
At this point I should like to make some references to what has been said by the speakers immediately preceding me. The hon. member for Fraser Valley said that he did not know what were the objectives. He complained about that, and he complained about a number of other things that the minister had been doing. He then went on to say that he and his group were going to support the government as far as this bill is concerned. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is a completely illogical position to take. If the hon. member did not know and does not know what are the objectives of Canadian defence policy, and therefore has no conception of what will be the effect of the proposed changes on the avowed aims of Canadian defence policy, how can he possibly support the bill?
The hon. member also spoke of some difficulty that he had over various statements made by General Foulkes. That again, I think, is due to the fact that there has been a great deal of confusion over what is meant by "integration", what is meant by "unification of command", what is meant simply by "unification" and what is meant by what the minister now calls "a single unified force".
I can well understand the confusion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, because the minister, his representatives and spokesmen during the past three years have, I believe, deliberately confused the meaning of these terms. We have never had any precise or definitive definition of what is meant by integration, unification and so on. These terms have been used either alternately or as synonyms for each other quite regularly. This is a matter to which I will refer a little later in connection with some of the statements made by the minister in his speech.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) quoted a large number of unrelated excerpts
12432	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment from speeches or writings of various distinguished gentlemen, but I do not think much can be gained by taking something out of context and just quoting it; and essentially that is what the hon. member did. I should like to say at this point that I disagree completely and absolutely with the statement he attributed to Mr. John Gellner to the effect that ministers of defence of the past were, in effect, captives of their military advisers, and that defence problems during those periods were looked at in isolation in each service, with no co-ordination of effort.
This is, Mr. Speaker, without doubt completely false. It is certainly false as far as I was concerned. I know it is incorrect as far as General Pearltes was concerned. I am also absolutely certain, knowing the gentlemen and something of what they did from my experience in the department, that this is completely untrue as far as Mr. Campney and Mr. Claxton were concerned. Certainly Colonel Ralston and Senator Power showed their independence sufficiently, by their resignations from the cabinet to which they belonged at that period, to make it quite clear that they were making up their own minds and were not the captives of their military advisers.
In this respect I think that all the gentlemen I have mentioned, as well as myself, during the periods we were ministers of defence of this country did listen to the advice of the senior military officers, and on the basis of that advice, and taking into consideration political facts, financial demands and-matters of that sort, we came to a decision as to the course of action to be followed.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the present minister has not followed that very wise course but has disregarded the advice of his senior officers, as demonstrated by the fact that practically all of them have now resigned or been fired, as the case might be.
I think there is no question that any reasonable method of carrying on defence activities and defence policy in any country must be based on the general course that has been followed up to the present time, such as for example weighing the advice of senior military officers, and other factors concerned, and then coming to a conclusion on that basis, rather than disregarding these officers and, if they disagreed with you, firing them or otherwise getting rid of them.
The hon. member for Leeds tried to demonstrate that a considerable number of distinguished military leaders of the United States were all for a single unification system. But

DEBATES	January 30, 1967
the actual fact is that the United States has not gone for a single unified force. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) put on the record this afternoon a considerable amount of evidence from Mr. Zuckert, who for several years was secretary of the air force in the United States, as to why, although he himself had been convinced for years that complete unification was the answer after several years of experience he found it was not the answer, and that it was unwise to proceed with it. This again is another matter to which I shall refer in dealing with some of the points made by the minister in his speech.
I had started out to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my view a consideration of this whole matter must start with the roles or objectives of the defence force you want to create, or which you have in existence, and how they can be fulfilled. In actual fact, during recent months there have been very grave doubts about what are the minister's and the government's end objectives in defence. There is a widespread belief that while the minister pays lip service to the defence objectives followed for many years past, and which are set out in the 1964 defence white paper, his real objective is to run down our defence forces so that in the end they will consist of nothing much more than a type of police force which would be able to carry out certain United Nations peace keeping activities but very little more than that. Certainly it would be unable to meet the other stated objectives of our defence policy.
This suspected position of the government, if I may call it that, was stated in fairly bald terms in an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen for November 5, which as everyone knows is one of the papers which very strongly supports the government. Its editor, Mr. Young, is known to have close ties both with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and other members of the government, so therefore I think it is reasonable for us to suspect that to a very considerable extent his utterances and editorials reflect the thinking of the government, or some of the most important people in the government.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The editorial reads as follows:
The evident strategic doctrine contemplated by the government is to set up a mobile force of land, sea and air services that could be moved quickly to any part of the world to undertake either a UN peacekeeping obligation, or to help fight a brush fire war on NATO's behalf.
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
This is what he calls the strategic position of the government at the present time. He goes on to say:
This would require the country's air and naval units to play largely a support role for the army, rather than the semi-independent part they once took.
I do not know whether that represents the thinking of the government, but in many quarters there is a very strong suspicion that it does. From what has been going on I am afraid that it is a reasonably close approximation to what the minister and the government have been thinking and where they are heading, whilst at the same time trying to lull the Canadian people into a belief that our defence is perfectly well looked after, that the force has never been in better shape, and things along that line. This is a strategic document, as Mr. Young calls it, and the fact is that the government contends it will meet the necessities of Canadian defence or the stated objectives of our defence policy as laid down by the minister in the white paper of 1964. It would be totally inadequate to meet those objectives. The first of these aims is the direct defence of Canada, the surveillance and control of our land, water and air, and the ability to deal with any infringement of or attack on these. This of course requires naval, army and air units, each so far as its effective use is concerned acting in its own sphere.
Surely the best way in which to meet this need of Canadian defence is by maintaining the present three services. To substitute a mobile force which is mainly army, in which naval and air elements would take only a supporting role, would not enable us fully to maintain Canadian sovereignty even over our own water, land and air space. As a matter of fact if we came to a situation of that kind we in effect would have to depend on the United States for the direct defence of this country, even in the event of minor incursions. In my view this is a concept which is utterly at variance with the sovereignty and independence of this country.
Further, the objectives of our defence policy are to maintain peace by deterring and preventing the outbreak of a third global war and to maintain the security and independence of Canada itself. Clearly these objectives are, in the past 15 or 20 years have been, and in the future will be attained only by alliance with other free democratic nations and by making the United Nations an effective force. I believe that Canada's defence policy primarily must be based on strong support for NATO and a willingness on our part to make
National Defence Act Amendment a proportionate contribution to its strength, according to our population and economic position.
The western alliance of NATO has prevented any general war breaking out during the past 18 years, and at the same time has stopped the Soviet take-over of any further countries in Europe. The deterrent power of the alliance depends on its military strength, both nuclear and conventional, and on its evident will to use this strength if necessary. It is on this point that I disagree completely and thoroughly with the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) on behalf of the New Democratic Party. There has, of course, been this deterrent so far as Soviet-western relations are concerned during the past two years. I think this has lulled a large number of people into the belief that there no longer is a serious threat so far as the Soviet Union is concerned. I believe this is a completely false and incorrect assumption which, if it were followed by the other powers, eventually would result in disaster. The Soviet aim of imposing communism on the world has not changed. There are likely to be continued probing actions on their part to made what gains they can and to test the will of the west to resist. The Russian adventure in Cuba was an outstanding example of this. It demonstrated very clearly, when the United States, backed by other members of NATO, showed that they were willing to employ all their military strength if necessary, that the Russians were not ready to carry the matter to an all-out war.
In order to prevent an all-out war I think the western alliance must be maintained and the members of that alliance must be prepared to continue to play a fair and reasonable part in the alliance. The military contributions of each country to NATO are based on the ability of each to contribute to the common defence. They are arrived at by negotiation and agreement, and must of necessity change with changing circumstances. I have no quarrel with the contention that the military commitment to NATO should be renegotiated, because as conditions change this becomes a necessity. However, while contributions may be increased or decreased, or one contribution replaced by another, the main thing is that when it has been agreed that certain forces will be provided, and other members of the alliance depend
12434	COMMONS DEBATES	January 30, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment on these being available, they should be produced. Otherwise the whole force is weakened, or other countries must assume the burden, with the consequent loss of a spirit of unity and co-operation within the alliance.
The alliance has been struck a severe blow because of the action taken by France. I do not think the alliance can stand a situation in which another country would take the type of action France has taken. So far as Canada is concerned we have agreed to make certain naval, army and air forces available to NATO. In my view we must meet these commitments until such time as we secure agreement to a change in them. We must not unilaterally decrease them, simply by failing to replace equipment as it becomes worn out or obsolete. This, I am sorry to say, is what is happening at the present time with regard to our naval and air contribution to NATO. From the naval point of view, the ships which we have had available are wearing out and no replacements are being built. The naval program which had been arranged when I was minister of national defence has been scrapped by the minister. About a year ago he said that another naval program would go ahead which would include four ships instead of eight; but still none of these ships has been down. Nothing has been done. So there will be a lapse of many years before there is any replacement for the obsolete or worn out naval ships.
A considerable number of the ships which we did have, have been scrapped during the past three years and, while some technical improvements have been made to the remaining ships, the total number available to carry out the anti-submarine role which we have accepted under NATO is now less than half the number we had in operation in 1963. So far as the contention of the minister is concerned to the effect that our anti-submarine capability is greater than it ever was, from the point of view of any naval man of stature this is nothing but a laugh. He would say that it is ridiculous to make a statement of that kind.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In addition to that, of course, the manpower of our navy has declined seriously. There has been a very serious loss of highly trained technical personnel necessary to man our ships at sea, with the result that a considerable number of ships still in commission are tied up at ports. The total result is that our naval strength is not sufficient to adequately meet the naval commitments which we have
[Mr. Harkness.l
assumed as far as NATO is concerned and as far as our own local protection is concerned.
This situation has been caused by policies pursued by the minister. These policies have also resulted in the destruction of morale in the navy with the consequent refusal of trained men to re-engage. The projected disappearance of the navy as a separate service, if this bill is passed, will accentuate this situation and greatly decrease our ability to meet our commitments to NATO from a naval point of view.
Our air commitment to NATO was an air division of strike reconnaissance aircraft- F-104's armed with nuclear weapons. This division did consist of 12 squadrons but has now been reduced to eight. In December the minister announced, when introducing this bill, that it would be further reduced to six squadrons composed of four in the strike role and two in the reconnaissance role. This in effect means a two thirds reduction in the strike capability we are committed to supply NATO.
This reduction in our air contribution may have been agreed to by other members of NATO, but if so that has never been announced and we are not aware of that fact. Had it been agreed to, I am sure the minister or the government would have said so.
In so far as our army is concerned, we are committed to maintain a fully equipped brigade in Europe. In the event of hostilities we are committed to bring that up to a full division. With the reorganization of our defence forces now going on, the demoralization which now exists, coupled with the shortage of manpower, I doubt very much whether these two additional brigades could be supplied if they were needed.
In the event of a large-scale war it is essential for us to have the ability to mobilize our manpower. The reorganization of our defence set-up which has been taking place has undoubtedly cut down our ability to do that rapidly. This is particularly true because a number of training bases have been closed, and because the number of our reserve forces or militia has been greatly reduced. This inability to mobilize has been one thing which has been of partcular concern to a number of highly experienced and capable senior officers who have expressed their opposition to the unification plans of this government.
Another matter which is of concern to those with military experience during war is how the proposed unified Canadian force will
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
*work in co-operation with the forces of our allies, all organized on a navy, army and air force basis. Many people believe that even if the proposed Canadian Armed Forces organization was a better one for Canada than the organization we have had, on a theoretical basis-and none of these experienced people have conceded that to be the case-we could not work effectively with the forces of our allies. This is another very serious disadvantage, so far as this proposed move is concerned.
Our support in United Nations peace keeping activities is a very important feature of our defence policy. It must be realized that the United Nations, because of its composition, cannot intervene between the two great powers, the Soviet union on the one side and the NATO Alliance on the other; but it can, with the co-operation of these powers, arbitrate the disputes of smaller countries to prevent them from spreading.
Many people in Canada, and members of the N.D.P. are good examples, believe that United Nations peace keeping activities should be our only or main military contribution. I am sorry to say, as I indicated earlier, that the government seems to be moving toward that point of view. That position disregards the fact that the general peace is really kept by NATO and that the United Nations can deal only with small countries. This is unrealistic, I submit, because no one can foresee what kind of forces may be required by the United Nations from time to time. The needs of the United Nations for peace keeping forces can really only be met by a well balanced navy, army and air force with good transport capability.
From the point of view of each of these three main objectives in respect of Canada's defence policy, which I outlined, the proposed unification will place them in a worse position to meet our responsibilities. In fact it will place them in a position in which we will not be able to meet our responsibilities adequately-
These are all reasons for the dropping of this bill by the government, or for defeating it here in the house. I should like to make one or two comments about the minister's speech of December 7. Although he spoke at great length, he did not provide one good reason during an hour and forty five minutes in support of unification as an essential or necessary program. He did not give one good reason to show that it was either militarily or financially better than the system under
National Defence Act Amendment which we have been operating. In my submission he did not provide one single reason to support this policy.
Let me first of all deal with the defence council which was referred to by the minister and recorded in Hansard at page 10822 of Hansard. The minister sought to give the impression that although integration had gone into effect, until he had been in control of the situation for some time the defence council was a completely ineffective body. He said as reported on page 10823:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The role ol the defence council forecast in 1964 has been fulfilled during the whole period of detailed planning on the unification process and this body has in fact become an active and decisive forum for the formulation of policy.
In the 29 months since defence council was reactivated in July, 1964, it has had 90 meetings dealing with matters covering the whole range of defence policy. For the 29 months preceding July, 1964, it met on four occassions.
Apparently the aim of that statement was to persuade the members of this house and the general public that under his predecessor the defence council was completely inactive, hardly ever met, and that there was no coordination in the department. Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister is very fond of using half truths in order to create a completely false impression. The minister was referring to formal meetings of the secretary, the assistant secretary and various other individuals, to take minutes and things of that sort. It is true that in this sense meetings were held very seldom to deal with formal matters. But the effective defence council, in other words the Minister of National Defence, the Associate Minister of National Defence, the chairman of the chiefs of staff, the chiefs of staff of the navy, army and air force, the deputy minister and the chairman of the National Research Board, during all the time I was minister of national defence met regularly every Monday morning in my office. We went over all the matters which were of concern to the Department of National Defence as a whole and obtained the views of the heads of the three services, the deputy minister, and so forth, in regard to these matters. We very frequently held other meetings during the week. This was a fully effective means of co-ordinating the activities of the Department of National Defence. The attempt made here to convey the impression that there was no co-ordination of the Department of National Defence and that the defence council in effect never met, is completely wrong.
January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
There has been no advantage whatsoever, from that point of view, as far as the members of the present defence council are concerned. In fact, it is not nearly as effective a body because it has now really only one military adviser, whereas formerly it had four, the chairman of the chiefs of staff and the chiefs of staff of the navy, army and air force. As was put very forcibly to the defence committee by Brigadier Malone, and has been dealt with by a considerable number of other people of experience, a defence council which has the advantage of the detailed and expert knowledge of the heads of the three different services which operate in three different environments serves to give the Minister of National Defence a very much better and more adequate picture of what the situation is, and puts him in a much better position to come to a proper conclusion than the present set-up, where you really have only one source of military information, as far as the minister is concerned, on the defence council. So much for that point, Mr. Speaker.
On the same page of Hansard there is a statement about the 4th Canadian infantry brigade group which reads:
For its currently assigned role in the central European front the brigade group has today far greater fire power, mobility and protection than at any time since its formation. Man for man it is unsurpassed by any other unit in NATO.
That has been the case from the inception of the brigade group in Europe. I think it has been admitted by all the successive supreme commanders of NATO that this brigade group, for its size, was perhaps the most effective army unit they had. The minister tries to assign to himself and to his integration policy, presumably, and so forth, the fact that this is an exceptionally fine fighting unit.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no armoured protection at all for the infantry, and you know it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister talks about armoured protection. He knows full well that all the plans for the provision of armoured personnel carriers, for improved anti-tank weapons, for improved fire power in the brigade generally were made long before he became Minister of National Defence. This is part of the deception he tries to practise on the Canadian people. He tries to take all the credit for the fact that this group is now better equipped than it was five, 10 or 15 years ago, and if it was not better equipped the then minister of national defence should be very, very seriously condemned. Naturally it is better equipped and has more fire power


today, because there has been constant technological improvement. But all the plans and original arrangements in that respect were made long before the minister became Minister of National Defence. I notice that at one time he made the statement that this brigade group now has more fire power than had the whole Canadian army during the last war. That is true. But he did not mention the fact that practically all that fire power was due to the Honest John battery which was bought and delivered to the division while I was minister of national defence, and not afterwards. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is part of the picture which the minister attempts to present and which-[DOT]


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Hellyer myth.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -is really disgusting. I would think the minister would attempt, as I did and as I think all previous ministers of national defence did, to present a reasonable and fair picture as far as our defence forces and our defence effort were concerned. But unfortunately that time seems to have passed.
The next matter upon which I should like to comment is materiel command. This passage is to be found on page 10826 of Hansard for December 7, 1966:
Because of the complexity and magnitude of the project, however, it will take from three to five years to Implement fully the single automated system. In the meantime, the three existing systems are being operated by materiel command and the logistic support to the forces has not in any way been diminished.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred to this matter this afternoon. What does this mean? It means that the supply of goods of all kinds to the services is being carried on by the navy, army and air force supply systems which existed and have existed for many years. As General Fleury stated before the committee, it will take at least three to five years to weld this into one system. So the minister is doing something completely illogical; he is going to form immediately one unified service, and that unified service will have to be supplied by the supply components of three separate services. You will have as a result the most horrible type of confusion; there is no question about that at all.


An hon. Member:: We have it now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have it now, as an hon. member has said. I think there is no doubt that we have it now, but it will be worse when you have the three services completely
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
disappearing and one service taking their place. This is another very good reason, if you examine what the minister stated in his own words, why unification should not take place at the present time, even if you admit that unification as a final goal is desirable, which I do not and which not many other people who have studied the matter admit, except for supporters of the present government; and a large number of them do not admit it either. Even if you admit that it is desirable in three to five years, it is certainly not desirable at the present time when you do not have the supply service equipped or able to do anything to supply the three separate services.
My next point, Mr. Speaker, is concerned with page 10827 of Hansard and what was said in regard to the aim of the reorganization. The minister stated:
The aim of the reorganization of the Canadian forces was clearly stated in the white paper-
Then he goes on to state that aim. If we turn to the white paper we find that the only reference in its entire 30 pages is the one statement to be found on page 19:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.
That is the only statement there is in regard to a single unified defence force. The minister has tried to maintain in the last year, and in recent months in particular, that this policy was completely clear. But in the same paragraph, just below those few lines you have this statement, which is a complete contradiction:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Similarly, there will be no lack of competition. The sailors will press for more ships, the soldiers for more tanks and the airmen for more planes. This is as natural as breathing. Competition will not be lost but it will be contained at the service level.
This was a definite indication to me, and I think to nearly all the senior officers in the services, that the use of the words "service level" meant that the services will be retained. When I read this statement in the white paper and heard the statement which I quoted previously, namely the single line about a unified defence staff for Canada, I did not think for a moment that these two statements meant that the three services would disappear. It did not cross my mind that this was the minister's intention.
National Defence Act Amendment


The Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him is expired.


An hon. Member:: Let him speak.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a considerable amount of material and I wonder if I have the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


The Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I will just finish the particular point which I was making and I will then resume my seat. As I said, a few lines further on there is a complete contradiction of what appears above, if those lines meant what I did not think they were intended to mean at the time. As a result of what was said here, there was complete confusion in everyone's mind with regard to the minister's intention, and I do not know whether or not he did have that intention. If the minister intended a unification of the forces, why did he state in the white paper that competition will not be lost but will be contained at the service level? If there are no services there can be no service level at which to contain them. He also said that there will be sailors, soldiers and airmen.
Therefore it has been absolutely clear ever since the white paper came out that the minister's contention that there will be a single unified force will not stand up to examination. In fact the reverse is true, as can be proved by some of the statements in the minister's own speech. However, this is a different point into which I will not go at this time because I think I will have other opportunities to deal with it further.
The other point which I should like to make at this time, and to which I briefly referred earlier, is that I think that these contradictions were part of a continued attempt to confuse people as to what is meant by integration and unification. 1 am sorry to say that to a large extent it has succeeded in that purpose. The result of the contradictory statements made by the minister and his spokesmen from time to time is that there are very few people in Canada at the present time who understand the difference between integration and unification. The minister has never given us a specific definition of the terms, and he continually makes statements which confuse the issue even more. One thing
January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment which I think the minister should do before the conclusion of this debate is to give us a definition of these terms and an explanation of his concept of them. This would clear up the confusion which has existed for the past three years and which has served to make any reasonable debate on these questions much more difficult than it should be.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: In following the debate on second reading of the defence bill I have listened with some interest to the remarks that have been made up to date. As the minister probably knows, when we debate defence I usually go to sea. Those are his words; but may I say that in many respects it is better to be at sea than to be adrift, as he is. I will be quite parochial and provincial, in that my remarks will be confined primarily to an area in which I have some knowledge and understanding, being neither professional nor expert in this field. Nevertheless 1 will base my remarks on communications which 1 have received and on discussions which I have had with many hundreds of serving officers and men in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Before I do that I want to put on the record again what it is that we are speaking about in Halifax when we refer to the defence structure, and what is the real impact of defence spending in the Atlantic provinces in what was revealed in the original research conducted by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council last fall, and produced last October.
In the 1963-64 fiscal year the military pay and allowances in Nova Scotia amounted to some $70,595,000; the civilian pay was some $25.7 million; another $3 million went into travel; another $45.7 million went into supplies, and there was a miscellaneous item of $2.8 million, making a total of $147.8 million. It can be readily understood why we in Nova Scotia become concerned about the loss of the navy when we realize that it constitutes the largest part of these expenditures. Nova Scotia cannot withstand the economic impact of the loss of even 10 per cent of its current defence structure.
According to this bill the minister has active plans for the consolidation of bases. These plans are not yet out in the open. We have had some indication of what is about to happen at Cornwallis. Rumours have been rampant about what is to happen at Shearwarter and at Greenwood, and very serious doubts have been entertained about what might happen to the main base at Stadacona and to the supporting services at Dockyard. We wonder why the minister is so concerned

about the separate identity of the forces to which he has referred.
Our fears and our concern are based primarily on four criteria, which have been essentially used in defence planning in the United States. One is the rejection of the principle that the execution of defence planning requires today a growing awareness of the role of the professional, much more so than it did even during the days of the second world war. I believe that competition is an essential factor in our way of life today and to remove it from the services will result in decreased initiative which is essential to the solution of most problems. We believe that a defence force should have an efficient management. The best example of this can be seen in General Motors. They have set up competition within this massive industry not only for competition's sake but also for the sake of management efficiency. They have learned, as have most industries, the benefits that can be enjoyed from this type of approach to a massive organization.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Finally, there is the intangible aspect of the spirit, the esprit de corps. The absolute necessity of this in any efficient military organization that is going to be called upon to prosecute your country's natonal aims and objectives in terms of national defence is selfevident. What about these four points? The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) has quoted what many prominent military people in the United States, indeed all over the world, have said on the subject of integration and unification. There is no need for me to spell out to the house the system that has remained in effect in the United States. Indeed, this system has been in effect for some 17 years and it has been building toward the high degree of efficiency that has been achieved. We all know about that.
We all know the United States system has a defence secretary, joint chiefs of staff and a secretariat for each of the land, sea and air environments. Earlier this year, the deputy secretary of defence, Mr. Vance, gave his views on the subject of integration and what he termed the creaking fuzziness or misunderstanding on the part of many people in the United States about what was happening to the defence structure. He said this:
I believe very deeply in the importance of and the need for military departments. We cannot run the defence department properly without them . . . It is essential, however, to have unity of effort;-
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
This, I do not deny.
-but we can have this unification in military departments.
The United States has unification, integration and all the things the Minister of National Defence is trying to tell us are absolutely necessary. Indeed, perhaps in many ways they are. However, the United States has not lost sight of the essential necessity of retaining the separate identities for at least the reasons I have just mentioned. I will not go into those in detail.
Let us look for a moment or two at the white paper which is supposed to contain the criteria for what we are doing. In part, the white paper says this, at the very outset:
Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the armed forces under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff. This will be the first step toward a single, unified defence force for Canada.
The minister says it is going to take a long time before we get there. I hope he is absolutely right. I hope it is many, many years.
The principle and concept embodied in this statement gives very wide scope for members to participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, there are at least three aspects that must be carefully studied. The first is the effect of having a single chief of defence staff; second, the effect on professionalism of having a single defence staff composed as it is at present; third, the very apparent absence of rational thought at this particular stage on unification. It seems that a step is taken, and if the ice does not break, then you put your next foot forward.
Let us look at the single chief of staff first. Under such a system there will invariably be a minister who is untrained or, if he has military experience, by the time he rises to the position of responsibility of minister he will be somewhat behind the times in overall military matters. However, he will be responsible for the management of the armed services. He will face a chief of defence staff who, under this concept, will likely be fully and completely trained in one of the services.
As I understand it, in no small way the chief of defence staff performs much the same task as the minister. Under the present setup, he will be an extension of the minister at the military level. As long as both the chief of defence staff and the minister see eye to eye, there will not be any serious problem. However, let there be a major difference of 23033-787
National Defence Act Amendment opinion, particularly professional opinion, and the resulting clash must inevitably lead to the destruction of one of them. I am sure the minister is aware of the report of the Esher committee of 1904, which is going back some 63 years. This committee advised against the commander in chief concept in other than a purely operational theatre.
There is another problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is having at the top only those who will agree with the minister. I think this situation is quite obvious and there is no need for me to illustrate the problems that could develop. The Esher committee itself, in that very excellent report, dealt with all the ramifications that develop when this type of clash takes place. This is a weakness which has occurred in our defence structure before, but never with the alarming rate of incidence that it has in the last 18 months.
We know, and it remains a fact no matter what the reason is, that all of those of senior military rank who have opposed the minister on obviously rational and respected grounds have left the armed services. These were professional men who felt that a matter of principle was at stake. Brigadier Malone had this to say on this aspect:
The single chief with the one minister will never be satisfactory. The dominant personality will always destroy the other. We can hardly expect any man to become chief of defence staff who is not a man of very aggressive, strongly opinionated nature. Equally, we cannot expect any government to select a minister who will control about a quarter of the budget who isn't a strong man.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the difficulties which can arise from the old committee or defence council concept, there can be no doubt it is essential that a committee or council be appointed to deal with all aspects of management and policy aspects. Indeed, the minister recognizes this need in his move to bring about stability to his present top echelon. I suggest the committee will function correctly only if the officers representing the three professional environments, land, sea and air, work with equal status to the chief in advising the minister or the associate minister of the problems presently confronting them.
[DOT] (9.30 p.m.)
There is one important aspect to having the three environments properly represented at the top. The point may be minor, but personnel serving in any branch of the armed services are much more competent, and more prepared to accept decisions handed down if they know they are represented at the decision-making level by one of their own kind.
January 30, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
It is often argued that equality of representation as a weakness of the former organization. This I suggest is a wrong assessment. It is necessary to have equality of representation if for no other reason than to assure that there is balanced argument in all matters of capital expenditure.
The effect of professionalism on a defence staff composed in the present form is quite obvious. If one looks at the first and second staffs under integration, he sees that they have been composed somewhat along these lines:	the first one, the C.D.S., had an
R.C.A.F. background. There was an army vice chief, the personnel had two vice chiefs, or two members on it, one from the navy and one from the air force; the controller's staff was navy and army oriented and engineering was air force and navy oriented. This is absurd. They made changes in the second staff, and the C.D.S. presently has an army background, the vice chief has an air force background, the personnel come from the air force and the army, the controller, back to the single service, this time is from the navy, and the engineering is represented by army and navy backgrounds. The balance there is poor. It was poor at the outset and remains poor.
For example, in operational matters there is no naval or air force representation in either composition. I do not know how you can come to this state of affairs unless the inference of the present chief of defence staff is correct, that it is no longer the intention of the present administration to continue in any of this long-range planning the concept of a naval defence force.
Mr. Hellye r: Nonsense.


J. Michael Forrestall: The circumstances can occur when important matters of policy come under consideration without experienced, professional opinion essential to the matters under discussion being necessarily represented. It is necessary to have two deputies for operation, personnel, and engineering to ensure that professional advice is always present at defence staff deliberations.
It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, for other reasons. In each major department the staff officers working in specific professional fields should have a head, or voice, who fully understands the professional task being performed. In this way staff will be properly represented, and with some faith will accept, even though there might be a conflict of opinion, the decisions coming down from the top level. If there is any reason for the minister

doing what he is doing, it must be that he wanted to engender support for his proposal.
Nobody objects to looking forward, and forward thinking-at least, I know of nobody who does. We shall examine this matter in depth when we come to the committee stage, but I suggest that the composition of high command at the level adjacent to the minister should come somewhere on these lines. We should have a chief of defence staff, and a deputy chief for air, a deputy chief for sea and a deputy chief for land. Specifically, where operational matters are concerned I believe such an arrangement to be necessary. If the chief of personnel happens to be air, you could have a deputy chief for sea and a deputy chief for land. The same holds true for engineering. If he happens to be from the army, then the deputy chief could be from the naval or air element. I am not certain that the controller is absolutely necessary; I do not believe you need three or four deputy controllers. One good accountant is enough for a job like that.
In other words, under this concept-and this is my personal point of view-if you accept the validity of the usefulness of this type of approach to our defence organization, and defence control at the professional level, you cannot help getting back to the essential concepts of three basic services: air, land, and sea.
If there is to be any sensitivity of awareness of constant technical change, and if this is to be transmitted properly to the political arm, which must at all times remain dominant, then, under the present system, you fail the test. Only in a system such as I have suggested, not necessarily exactly as the one I have suggested-but along those lines -you do not lose balance and perspective, and the contribution that the true professional may make.
This argument can be extended to cast a doubt on the full effects of integration. This is not carrying the argument to its extreme limit and saying there is no room for integration of services. There is room for integration of services, and particularly is there room for integration at the operational and field level. Eventually something like that will have to come about. I do not think we doubt that. The minister has said that his white paper is not immutable; it is flexible. He will see, I am sure, as time goes on, if he is not prime minister by then, as has been suggested-


An hon. Member:: He might not be.
January 30, 1967	COMMONS


J. Michael Forrestall: It has been suggested that he might be in a few years. As I say, the minister will see the truth of my words. Eventually something like this would have to come. Our allies to the south have been integrating and unifying, with definite objectives, for 17 years. They have long since concluded, and this conclusion has not been shaken in the last 10 or 15 years, that the way we are approaching the problem is not the proper way.
Let us look at unification as it now is. It is claimed in the white paper that integration came, as I said earlier, as the result of the most careful and thoughtful consideration. Generally, a careful and thoughtful consideration of such important matters, or matters of major importance, requires the production of guide lines, of papers arguing the pros and cons of courses of action, with definite conclusions and recommendations. There is no such study, and no information has been made available to members of the house about integration or unification. It can be claimed that the white paper, in saying "careful and thoughtful consideration," has misled the house, or has misled the people.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It has misled us into believing that the minister did, indeed, give this matter extensive and thoughtful consideration. I hope that as part of this debate the minister can find time to explain to us in much greater depth than he did in his 65 pages of repetitive prose, precisely what he has in mind. Perhaps I did not read his speech properly. I give the minister that much credit, anyway. If I misread it, I apologize. But it did not seem to me to deal with this issue in the depth necessary to provide an explanation for this concept of unification. The minister talks about what may happen, physically. He tells us what he thinks is desirable. Frankly, however, that speech contained a lot more platitudes than hard common sense-and this is not my opinion alone.
If no paper can be produced, if the minister has not gone through this type of exercise, I think it is clear to Canadians and clear to members of the house that the hon. gentleman has embarked upon a program which has been evolving step by step. In other words, it has been a pragmatic program; if it works, it is to be accepted, and if it fails it is to be rejected.
In any event there is so little information available to us, now, either from the white 23033-7871
National Defence Act Amendment paper or from the minister's lengthy statement of December 7, that few people, not more than half a dozen I would think, within the minister's personal staff, can possibly understand what is intended. The parts in this puzzle which were missing and which in my opinion are still missing are, first of all, a definition of unification, second, a valid argument in favour of unification and, third, an explanation of the need to carry unification to the ultimate step without room for variation. The white paper says there will be no thought of eliminating worth-while traditions. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) repeated this promise and we are very pleased to hear it. However, there are probably a great many things involving traditional matters which have already been discarded out of hand because it was found suitable to do so for the sake of public relations.
It would not be difficult to name half a dozen. First, traditional naval dress will disappear. R.C.A.F. uniform is to be changed In the past it has been traditional to name naval shore bases as R.C.N. ships. This practice has been abandoned in favour of the designation Canadian Force Base. The white ensign has been removed from our naval ships, ostensibly on the ground that when the new flag was accepted all the old flags went out of use. I am still not sure of the statutory authority for this decision.
The traditional rank structure will disappear, though it is true the R.C.A.F. may not be so much concerned about this, because I think they would like to have their rank designations brought more closely into line with those of their counterparts in the United States. Nevertheless they will be changed. It has always been traditional for recruits to the three services to be trained by the service directly concerned. This practice, followed for very real reasons, will be discontinued.
Toward the conclusion of the white paper it was clearly stated that the policy outlined therein was not immutable. No good reason has as yet been put forward to show that unification will provide a better defence force. If the policy can be changed as necessary, it is time that this unification plan came under the surgeon's scalpel.
Let us consider for a moment or two the difficulties which make unification uneconomic, if not impossible. Operational service in the three environments is vastly different. At sea, almost everyone involved serves in an operational environment and comes in contact with the enemy. In the land service about
12442	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment half the whole force comes into contact with the enemy. In the air environment, except for naval air personnel, only a very small percentage will be exposed to enemy action.
Because of this factor the vast majority of naval personnel must be young. The maximum age would not exceed 45 years, except in exceptional cases. About half the army must be young, with the maximum age of those who fight not greater than 45 and, preferably, if practical under 40. The other half of the army-support personnel-could serve effectively until 55, if physically fit. In the R.C.A.F. the upper limit on operational personnel should be about 45 for air crew, and in some cases, fighter pilots for example, the upper limit should be much lower. The rest of air force personnel could well serve to age 55 without affecting operations adversely.
Under unification there will be strong arguments to have a similar upper limit across the board. This means that for more than half the armed forces personnel the upper age will be either too high or too low, depending on the point of compromise. Unification under these circumstances is uneconomic and may lead to operational difficulties.
Rank structure and promotion are also affected by environmental differences. The navy requires a higher percentage of higher ranks for men than the air force or army. The reason for this is that a ship will normally, under emergency conditions, operate in three watches. Each part of the ship, because of compartmentation, requires chief or petty officers in charge. Under unification the obvious course, though not the correct one, will be to have all ranks at all levels pooled between environments. This will inevitably lead to the air force and army having more N.C.O.'s than they need, and the navy fewer than it needs.
Again this affects pay structure, privileges for rank, and so on. The navy needs a pay structure which makes the pay scale heavily weighted for rank, and less for professional qualifications. The R.C.A.F. needs a pay structure which leans heavily toward higher pay for trade and less for rank. The operational units of the army-infantry, armour, etc.-should have pay scales based more on rank than trade, while their support services should be paid more for trade than for rank.
9 (9:50 p.m.)
Under unification this flexibility, I suggest, is bound to disappear. While putting everyone on a single pay structure might be from an administrative point of view advantageous

DEBATES	January 30, 1967
and make sense in terms of theoretical economy and efficiency, in practice it will fail. The best condition for the navy is for men of equal rank and trade to be paid the same. This is not necessarily so in many of the other environments.
Time is beginning to run out, and I do not want necessarily to be the last speaker on his feet this evening. May I simply point out to the minister that in its present form this bill will mean hardship to those in the environment with which I am most familiar, the navy, and will be resented. In fact it is resented now. It is not understood. No sincere effort has been made fully to acquaint them with its ramifications. The minister knows how they rebelled during his trip last fall. He is aware of the difficulties being faced.
At some point in the very near future, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully before this debate comes to an end-and he need not occupy 65 pages in doing this-the minister must stand up and point out to these men what the government intends to do. Are we about to give up our national sovereignty? Are we about to disband the navy? Does the minister no longer see any role for it?
Are we about to shut down and let the United States move in. I have heard a lot of rumour, much of it confirmed to me by one source or another, about certain logistic capabilities of the United States defence structure to move into this country and to take over our bases and defence forces. I do not like this. I do not think we have to spend 10 or 12 per cent of our gross national product on our defence structure, but I do not see anything wrong with spending 5 or 6 per cent. We spend somewhere in the order of 5.2 per cent now. I do not think we have to walk away from our country and simply turn it over to somebody else to defend for us.
I hope the minister will at some point find the occasion to reassure everybody in the Atlantic provinces about the government's intentions, basically because of the economic impact of the bill. There will always be a navy, albeit maritime command or whatever it is he chooses to call it. But we hope it will not be something less than its present structure.
In closing, I repeat that we in the Atlantic provinces cannot afford to lose the economic benefit of the military pay and allowances of those in this area who spend their funds on local supplies and provisions.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, before the supper hour
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) was advising the house that we should read the minister's speech given on December 7 on second reading of Bill No. C-243. He said we should examine it because the minister had given to the house in his one and three quarter hour speech more information on this matter than had even been given the house before.
I have examined the minister's speech, Mr. Speaker, and I would agree with one of the press reporters who said it leaves much to be desired. In fact, I would go further than that and would say that the whole speech is a balloon. It has a cover, but nothing of substance in it-all air.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat put his finger on the crux of this debate when he said that there has been no definition given of the term "unification". The minister has filled page after page-some 65 of them, I believe-about this subject, and for the information of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) I have found the minister's definition of unification. It appears at page 10827 of Hansard and is as follows:
Unification is the end objective of a logical and evolutionary progression.
If you can make anything out of that, Mr. Speaker, then you are a better student than I am.
I searched further to see whether there was any other breakdown of this definition, but in my opinion what the minister means by unification is taking the "Royal" out of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the "Royal" out of the Royal Canadian Navy, and it also means putting our services into one uniform.
The minister in his remarks prior to the introduction of this bill and throughout the debate has perpetrated upon the Canadian people the most gigantic hoax ever. There is absolutely no meaning ascribed to the word "unification" as far as the minister's explanations are concerned.
I should like to refer further to his speech to see whether hon. members can help me to determine what this paragraph which is reported at page 10828 of Hansard means. If this is the writing of some of his staff officers who have been trained in the services, then I would say there are other dismissals due. I read this from the minister's text:
The force structure is comprised of force units which may be used individually or in combination depending on the military tasks to be undertaken. These force units are the infantry companies, the armoured squadrons, the artillery batteries, the engineering squadrons, field ambulances, the air
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion squadrons, warships and the support ships-to mention a few. None of these will be changed in moving to a single service from three separate services. They will continue to be trained and equipped for their particular roles. Moreover, a single service will involve no change in the organization of these force units into formations such as brigades, air wings, or squadrons of ships.
In other words, the minister says these three services are going to be identical but they are also going to be different. What is meant by that? We are still going to retain the three services, the army, the navy and the air force, but they are going to be one service.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Read it again.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have read it time and time again. I would go further and suggest that the minister had no intention at any time of changing these services, except to bring in this mysterious word "unification", which only confuses people and makes those serving in the forces very concerned about their future. He has succeeded in doing this to the detriment of the security of our nation. I think something should be done about this, perhaps not by parliament but by those on the other side in the government.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the order of business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: We will continue the same subject matter tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 20, as recorded at page 12036 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) whether we could look forward to an increase in the maximum benefit rates under unemployment insurance being proposed this year by the government. In his reply the Minister of Labour indicated, as he has on other occasions, that an interdepartmental committee which had been established some time ago by the Prime Minister had studied unemployment insurance matters and had made a number of recommendations. The minister said
12444	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that he could not give details but he hoped that within a reasonable period of time it would be possible to implement some of these recommendations by order in council or by regulations under the act. In a supplementary question I asked the minister whether it was not true that benefits could be raised only by amending the act, and not by regulation, to which the minister replied that that was a question of law which he was not in a position to anwer. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I posted this question for an adjournment debate.
I should like to say just a few brief words on the two points I raised on January 20. First it seems to me that the case for an increase in the maximum benefit rates under the Unemployment Insurance Act is so clear that it need only be stated. The present maximum rate is $36 a week in the case of an unemployed person with a dependant and $27 a week in the case of a single unemployed person. Those rates were set in 1959, eight years ago. If one applies to those rates any index he likes, whether the cost of living index, the wage index, the gross national product, or what have you, he will come up with a figure for today which ought to be considerably higher. In fact it gets into the $50 bracket for an unemployed person with a dependant.
Not only is it a fact that there have been no changes in the maximum rates during the eight years since 1959, but also five years have gone by since the Gill committee made its report. In 1962 that committee recommended that the rates I already have quoted-$27 and $36-should be increased to $36 and $48. I should like to point out that if you start, as of 1962, with these rates of $36 for an unattached unemployed person and $48 for an unemployed person with a dependant and apply to them the increases in the wage rates or in the cost of living which have taken place since then, you come up with figures which are even higher than those I suggested a moment ago.
In addition to these changes which have taken place in the last eight years, there is the fact that the government at last brought before parliament a labour code which includes a minimum wage rate of $1.25 an hour. That same piece of legislation speaks of a 40-hour week. This would seem to suggest that in the government's mind $50 a week is a minimum upon which working persons should be expected to live. These days the government even speaks about a guaranteed annual income. I am not sure that it understands what that phrase means, but at least members of the government like to talk about it. I

DEBATES	January 30, 1967
suggest this is an area where this idea might be applied. In other words, it seems to me quite clear that we are being unfair to persons who are unemployed, to persons who have contributed to unemployment insurance over the years, by leaving them with maximum rates of $27 or $36 per week, in view of the fact that these rates were set eight years ago.
The other point referred to during our question and answer exchange on Friday, January 20, was as to whether this change could be made by regulation. The minister said this was a question of law and that he was not in a position to answer it. While I recognize that he is a lawyer and that I am not, it seems to me it does not take much legal training to read the Unemployment Insurance Act and find that the maximum rates are set by the act, and that there is no provision in the act for those maximum rates to be increased by regulation or by order in council. Surely it is crystal clear that the only way maximum rates can be changed is by an amendment brought before parliament itself.
I should like to protest most strongly over the way in which the years are being allowed to slip by without any amendment being made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are other improvements that need to be made as well, but to let these years slip by with nothing being done to increase these maximum benefit rates is quite uncalled for, and it is most unfair to those people who have paid into this fund and have a right to expect the protection the Unemployment Insurance Act was designed to provide.
It is my hope, therefore, that the government will not continue to delay action on this matter on the grounds that it is not clear whether the act needs to be amended. I hope an amendment will be brought in soon, and that it will increase these rates to something of the order of $50 or more per week.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker,
there is very little that can be added to what the minister said on January 20 in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, except perhaps that a study is being made of the recommendations of the committee which was set up to study this matter.
The minister has been otherwise engaged and regrets that he has been unable to give this matter the thorough study it deserves. It is encouraging to note that unemployment insurance and unemployment itself is not the burning question it was at the time the Gill
January 30, 1967	COMMONS
committee made its report. I recall as a member of the opposition, sitting on the other side of the house, on a number of occasions asking when that committee was going to report and when something was to be done about its recommendations.
Since that time we have dealt with a number of social welfare measures which have taken precedence, perhaps because unemployment has not been a burning question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is still a burning question to the unemployed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The fund has now reached something in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a billion dollars.
The Gill committee did recommend that the maximum rate be increased to $48 per week and that new categories be brought into the operation of the fund, so that the maximum would be available to those who had received higher incomes. None of these things has been done and the government regrets that they have not been done, but I can assure the hon. member that steps are being taken at this time to see what can be accomplished in this regard.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



BANKRUPTCY-PRUDENTIAL FINANCE CORPORATION-EFFECT ON SUBSIDIARY INSURANCE COMPANIES

Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Sainl-Jean):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and for the benefit of hon. members, I shall re-read the question I put to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) on January 17.
In view of the financial disaster of the Prudential Finance Corporation and its subsidiaries, are Canadian citizens who have insured their properties through that institution entitled to full compensation in case of fire?
The reasons which prompted that question I have just read are the following: In the last few days, certain citizens have been writing me letters actuated and dictated by the concern they feel about certain companies which agreed to carry risks with their material goods, clothing, properties, etc. Who will dare say that such fears are groundless? To prove my case, there is the recent financial disaster of the Prudential Finance Corporation and its subsidiaries.
A Montreal citizen called me last Sunday night to inform me that he had lost all his furniture, clothing and personal belongings when the building where he lived with his
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion family had been destroyed by a fire. To make matters worse, everything was insured with a subsidiary of the above mentioned institution which is in deep financial difficulties and going bankrupt. The man who evaluated the damage from the fire recommended that the insurance company should pay the insured an indemnity of over $2,000; he will be lucky to get a cheque for half the amount of the indemnity suggested by the adjuster.
Another financial institution which will be unable to meet its obligations towards the Canadian public. Every day, newspaper articles denounce the mishandling of industrial funds. Certain well-paid and abjectly fawned upon bureaucrats shamelessly fatten on the sweat and savings of the low-salaried and dispossessed unfortunates. Why must such felonies always be perpetrated upon the taxpayers, upon those whose honesty is frustrated by the greed of shameless and bare-faced profiteers?
The Mercier report, in 1965, unveiled part of the scandals between 1960 to 1964 alone which cost the state of Quebec the sum of $52 million in lost income tax. The same report indicates serious shortcomings in the operation and application of bankruptcy legislation in Montreal courts.
Commissioner McClellan of the R.C.M.P. in Ottawa did not mince his words when he said:
The underworld is taking over every area of the Canadian economy and unless strong and immediate measures are taken by all concerned, tomorrow will be too late to root out organized crime.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard). He began by making some reference to the failure of the Prudential Finance Corporation, which is an Ontario company over which the federal government has no supervision. He also referred to some of the subsidiaries of Prudential Finance Corporation. I would imagine that he had in mind particularly the North American General Insurance Company, which was a subsidiary of Prudential Finance Corporation and sold, among other things, fire insurance. I have answered quite a number of questions in the house about these developments and events and I made several statements, one at some length, dealing with the federal government's responsibility in these matters. I do not think I can add very much to what I have
12446	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion said on those occasions. Like the hon. gentleman, I am concerned about the failure of some of these financial institutions because I believe that even if these failures are not in a sphere over which the federal parliament has control, nevertheless it reflects upon the reputations of all Canadian financial institutions. I have urged the provinces to do what they can to improve their laws and I have promised that as far as the federal government is concerned in its laws relating to federal institutions, we intend to do likewise.
In conclusion I would like to say again that the North American General Insurance Company, which capsized when the Prudential Finance Corporation went into bankruptcy, was the first failure of a federal insurance company in 40 years. I do hope we will have no more, but I think that the record of our federally incorporated and federally supervised insurance companies has been most remarkable.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-INQUIRY AS TO REMUNERATION FOR FIRE DAMAGE

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to rise this evening to intercede on behalf of some 18 farmers and others in my riding in the township of Richmond and in the township of Tyendinaga. Last Thursday I put a question to the Minister of Transport and it appears at page 12264 of Hansard. I asked him a question pertaining to a fire which took place along the right of way of the C.N.R. in Richmond and Tyendinaga townships last July 20. This fire was set by the rolling stock of the railway, and the farmers along the line sustained considerable damage to crops, fields and fences for which they have not been reimbursed by the C.N.R. I asked the minister when these farmers might expect to receive satisfaction in this matter.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
This unfortunate fire happened more than six months ago. The C.N.R. has sent in inspectors and investigators. They promised the farmers satisfaction in this matter, but nothing has been done toward reimbursing them for the damage done to their fences, pasture lands and crops. The fire was set from a train. One of the C.N.R. claims agents saw it, for it so happens that he was in the area in process of settling a previous claim for damages caused by an earlier fire in April or May.
Officials of the C.N.R. have suggested that the fire may have been caused by a passenger on the train throwing out burning material,

DEBATES	January 30, 1967
such as cigarette butts or matches. This does not make the railway any less liable. The railway is liable for the actions of its passengers. It is also liable for damages caused by mechanical equipment. This fire was set by a hot-box, which is mechanical equipment. The fire took place during a very dry time last summer, in drought conditions.
It was the east bound flyer which set the fire. The train crossed the boundary road between Hastings and Lennox and Addington counties at about 11.45 A.M. standard time. In a few minutes the whole south side of the railway was on fire. The Napanee fire department records show that they were called at 12.06 p.m. standard time. The first sign of fire and the emergency and alarm calls sent in are all in timing with the passage of the aforementioned train across the area. Damage was heavy and serious. The following is a list of the names of owners who have sustained damages:
John Sexsmith, R.R. 2, Shannonville; V. Ryan, R.R. 2, Shannonville, $90; Holy Name of Mary Church, Marysville, $200; Mrs. Bernard O'Sullivan, R.R. 1, Deseronto, $45; Eldridge Rosenblath, R.R. 5, Napanee, $150; Mr. Ross Oliver, R.R. 6, Napanee, $208; Walter Hudson, R.R. 6, Napanee, $500; Mrs. Ola Dillenbeck, R.R. 6, Napanee, $300; Mr. Ralph Hawley, R.R. 6, Napanee, $100; Mr. Fred Mowbray, R.R. 1, Deseronto, $125; Mr. Claude Nugent, R.R. 1, Deseronto, $100; Mr. Cecil Root, R.R. 5, Napanee, $200; Mr. Reginald Badgley, R.R. 1, Deseronto, $640; Mr. E.L. Hinchey, Shannonville, $200; Mr. Harold Moon, R.R. 1, Deseronto, $190; William Stewart, R.R. 1, Deseronto, $125; Eric Root R.R. 5, Napanee, $50.
The total of these figures amounts to $3,223 and we hold the railway liable for these damages for more than one reason. The railway did not burn the grass along the right of way in the spring of 1966 as they should, and usually do. The result was a heavy growth of hay on the railway property which, under the drought conditions, conducted the fire set by the train to the farmers' fences, fields and crops.
Another obvious factor which indicates the fire was set by the train is that the fire was only present and damages sustained on one side of the right of way, namely the south side, without exception and right across the parched, dry countryside. The fire resulted in chaos and disorder in this rural area because of the destruction of fences. As a result, farmers could not pasture their fields and those
January 30, 1967
that were burned produced no grass for the rest of the season. One farmer, Ralph Hawley, had 40 head of cattle other than his own pasturing on his land at one time. Some of these fences have not yet been totally rebuilt.
Much of the seeded land was seeded to Birds Foot Trefoil, which was burned over. I remind the house that it costs at least $8 per acre just for the seed. One man lost 800 bales of hay. I have checked today with many of the people and no settlement has been received by any of them for the damages incurred in this fire.
Here is an example of the lack of action and procrastination of the Canadian National bureaucracy. The Canadian National is most inconsistent in this matter. The bills rendered by the various fire departments for fighting this fire, and the attitude of the Canadian National toward paying them are as follows: The Deseronto fire department rendered a bill for $50 to Tyendinaga township, and the township billed the Canadian National, the latter refused to pay, saying they were taxpayers and entitled to fire protection. The same thing happened with regard to a bill from the city of Belleville fire department which amounted to about $350. Tyendinaga township paid this bill but could not collect the money from the railway.
On the other hand, the Napanee fire department was called to the same fire in the Richmond township area. They rendered a bill for $170 to the Richmond township council. Richmond, in turn, billed the Canadian National and received payment in full in the month of September, less than two months after the incident. How ridiculous and inconsistent can this railway bureaucracy be? They assume responsibility in one instance and ignore their obligations in another, and es-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion pecially for the damage done to the farmers and agricultural industry in the area.
I protest most strongly, Mr. Speaker, the failure of the railway company to right this wrong and their failure to satisfy the reasonable and deserving requests of the farmers in the area who have suffered certain damage. I remind the house that we are all glad to learn the Canadian National had a good year last year. However, I submit that they should not enjoy this financial improvement at the expense of the farmers along the right of way in Richmond and Tyendinaga townships. I ask that these just claims now be paid.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, obviously the conflagration was not sufficient to set a fire under the claims department of the Canadian National Railways.
The minister sincerely regrets the inconvenience and difficulties that have been caused to farmers and others in those communities as outlined by the hon. member. Certainly he will urge, in so far as his responsibility will permit, that the Canadian National do everything in its power, and undertake everything for which it is legally responsible.
It appears a coincidence that we have been informed that only today officials of the Canadian National claims department have journeyed to the community to finalize these agreements. I want to assure the hon. member that his representations have not gone unnoticed. I hope everything will be satisfactorily arranged during the visit of the officials to that area.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

12449

Tuesday, January 31, 19G7