1967-04-18

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a group of distinguished parliamentarians from Finland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of hon. members I wish them a pleasant and interesting visit to Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present the report of the business committee on the question of allocation of time on the committee of the whole stage and all remaining stages of procedure on Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as amended, which was referred to the business committee on Thursday, April 13, 1967. The report is as follows:
Pursuant to the order of reference on Thursday, April thirteenth, 1967, your committee has considered the question of allocation of time on the committee of the whole stage and all remaining stages of procedure on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended). I now report that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement on the question referred to it.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice, pursuant to the provisions of standing order 15A, that on Thursday next I will move that an order be made allocating the time on the committee of the whole stage and all remaining stages of procedure on Bill C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as amended, being government order No. 107 on this day's order paper. My motion will provide that two days shall be allocated for the completion of discussion on the committee of the whole stage on Bill C-243, to amend the National Defence Act
and other acts in consequence thereof, as amended, and that one day shall be allotted for the completion of the third reading stage on the bill. Perhaps I should add so that hon. members will understand-
Mr. Diefenbaker:: We understand it perfectly well; the axe.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllrailh:: -that the motion can only come before the house on Thursday, not tomorrow. It provides for the time indicated in addition to the time that will have been spent between now and the adoption of the motion. At that time we will have had at least 13 days on the committee stage in addition to the time provided for in the motion.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely the government's dairy policy, which is now arousing the ire of all Canadian dairy farmers, and for the purpose of arriving at some early solution to that thorny problem.
Mr. Speaker, the urgency-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member send me a copy of this motion?
The hon. member knows that the debate must deal only with the urgency of debate and not with the urgency of the motion. I would therefore ask him to make the remarks he deems necessary on that point.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of debate is obvious, because right now the farmers, the dairy producers, not only in one but in several provinces, are organizing to march on Ottawa. They are unhappy with the recent dairy policy laid down by the government and announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene).
The farmers feel that it is very urgent to review the dairy policy so that they can get the minimum price they asked for, that is
April 18, 1967

Dissatisfaction with Dairy Policy $5.10 per hundredweight of manufacturing milk.
Mr. Speaker, I also feel that the following reasons militate in favour of a debate on a definite matter of public importance and urgency, namely the new dairy policy of the government.
Whereas the amount of money made available to the Canadian Dairy Commission is inadequate;
Whereas the dairy policy does not meet with the satisfaction of the producers of manufacturing milk;
Whereas there is no guarantee that the subsidy will be maintained regularly at $1.11, due to the fact that the export premium of 10 cents per hundredweight is not sufficient and that the Canadian Dairy Commission will have to deduct the necessary amounts from the $1.11 subsidy;
Whereas this means that the $1.11 subsidy will be liable to readjustment because of shipping costs;
Whereas the surpluses of dairy producers, namely grades 2, 3 and 4 fluid milk, are not entitled to subsidies;
Whereas cream producers do not receive any special subsidy;
Whereas there are rumours that a group of over 10,000 dairy producers are organizing a march on Ottawa in protest against the present dairy policy;
Whereas there is talk of a general strike amongst dairy producers in the near enough future to slow down the overall economy of this country;
Whereas a ceiling has been put on dairy production and that beyond a certain quota, namely that of last year, dairy producers receive no subsidy to encourage greater production;
Whereas it is proved that our agriculture is now, and has been for several years, in such a state of stagnation that our farmers are dismayed and discouraged;
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons and many others, I feel that this is a matter of urgent public importance which should concern all members as elected representatives of the people.
It has become obvious that farming is no longer economic. On several occasions, farmers have expressed their wishes and their needs. They have written briefs; they have brought pressure to bear on their members of [Mr. Caouette.l
parliament and they have even marched on Ottawa.
But it remains, nevertheless, that farmers have always had to cope with the rising cost of living and yet their income has not increased proportionately.
Without the farmers, urban citizens and factory workers, members of parliament could not live.
A farmer's farm is an urgent matter, it is a private enterprise. Do we want to destroy or to save it?
I feel it is time, Mr. Speaker, to discuss that urgent matter, so that we may clearly establish that Canadian farmers, Canadian dairy farmers will be treated more fairly than they have been up to now by the Department of Agriculture, by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) and by the government as a whole.
Such is, in my opinion, the urgency of the matter. That is the reason for my intervention today on behalf of the farmers and, to prove how urgent the matter is, I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture bring it before the house so that a free vote may be held and, if it is necessary to put the existence of the government at stake, let nothing stop us, but let us respect Canadian farmers.
This is how urgent my question is.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to add my wholehearted support to the proposition put forward by the hon. member in requesting an adjournment in order to debate the very serious problem today facing a great segment of our agricultural industry. It is true that normally we would wait to debate this matter on interim supply and at that time would put the proposition before the government, but I think the problem is far too urgent to brook any delay in such a debate. The farmers of this nation are very much concerned about this problem. Meetings have been held of all the large farmers' organizations and the farmers of this country have come to the conclusion-and the government was duly notified of this-that anything less than $5 per hundredweight for milk would not be acceptable.
I think the government should be endeavouring to save this industry. We find the dairy farmers are talking about strikes, the destruction of dairy products and holding them back from the market. Nobody wants to see this type of action take place. On the
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
other hand the dairy farmers have to find some means of bringing this most important question before the people of this country. Surely it is urgent that we as members of parliament, accepting full responsibility for this problem, take every opportunity to place this proposition before the government and see if by such a debate we can bring to their attention the real urgency in the matter. We should try to see if through such a debate we can bring to the attention of the government the real urgency of this problem and bring about an equitable solution so these farmers will not be forced from their lands and will not be forced out of the dairy business, and so Canada will not be placed in the position of having to import dairy products.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I should like to emphasize with all the force at my command that now is the time to solve this problem. A debate at this time would give us an opportunity to put before the government the very real problem with which the dairy farmers of this country are concerned. I do not feel that a delay of one, three or five days will serve any useful purpose. We should have the opportunity to debate this problem now in the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the house leader had to go out so I will say just one word on the subject; that is that the announcement by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture was made at least two weeks ago. Therefore it seems to me that the subject matter, important and urgent as it is to the farmers, does not fall within the class of subjects as to which there is urgency of debate. There might have been a case to be made on the day or the day after the Minister of Agriculture made his statement, but to suggest that something new has happened between yesterday and today to make this matter sufficiently urgent to interrupt the regular business set down for this day would, I suggest to Your Honour, be to make a mockery of the rather narrow provisions of the standing order. For that reason it seems to me that the motion should not be considered to be in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was any doubt that the motion was proper, the Minister of Transport has removed it. He stated that there would have been urgency and this motion would have been justified if made two weeks ago, but because
Dissatisfaction with Dairy Policy it was not made two weeks ago but only today there is not sufficient urgency to bring the motion within the rules of the house.
Mr. Speaker, the motion could not have been made two weeks ago because people did not realize what a mishmash had been made of the dairy policy by the government. Only in the last two or three days has the realization come to all parts of this country that the dairy industry-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is an insult to the farmers.


John George Diefenbaker: When I speak of mishmash I sometimes think of my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The very fact that such interruptions are taking place indicates that my argument is well founded. The dairy farmers have been crucified by this government, and they realize it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish some of the farmers could hear the Liberal members opposite jeering at that observation. Today in every part of this nation it is recognized by almost everyone, except those who sit opposite, that the situation is serious and that delay cannot be permitted. It might be said that this matter could be discussed when the interim supply motion is before the house. However, even with closure applied to the defence debate that would be a delay of two weeks. That is too long a time. The dairy industry cannot be sacrificed through delay.
I suggest therefore that a good case has been made. If it had not been for the assistance of the Minister of Transport when he said this would have been a perfect motion two weeks ago, I might have had some doubt. No longer am I in doubt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to remind the minister that he has already spoken on the subject, but I understand he is rising now on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it is in accordance with the rules to make a correction after an hon. member has spoken who has misrepresented what I said. What I said was that there might have been an argument. I did not say it was a perfect case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
15034	COMMONS
Dissatisfaction with Dairy Policy


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said there certainly was not a case two weeks later. It does seem to me, sir, that we should decide the question of urgency and not permit debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that contributions at this stage should be to enlighten the Chair. It is getting dark.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: It seems to me that the argument advanced by the Minister of Transport indicates the seriousness of the matter that has been raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). The matter of urgency seems to stem from the decisions that have been taken by the farmers in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario after they have had an opportunity of examining the various aspects of the program that has been announced. So far as parliament was concerned, when the announcement was made the situation was that there had been consultations with the provinces and the various farm organizations. There was some reason for believing that the farmers were in agreement that the $4.75 guaranteed by the federal government would eventually become $5.10 with the addition of provincial subsidies.
The farmers have now had an opportunity of examining the program and are aware of three particular aspects in which it is lacking. The first is that the $4.75 for industrial milk is the full price paid f.o.b. factory. This in turn raises two problems with which the farmers are concerned at the moment. One of them, of course, is the transportation policy, and I am sure all hon. members are aware of that. Transportation was not considered in the announcement, though I believe the farmers thought it had been.
In addition, meetings have been held with the provinces which indicate that the $4.75 includes the provincial subsidies. For a considerable length of time farm organizations in general have considered $5.10 the absolute minimum to ensure efficient farm operation. We are now importing butter; because of this program our butter supplies are becoming short. For these reasons it is my opinion, and I believe the opinion of the farmers, that rather than have a strike of farmers across Canada this parliament should consider the situation and attempt to find a remedy in order to avert a calamity.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are reasons why this motion is in order today. In spite of what

DEBATES	April 18. 1967
the Minister of Transport has said to the effect that the matter should have been raised several days ago, I say there was some confusion with regard to the practical application of the provisions announced by the Minister of Agriculture a few days ago. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it was not clearly understood by the members of this house or by the dairy farmers of Canada what would be the practical application of this announcement.
After a few days of consideration it has been found that the program announced is wanting in many respects so far as the dairy producers of Canada are concerned. I draw Your Honour's attention also to the fact that we have just ascertained that surplus fluid milk is going to be withdrawn from the subsidy as a result of the minister's announcement. This was not well understood when he made the announcement a few days ago. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to citation 100, which is the one that deals with standing order 26, which says that the subject matter must involve the administrative responsibility of the government. I suggest to Your Honour that the motion by the hon. member for Villeneuve meets this requirement. The federal government pays a subsidy to the dairy industry. The Minister of Agriculture and government of the day are directly involved in these payments; therefore, as I say, that requirement of Beauchesne's citation 100 is met.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
If Your Honour would now turn your attention to paragraph 2 of the same citation, it is there stated that the matter must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. I suggest to Your Honour that the public interest is suffering at the present time, and that it will continue to suffer, unless this question is given immediate attention. As has been pointed out by a number of other hon. members, there is a great deal of unrest among dairy farmers with regard to this matter, and there have been indications that they are making plans to take some drastic action. In the meantime they are suffering from an economic depression that is well known to all hon. members who have studied the situation. So I suggest that this motion meets the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of citation 100.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the matter that is probably paramount to your decision is dealt with in paragraph 3, namely the urgency of debate. As Your Honour well knows, urgency of debate applies when the ordinary opportunities
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest demands that discussion of the matter take place immediately.
In this regard, if Your Honour were to look at the orders of the day you would find no opportunity provided in the rest of this session to discuss the subject matter contained in the motion of the hon. member for Vil-leneuve. Some special motion or provision would have to be made by the government before a debate on this matter could take place during the remainder of this session. Therefore I suggest to Your Honour that the condition laid down in paragraph 3 as to urgency of debate is also met.
If we do not discuss this matter under the provisions of standing order 26, Mr. Speaker, there is no other provision that would enable us to discuss the matter during the balance of the present session. In other words, this question would have to be put over until the new session if it were to be discussed at all by this parliament.
Last, but perhaps not least, paragraph 5 provides:
The adjournment of the house cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country.
This motion does not refer to critical conditions prevailing in certain parts of the country, Mr. Speaker; the motion refers to critical conditions prevailing in the dairy industry all over the country. Therefore I suggest to Your Honour that the motion of the hon. member also meets the condition laid down in paragraph 5 of citation 100.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be far more useful to spend today debating this issue and if possible finding some solution to a very serious and critical agricultural problem in this country than to spend the day in repetitious debate on Bill No. C-243, a debate which is going to come to an end in a few days anyway.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to second the motion of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), requesting an urgent debate on the government's dairy policy.
I believe sincerely that there is urgency in the matter. Everybody knows that the government house leader (Mr. Mcllraith) has given us notice that a motion will be put to the
Dissatisfaction with Dairy Policy house within two days and that the meaningless discussion on Bill No. C-243 will go on for the two next days.
On the other hand, a motion has now been put by the hon. member for Villeneuve, proposing a debate on the dairy policy of this government.
What, Mr. Speaker, and this is an important question which must be decided today, is the most urgent problem we have to discuss at this time? Is it national defence? In view of the motion presented by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), will a debate on this subject produce a concrete solution today or tomorrow? Obviously, the subject matter of the motion presented by the hon. member for Villeneuve is of greater urgency. The business on the orders of the day is futile and useless, in view of the motion presented by the hon. Minister of Public Works at the beginning of this sitting. On the other hand, a discussion on the subject matter of the motion presented by the hon. member for Villeneuve could produce results beneficial to many Canadians, that is, the farmers and the milk producers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, not only is there urgency in relation to the other business of the house that we will consider this afternoon, but there is also urgency with regard to the impending demonstrations which the farmers are preparing to carry out throughout Canada. And there is also urgency with respect to the disaster entailed by a farmers' strike. We have seen recently the consequences of such demonstrations in the United States where there were many injured and large quantities of milk were dumped in the sewers and in the streets. Well, Mr. Speaker, such a disaster is imminent and the farmers are getting more angry to see that the federal government, with its dairy policy, is forgetting them. It is urgent, Mr. Speaker, to take the necessary steps to avoid such a disaster.
Mr. Speaker, there are some precedents on which we can base ourselves. For example, the railway strike. We had been told that there was no urgency just before the strike broke out and then there were losses of several million dollars each day. Another precedent: the strike in the ports on the west coast. The adjournment of the house had been asked to discuss that matter, but we were again told that there was no urgency. Now, some ten days later, financial losses of about $1.5 million daily were being incurred. We were told then that this was an emergency and that not an hour, an hour and a half or two hours
15036	COMMONS
Dissatisfaction with Dairy Policy were to be lost before discussing the problem. There have also been other precedents-for instance the longshoremen's strike on the Montreal waterfront.
Therefore, a number of precedents prove that if we do not debate these urgent matters before the strikes or demonstrations take place, then it will be too late, for when you are in the midst of demonstrations by strikers or farmers, there is no time left for discussion.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is urgent to meet the situation, that we must not wait until we are faced with incalculable daily financial losses because, with the present government, we must debate these subjects, since the government is unable to face them with its own understanding and counsel.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that a number of farmers are now thinking about leaving their land, seems to me another reason for the urgency of this debate.
Furthermore, the fact that a certain number of people have to suffer daily from such dairy policy also proves the urgency of the debate.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider that the debate on national defence which will take place this afternoon is thoroughly futile and useless and that, on the other hand, the debate suggested in the motion presented by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) might help to find a solution to a problem liable to prove very serious, the cogency of the motion will be recognized as well as the urgency of discussing it this afternoon.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few short remarks to make on the suggestion of my hon. friend, the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).
It will probably be noted with surprise that, for once, I agree with my hon. friend from Villeneuve. Generally, my views are completely opposed to his, but I feel it is urgent to deal with this problem and to find a solution, since considerable discontent is being caused among the farmers and it is a constant source of complaints.
A few weeks ago at most, a large number of Quebec farmers came to Ottawa to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to take into consideration their urgent needs and the situation in which they find themselves.
Every day, farmers, particularly dairy producers, find themselves in an ever tightening squeeze. On the one hand, they are faced

DEBATES	April 18, 1967
with a constantly increasing cost of production and, on the other, with an unprofitable sale price for their products.
Mr. Speaker, it has often been said in this house that we should try to solve the problems involving this nation. Well, this question of the dairy industry, to my mind, is one deserving of our immediate attention.
I will not detain the house any longer but I fully support, like my colleagues in this party, the demands made by the farmers. In fact, we have often called the minister's attention to the importance of the dairy industry and to the advisability of taking the necessary measures to ensure a reasonable price for the dairy producers. I support the motion submitted by my friend, the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I shall make every effort to ensure that farmers actually get what they are entitled to.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganfic):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have very much to say following the claims and the explanations relating to the dairy policy of the government. However, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) stressed the usefulness of the debate. I should say that it is not only useful, it is also necessary in the circumstances.
The member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) quoted the 100th comment of the fourth edition of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms to indicate that it could be detrimental to the public interest. Mr. Speaker, I think we have only to refer to the situation prevalent a few weeks ago in the United States to refute his argument. Indeed, the situation of our neighbours to the south was identical to ours today, and it proved so disastrous for their dairy industry and for the American economy on the whole, that the United States Congress was forced to take action.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the point I emphasize is the urgency of the debate. We are faced at the present time with a threatening strike. We have had strikes in the past and we have had enough in one year, in one session. We always waited for the problem to fall on our heads and on our shoulders before making any move. For once, the farmers and their associations all across Canada have demonstrated explicitly that the government dairy policy is not beneficial nor acceptable. It has to be given a second sober thought here in the house otherwise they will take exceptional measures, they will go on strike and destroy their production if there is no improvement in the situation.
April 18, 1967
1S037

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy cannot afford another strike of that kind. I think that the debate is urgent and that it is our duty to discuss the matter today and without any further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope I may be allowed to suggest to hon. members that I be given an opportunity soon to rule on the motion. I do not wish to cut off discussion as a few hon. members apparently wish to contribute further. I hope the debate will not continue too much longer and that I shall have an opportunity shortly to give an expression of opinion.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: I just wish to add a few words in support of the motion of the hon. member for Villeneuve, because nothing could be more urgent at this time than the matter he has raised. Dairy farmers are still quitting in alarming numbers. For that in many ways the new policy of the government is responsible. Furthermore, discrimination has been practised against fluid milk shippers, who received some subsidy last year but no subsidy this year.
It is said that fluid milk shippers are under provincial jurisdiction. I think it is ridiculous for a province to be asked to subsidize the portion of surplus fluid milk sold as manufacturing milk when it does not subsidize manufacturing milk sold by those who sell no fluid milk for distribution. That sort of thing makes no sense.
Nothing can be more urgent or of more importance to our country at this time than the matter raised in the hon. member's motion.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, being one of the sponsors of the adjournment motion moved by my friend, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), I should like to make a few observations concerning the urgency of this debate.
All the members who spoke before me recognized such an urgency. On the government side everybody remains silent, which is proof of the urgency of the debate, for none of them opposed it except the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), Who was not too sure about it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit the urgency of debate exists. In 1966, Canadian dairy producers got rid of 86,000 milch cows

Dissatisfaction with Dairy Policy and we have now reached the lowest level in 46 years as regards dairy cattle.
This is one of the points proving the urgency of debating the whole question. The government should assume its own responsibilities and grant dairy producers a fair price for their products. We also note that in addition to the march the farmers intend to make on Ottawa soon, a number of them are planning to give up dairy production, if the government does not take immediate steps to enable them to get a reasonable price for their farm products.
Such is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, on the urgency of this debate.


Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a couple of words; I shall take a minute only. Last week I raised a question dealing with the support for surplus milk. I asked why the support was removed from the surplus milk shipped by fluid milk shippers of this country. The only answer I received was from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, that this matter came under provincial responsibility. In 1966 it was recognized that it came under federal responsibility; why should that have been changed in 1967. The effect is to depress farmers' incomes.
That farmers have threatened to dump milk right across the country is a deplorable state of affairs in a hungry world, and I hope the threat is never carried out. If it is, the government will be held responsible for ignoring the pleas of farmers and others supporting them.
The shippers of manufacturing milk will not receive $4.75 a hundredweight, as has been suggested, because the export subsidy or export charge is subtracted from the amount paid, reducing that figure. Cream shippers are in an even worse position. The quota system, as has been suggested by the dairy commission and some persons in the Department of Agriculture, is most confusing and entirely unsatisfactory to meet the needs of farmers. In fact everybody is confused, and the milk shippers are in a furious state about present day conditions. I agree with the hon. member for Villeneuve.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that I am now in a position to make a ruling. I know that contributions made at the beginning by
April 18, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. members are made for the purpose of enlightening the Chair and of making it possible for the Chair to arrive at a ruling. As I have reached a conclusion, I believe it would not be necessary to carry on with the debate.
Some hon. members mentioned the fact that what the Chair must consider is the urgency, but more particularly the urgency of debate. I am the first to recognize that there is a matter of great importance, a matter of urgency, I would say, but what I must consider, first and above all, is the urgency of debate. In the present circumstances, should there be an adjournment of the business of the house, as listed on government orders, to debate another matter, namely that suggested by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)?
The matter is not easy to settle and I am grateful to hon. members for their remarks which undoubtedly helped me to reach a decision. And I want to remind hon. members of citation 100, paragraph 8, of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 94, which reads as follows:
I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency-
It seems to me that this is the main point: Is there a "sudden emergency"? I remember that over the last few weeks several questions have been asked about that problem following a statement made in the house by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). That matter was dealt with a few times on the adjournment motion. I do not feel therefore that this is a "sudden emergency" which would justify the adjournment of the house at least today under the present circumstances.

It has been pointed out by some hon. members that there will be an opportunity for a full fledged debate on this very important matter when we reach interim supply. It is difficult to determine whether this would be soon enough to meet the necessities and requirements of the situation, but I would judge that in the present circumstances the matter might be left in abeyance, and I suggest that there is not sufficient urgency of debate today to accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Prime Minister with reference to the question I am about to ask. In centennial year has the government given consideration to inviting Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales, to visit the senior of the realms he will serve as monarch in the years ahead, it being particularly appropriate that he see this country during centennial year? In any event, would the Prime Minister give consideration to extending an invitation through the proper channels for the attendance of the prince in company with his father, Prince Philip, at the pan-American games in Winnipeg?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne visiting Canada during our centennial year was canvassed some months ago, and it was indicated to us that there was some difficulty in the minds of the royal family in asking the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne to take on official duties at this stage in their lives. It did not seem desirable to pursue the matter at that time in an official way with regard to an official visit.
The right hon. gentleman has suggested that perhaps the same consideration would not apply in respect of a visit by the Prince of Wales with his father to the pan-American games. I recall, as I am sure the right hon. gentleman does, that the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne both went to the British Empire and Commonwealth games in Jamaica. They had such a good time there that perhaps they would be glad to repeat the pleasure in Winnipeg. I shall be glad to look into the matter.



DAYLIGHT SAVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Kootenay West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister, and I would like the house to know that my questions all originate in the minds of the people. In view of the great inconvenience suffered by
April 18, 1967

Canadians in general, particularly those engaged in transportation, farming and travelling, with the present constitutional but illogical arrangements for the establishment of daylight saving time, would the Prime Minister consider placing this question on the agenda for the next federal-provincial conference with a view to establishing daylight saving time on a nation-wide basis as the result of an agreement between the federal government and the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to give me written notice of this question as coming from "a member in the twilight of life".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there were anything I could do by extending daylight saving time or in any other way to extend that twilight I would be delighted to do so. I think the proposal that we should have uniformity on the matter, if possible, is a very sensible one, and perhaps this could be taken up at the next federal-provincial conference.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO LEASE OF ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house whether it is true that the National Harbours Board has leased the Quebec grain elevators to the Bungee Company of New York for a ten-year period at a cost of a million dollars a year?
Did that transaction take place between the National Harbours Board and the owners of the grain elevators?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday in reply to a question put by my hon. friend from Quebec South that the government had approved a proposal by the harbours board that the grain elevator at Quebec city should be leased to the firm which had submitted the highest bid, and that bid was from the firm mentioned by the hon. gentleman. I also indicated that certain very stringent conditions were attached to this transaction with respect

Inquiries of the Ministry to the handling of domestic grain. As for the precise amount of the lease, I have not got it under my hand at the moment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Could the hon. minister or the government not find someone in Canada instead of granting a lease of that kind to people outside Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is controversial.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Now that the grain elevators in the port of Quebec have been leased by the National Harbours Board to a grain company and that this company has cancelled what plans it had of building in the Sept-Iles harbour, does the Minister of Transport plan to make a comprehensive survey, jointly with his colleague the Minister of Public Works, of the tremendous possibilities the natural deep-sea harbour of Sept lies offers large industries?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, to deal with
the last point first, the government did not authorize this lease until it had been fully assured that the company would not have proceeded with its project at Sept lies whether or not the lease had been consummated, because we did not want to appear to prevent this project going ahead. 1 did meet with the mayor and other members of the council of Sept lies, who were brought to my office by my hon. friend, and they asked me if I would speak to my colleague the Minister of Public Works with a view to having a comprehensive study made of the possibilities of the development of the port of Sept lies. That study will be made just as soon as it can possibly be done.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Is the rental involved in the lease greater or lower than the income the port brought to the Quebec grain elevators?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for statistical information. The question is therefore out of order.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary
April 18, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry question. Is there any change in policy in so far as the operation of other grain elevators by the National Harbours Board in other parts of Canada is concerned?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter of policy. It is a matter of looking at each individual situation with a view to attempting to operate the elevators in the best interests of the producers, sellers and consumers of grain, and in the national interest, with some consideration for the treasury of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: From what the minister has said may we take it that the National Harbours Board and the department are reviewing the situation in so far as other grain elevators, particularly at Saint John and Halifax, are concerned?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite correct.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that a study is being made of the whole subject. Is it the intention to sign the present lease before the study is completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has misunderstood me. I was talking about the study of the port of Sept lies.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Canadian graduate students accepting scholarships at some United States universities must now, in order to accept such scholarships, swear to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, with the oaths being administered by a consular or embassy officer of the U.S.A., thereby placing in jeopardy the Canadian citizenship of the students concerned? Will the Prime Minister approach the United States state department to seek a reversal of this gross interference with Canadian nationality?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such stipulation. I will be glad to inquire whether in fact it does exist.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When the Prime Minister is making the inquiry will he find out why it is that scholarships issued through the instrumentality of the department of health, education and welfare, office of education, in Washington require that Canadians should in effect disavow their allegiance in order to be awarded scholarships of this kind? I know the Prime Minister will agree that this does not look like the kind of co-operation one would expect and certainly it is contrary to any reasonable attitude between our two countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will inquire concerning whether that report is accurate. I do know that a good many Canadians who have held scholarships in the United States have never been asked to meet any such conditions.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister doubts the accuracy of the statement, will he be willing to receive a photostatic copy of the form of declaration which has been sent to such students?



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Could the minister say whether the Department of Justice is giving consideration to the recommendation of the committee on justice and legal affairs for the provision of mandatory breath tests and, if so, when a decision might be reached?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been considered by the Department of Justice. I will be taking up the matter fairly soon, along with other possible amendments to the Criminal Code, with my cabinet colleagues. I cannot say at the moment when a decision will be taken.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance in the absence of the minister. Could the minister tell the house
April 18, 1967

when he will recommend to the house that bylaw No. 1 passed as order in council No. 1967-579 dealing with regulations under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act will be referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he now in a position to make any report to the house with regard to the inquiries which he yesterday said he was prepared to make? In particular, can he tell us whether the instructions are clear that the manpower offices are not to deal with employers who lay down any discriminatory conditions?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me whether instructions of the former national employment service dealing with anti-discrimination rules in the employment offices were transferred and have been in effect since the service became part of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The answer to this question is yes.
May I add, to answer the supplementary question raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, that anti-discrimination instructions were first distributed to all federal employment offices in July, 1941. These were subsequently incorporated in the revised manual of June, 1949 and reconfirmed in circulars dated November 1953, May 1954, June 1959 and December 1963. As recently as March 7 of this year our regional office in Toronto re-emphasized to all our manpower centres in Ontario the department's anti-discrimination policy.
With regard to the request by the hon. member for York South that further instructions be issued, I should say that a new operations manual is now under preparation and will, of course, include a strong statement on non-discrimination. In addition, special instructions will immediately be sent to all Canada manpower centres to insist on the implementation of non-discrimination.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE ON NATION-WIDE ANTI-CRIME PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Justice or possibly the Solicitor General. In the light of the report of the Ontario crime commission concerning the extent of the penetration into various organizations in Canada by crime syndicates, will the Minister of Justice give urgent consideration to the convening of a conference of ministers charged with responsibility for the enforcement of the law across Canada to lay the foundation for the necessary practical measures and possible amendments to the law in order to co-ordinate an effective anti-crime program on a nation-wide basis?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I missed the first part of the question. I will take it as notice and answer it tomorrow or some other day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency and national importance of the need to co-ordinate measures against crime on a national scale I should like to ask the minister whether he will treat the matter a little more urgently than his casual answer would seem to indicate.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Because of the very cold weather and very long winter we have experienced, especially in northwestern Quebec, would the minister agree to reconsider the requests originating from all quarters for an extension of the winter works program to May 15?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question has been asked several times in recent days.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of
15042	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Fisheries. Has the minister received a copy of the resolution which was passed unanimously on April 13 by the Prince Edward Island legislature urging the federal government to honour its commitment to pay the 25 per cent subsidy to the fishermen who built boats in the 35-45 foot class? If he has received this resolution, and in view of the expressed hope of the premier of Prince Edward Island that in due course every claim will be paid by Ottawa, does the government now intend to pay this subsidy on the basis of the applications which have already been received?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I received such a letter yesterday and I replied this morning to the effect that all applications received will be dealt with as quickly as possible and that all those meeting the criteria established by the federal Department of Fisheries will be paid without delay.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the now daily expressions of mounting public concern about the housing shortage in metropolitan Toronto-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: It is a concern which is not the exclusive province of any political party. In part, though not exclusively, it is a matter for federal action. Is the minister ready yet to inform the house what steps are being taken to relieve this situation of urgent national importance and, if so, what if any effect such measures have had to date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question put by the hon. member is, of course, of great importance to all members. I have the impression that this subject has been raised on a number of occasions during the last few days, and I wonder whether the hon. member feels there is justification for asking it again today.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I hope it is not suggested that this matter is in order when raised by hon. members opposite but not when raised by interested members on this side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Put it on at ten o'clock.

DEBATES	April 18, 1967



CONSIDERATION OF PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS FOR LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of President Johnson's offer to grant preferential tariffs to developing countries in Latin America, is the Canadian government considering the implementation of a similar policy to assist these nations in the development of their economies?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have for some time and are at the present time considering with the United States and other governments the best way of assisting underdeveloped countries. As my hon. friend knows, we have had discussions at various international meetings on this matter. The suggestion made by President Johnson at the recent conference involves only one method of assisting these countries. There are other ways in which this can be done. These matters are now being considered with the United States and other governments.



HONOURS AND AWARDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister tabled certain orders in council, one revoking P. C. 7964. Order in council P.C. 1967-389 provides for the setting up and establishment of the Order of Canada. Attached to it was the constitution of the Order of Canada. In the copy which has now been delivered to me by the Clerk I find in paragraph 27 that the motto of the order shall be "Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam." When was the substitution made of the one now before me for the one that was tabled yesterday, a copy of which was given to members and in which reference was made in brackets to the scriptures from which the quotation is taken, namely, Hebrews 12:16? When was this change made in the document filed yesterday which was so different from the one produced to me today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to deal with this important matter. The document filed
April 18, 1967

yesterday was the only one of an official character and it included only the motto in paragraph 27. There was later typed another edition of the constitution of the order, because it was felt that it would be helpful to my right hon. friend and to members of the press to identify the source of this particular motto. Unfortunately there was a misprint and the figure "12" should have been "11". My right hon. friend, with his deep knowledge of the Scriptures, could have been expected to notice this misprint, and he did in fact spot it immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister for that reference but I ask him now, when did the change or removal take place in that portion of the constitution which was filed yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, nothing was removed from the document that was tabled. This addition was made to the document that was circulated for the information of the press.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if this scriptural reference was made for the edification of the people of Canada, the Prime Minister has certainly edified them.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence I shall address it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that at least one provincial government has expressed its inability or unwillingness to meet the conditions of the federal medicare plan and that other provinces have indicated that the interpretation of the act will be very difficult to reconcile with their own plans, does the government intend to propose any amendments in order that the medicare plan can be reconciled with provincial plans?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is at the moment discussing this and related matters with provincial ministers of health. Perhaps he will have a report to make after the discussion is complete. I cannot assume that any amendment to the act will be required.

National Defence Act Amendment NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT



AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government orders-The Minister of National Defence-House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended).
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the house do now proceed to order No. 134, namely second reading of Bill C-278, an act respecting the occupational training of adults.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the house will allow the Chair a moment or two for consultation in order to ascertain the number of the standing order which is thought to be relevant to the present situation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Order, please. I am now prepared to make a ruling on the motion presented to the house a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It has been brought to my attention-and I am sure hon. members realize the difficulty with which the Chair is faced in connection with the motion presented by the hon. member-that the order of business is according to our standing orders, proposed by the government itself. I draw the attention of hon. members to standing order 18 which reads as follows:
(1)	All items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper.
(2)	Except as provided in standing orders 43 and 56, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.
An order has been called by the government today, and the only way we could proceed in accordance with the motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would be by suspending, with unanimous consent, the provisions of standing order 18. That can only be done by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be some doubt whether there is unanimous consent. I would ask the house whether there is unanimous agreement to suspend the provisions of standing order 18 so that I may put to the
April 18, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment house the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Before proceeding with my ruling I should also bring to the attention of hon. members a decision which is in point. I refer to a ruling by Mr. Speaker on Monday, May 14, 1956, as follows:
May I point out to the hon. member for Kamloops that I cannot accept his motion because the order that is now before the house is a government order, and the other order that the hon. member now considers we should proceed with is order No. 12, which is another government order, and government orders may be moved only by the leader of the house. I would refer hon. members to standing order 18(2).
That is the standing order to which I have just referred.
There is also citation 136, which reads:
"All motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the leader of the house."
Therefore the Speaker considered that the motion could not be moved.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a very difficult question here.	[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I realize that this is not supposed to be a debatable motion, but I think Your Honour might take under advisement the fact that standing order 15-A did not apply in 1956. The government has availed itself of the provisions of standing order 15-A by appointing a day certain for the termination of this debate and therefore has preempted any question of the continuation of the debate at this time. In effect the government could have indicated not next Thursday but the Tuesday following or any day subsequent to next Thursday for the termination of the debate or how long it should continue. I am sure Your Honour realizes that when citing precedents they must be on all fours with the question under consideration. Unfortunately for the judgment that Your Honour has rendered, I would submit that 1956 is not today and that standing order 15-A was not then in force.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West is interesting, but even without the precedent to which I have just referred, which to my mind is

certainly relevant, there is standing order 18(2) which specifies that government business is in the hands of the government house leader. We cannot suspend the provisions of that standing order without the consent of the house. Therefore, orders of the day having been called-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. It so happened that on April 3 it was moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-243 and the opinion of the house was called for. The yeas and nays were called and there was a recorded vote. Why, then, cannot that be done on this occasion and on any occasion when an order of the house is called? May I call for the yeas and nays on the movement of the house into committee on this bill.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On that point, Mr. Speaker, is there not a difference between the situation of April 3 and today? On April 3 we had the first motion that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole on this bill.


Mr. Starr:: We have to do that every day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, we are not resolving ourselves into committee. We are again going into committee of the whole, the resolving already having been determined.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that there should not be further discussion. I bring to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that standing order 53 is in point. I think the argument raised by the hon. member of Winnipeg South Centre has been adequately answered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Orders of the day have been called and I have no alternative but to leave the chair.
The house resumed, from Monday, April 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer- Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was under consideration.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, when this debate was adjourned last night I had just finished explaining why it was necessary for
April 18, 1967

us to continue the debate in the hope that the public would become aware of the issues involved and would bring pressure to bear on government supporters so that we might stop what I consider to be a very foolish move by the Minister of National Defence. In addition to having the right to continue the debate in the hope that we will persuade the public to bring pressure to bear on the government on this question, I believe it is perfectly proper, technical procedure to point out the kind of arguments used on the other side of the chamber and the fallacy of some of the points raised in the general tenor of the argument.
In this connection I referred to the lead editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of last Saturday and pointed out that, the editor ignored the facts and copied hon. members opposite in some of the arguments they have used in this debate. Many of the arguments they use have been repeated and repeated throughout the country and are repeated no matter how many times they are disproved by the evidence given before the committee. For instance, we heard the minister and his supporters suggest that the military wanted to control and run things instead of the government. The evidence given before the committee has made it perfectly clear that this argument is completely contrary to the facts, but that does not stop government supporters repeating it time after time.
We have heard the minister repeat from time to time that what the government is now trying to do by the unification bill was explained and spelled out in the white paper. The minister has said this despite the fact that every senior military adviser who was with him at that time said they had no such understanding and certainly it could not be taken from the white paper in any manner, shape or form.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
One of the most important facts that the minister keeps distorting is the meaning of integration and unification. The argument put forward by the minister and his supporters is that integration and unification are a package deal, just one scheme, and that unification is necessary in order to complete the integration process. Of course that has been disproven by the evidence before the committee and even by the minister's own chief witness, the chief of the general staff, General Allard. I believe it is proper debating technique in the house to quote the evidence before the committee proving how wrong these arguments are. Of 23033-951
National Defence Act Amendment course the purpose of doing this, if government supporters insist on using almost exclusively arguments which are obviously contrary to the facts, is to prove by the facts that the government has a very weak case. This is the situation today. If we take away all their fallacious arguments the government has nothing left on which to pin its support of unification.
I have often thought that the meanest and dirtiest argument used by government supporters is that those who are opposed to unification are opposed to progress. This has been echoed by various members in the house. In the Ottawa Citizen of last Saturday there was an article on the editorial page written by Charles King, the associate editor, which repeats what I would call a typical example of the technique of the big lie. 1 am sorry that my copy of that issue of the Citizen is missing because I would have liked to quote a paragraph or two from the article. However, I think I am being fair to Mr. King when I say that the purport of his article was that those who oppose unification-


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order which I will state very quickly. My point of order is that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has over the past few days, both in the House of Commons and out of it, repeatedly used the word "lie" in connection with another member of this house. I call the attention of the house to citation 145 on page 126 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which reads as follows:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately-
I wish to emphasize the word "temperately"
-criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. B.352,	365.
A statement made by a member in his place, is considered as made upon honour and cannot be questioned in the house or out of it.
I repeat the words "in the house or out of it". We know what has been said in the house over the past few days by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and I will refer to a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, April 13, which quotes what the hon. member has been saying outside the house and is therefore relevant to citation 145 which I just read.
It reads as follows:
Terry Nugent, Conservative member of parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona, Wednesday kept a
April 18, 1967
15046	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment promise to Defence Minister Paul Hellyer by repeating outside the Commons, an accusation that the defence minister used the "big lie" system developed by Adolf Hitler.
The next paragraph reads as follows:
Wednesday, Mr. Nugent took up the challenge- twice. Early in the day he repeated it to Winnipeg broadcasters, making it clear that he was reading from Hansard, the official record of the Commons.
Further down it reads:
He (Mr. Hellyer) has opened his mouth and put his big foot in it again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: I gather from the applause of hon. members opposite that they concur in the use of this kind of language by an hon. member and they believe this is the way in which members of the house should behave both in and out of it. I say, shame on them. I continue to read from the same article:
Mr. Nugent said he meant every word when he said Mr. Hellyer was using "big lie" tactics. He said proof of the technique is in Hansard. "The biggest lie is more defence for more money"-
Farther along the article reads as follows:
Mr. Nugent said the defence minister says those opposed to unification are against progress. This is a "big lie".
He also said Mr. Hellyer's report that admirals were trying to run the department was "a big lie"-
Farther down it reads:
Can you wonder why I refer to the term of "big lie"? He received a standing ovation from the 150 party supporters-
They were Tories.
-when he pledged that if he has his way, unification will be achieved only "over my dead body."
On the front page of the Winnipeg Tribune of April 13 the following appeared:
During his 30-minute speech he employed the contentious phrase "the big lie" seven other times. In addition he called Mr. Hellyer a "blockhead".
All this may appear very humorous to hon. members opposite. Perhaps it is their belief that this is parliamentary language and that this is the way in which hon. members in the House of Commons and out of it should conduct themselves toward each other. I say this is unparliamentary language. It is a violation of the long-standing customs of this house. It is a violation of the customs of the British house and of parliaments everywhere. It is not the kind of language which hon. gentlemen everywhere who respect themselves, their persons or their parties should use. It is despicable language, it is dirty language and it is language for which the hon. member
[Mr. Deachman.1

should apologize. We are here to reason together.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Grant Deachman: We cannot conduct our business by such language. I say that the language which the hon. gentleman has been using is unparliamentary and out of order both when the hon. member uses it in the house and elsewhere. It is filthy language which should be retracted.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I understand the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is speaking on a point of order. When he has concluded his remarks I will hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The intemperate language
used by the hon. member when he told me that my language is intemperate should be answer enough. The manner, conduct and behaviour of the hon. member in the house are usually such that he is the last person on that side from whom we should expect such language. I know that several of my friends wish to bring the behaviour of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to the attention of the committee but I do not think anything can be gained from it. Certainly the hon. member is one week late. I used the phrase "the big lie technique" exactly a week ago today. Of course it would take him that long to wake up and act on instructions from the minister.
The particular falsehood which annoys me the most in this big lie technique is the one which perpetrates the idea that those who are opposed to unification are opposed to progress. This was the sum and substance of the argument advanced last week by the hon. member for Leeds. I thought that rather than bandy these words about today it would be more worth while to give a solid illustration of how far away these arguments are from the truth. It may be that hon. members have not heard or read the evidence of the witnesses. It may be they are unintentionally slandering the officers to whom this country owes so much for their long period of service.
April 18, 1967

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, at the moment there is a point of order before the house regarding the use of parliamentary language both in and out of the house. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is neither objecting to nor discussing the point of order. The hon. member is reverting to his speech and is again using the very words to which I called the attention of the Chair. With respect, sir, I should like a ruling with regard to the use of such language against other hon. members in this chamber.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Has the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona completed his remarks on the point of order?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Donald MacInnis: The
hon. member has raised a question with regard to the use of words in this chamber. I say to the hon. member that when members on this side are asked to withdraw true statements because of the rules, then it is time the rules were changed. In so far as the word "lie" is concerned, that word was bandied around by the Minister of National Defence the other evening as can be ascertained from checking Hansard. He accused members on this side of the house of repeating lies. I see no difference between what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is doing now and what the Minister of National Defence did last Monday evening. I would draw the attention of the Chair also to the fact that the hon. member who is now raising this point of order based on the rules did not use the technique of the big lie but used the big lie itself. I say to the hon. member who raised the question that he deliberately lied to this house on March 3, and I refer to page 13702 of Hansard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must say to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that he surely does not want, even on a point of order, to accuse another hon. member of deliberately lying. This would be completely unparliamentary language.


Donald MacInnis: The
hon. member raised this question and I intend to prove the statement fully by reference to Hansard for March 3, page 13702, and the 23033-951S
National Defence Act Amendment March 3 proceedings of the defence committee, page 1960. The hon. member who is now making reference to lies is the very person who came into this house and reported that something had happened in the defence committee which never did happen.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege-


Donald MacInnis: Your question of privilege was raised.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Chair is already listening to a point of order raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. If the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has a question of privilege, I will hear him next.


Grant Deachman: I have two points of privilege in respect of this matter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Donald MacInnis: I
should like to call the attention of the committee to the question of privilege raised on March 3 when members on this side stood up and denied that there had been a show of hands called for in the committee on that particular occasion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I recognize the point the hon. member is attempting to make. The question before the Chair is one concerning unparliamentary language and I suggest to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, as well as to other hon. members, that if this point of order is to be placed before the Chair we should discuss the question of unparliamentary language.


Donald MacInnis: To that I can only say that the matter should have been raised by someone in whom we could believe. The hon. member has raised a point of order based on the fact that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said that the Minister of National Defence was using the big lie technique. I only wanted to bring to the attention of the house that the Minister of National Defence used the same word. This hon. member is the last man who should stand up and point a finger at anybody. The proof of that statement is in the record of this house. I repeat that if any member of this house has to withdraw a true statement because of the rules, then it is time the rules were changed.
I point out too that the Minister of National Defence used the same word. He can get up
April 18, 1987

National Defence Act Amendment now and deny it if he wishes but in his last speech he said that members of the opposition were repeating lies. Why did the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra not raise a point of order at that time? Why did he not refer to the rule book when he came into the house on March 3 and lied to the house? This is a true statement and can be substantiated by reference to Hansard and the evidence of the defence committee. It is a true statement and one that no rule can make any member back up from. If we have to back up from the truth, then it is time the rules were changed. It is certainly time the rules were applied to an hon. member who gets away with lying in this house.


Grant Deachman: On the point to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South has just referred, I may say that this matter of privilege was brought before the house and dealt with by a ruling of Mr. Speaker. What the hon. member is doing now is reflecting on a ruling of the Chair which tossed out that particular case. There is no case of any kind here because the matter was dealt with by the Chair. In this house one does not reflect upon the rulings of Mr. Speaker. This is clear.
Might I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman is still addressing himself to the very point of order I am raising, the use of the word "lie" in this chamber as has been done by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, supported by the hon. member for Cape Breton South who has used the same word. Incidentally, this is nothing less than a revolt against the rules of decency which govern this chamber, a revolt by hon. members opposite against the rules of decency which govern debates in this parliament.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, in spite of all the desk slapping that has been going on on the Liberal side I should like to deal strictly with the words which have been used in this debate. I should like to refer you, sir, to page 14786 of Hansard for April 11. I am quite sure the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was in the house at the time this statement was made but I did not hear him raise a point of order with regard to unparliamentary language. May I quote to you exactly what was said and by whom it was said so you may take these facts into consideration in case you feel there should be some condemnation of the use of these words. The pertinent part reads as follows:


Mr. Hellyer:: And yet the Leader of the Opposition repeats the lie-


John George Diefenbaker: You should never talk about lies.
[Mr. MacXnnis (Cape Breton South) .1


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -as his followers have on numerous occasions during the course of this debate.
I say to you, sir, that it would have been rather nice if some Liberal had stood up and condemned the Minister of National Defence for this effrontery. No point of order or question of privilege was raised at that time. It seems to me that what is fair for one side certainly ought to be for the other side. In so far as the point of order is concerned, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is in the course of developing an argument. It is an argument which has been made before within and outside this house. I feel that the house is entitled to hear precisely what he has to say. He is bringing forward something which many members have stressed during this debate. It is a point which I feel is well taken. Certainly the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is quite capable of taking responsibility, either within the house or outside it, for anything which he cares to say.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that in the course of any debate over any length of time things will be said which will be regretted by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house. That is something that tends to happen.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Speak for yourself.


John Ross Matheson: When I rise I usually try to prepare myself and to conduct myself when on my feet as a gentleman. I try very hard to do that. It is not very easy because my instincts are not always gentlemanly. However, may I say this. When a matter is raised as a point of order, as it has been, it is incumbent on the Chair, with respect, to make an adjudication. It is clear that in the course of this debate no challenge has been made to such remarks. I think the point has now come when we must make such a challenge and from now on guard ourselves against untimely, improvident and ill-considered remarks, which are clearly out of character with the traditions of this chamber. I suggest it serves no useful purpose to review every development of the past days or weeks. What we are concerned with here is the matter which was raised a few moments ago. I think we are entitled to a ruling from Your Honour on this point for guidance in future debate.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. The hon. member referred to a question of privilege which was raised on March
April 18, 1967
3 and indicated that the Speaker had made a decision at that time on the matter. I would draw the attention of the hon. member, and also the minister if he will listen for a moment, to the fact that we had no way in which to support the argument put forward by members on this side of this house on March 3 because the evidence which supported our argument was not available at that time. It was quite some time later that the evidence of the defence committee was found to substantiate the claims that we on this side of the house were making.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra suggests that, the Speaker having made a decision on the matter, we should forget it. This is not the first time, that a question of privilege has been raised in this house with respect to the hon. member's actions in committees. The evidence is now available, and despite what he or anybody else says about forgetting the matter the fact remains that Hansard for March 3 and also the evidence given before the defence committee on March 3 indicate that the hon. member did lie to this house.


Mr. Forresiall:: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak further to the question of privilege, I think that somewhere along the line credibility has to be considered. I remind the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, through your good offices, Mr. Chairman, that not only are hon. members opposite filibustering this afternoon but as reported at page 14613 of Hansard for April 6, half way down the left hand column of that page, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, speaking to a motion for papers during private members' hour, said:
Mr. Speaker, just before I rose to speak I was listening to the words of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and I noticed something very peculiar in the chamber. Finally it became apparent to me, after looking around, that the trouble was that we were not graced with the presence of a single Tory.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Surely what the hon. member is saying now is a little removed from the point of order that has been raised. The question before the committee is-


J. Michael Forrestall: I was speaking to the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The question before the committee is whether or not the language used by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is or is not parliamentary. That is the question that the Chair has to decide. If
National Defence Act Amendment hon. members have completed their remarks the Chair is now prepared to make a ruling.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: If hon. members wish to continue I shall hear the hon. member for Halifax.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking to the point of order but am rising on the question of privilege. I thought we were speaking to a question of privilege. I thought Your Honour was going to deal with the question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra subsequent to the point of order. I am talking about credibility. This is a matter of privilege, and if it becomes a matter of my raising it that is indeed what I will do.
I quoted the comments of the hon. member during private members' hour. As reported at page 14636 of Hansard for the same day, the right hand column near the bottom of the page, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said:
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At one stage of the committee procedure-
He is there referring to the earlier session of the committee during the afternoon.
-we could not find a Tory in the whole house, so I do not think there is anything wrong with a member of the cabinet discharging his duty outside the house.
My question of privilege is that the hon. member is now rising on a point of order having himself been guilty less than ten days ago of exactly the same indiscretion.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was instructed to become as excited as he did, but if he had bothered to listen to what I said yesterday he would have heard my explanation as to what is meant by the technique of the big lie. As reported at page 15022 of Hansard I illustrated the context in which I used that phrase in this house. I said:
To begin with, to understand what I mean by the technique of the big lie, it is not necessary for someone to tell a direct lie. In fact some of the most skilful methods employed in the technique of the big lie do not use a lie at all, although certainly they use half truths. The whole idea of the technique of the big lie is to make sure the facts are hidden, or at least to make sure that if the facts are revealed they are either confused or swamped under false arguments.
The hon. member's point of order is that this is unparliamentary language. I have not

April 18, 1967
15050	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment used the word "lie" or suggested that someone has lied, as the Minister of National Defence had the temerity to do the other day, at which time the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra raised no objection. I understand the sensitivity of the hon. member opposite because he recognizes in the technique I have described something that hon. members opposite have been following which the hon. member hoped they could keep hidden. He hoped that the kind of methods they employ would not become obvious.
The truth may hurt, Mr. Chairman, but I suggest that there has been no bending or breaking of the rules in this case. It is simply a case of the sensibilities of hon. members opposite being offended, as they usually are when something does not suit them or flatter their point of view.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who for a time was chairman of the defence committee, may I say first of all in defence of the hon. member that from the time he took the chair he endeavoured to work toward a solution without the committee taking a recorded division. He attempted to have matters resolved without a vote being taken. No vote was taken at any time up until the committee began to deal with the bill clause by clause. I realize that I am not as articulate as some of the lawyer members opposite. However, I feel that this is an important matter and the charge that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has misled the house should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I now wish to refer to proceedings that took place in the house on March 3. The hon. member as found on page 13702 of Hansard, pointed out that he had endeavoured to determine the consensus of the committee regarding sitting on the afternoon of March 3. The hon. member said:
I am as willing to admit, as are some hon. members opposite who were in the room this morning, that there was some confusion about whether a motion had been put. I certainly am right, however, in saying that I suggested-
The hon. member did not say he put the question.

we meet at two o'clock, following which there was some dissension in respect of the idea of meeting at two o'clock, and then I pleaded with the committee to meet this afternoon in order to further the business of the committee. Finally,


as the bells were ringing, I asked whether members were willing to meet this afternoon and hands were raised indicating willingness to meet this afternoon.
There was a show of hands.


An hon. Member:: No, there was not.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sure that at least four members, myself included, raised their hands to show they were willing to sit that afternoon.


An hon. Member:: What about the others?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The chairman did not say that a vote was taken. He asked for an indication of the consensus of the committee and he determined that a substantial group was willing to sit in the afternoon. He simply ruled on that consensus. He did not mislead the house in any way on March 3.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think the Chair has heard enough to rule on the question.


Donald MacInnis: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, arising from the statement made by the hon. member-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I must point out to the committee that an allegation of fact does not constitute a question of privilege. A question of order is before the committee and I hope that the committee will allow me to rule on the point of order and make a few comments.


Donald MacInnis: Before any ruling is made I wish to call on the written record to answer the hon. member. As found on page 13702 of Hansard of March 3, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said during the course of his remarks:
-I said we should meet this afternoon at two o'clock. There was some dissent and I asked for a show of hands-
May I now turn to the proceedings in the defence committee on March 3 as recorded on page 1960 of the committee reports.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Now, we must get on with it. We will meet this afternoon at two o'clock. I think that would only be fair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, that is your decision now, autocratically arrived at.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am always at the-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. This is the Chairman's decision. I want that on the record.
April 18, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am always at the disposal of the committee and I will call for a vote on that from those who will meet here this afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, no, you cannot call for a vote, sir. You have to have a motion.


An hon. Member:: I move that we adjourn until 2 p.m.
Get a load of this:


Herman Maxwell Batten: We have a motion. Now gentlemen, we have business to do. I have no motion in front of me, gentlemen-
First there is a motion, then there is no motion. I continue reading:


An hon. Member:: You have a motion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: -and the bells are ringing. We have been meeting regularly at this period and we should be here this afternoon-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is your decision.


Herman Maxwell Batten: -at two o'clock to deal with this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is your ruling arbitrarily arrived at.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It has not been the regular practice to meet Friday afternoon, although there has been the odd meeting. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, what you are doing is asking those people on this side of the chair to absorb the brunt of what happened yesterday afternoon, the long division bells.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Gentlemen, the House of Commons itself was involved in that. Gentlemen, two o'clock.
One can go through the proceedings and nowhere on March 3 will one find anything to corroborate the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra when he lied to the house that day by saying, "I asked for a show of hands." The evidence does not support that. Now the hon. member for Kootenay East is supporting the same lie supported by the Minister of National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order, please.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Sufficient has been said for the Chair to rule on the point of order. Far be it for the occupant of the Chair to lecture the committee on parliamentary language, but I suggest to the committee, and this applies to all parties, that more care ought to be taken in confining language to those statements and phrases usually considered parliamentary.
May, seventeenth edition, says at page 455:
Allegations against Members.-Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.
National Defence Act Amendment
With reference to the point of order now before the committee, citation 154(3) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, says:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
Citation 154(5) says:
It is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is untrue, but it is unparliamentary to say that it was untrue to the knowledge of the member addressing the House.
I say to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that the Chair and the committee would be appreciative if he could co-operate and use language more within the confines of that considered to be parliamentary.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I am always
willing to co-operate with the Chair. The entire purpose of my speech today is to point out the reliance of the minister and his supporters on arguments which have been disproved by facts.


An hon. Member:: Boloney.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I trust that the sensibilities and sensitiveness of hon. members on the government side will restrain them while I remind them of certain things. I wish to read from the Ottawa Citizen of last Friday, April 14. An article by Charles King is headed, "It's Time To End The Row On Unification." Under the subheading, "They're Reactionary", Mr. King says:
There is no doubt-there never has been-that a great many serving officers, and perhaps some of the men they order about in feudal fashion, don't like the assignment parliament is giving them.
That is too bad. It would be nicer to think that they were behind the government on this, recognizing the inevitability of change, and the supremacy of parliament in these matters.
But the army and the navy, and to some degree the air force as well, have always been somewhat reactionary in their attitudes, leaning heavily toward tradition, pomp, and regimental finery.
I would think that the members of the defence committee as well as the Minister of National Defence might rise in wrath against such an article. The allegations against those who testified before the committee-Generals Moncel and Fleury, Air Marshals Miller and Annis, Admirals Landymore and Brock, etc. -are clear. But I did not hear any annoyance expressed on the other side of the house at these gentlemen being so insulted. Members who sat on the committee will recall the
April 18, 19G7

National Defence Act Amendment testimony of General Moncel about how enthusiastic they were about integration, how many plans were drawn up, and how they were pressing on with integration. In this connection I think I shall read from the committee evidence to show the attitude of some of these gentlemen.
[DOT] (4:40 pjn.)
Committee report No. 35, page 2290, illustrates the attitude of Air Chief Marshal Miller who was chief of staff until just six months ago and is now being subjected to this sort of statement which is supported by members of the Liberal party. As recorded at page 2290 of the proceedings Air Chief Marshal Miller said:
I do not think anybody is ever completely satisfied with an organization. We made very many changes in our first integrated organization we set up, I imagine that they are still making changes. However, the large basic organizational frame is there, and I think it is a good one as far as an integrated defence staff is concerned.
Here we have Air Chief Marshal Miller praising the steps taken to date. This does not sound like somebody who is reactionary. A little farther down on the same page he is recorded as saying:
I certainly believed what was in the white paper, which said that integration was the first step.
I had never heard, during my tenure, all the implications on unification spelled out. It had been something that was held up as the end result, but in my understanding of it, there was no particular hurry over it, and the important thing was to get the integration organization going, and that we would then have a chance to look at integration in a more leisurely better organized way.
I do not know how anyone can suggest that this is a reactionary attitude. At page 2291 of the proceedings Air Chief Marshal Miller said:
On the principle of integration, my own feelings about it are that it might very well be the end result.
I believe the word he meant there was unification.
I do not think it is timely now. I have felt that the problem of integration and getting the organization, if you like, was the area where the biggest return in manpower savings and in effective control of military lay, and it was important to get that right before we had ventured into the areas of unification.
The area of unification is a very sensitive one, as you well know. It strikes at the traditions and the feelings of a lot of people. I did not see, up until the time I left, that the return from pressing the unification sign was commensurate with the disruption and the great concern to the man in uniform that would result from it.


That is the attitude of Air Chief Marshal Miller and I suggest it shows the falseness of the argument in Mr. King's article. Mr. King started his article by stating that he did not have much experience in this field, and I am sure he has been led astray by the arguments of the minister and his supporters.
The attitude of Air Marshal Annis can be found in volume 23 of the committee proceedings at page 1378:
While I do not think there is yet sufficient favourable evidence to justify totally abolishing the three services, I do believe integration is the right direction in which the service should be moving and pressing their research to move further.
What nonsense is this spouted by the hon. member for Leeds who says that people who are against unification are against progress? Can the hon. member tell us he has read that evidence and similar statements by other witnesses who were pressing on with integration and trying to make it work? For a man to stand up in this house and say such a thing is not being fair to these people. He is even dishonest when he suggests that those who oppose unification are against progress.
As recorded on the same page Air Marshal Annis said this about unification:
I think that unification, certainly at this stage, without a lot more preparation, could be achieved but it would mean destroying most of the combat capabilities and versatilities now, or at least until recently, existing or inherent in the Royal Canadian Navy. I think it would mean destroying in the longer term the ability of the unified force to retain a meaningful air combat capability or, in fact, any significant combat capability except for ground attack.
His attitude can be seen in other comments. I quote from the bottom of page 1382:
-I would suggest that we experiment thoroughly with integration of the supporting forces including performance tests-and I could talk about that for quite a while because it is very important. And having experimented thoroughly with how far one can go with integration of the supporting forces and whether or not in an integrated form they can give adequate response to the chief of naval, army or air, in their combat roles, then make a decision of whether to go on to unification. I still think unification might be possible-it could very well be-but we do not know.
Can you ask for a fairer attitude, Mr. Chairman? How can you have anything more dishonest than the argument that a gentleman who is using that sort of language is opposed to progress because he is opposed to unification? What he is saying is, "We want to make integration work, but to do our best unification right now is wrong." He gave us his reasons, and they were very honest reasons, when he appeared before the committee.
April 18, 1967

Then there is the attitude of General Moncel. Certainly very few officers coming before us had greater qualifications than he. We were all impressed by his useful attitude and his willingness to experiment. He was the man who had drawn up practice plans for unification if required. In volume 22 of the committee proceedings, as recorded at page 1312, his attitude is shown in answer to a question I asked him. I quote as follows:


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I know that question sounded silly but it bore some relation to the minister's statement that the end result of integration is unification. I wanted to try to indicate that although integration is a progressive performance, and you can find many places where it operates, that does not necessarily mean that integration works everywhere or that it has no other logical end but unification?


Mr.   Moncel@: Precisely; and as I tried to explain to one of the other inquisitors this depends entirely on your commitments. Give me a pencil and a scratch pad and I will write you a commitment for the country which will generate the need for a unified force. It is very simple. But with your current commitments you do not want one. In fact, it is better that you do not have one.
All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that if those senior officers had shown before the committee such a lack of honesty as Charles King's argument shows, none of us would have been impressed, as we certainly were, with their dedication to this country. I am not blaming Charles King particularly. As he pointed out in his own article, he does not know much about the matter. I know who has been misleading him. It is not a coincidence that he happens to be working for a Liberal rag.
Then there is the attitude of General Fleury, as recorded at page 1490 of committee proceedings No. 24, when he said:
I myself held an integrated position in headquarters for just under a year, from the fall of 1965 to the summer of 1966. There had been over the years a good deal of consideration-possibly more consideration than action-toward integration. I had always felt that the armed forces would benefit by a much greater degree of integration than was the situation in 1964. I think it would not be unfair to say that I was a supporter, maybe even an enthusiastic supporter, of the principle of integration.
These are the people Mr. King and the minister's supporters label reactionary. These are the people they say are opposed to progress because they are opposed to unification. Some annoyance has been displayed about language and imputation, but surely there should be some show of anger or annoyance by anyone who believes that people who have given the public service of this country their entire adult years and to whom this country owes so much should not be treated 23033-952
National Defence Act Amendment in this way. We believe these people are honest and decent gentlemen and we resent very much this sort of article and slanders of this sort against these gentlemen.
Can we not call a spade a spade and say that when people go so far as to ignore the facts and distort the truth there is only one argument that can be used? This is a perfect and classic example of the technique of the big lie, and I do not care whether it is based on the ignorance of Charles King or on political necessity as in the case of some of my hon. friends opposite. When it is used it is unfair, it is dishonest, and it is typical of the arguments that are advanced to support unification and the minister's move to bring about unification now.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is certainly part of fair debating technique to talk about the qualifications of witnesses, their manner, bearing and deportment, and whether we should listen to and believe them. It is not, I submit, fair to twist the record. I challenge the hon. member for Leeds, or any hon. member on that side of the house, to take the evidence of any of the witnesses who appeared before the committee and point to questions and answers which will substantiate the statement that false and malicious charges have been made on this side of the house by those who are opposed to unification or opposed to progress. In fact, much of the evidence indicates that many of those who are opposed to unification are opposed to it because they believe it will interfere with integration, a process which they believed was making progress.
The entire point of this exercise, of course, is to remind members of the house that those who have already said they will support this measure have said that they will rely on the facts. This reminds me of the statement by the minister that it was not necessary for this matter to go to the committee. I say that any man who believes the facts will support him should want those facts revealed. I do not know of any one who believes this who would not want the facts stated accurately and truthfully so that the accuracy of his statements would stand out and support his argument. It is my opinion that the only people who use this sort of argument are those who realize they do not have a case and that there is no evidence to support their case.
It is my hope that the people of this country will come to realize this. If hon. members opposite, for their own particular reasons, insist on taking the stand they do, probably

they will soon feel the weight of public opinion and perhaps a little common sense will then appear and this measure can be stopped before irreparable harm is done to the country and to its defences.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, since this debate started it is safe to estimate that some two million words have been placed on the record covering unification. As a result we have heard considerable urging from hon. members on the government side of the house that we should terminate this discussion and get on with the business of the house. At one stage in the debate I would have agreed with that point of view. However, as the debate continues it is amazing to note the change of viewpoint of the Canadian people toward this important matter. Therefore I think it is only fitting that I, as the member for Queens-Lunenburg, an area which had a high rate of enlistment during the first and second world wars, state my views on the bill now before us.
I think it is only proper that I should establish my credentials first before I become too deeply involved in the subject matter of the debate. I was not a member of the committee on national defence but I followed quite closely the reports of the evidence given before that committee. I do not consider myself an expert on military affairs, having volunteered and served during the second world war in the Royal Canadian Air Force which, after all, is only one branch of the Canadian armed forces. My lack of information in respect of the other branches of the services, especially the navy, has been redressed greatly in recent months. One can readily understand the source of my information when I tell the house that in my riding there reside presently three admirals who recently retired from the armed forces.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Presently raising cattle.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There was an interjection by the hon. member for Kootenay East which I did not hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Raising cattle.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Some of them are raising cattle. Others are still deeply interested in matters pertaining to Canada's armed forces.
I point out to the Minister of National Defence that in Nova Scotia we are not called "Bluenosers" without just cause. Along the eastern seaboard where Canada meets the sea, Atlantic rollers surging toward the shore beat a rhythm which seems to make the blood

April 18. 1967
National Defence Act Amendment tingle and calls forth hardy men to sail on the bosom of the deep. There is a love of the sea and its traditions among maritimers which can never be fully appreciated or understood by those who have never sailed upon the broad Atlantic or never have watched a sunset at sea or white water cresting mountainous waves. As a Nova Scotian I sometimes find myself getting homesick for the sight, sound, and smell of the sea. Only after I return to my home in Lunenburg is the balance restored. My remarks, therefore, concerning this bill will be general in nature and specific only in respect of Canada's navy and the effect of this bill upon the men who enlisted in and are devoted to this service.
We were first made aware of the plans of the government and the minister for unification when the white paper on defence was tabled in March, 1964. This loosely worded document stated:
The objectives of Canadian defence policy, which cannot be dissociated from foreign policy, are to preserve the peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression; to support Canadian foreign policy including that arising out of our participation in international organizations, and to provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air space and our coastal waters.
These, Mr. Chairman, are policies which I can support. We need collective measures for the maintenance of peace and security as embodied in the charter of the United Nations. We need collective defence as embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty. We need and must retain our partnership with the United States in the defence of North America, and we need national measures to discharge our responsibility for the security and protection of Canada.
At the beginning I was in favour of integration which I construed to mean the combining of the headquarters and the field commands of the three services, thus effecting a saving in defence dollars. To the thrifty, hard working, independent people in my riding this type of thinking made sense. They said that here at last we have one minister in this spendthrift government who knows the value of a dollar. Unfortunately their joy was shortlived, for it now has been admitted that the steps in the reorganization made possible under Bill C-243 will not lead to savings of any account. In fact, when one checks the blue book of estimates which has been tabled for 1967-68 one finds that the estimates for national defence have increased by some $115 million.
April 18, 1967

I said that originally I favoured integration. I have not changed my opinion. Very few people will oppose integration of the pay corps, the medical and dental corps, the chaplain service, the victualling depots, clothing, communication and transportation services. This certainly seems to be the most economical way to provide these services. However, I believe these changes can be achieved with the three services retaining their uniforms and ranks under specific commands.
Up to this point I believe the Minister of National Defence and I are in agreement, but our agreement ceases when he states that integration is only the first step toward establishing a single unified defence force for Canada. I believe that the minister's proposal to place Canada's armed forces in one green uniform will destroy morale. This is an intangible weapon whose force knows no boundaries in any fighting unit. According to all reports, morale is at its lowest ebb today in Canada's armed forces. This is due to the fact that many service personnel are deeply disturbed by the uncertainty which now exists in regard to a service career, and they are unwilling to accept reorganization as they now see it.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I said that morale is an intangible thing and I can cite many examples to prove it. During the second world war it was an easy matter for airmen to get into a first class row with army or navy personnel when they got together. Whether in a restaurant or at any other gathering all they had to do was start singing softly:
Wings over the navy,
Wings over the sea.
We're the top of the service,
The navy's cavalry.
They seldom got beyond that point before a good row was under way with either the army or navy personnel present. This indicates pride of service and uniform. These very people were the first to applaud when the going got tough and the fly-boys came over and gave them cover. At these times they worked together and fought as a unit.
I think the statement by Admiral Mount-batten, when he was asked to express his opinion about a single uniform and rank structure, is worthy of repeating. He said:
In the British reorganization care has been taken to preserve esprit de corps and morale and those traditions which help to maintain this in the services and fighting units.
It has been accepted that to achieve this the three services must retain their uniforms and ranks
National Defence Act Amendment with an identifiable professional head of their service. The idea of a single uniform and rank structure was also rejected as undesirable and unnecessary.
There was some talk of taking the uniform and ranks of one service and imposing this on the others but the idea of a man in say army uniform with an army title arriving at a foreign port in command of a warship was generally felt to be so ludicrous that it was not pursued.
The general cut and colour of naval uniforms are internationally so well known that a sailor from any one country can readily be recognized as a sailor in any other country.
Sailors the world over take great pride in this and so in their own services do soldiers and airmen. No compensating advantage could be seen in attempting to impose so unpopular a change.
These are the words of a great British admiral. Surely the minister cannot throw them lightly aside.
Coming closer to home, I should like to quote the words of a gallant rear admiral, now retired from the Canadian navy, on the matter of a single uniform for all three services. On July 8, 1966, Rear Admiral H. F. Pullen wrote to me as follows, and I quote only part of his letter:
It is of the utmost importance that the officers and men in our navy be recognized as members of a naval force wherever they go in the world. The rumours, half-truths, etc., emanating from Mr. Hellyer's office, or from these anonymous spokesmen at national defence headquarters, that suggest the abolition of the present naval uniform and its replacement by some abomination in bottle green, are causing a very great deal of distress, misgiving and uncertainty. Of this I am well aware, and I can produce evidence if necessary.
You and your colleagues will earn the undying gratitude of all of us who have served, and are serving Canada at sea, if you can defeat and destroy the evil designs of Mr. Hellyer and his team.
Those words are not very complimentary to the minister but they are the strong beliefs of a former admiral and I endorse them. I ask hon. members, can all these men be wrong and only one man, the defence minister, right?
I think it is significant that not one of the recently retired senior officers of our three forces has supported the program of unification which will come into effect if this bill is approved. I think it is also significant that everyone of any stature outside the services or the government, whose military opinion could command respect and who testified before the defence committee, has expressed criticism or reservations on the proposed reorganization of the defence establishment.
In all honesty we must ask ourselves who is advising the minister on the course he is
23033-952:
April 18, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment presently pursuing. His critics have all been brushed aside, and at one time or another the minister has called them emotional, unreasonable, disloyal, destructive, obstructionists, politically-motivated or lacking in responsibility. I ask the minister if it would not be equally as fair to say of this large body of Canadians who hold views contrary to his own that they do so because of their knowledge, their experience, their convictions and their sincerity. Surely the testimony given before the defence committee by so many men of such high calibre, who have given such outstanding service in war and in peace, has a ring of truth about it which cannot be ignored by the minister and the government. In my opinion, if we follow through with this bill we will destroy the effectiveness of Canada's armed forces who are charged with the responsibility of protecting this nation in time of war.
Let us return to the white paper on defence of 1964. At the top of page 14 the minister stated:
The major threat to North America at this time is from the air, and it is in the field of continental air defence that co-operation with the United States has assumed the largest proportions.
The future of continental air defence, therefore, is obviously of great concern to Canada, both because of the sizeable resources devoted to it, and because of the question of nuclear warheads. While a downward trend in continental air defence forces seems likely, yet, short of total disarmament, one cannot foresee the day when Canada will not be directly involved in some form of air defence operations.
Those are the minister's words and I ask him, does he believe them? If so, when he was making such drastic cuts in the effective strength of our forces, which today number less than 104,000 men or 20,000 less than on March 31, 1963, why did he fire by the device of premature retirement 287 senior R.C.A.F. pilots? Granted, these men were all within three years of compulsory retirement age, but they included the most senior and capable men the R.C.A.F. had flying. What happened as a result? The air force was left short of senior instructors, pilot leaders and instrument check pilots. Our transportation command with its world wide commitments was severely hit by the minister's arbitrary action. Today there are barely enough pilots left to man the planes we have.
The minister may say: "So what? I made one blunder." This brings me back to my original question. Who is advising the minister? By dismissing these pilots he acted contrary to his own statement in the white paper

regarding the importance of air defence. Surely the sensible thing to do would have been to approach these pilots on an individual basis and give them the opportunity to leave the service or stay on for an additional period, thus giving the nation the benefit of their extensive knowledge acquired through a lifetime of service. We are often told we cannot be wasteful of our resources without suffering the consequences. I believe this is equally true of our human resources. Yet this is exactly what the Minister of National Defence did when he prematurely dismissed these Royal Canadian Air Force pilots.
A similar situation with regard to morale and personnel has developed on the east coast in our navy. The great exodus of naval personnel from the service of this country does not seem to worry the minister. This may be due to the fact that in his subconscious mind he really believes that the major threat to North America is from the air and therefore we no longer need to attach any great importance to retaining a strong navy. However, this is not supported by known facts.
I believe it is safe to say that any future confrontation in which Canada may be involved will be with the communist-dominated countries controlled by the Soviet union. For this reason we have joined NATO and NORAD, and up to the present time we have made a military contribution to these organizations for the collective defence of Canada. The minister has stated that in the event of aggression against Canadian territory Canada would rely on the active support of the United States. He also stated that in Canada's national interest certain matters must come under our control.
In this regard he lists on page 13 of his white paper these items: the ability to maintain surveillance of Canadian territory, air space and territorial waters, the ability to deal with military incidents on Canadian territory, the ability to deal with incidents in ocean areas off the Canadian coasts, and the ability to contribute within the limit of our resources to the defence of Canadian air space. These are worthy objectives, Mr. Chairman, but in view of what is happening to our armed forces we cannot help but ask the question, can we live up to them?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Let us examine the statement by the minister, for example, that the major threat to North America at this time is from the air. Who is advising the minister? From whom is he getting this information? In the
April 18, 1967

January-February issue of Aerospace-International published for the leaders of the free world by the United States Air Force Association, there is an authoritative analysis of the size, organization and equipment of the armies, navies and air forces of 49 major powers. This analysis covers the free world, the communist bloc and the non-aligned nations and is presented by special arrangement with London's Institute for Strategic Studies. I commend this magazine to the minister for his week end reading. It will give him a better idea of the military strengths and weak points of his friends and the enormous combined strength of his potential enemies.
It is not my intention to burden the committee this afternoon with all the figures of the combined strength of the communist bloc or of the potential power of the Soviet army or air force. However, I wish to place on the record a list of the surface ships and total sea-power of the Soviets, which is awesome in its threat to the peace and security of the free world. I quote from the magazine in question. It lists under "Seapower" the following:
The strength of the Soviet navy and naval air force is 465,000 men. In total tonnage, it is the second biggest navy in the world, and its main strength lies in the submarine fleet. An unusually high proportion of the fleet is kept in commission. There are indications that the naval air force and the missile bearing submarines have an increasingly important role in Soviet strategy.
There are now some 350 conventionally powered and 50 nuclear powered submarines. (Nuclear submarine production appears to be at the rate of at least five a year.) About 15 of the nuclear and 25 of the conventional submarines can fire ballistic missiles and carry an average of three missiles each; 12 of the nuclear and 28 of the conventionally powered submarines are equipped with cruise missiles which have a range of between 300 and 500 miles; they are thought to carry an average of four missiles each. The remainder are training vessels or attack submarines equipped with torpedoes. The four submarine fleets are distributed approximately as follows: 75 in the Baltic fleet, 175 in the Arctic, 45 in the Black Sea, and about 100 in the Far East. The missile carry mg submarines are mostly divided between the Arctic and Far East fleets.
Seaborne missiles. It is now believed that the Soviets have successfully developed submerged firing of the Serb missile, which has been shown on Moscow parades. It is probably being gradually introduced into service, but its range may not be much greater than 650 miles.
Tactical missiles. Some ships and submarines are known to be fitted with cruise missiles which are intended primarily for antiship use. However, these might also be used against shore targets and, in the case of submarines, would be fired from the surface and from fairly long range.
Naval air force. There are no aircraft carriers in the Soviet navy. The land based naval air force comprises about 500 bombers and 350 other aircraft. Most of the bombers are based near the northwestern and Black Sea coasts of the Soviet Union.
National Defence Act Amendment
Under the heading "Surface Ships" the article says:
The surface ships of the Soviet navy consist of the following:
20 cruisers, of which one carries surface-to-air missiles.
105 destroyers, of which 25 carry surface-to-air or surface-to-surface missiles.
100 other ocean going escorts.
300 coastal escorts and submarine chasers.
350 fast patrol boats, many with short range surface-to-surface missiles.
300 minesweepers.
200 landing ships and landing craft.
1,050 other vessels.
Some adapted trawlers are used for electronic intelligence.
A proportion of the destroyers and smaller vessels may not be fully manned.
The cruisers are of three different types.
Then it lists the cruisers and destroyers and their names. The article continues:
Recent Soviet comment has indicated a renewed interest in amphibious forces. There is a small marine corps of perhaps 3,000 men, units of which are stationed with the Baltic, Black Sea, and Pacific fleets.
Against this threat-and in this magazine Canada's total forces are listed-we are shown as having a population of 20 million and total armed forces of 107,100 men. Our total navy strength is listed as 18,100 men, one light aircraft carrier, 23 destroyer escorts, six other escorts, three submarines, including one British under Canadian operational control, and two support ships, CS2-F2 Tracker aircraft and Sea King helicopters, the article says, are embarked in the aircraft carrier, and Sea King helicopters in some of the destroyers. Our naval reserves total is listed as about 2,500 men.
The Canadian people are asking, who is advising the minister? We have obligations to NATO and to NOR AD and these obligations can only be fulfilled if our forces retain their own uniforms, their own individualities and their own traditions. We must be in a position to work in co-operation with our major allies, the Americans and the British, so that our armies, navies and air forces can work together in harmony. It is vitally important that we retain our navy and that we place greater emphasis on its over-all role in our national defence.
In view of the figures which I have placed on the record with regard to the strength of our potential enemy, I believe it is almost mandatory that we give deeper consideration
April 18. 1967
15058	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment to restoring our naval strength. An inconspicuous fishing trawler or a high-speed submarine with a mine-laying configuration could effectively seal Halifax harbour to all shipping for an indefinite period of time. There would be virtually nothing the Royal Navy could do about it at the present time because of the ludicrous mine warfare policies which have been adopted by this minister and the government. In my opinion, if the present attitude toward our navy is maintained by the government, prior to any obvious act of war a foreign naval power could stop almost completely the movement of every commercial or war vessel in or out of Canadian waters. With our ships bottled up in harbour, North American defence on our sea-coast would have to be taken over by the American navy, which hopefully would not be faced with a similar problem.
In view of the Soviet military might which I have cited, it is evident to me, if not to the government, that Russia has not altered its objectives. The detente at present being experienced in Europe is indicative only of the fact that the Soviets have altered their timetable.
While I realize it may be unwise to consider defence spending as an essential component of economic activity, I would also point out to the minister that the economic results of defence spending cannot entirely be overlooked as a means of helping to restore the great economic imbalance that exists between the Atlantic provinces and the more prosperous parts of Canada.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we must reassess our military thinking, as well the stand taken by our external affairs department toward our position in NATO. In my opinion, a nation of 20 million people living in a country the size of Canada must depend upon the support of its allies in time of war for the collective defence of this country. In the course of next year Canada will be reviewing her military commitments under NATO, and common sense alone tells us that we should delay any major revisions of our defence forces at least until these revised undertakings become known. I hope the minister will follow this course in the best interests of all Canadians.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. C-243 which has been before us for several weeks has obviously raised great


interest among the Canadian people as a whole.
The government claims that we have spoken enough on that legislation and that we should now vote on it. But before doing so, I think that we, as members of the opposition, must ask ourselves certain questions. We must first ask ourselves whether we should let the government take its responsibilities and accept the judgment of the population for the errors which, in our opinion, are contained in this bill on unification.
We know that in a democracy, the official opposition is formed by the party having the greatest number of seats in the house of commons, and that that political party will be called upon eventually to replace the government in office. In fact, as a wise politician once said: When we are sitting in the opposition, we are headed for power but when we are in power, we are headed for the opposition. You might tell me that this is self-evident but if the minister fails to be more co-operative in this legislation he has introduced, I am convinced he will be co-operating more with the Canadian people, so that his government and his party will sit in opposition after the next election while we, on this side, will take over.
Mr. Chairman, if we are to pursue further the discussion of this most important legislation which will have grave consequences for the organization of our armed forces, it is because the members of the opposition in the last few days, have put certain questions to the minister and asked him to supply to the house the information required to understand the bill now under consideration. We must regretfully state that the minister has neglected, refused or deliberately avoided supplying to parliament, the representatives of the people, the necessary information to enable them to take a decision and to vote on this bill.
I compare a piece of legislation brought before the house to a case a lawyer has to plead before a court and, of course, when appearing before the court, it is necessary to prepare it properly in order to win. In the present case, namely the measure before the house, that is Bill No. C-243, I must say that the minister has failed to prepare his case, because if he did, he made a botch of it or he has been ill-informed about the object of the bill under study.
When a biU is first brought before the house, the onus of proof as to the aims of the bill lies with the minister of the crown, just as the burden of proof lies with the lawyer
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
appearing before the court, who must submit all relevant information. Since the onus of proof lies with the petitioner, as with the minister who brings a piece of legislation before the house, we must know about all the elements likely to enlighten us as to the merits of this bill.
We often wonder whether the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is really the author of the bill. He never said so very clearly. We do think that he was informed by his department officials but we would be interested to know who is really the author, who was the mind, the brain behind Bill No. C-243 and who built the structure now before us.
Hon. members opposite hold us responsible for the delay in passing the bill. Therefore, I take the liberty to make a suggestion to the Minister of National Defence, as well as members of the government. If they want this bill passed as soon as possible, they should tell the minister to give at once a clear answer to the important questions which we, on the opposite side, have asked him on several occasions, during this debate.
For instance, we have asked him this question: Why did 40 odd senior officers of the army, navy and air force say "no" to unification?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We had, of course, the privilege and opportunity to read the evidence of those officers when they appeared before the committee on national defence, but we would like to know why some 40 senior officers who had not yet reached the age of retirement have chosen to retire prematurely rather than to follow implicitly the views and ideas set forth by the Minister of National Defence on unification.
In one case at least, the minister has shown no patience with his senior officers, has not respected, in my opinion, their freedom of speech and has even contributed to their premature retirement.
I feel that some very important matters have been raised in the house concerning our commitments to NATO. We all know that our commitments to NATO are of a military nature, just as we know that the member states of NATO are going through a deep crisis at present. We are also aware that since the French government demanded that the military forces of NATO member states leave French territory, this organization has been undergoing a complete military overhaul,
National Defence Act Amendment since it is first of all a defence organization against possible aggression by the other block.
Now, since we are members of this international organization, it would be a good thing to know whether the minister has consulted the military leaders of those other countries which adhere to NATO, in order to find out how this unified force which is being considered for Canada may serve efficiently within the framework of this international body.
Naturally, the ministers of the crown do not agree on this question. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) told the house in a long speech that the unification of the armed forces did not change in any way our undertakings with regard to NATO.
On the other hand, the minister also seemed to say in a speech that the unification of the armed forces concerned only the United Nations forces. I think that these two ministers of the crown, who hold very important portfolios, should agree on our undertakings with regard to NATO, so as to determine whether the unification of the armed forces will be prejudicial to these undertakings and whether we should instead assume other responsibilities, so that the unification of our armed forces may be adapted to the present NATO defence system for our mutual defence.
We have also commitments to NORAD; unless I am mistaken, the NORAD treaty was signed in 1963. That treaty provides for the joint defence of the territories of Canada and the United States respectively. We would therefore like to learn from the minister whether the unification of our armed forces involves a revision of our commitments to NORAD.
I believe that those questions are most important, because we cannot state, from a military point of view, that we might proceed alone; here on the North American continent, as far as territorial defence is concerned, we are bound by the NORAD treaty, and at the international level, we are a member country of NATO.
So the minister should tell us whether that aspect of the question was looked at and whether our commitments to NATO and NORAD will have to be re-evaluated in the light of this new proposed legislation, namely the unification of our armed forces.
Obviously the minister will have to prove, as I said at the start, that the unification of the armed forces will also be effective for our military men who will have to serve in NATO as well as in NORAD.
15060	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Recently I met a number of students, who are rather concerned about their commitments to the armed forces in the future. Mr. Chairman, we know that many students signed written commitments with the armed forces and these young men often have to do military service during the summer holidays, in order to fulfil their contract with the armed forces. I am being told that these young students have asked the military authorities long ago whether the unification of armed forces will affect their commitments with the military authorities. It would be high time for the minister to give us information on that matter, because students must, of course, work during their summer holidays and they must know immediately, before the end of the school year, if they can depend on the enlistment contracts they signed with the armed forces.
There are also, in that bill, some disturbing provisions, especially clause 6 which gives the military authorities, under the guise of unification, the power to decree compulsory transfers from one service to another, be it the navy, the air force or the army.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, such compulsory transfer from one of the three services implies a degree of conscription in our armed forces. Of course, when conscription is mentioned, it always hurts our friends opposite and ourselves, the Conservatives, because we know what it has done to us in the political field in the province of Quebec since 1917, because our Liberal friends have always blamed the Conservatives for conscription which was put into force in 1917 by a Union government, in spite of the fact that it was made up of Liberals and Conservatives. The fact remains, however, that we have carried, since 1919, in the province of Quebec that burden of conscription which was forced on us by an act of parliament, as everyone knows.
I feel that the clause which provides for compulsory transfer from one military service to another is some kind of camouflaged conscription and I also feel that, under that bill, the minister has the power to call young men into the armed forces when the number of men needed to meet the requirements of the armed forces falls below the minimum. The minister claims that he will need 100,000 men in uniform.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Now, I am divulging no secret in saying that, from the time we began talking about unification, enlistment of our young people

DEBATES	April 18, 1967
in the armed forces has gone down considerably. And this is readily understandable, for those young people must leave everything to chance when they enlist. Some would rather keep their freedom, meaning that they want to be free to choose the service in which they will enlist. Some of those young people would rather be sailors, while others would prefer to become airmen or yet soldiers. Now, of course, under clause 6, military authorities will be empowered to transfer recruits from one service to the other without even getting their previous consent. In my opinion, this power provided for in clause 6 is tantamount to conscription, a type of slavery which our young people fear. They want to keep their freedom. In enlisting, they want to be free to serve either in the navy, in the air force or in the army.
In the very beginning, when the minister brought down his white paper on national defence, here was some wave of sympathy. Admittedly, our population realizes that our governments are allocating too much money to national defence. The white paper, which the minister had presented, and his subsequent statement suggested that it was possible to save money for the taxpayers through unification of the armed forces and this, I suggest, was a very good asset for the Minister of National Defence.
But when the taxpayers studied the estimates for the coming fiscal year, they noticed that the estimates for national defence had gone up by $115 million. They wonder how the minister can possibly claim that he can save public funds through passing of the bill on the unification of the armed forces.
Mr. Chairman, considering that it will cost several million dollars in taxpayer's money to change the uniform, that is to give the same uniform to the three forces, we wonder how in the white paper and his speeches in the house and elsewhere, the minister could justifiably claim that passage of the unification bill would spare Canadian taxpayers considerable expense.
I say it again: this year, the budget exceeds that of last year by $115 million. And yet there are other problems far more pressing than just changing the uniform of our soldiers. We had obvious proof thereof this afternoon when an emergency debate was requested in order to help the farmers of eastern Quebec. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) refuses to give the farmers a minimum of $5.10, which would represent an
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
outlay of some $30 million, while on the other hand $115 million more will be willingly spent on our armed forces during the coming fiscal year.
I wonder whether the present government has any common sense. This is not demagogy, it is irrefutable fact. Let the member who wants to interrupt me look up the estimates and he will see that the minister asks for $115 million more this year. Let him look then in the direction of our farmers: he will see that they need a higher income to make ends meet. And then we are told that the government is sensible.
Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wishes to ask me a question, let him rise.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question. What did the government of which the hon. member was a member do for the farmers between 1958 and 1962?


Martial Asselin: The Conservative government did more for the farmers than the present government ever did. I should add that the party that was in power at the time at least listened to the complaints of the farmer. In fact, they were not arrogant toward the farmers as the present government is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants us to vote at the earliest possible time, he should first supply us with the information we have been asking for since the inception of this debate.
We have asked questions because we need the information. We are here to represent a certain area of the population and we have a right to all information in order to know just what we are voting on.
The minister also-


Albert Béchard: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman, and not an embarrassing one this time.
Could the hon. member tell us how many hundred of letters he has received from his electors concerning the debate now going on?


Martial Asselin: All that my constituents tell me when I visit my riding is how can the government be sincere when it claims that unification of the armed forces will result in savings for the taxpayers, when in the present budget the appropriations for defence purposes will increase by $115 million. Therefore, I am wondering about the government's sincerity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
National Defence Act Amendment


Martial Asselin: It has also been suggested that morale was low in the Canadian armed forces. I am quite sure that the minister has kept information from the people involved with that unification. People do not know exactly where they are heading with unification and I can prove it. I met recently a young serviceman and I asked him what he thought about the unification of the armed forces. He answered: Sir, I am not too familiar with the subject, but all I know is that, in my case, perhaps it makes sense. I asked him why. He replied: We shall be on an equal footing with the seamen and the airmen -he was in the army. I then asked him to explain. He said: We had to take part in a march with airmen recently, and I was most surprised to find that since unification has been mentioned, we are given the same lunch as airmen. I asked him why. He told me: In the past, when airmen made such marches, they were allowed to bring bananas in their lunch box; now, since they began telling us about unification, they have been trying to treat us better, and that time soldiers also had bananas in their lunch box.
That goes to show that the minister has not given proper information for the military to understand the aim of his bill on the unification of the armed forces.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to know whether this unification bill will give French Canadian members of the navy, the air force and the army the same promotion opportunities as those enjoyed by their English speaking colleagues. You know that in our various services, French Canadians have received somewhat less than preferential treatment with regard to promotions. Once in a while one of them gets a promotion.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
However, in the past, French Canadian people, I think, have fulfilled their duty when the freedom of our territory and our citizens had to be protected. They have never been reluctant to perform their duty and to assume their responsibilities in this field.
In this bill on the unification of our armed forces, French Canadians who wish to join our Canadian forces should be assured they will have equal opportunities of success and promotion as their English speaking colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, those are the remarks I wanted to make during this debate. If the Minister of National Defence refuses to give us the information we have asked him for for
April 18, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment a long time, I think that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson), who is the leader of the nation, will have to come and tell the house what he thinks of this bill on the unification of our armed forces-if the minister stubbornly refuses to give us the necessary information.
I strongly urge the Prime Minister to clear up any misunderstanding within his cabinet with regard to the unification of our armed forces-he will have to tell the Canadian people what is meant according to him in this bill and if this bill, as claimed by the minister, will really be in the interest of all Canadians.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to say that I believe there is unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until eight o'clock for a dinner hour. Since there are only a few minutes left before six I suggest we might rise now so as not to interrupt the next speaker.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I should point out to the committee that there is already an order of the house before the committee to suspend its sitting from seven till eight. If it is the wish of the committee to do otherwise, this wish would have to be expressed with the Speaker in the chair.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I think there is unanimous consent in the committee to rise at this time.
Progress reported.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I move that this house adjourn until eight o'clock, to resume its business at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Should the house wish to change the order of Thursday, April 6, unanimous consent will be required. Does the house give unanimous consent to suspending the sitting from now until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before adjourning I shall announce the proceedings on tonight's adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Springfield

(Mr. Schreyer), Agriculture-inquiry as to basis for fluid milk subsidy; the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), Agriculture-inquiry as to new dairy policy; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), Transport-inquiry as to grade crossings policy.
Does the house agree to resume the business interrupted a few moments ago?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-243, to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Hellyer-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Pursuant to the agreement just reached the sitting of the committee is suspended until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose at six o'clock clause 2 was being considered.


Mr. Bower:: Mr. Chairman, I have had every intention of speaking on this most important piece of legislation since the moment of its introduction because on the validity of its proposals our very existence as a country may depend, and because it will govern the way that expenditures of a very large segment of our national budget are to be made. We must be right in the legislative road that we take on this matter.
Sir, although not a member of the standing committee on defence, I have, however, read the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before that body, and I have followed the speeches on Bill C-243 in the house and in Hansard, through its various stages to the present. I can assure you right away, Mr. Chairman, that I do not propose to participate now on the basis of an analysis of the testimony of the expert military witnesses before the standing committee on defence which, as might be expected, was conflicting, although on balance in my opinion the concept of unification was then definitely negated. Rather, it is what has not been said that disturbs me greatest-this along with what
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
would appear to me to be contradictions and violations of basic principles; the attitude of the government that parliament must swallow this whole bill on faith, and be damned quick about it. This is what forces me to my feet.
The Minister of National Defence stated last Tuesday, in what I took to be his peroration, that there were witnesses available favouring unification who were not called. Why not? Why the unseemly haste in getting the bill back to the house and securing parliament's approval of a process or policy admittedly calculated to take years to implement fully? Surely a week or a month more on a matter so vital, involving the expenditure of so many billions of dollars, and perhaps an irrevocable commitment, merits no short changing in the investigation of its validity. That statement of the minister in itself casts shadows of doubt. It smacks of the salesman of the gold brick or the Brooklyn bridge, with his admonition to "hurry, hurry, hurry, or you'll miss the opportunity of a lifetime." There is an odour here of super high-pressure salesmanship that shakes one's confidence in the proposition.
A great deal of the debate, it seems to me, has been on points peripheral to the basic issue. While not discounting, for instance, a weight to tradition, I cannot get worked into a frenzy as to whether uniforms are baby pink, green, blue, yellow or purple, and above all on the insistence that a single uniform is going to work miracles of efficiency and economy.
What is important in the unification issue is that basically we are dealing with a system of management and organization. That system should be calculated to provide an optimum defence posture for our country, taking due note, as I am sure does the groaning Canadian taxpayer, that the defence department will be laying out about 20 cents of every dollar of the estimates recently tabled in the house.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

National Defence Act Amendment bicycle, a vehicle used by the Bersaglieri of Italy in the first world war 50 years ago

very old hat indeed. But seriously, sir, I was disturbed by the minister's verbal acrobatics and analogy last Tuesday, likening integration and unification to the cycle of conception and childbirth. This left me aghast, for death is part of that cycle and that, sir, is disintegration.
This brief preface leads me to the fundamental point I wish to make and to which I referred in my opening remarks. In Bill C-243 we are dealing essentially with a management and organization problem, the correct solution of which is vital. While there seems to be near unanimity in respect of the benefits to be derived from integration in the defence department, I would call the attention of the committee and the country to the fact that there are places where effective and modern managerial and organizational procedures are of the essence. We have for example oil companies which are fully integrated on the multi-functional bases of exploration, producing, refining, transportation and distribution activities. The preservation of the integrity of these functional components is considered a must by men who are neither Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, Social Crediters, nor any other political or ideological category, but who are swayed by and for their judgments on the best possible management of an entity-men who are every day seeking new things and who are charged with the responsibility to spend-and do spend-millions and millions of dollars on basic research. I am not speaking of old reactionary men when I speak of these men who have arrived at the conclusion that the integrity of the functional activity must be preserved in relation to the multibased activity.
To superimpose, cycle in, or otherwise clutter up the preservation of that integrity would be to violate the very rudiments of good management and organization. It would invite bankruptcy and the disappearance of the
I cannot and I do not believe the people of Canada are persuaded that it is advisable to jump into something so fraught with awful consequences, just on slogans and assurances that because it is good, ergo it is good. Dr. O'Leary runs about extolling the use of L.S.D.-that it is just dandy; it is the latest. I wonder whether the public goes along with the high priest of hallucinations on that basis.
The minister's semantic juggling of integration and unification, with his invocation of cycles, suggests that perhaps he has in mind a
company as an entity. From this homely but practical analogy I submit that it is not in the interest of good management and organization recklessly to rush into, or go into at all, a process of making a hash of sea, air and land functions, any more than it would be to make a stew of geologists, drillers, refiners, pipelines and distributors.
No, Mr. Chairman; hashed or stewed up, defence operations are not what the citizens and taxpayers of our country deserve.

National Defence Act Amendment Neither do I think that this is what the members of this house would wish to hand out to them. We of the official opposition certainly have made it abundantly clear that we do not wish to be so tainted. Mr. Chairman, what the Canadian people want and deserve is $1,700 million worth of defence and not $1,700 million worth of Hungarian goulash.
In trying to reduce this complex debate to graspable size, I might say I get the feeling of being at a town meeting where the mayor proposes doing something which is generally agreed to be logical and desirable, but then extends the proposal to a point where it becomes something he does not define, to take care of doing something he does not specify, with the evolving proposal in its entirety running through 20 per cent of the town's budget.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I submit there is not one ratepayer group in this country of ours which, if they saw it in this light, would swallow the proposition of unification. Since the bill was first introduced in the house it has become abundantly clear that to put it mildly, the minister does not have the enthusiastic support of his colleagues in the cabinet. Obviously they feel he has painted himself into a corner, and for some reason, perhaps self-preservation, they are letting him fight his own way out of this self-created situation. The minister in the last few days has been accused of being dictatorial and like Napoleon. Perhaps he is more like a Napoleon standing on the burning deck.
If one looks behind the sort of avuncular facade as reflected in the speech of the minister of external affairs, it appears that he did suggest some diversionary feints on peace keeping and peace restoring. He did make a very good case for the preservation and differentiation of the functional activities of the armed forces. This is precisely the point I am making, and it is the antithesis of unification.
The Minister of Transport appealed to the members as civilians to judge this bill on its merits and soundness of objective. The objective of the bill-and I presume the minister would agree with me-is to achieve maximum effectiveness of defence for a minimum of outlay. However, if the bill involves procedures which violate the practices followed by the management of large and complex organizations, then I submit that, as it has been concocted, it fails on its merits.
The idea of unification has been kicking around the defence departments of the world 
DEBATES	April 18, 1967
for many years, so it is not a new idea. That fact pulls the rug from under the main support which the government benches have relied upon in pressing this legislation. Let the government withdraw the bill, go back and do its homework and then come forward with a new bill during the next session which will not strain the credulity of a practical minded public. I for one cannot support Bill C-243 which embodies a basicly wrong approach to obtaining a universally desired end.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, this debate seems to have become nothing more than an attack on personality. Much of what has been said in the past two weeks has been about individuals rather than about the subject matter of the bill. Even during the defence committee hearings some of us were charged with the fact that we did not have military experience and for that reason should not be heard. Some doubt was cast as to whether or not we were eligible for committee membership itself.
In defence of my position I said at that time that I had offered my services, and was turned down. I remained active in an industry which concerned itself almost exclusively with the production of war materiel. As a result, I believe my health suffered even more than the health of most of the members of that committee. I certainly do not apologize for taking part in this debate. I am sure that the day will come when all the members of this house can say with pride they have no military wartime service. We hope war is a thing of the past and that wartime service will not be used in this chamber as a red herring.
Let me refer momentarily to a speech made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, which was unworthy of him and certainly unworthy of his constituents. I am sure they must have cringed with embarrassment, if they were unfortunate enough to have watched that television report which originated in Winnipeg. It was of very low Quality and I am sure the hon. member's constituents will deal with him in an appropriate manner at the next general election.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When are you going to get away from personalities?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Bow River blew in yesterday for one of his one day stands. During the committee hearings that hon. member sought to discredit my capability. Certainly that would not be difficult. I am not an eminent lawyer like the hon.
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
member. I am not a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan. I graduated cum laude from the school of hard knocks. I do not pretend to be a lawyer who might qualify as a prosecutor or attorney for defence.
The hon. member for Bow River unwittingly put his finger on one of the most important pieces of evidence I wish to refer to this evening, and that is the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller. That gentleman appeared before the committee in opposition to Bill C-243 without having taken the trouble to read its contents. Surely that was an affront to the committee and its members. Surely he should not have taken that attitude in giving evidence in opposition to a measure which admittedly he had not taken the trouble to read, though it had been given first reading five months earlier. For this very reason I asked a series of questions of Air Chief Marshal Miller, because I wanted to bring this fact to the attention of the committee. I would have thought that even an unperceptive juryman would have seen what I was endeavouring to do, but obviously the hon. member for Bow River did not. I asked the following questions:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Do you consider that the prospects of unification held out to the public has been detrimental to naval or other recruitment, thus far?
Whether this is so is another question. An article appeared in the Toronto Telegram of March 25, 1967, which indicated that recruiting is reaching a relatively high level and that for two months the recruitment was 2,196; that there were 556 in the-


An hon. Member:: How many people went out in that period?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: navy, 752 in the army and 888 in the R.C.A.F. In reply to my question Air Chief Marshal Miller said:
I would be giving a "Blue Sea" opinion on that that I could not back up. I think it has, but there are so many factors involved in what persuades anybody to join the navy, that for me to say that this is a factor or not, is just a matter of opinion and I could not make that.
So that in his opinion there are a number of factors that influence recruitment, but the question of unification was no more important than the others. I then asked:
Then, do you believe that the implementation of Bill C-243 would result in significant demoralization of the various forces?
The hon. member for Bow River seemed to think that "demoralization" was not a proper
National Defence Act Amendment word; at least, he was quite exercised about it. I took the trouble to look up the meaning of "demoralization", and I found that to demoralize is to weaken the morale, to destroy normal function, to throw into disorder. I wanted to establish whether Air Chief Marshal Miller was deeply concerned with the question of morale in the armed forces. His reply to my question was:
If rushed, I would think so.
That answer obviously means that he differs in the matter of timing; unification may be all right a year or two from now, but it is not all right at the moment. Then I asked Air Chief Marshal Miller this question:
You said at the outset-
Meaning the beginning of the hearing.
-I believe it was in answering Mr. Forrestall-
Actually, it was in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
-that you have not had time to take a look at the bill? Do you know when this bill was given first reading?
This may go down in history as one of the most ludicrous pieces of cross-examination, as was suggested by the hon. member for Bow River; but I want to point out again that the purpose of the questioning was not to establish that unification had a demoralizing effect, but rather that the witness who appeared before the committee and expressed such great concern about unification had not taken the trouble to read the bill. We were in fact dealing with clause 2 of the bill which has the effect of eliminating sections 15 to 18 of the National Defence Act. Of course sections 15 to 18 of the National Defence Act deal with the structure of the forces. Therefore, in effect Air Chief Marshal Miller was appearing before the committee in opposition to the bill and was speaking on the specific clause dealing with unification, yet he had not taken the trouble to read the bilL
As further evidence that Air Chief Marshal Miller had not read the bill, and did not know of its contents, I wish to quote further from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee hearing of March 20, 1967, page 2295.


An hon. Member:: He would have been wiser if he had read the bill.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Hamilton
West asked this question:
What are you unhappy about, sir? Can you specify what aspects you are unhappy about?
April 18, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Unification is just a word and it has come to be associated with the uniform. It has come to be associated with a single uniform, but it is more than that-a lot more than a single uniform.
Are the people of the forces going to be compelled to switch from their present uniforms to this new uniform and, if so, when? Under what conditions are they going to amalgamate the people in the various trades in the various services? Are there going to be strictures on staying in one force or are the people going to be compelled to go into employment in what used to be the old force? I do not know.
Obviously he did not know because he had not read the bill, Clause 7 of which provides:
Except in an emergency, no officer or man who was a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force immediately prior to the coming into force of this part shall, without his consent, be required to perform any duty in the Canadian forces that he could not have been required to perform as a member of such service.
Air Chief Marshal Miller showed some concern, as did members of the committee, that units and elements of the forces were to be eliminated. Clause 5 (2) of the bill puts everyone straight in this regard. It provides:
The units and other elements of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force existing at the coming into force of this part shall, subject to the provisions of the National Defence Act, continue to be the units and elements of the Canadian forces.
[DOT] (8:40 pun.)
We have heard much about the many witnesses who appeared before the committee and spoke in opposition to the bill. It has been said that most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee were in opposition to the bill. I think this can be very easily understood. If one goes back to the proceedings of the committee he can find that on three occasions at least the steering committee recommended for adoption by the committee that no more witnesses be heard. However, upon the insistence of those who were opposed to the bill that more witnesses be heard, there was a disposition on the part of the chairman, whom I want to congratulate for his very fair and understanding conduct of the committee, to go back to the steering committee and return with the proposal that another witness chosen by those opposing the bill be heard. I believe this happened on three occasions at least. Those of us who are not opposed to the bill did not insist on further witnesses, although many could have been called and, as everyone knows, pressure was put upon us to report to the house before the Easter recess.

Surely if the witnesses who were in opposition to the bill were credible witnesses-and we do not doubt their credibility-then the serving officers who spoke in support of unification must not be doubted either. Obviously the serving officers and the witnesses who appeared in support of unification are as convinced as those who are opposed that the matter of unification is important and that it should be dealt with at this time. So in the words of General Allard, let us get on with it.
While the hon. member for Bow River and other members of the opposition feel that the questioning in the committee did not elicit substantial information to assist them, I am sure that at least one member of the opposition was quite satisfied with the replies he received from General Allard. I should like to refer for a moment to the proceedings of the committee meeting of March 2, 1967 at which time the hon. member for Vegreville was questioning the general. The members of the opposition had expressed considerable concern about the loss of identity in the services and, following a series of questions, the hon, member for Vegreville said:
You remarked, I believe it was today sometime, that you had considered placing an air force officer in charge of a brigade and you had also considered placing a navy officer in charge of a brigade.
General Allard: Not in charge of a brigade in the case of the navy officer, but in the case of the air force officer, yes. I considered this because it became very important for one role. If you have an air mobile group, there is no reason why it should not be commanded by an airman, but unfortunately the difficulty at the moment is that our staff duties are so different and the methods of employment are so different that he would have had some difficulties had he been deployed in some exercise, and he would have had difficulties in co-ordinating some part.
Further on General Allard went on to say:
I think he would have done a good job just the same, but this only highlights the point that we have a great number of officers in the air force today who could have a much broader employment field than they have now. The fact that they are restricted after a certain rank in the air force means they cannot benefit by the possibilities and, in fact, some of them if they were trained are excellent people-good fighters, excellent people- who could do a magnificent job, but this is impossible at the moment. It is impossible, but I considered this very carefully and discussed it with the man concerned. He would have been prepared to accept it, but I think it would have been just a wee bit premature for him, so we think we should take a younger officer, train him through our staff college system and then bring him along; give him a staff job somewhere, because there is such a requirement. The blending of the two is getting to be so great that there is an absolute
April 18, 1967

requirement for it. I see no reason on earth why, in a few years time, these people should not be exchangeable.
I suppose the word meant here is "interchangeable." The hon. member for Vegreville went on with his questioning and, following a reply by General Allard, he said this:
That is more comforting than the information we have been able to get so far.
After further questioning the hon. member for Vegreville again said:
I am very happy to have been able to have this information from you, general, and it is definitely something we have not had before. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
He also said, I believe, that he had been an officer for some 51 years and that his fears had been allayed by the evidence which had been given by General Allard.


Donald MacInnis: Will the
hon. member permit a question? Just now he referred to the evidence given by General Allard in answer to questions asked by the hon. member for Vegreville. Where in the evidence is there any indication that the hon. member for Vegreville, who had not heard the evidence before, approved it?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should think the words of the hon. member for Vegreville speak for themselves.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member read the words of approval? The words "thank you" need not necessarily be taken as approval.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member wishes to have a private conversation with the hon. member for Vegreville, I will have no objection.
It has been said that newspapers across the country are rising to the challenge, that they are suddenly becoming aware of the great danger that is facing the Canadian people and encouraging the opposition to oppose this measure. However, I am not one given to quoting editorials. As a matter of fact I consider it a breach of the rules of the house to do so, and I do not intend to quote them. I am sure hon. members have noted within the last several weeks, however, that most of the reputable newspapers across Canada are saying it is time that this debate was concluded, and that the majority in the house be given an opportunity to make a decision.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question at this point? It is a very
National Defence Act Amendment simple question with regard to concluding the debate. Can he explain to me why the government today would not allow this house to get on with other matters on the order paper rather than provide an opportunity for the hon. member to prolong this debate? We earnestly asked for a change in the business so we could do something else that is on the order paper. Why was the request not granted?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Those who have said more than should have been said or than could justifiably have been said, now seem anxious to deny members on the government side an opportunity to speak. Of course this is another form of closure, in reverse. I am not too well aware of the rules of the house. I used to make a very concerted study of the rules, but I found that the opposition abrogated them so often that I lost interest. I just go forward now from day to day, since the opposition seems to make the rules from day to day. The question raised by the hon. member is one he should discuss with the house leader. If they come to an agreement that we should take a vote on this question tonight I will be happy to sit down at this moment. If debate is to continue, as it so obviously did this afternoon, I feel I should say a few words even if only in defence of myself if not in defence of the minister and his measure.
I regret very much having had to refer to the hon. member for Bow River at a time when he was not in the House. However, it is difficult to find a time when he is here. It has been said that we have been asked to accept this bill holus-bolus, that the minister is immutable and will not accept amendments. Surely if members take the time to look at the reprinted bill, as opposed to the bill which was given first reading on November 4, 1966, they will find a large number of amendments have been made to it. Surely it is rather too early to say that the minister will not accept amendments, that he is completely immutable while we are still discussing clause 2 of the bill. I believe therefore that this argument, if I may use an expression, has been shot down in flames.
Certainly there has been sufficient debate on this subject for one to say that it has been dealt with adequately. The standing committee on defence heard 41 witnesses. The testimony covered a total of approximately 2,000 pages; the total number of words spoken, about one million; total number of questions asked, 5,000; total number of sessions, 55; total number of weeks of hearings, six.
15068	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Then, we have further statistics here covering the discussions of defence in the house, and this includes the question and answer period, supply, interim supply, estimates in both special and standing committees, and the white paper on defence from March, 1964 to April, 1967, inclusive. We And the total number of words spoken amounted to over 3,100,000; the total number of questions raised, approximately 11,040-


Donald MacInnis: How
many answers?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There were an equal number of answers, of course.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to continue? Does he have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We have obviously slipped away from the very strong feelings against one another, so I may say I deeply appreciate this consideration.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this courtesy has always been available to hon. members on the other side, but not to members on this side.


Mr. Pilon:: That is not true.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I expected to hear from the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He never fails to get into a debate, one way or the other. The bill was returned to the house to be dealt with in committee of the whole. Up to April 17, there were 101 members who had participated in the debate. The number of words spoken amounted to 359,275. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has spoken four times; the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona, five times; the hon. member for Halifax, four times; the hon. member for Edmonton West, three times; the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-my home area-three times; the hon. member for Cape Breton South, three times.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise now on a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Adequate time, therefore, has been given for discussion of this bill.

DEBATES	April 18. 1967


Donald MacInnis: I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member and the committee that I have spoken three times because, through the courtesy of hon. members on this side, members on that side were allowed extended time. Although I spoke three times I had less time for debate than the hon. members on that side who have been given the privilege of extended time. I spoke three times simply because I was refused the extra time allotted to the Liberals.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is hardly a point of order for the hon. member to point out that he had less to say than hon. members on this side of the house.


Mr. Kindt:: I see the crocodile smiles on the faces of members in the second row on the government side. I hope they will laugh now, and also after I have completed my remarks. Ever since I had the opportunity of seeing Bill No. C-243 and to read it carefully and quietly, to myself, it has been my intention to speak on the bill. I feel that when $1.7 billion is involved, when the efficiency of our fighting forces is involved, any member in this house representing the taxpayers of this country should find sufficient time to speak on the bill and try to protect the interests of the people of Canada who are paying the money.
I was greatly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I did not interrupt him but remained quietly in my seat. I hope he will supply copies of his speech to his constituents. If he does, Mr. Chairman, I am certain that he will not be back in this house again.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I have nothing personal against my colleague who is in a constituency to the west of mine. We have worked together on many issues. Whenever a crucial matter arises affecting coal shipments to Japan-in the initiation of which I played some part a number of years ago-my hon. friend from Kootenay East seems to grab all the publicity; he is good at that. With the present Liberal government in office I have a hard time to get my proper share of the credit for coal shipments to Japan.
Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member commenced his speech by stating that he was not going to deal in personalities. Yet his speech dealt in personalities from start to finish. First of all he picked on the member for Edmonton-Strathcona. He seemed to find nothing good to say about any hon. member who had spoken in committee against
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
the policies of the minister, or against unification. He said they were all off beam and that he would set the record straight.
I have a lot of admiration for the witnesses who came before the defence committee to give evidence, Mr. Chairman. I have had the privilege of studying much of the evidence given, having read the reports of the standing committee so as to inform myself on this question. I attended meetings of the committee and was present when Air Chief Marshal Miller gave his evidence. I was especially disturbed by the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East about Air Chief Marshal Miller, who gave evidence that was acknowledged by all who heard him to be sound.
I should like to refer to an article in the Globe and Mail for Wednesday, March 22, which quotes some of the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller, and which is as follows:
Air Chief Marshal Miller told the committee that unification, while it might well be the end result of integration would not at present be timely, that more time was needed for the orderly development of the integration process. "I felt that a lot of careful planning was necessary and probably time to educate people was required before the next step of unification". Implementation of the bill could seriously demoralize the forces if it were rushed, the loss of personnel so far had been bad for the forces-
Then he closed by saying that some key men have left.
The hon. member for Kootenay East seemed to throw cold water on the testimony of this witness, so I should like to read what Charles Lynch had to say about it. Charles Lynch characterized him as a most impressive witness. According to his article in the Ottawa Citizen for Wednesday, March 22:
Of all the witnesses to oppose the armed forces unification bill, Air Chief Marshal Miller is by far the most impressive. His credentials render unthinkable any attack on his motives-
I should like the hon. member for Kootenay East to reconsider his remarks in light of the statement of one who takes an unbiased position, Charles Lynch. According to Charles Lynch:
His credentials render unthinkable any attack on his motives, and render difficult any reflections on his professional judgment by either Mr. Hellyer or members of his current military entourage.
Later in his article Charles Lynch goes on to say:
Despite the outward loyalty of the current team of top officers to Mr. Hellyer and his program, and despite the call of the current defence chief. General Jean Victor Allard, for speedy unification, there can be no doubt that there are grave misgivings inside national defence headquarters,
National Defence Act Amendment and beyond that in the various services and commands.
There is anguish right at the top of the military structure about the rigid positions that have been assumed, creating the impression, as set out in the bill, that the land, sea and air arms of the forces are going to be obliterated.
The simplest solution, and the one that most likely would have been adopted had rigor mortis not set in as stiffly as it has, would be to amend the bill in a way that would preserve the army, navy and air force identities within the proposed unified structure.
With the material I have before me, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to nail to the cross the statements made by the hon. member for Kootenay East in his attempt to discredit Air Chief Marshal Miller, whose testimony was above reproach. He had no motives other than to speak the truth. I may tell the minister and also the hon. member for Kootenay East that my reading of the testimony given by people who were unbiased has convinced me that they, in turn, were speaking from the depths of their own consciences and in the best interests of the people of Canada.
There are others, including the minister, who have had more military experience than I, or more association with military forces. Nevertheless let me tell the minister, in justification of my position, that once I was a corporal. Indeed I became a sergeant and was promoted to lieutenant. I was with the 2nd A.M.R.-Alberta Mounted Rifles-as well as in the Canadian reserve for a couple of years. I was also with the Canadian Officers Training Corps for three or four years. All in all I had an opportunity to learn something, though grant you not too much, about military life. I have the feeling that because of their training in the army and the type of work they are expected to perform in the defence of Canada, those in the army are not suited to be members subject to transfer to the navy or air force, especially, against their wishes, o (9:10 p.m.)
Also, personnel enlisting will not be able to join the air force, army or navy, which at present are separate services with a long tradition of growth over the years. All countries have separate services, therefore there must be some merit to their separate existence. When we join hands working with the forces of other countries, we fit in with their patterns of working. Other countries have separate forces. The minister intends to obliterate our three separate forces and bring in their stead one unified force. The effects of this must be looked at objectively.
April 18, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
The hon. member for Kootenay East praised the work of the committee. I can understand that; he was one of its members. Nevertheless there was so much bias shown in that committee-and this applies to nine out of ten committees of this house and the work they turn out-that, for the people of Canada, its work was almost useless. This parliament will never function properly until we have committees before which witnesses can testify properly and which bring in reports not biased politically.
Take as an example the committee on Indian affairs and northern development. All the minister had to do was say something ought to happen, pull his strings, and the Liberal members would support him. That sort of thing has happened again and again in our committees. The hon. member for Kootenay East may laugh, but he knows what I say is absolutely true. If parliament is to function properly, if we are to present before it important legislation, some means must be found to reflect in this house the feelings of our people. As matters now stand too much political bias enters parliament's deliberations.
I now turn briefly to other matters. I have already talked about the evidence concerning unification. That evidence shows that unification is not a good thing. By expunging the biased statements of the minister, the hon. member for Kootenay East and others like him, and reading the evidence of persons such as Air Chief Marshal Miller who were in the position to speak their minds, and did so, one will find that the weight of evidence goes against the minister. Unification of the armed forces is shown to be undesirable.
When the integration bill was introduced I said nothing against it, believing as an economist that certain benefits would flow from it. This is not so with unification, which is vastly different. It has taken us a long time to fathom what was in the minister's mind when he spoke of unification.
I believe firmly that the navy, the army and air force ought to be separate. All countries of the world have three fighting forces. So far, maintaining three separate forces has been found to be the most effective method of maintaining military strength. This minister, unlike defence ministers of other countries, is tampering with the defence forces of Canada. He wishes to obliterate the navy, army and air force by merging them into one hill of beans, with all personnel wearing the same 
type of uniform. By so doing the minister will destroy service traditions.
In former years people volunteered for the navy, army or air force because they liked the tradition of the service they were about to join. During the first world war I tried to join the 137th battalion from Calgary, but could not because I was not of age. The record of that battalion had attracted me, as it had attracted others. The same thing is true about the air force and navy. Some are attracted by their traditions, and join. If those traditions are lost, buried or obliterated, as the minister intends, then an irreparable injustice will have been done to the fighting forces of this country.
In closing, let me say to the minister that he should have conducted himself as the Minister of Transport conducted himself during the debate on the transportation bill. The Minister of National Defence ought to have kept an open mind and listened to the views of different people. Instead of that his mind has been closed. He has not yielded on one point. Personally, I think this bill ought to be sent back to the committee for amendment. No bill entailing the far reaching consequences of this one ought to be passed in its present form. It ought to be amended to preserve for the time being at any rate the army, navy and air force to protect the $1.7 billion our taxpayers are paying.
Unless the minister is prepared to make concessions by adhering to the will of the people of this country, he has no alternative but to resign.


Mr. Monteiih:: Mr. Chairman, I have not been a member of the defence committee. I have not had the opportunity and privilege of hearing all evidence presented to that committee, nor has it been possible for me to read it all. There are various reasons for this, the main one being that as a fairly active member of the finance, trade and economic affairs committee which was considering the Bank Act over many months, it was impossible for me to absorb everything that went on in the defence committee. But despite my lack of technical study and knowledge concerning Bill C-243 I could not help over the last several weeks coming to certain conclusions.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I was in my constituency last week end, and on that occasion and previously had many conversations which indicated to me that the people are worried. They are inclined
April 18, 1987	COMMONS
to feel that the minister has gone too far too fast.
Originally when this debate commenced I had not expected to speak. I thought I would leave the speaking to those members with technical knowledge or experience, which to me would seem to be required if one were to make a worth-while contribution. But I now feel I should enter the debate and make my views known in the House of Commons, and I would point out this is the first time for me to speak on the bill.
Some news media have been proclaiming that we on this side of the house should turn over and play dead. They have been proclaiming that we should accept the word of practically one man, the minister, against the evidence of so many retired and discharged senior officers, concluding with the evidence of Air Chief Marshal Miller. They have been proclaiming that closure is justified in order to close the mouths of the official opposition. They have been proclaiming that the implementation of this unification bill is inevitable, so why not capitulate to the stubborn attitude of the minister.
Today we are faced with the house leader having moved closure. Sir, to me this is inexcusable. The defence of Canada is much too important to be decided by the government in this manner. Unfortunately the government has repeatedly shown its contempt of parliament. It is now continuing that contempt, and this time the government has chosen the most important issue we could be faced with, namely the defence of Canada. As I see this whole defence matter, we are taking one step further toward dependence on our great neighbour to the south. In the past the government has taken numerous steps toward republicanism; this step, as I see it, is the biggest and most dangerous.
I feel that certain news media which support the government have tended to confuse the issue by using the words integration and unification interchangeably. This should not be done. They are two different and distinct steps; they have two absolutely different meanings.
Integration has met with general agreement. In fact it was furthered by the government of which I had the honour to be a member. This step, however, does not completely do away with the army, navy and air force, as it is now proposed. That step is what unification means. Integration of certain services and administration facilities seems reasonable and sensible, but to take the big and
National Defence Act Amendment dangerous step of completely unifying all our forces does not seem sound. This last move, Mr. Chairman, is against all the advice given by retired and discharged officers. They advised a period of a few years to have steps already taken shake themselves out before taking this last, irrevocable step.
Many times the minister has said that one of his reasons for this move is to save money. Anything to save money should be considered very carefully. Certainly the government has been reckless in its expenditures in all fields, and savings should be encouraged. But that is not what is happening. As has been pointed out on more than one occasion, this year's estimates for national defence are up by approximately $115 million. Evidence indicates that effective savings will not be effected by unification. I would suggest that we enjoy a pause in this headlong rush.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the following are the main reasons why unification should not be proceeded with at this time:
The majority of people in Canada are not convinced the minister is right, in fact they are very sure he is wrong.
No other country in the world has dared to take this step. I am for progress, something which was urged by the hon. member for Leeds; but I do not consider this final step of unification at this time to be progress. I consider it foolhardy.
To continue the list of reasons:
Unification can only result in further dependence upon the United States in case of emergency.
There will not be the dollar savings that the minister has wanted us to believe there will be.
Doing away with the army, navy and air force can only cause frustration, discouragement and lack of direction for the soldier, the sailor and the airforce man; in other words, confusion, falling off in efficiency, and demoralization, all of which are dangerous to the security of Canada.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Another reason is that the minister has not answered the pertinent questions which were asked of him concerning the effect unification may have on Canada's commitments.
My last main reason is that the minister has admitted that the act will not be proclaimed for some months. I ask the question: Why, then, the urgency to shove it through in this manner?
15072	COMMONS DEBATES	April 18, 1967
National Defence Act Amendment
Many other reasons have been brought to the attention of the house by other hon. members during this debate. Now we are to be forced by closure to accede to the government's whims. This step is wrong. Closure never should be forced on the House of Commons, least of all when our security is at stake. This is not right.
When I started out I stated that 1 intended to be brief. I will. I should like, however, to close by quoting from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of yesterday-that Liberal paper which is so friendly to the government. This is what they say concerning this last unforgiveable step which has been taken by this government. I think this should be placed on the record.
The federal government could be making a mistake-
Let us not forget that this is from yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press. They anticipated the possibility of what has happened today.
The federal government could be making a mistake if, in its determination to impose unification on Canada's armed services, it should resort to some form of closure on Parliament.
The government can argue that the unification bill has been through the legislative mill, including the defence committee, and that there is nothing of value to be gained by prolonging the discussion. In fact, not all witnesses who should have been heard were called before the committee. And in spite of all the talking that has been done, some major questions remain unanswered-notably those concerning the effect that unification may have on Canada's military commitments under NATO and NORAD. The suspicion is growing that the reason these questions have not been answered is that the government does not know the answers. If closure is resorted to, this suspicion will be strengthened.
Unification is government policy, but it is a policy that has met vigorous opposition from many members of Parliament who must feel that they represent a substantial body of opinion. The government can press on; that appears to be its intention. But if it does so at the expense of cutting further debate, it cannot help but leave the same kind of impression that the St. Laurent government left when it used closure in 1956- that here is a government which has failed to convince the majority of the population.
On that note I shall sit down but I wish to say that I do feel this editorial sets out as succinctly as one could the position which the government has taken, the errors it is making and what it is doing to Canada by pressing forward with this bill at this moment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I waited for some member on the government side to get up to address the house because just a few
[Mr. Monteith.j
minutes ago the hon. member for Kootenay East said that we were trying to prevent their participation in this debate. Every opportunity was given to them, as people here will have noticed, and no one rose from the other side to support the Minister of National Defence or to enter into this debate. Earlier today two opportunities were afforded to the government to change from this particular debate, of which they are making much, and deal with, first, the dairy problem which is a serious problem in Canada. They refused to accept this opportunity which they had. A second opportunity was given to them to deal with the minister of manpower's bill on adult training. They declined that opportunity and said in effect that we must continue with the debate on the unification bill. Then they turn around and accuse us of prolonging the debate. We gave them every opportunity to get on with other business which appears on the order paper and they did not take advantage of the opportunity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask this question: Who is prolonging this debate? Those on the government side. For what purpose? Solely so that the house today could hear the hon. member for Kootenay East, and what a treat that was.


An hon. Member:: Did he speak?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was nothing in his speech worth any attention whatsoever. This is a peculiar way to operate the House of Commons when the government insists on going ahead with a debate which they have been telling us they wish to terminate. We gave them the opportunity today.
I intend to do something which I very seldom do in this House of Commons; that is, quote extensively from an author. In just a moment I will give the reason for this. The author from whom I intend to quote is Mr. Terence Robertson who is an author of distinction. He writes for the Canadian people and for international areas. He is called a military specialist and has been one for 20 years. I might mention two of his books; one is about Dieppe, "The Shame and the Glory" and the other is about the Suez crisis.
Mr. Robertson has an intelligent knowledge of the House of Commons. He made a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa on December 4, 1964. On page 8 of his speech he said this:
If any government, no matter which party is in power, can get its own way simply because a debate is considered drawn out and tedious in some quarters then the two party system is already on the way out the window.
April 18, 1967	COMMONS
That was his observation of the House of Commons in 1964 and I am sure it would be his observation today with regard to this particular debate. We are entered upon one of the great debates of this institution. This is an historic debate and every member of this house should record on Hansard his opinion with regard to the policy of the government. This debate will be studied by an author like Mr. Terence Robertson. He will be writing a book about this debate and with justification because nothing is more important than a fundamental alteration in the defence policy of Canada. Every citizen of Canada has an interest in what is done by parliament, and some time next week I presume the issue will be decided. There will be a vote and the government, with the assistance of the New Democratic Party, the assistance of the Social Credit rump in the house and with the major assistance of the Creditistes led by a member who boasts of his lack of effort in wartime-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -Canada's defence policy will be changed.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has no right to impute any intentions to me; whether or not I was a member of the Canadian army, that is none of his business.
I must tell him one thing, however; it is that I am as good a Canadian as he can be and that there are Canadians who can be excellent people and behave with dignity in Canada, without having been members of the Canadian army. I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would get that into his head from now on, for he seems to forget that one can be a Canadian without treading exactly in the somewhat doubtful footsteps of the hon. member himself.
And I want to tell him, still on the same point of order, that I am not to be taught any lessons by him and that I am welcome in the ten Canadian provinces much more than he is himself.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the point of order, Mr. Chairman? I suggested that the government will have the support of that hon. gentleman in this house and he now objects to this fact. This is known to everyone and it is with that support the government hopes to
National Defence Act Amendment pass this bill. I hope the people of Canada realize that fact.
It has frequently been asked in this house why the Prime Minister does not participate in this debate. We have not heard from him. He neglects parliament in this regard. It has often been asked, as I have asked, what is behind his attitude. Why is the Minister of National Defence pursuing this course? There must be some undisclosed reason behind his attitude. Why does he want to destroy the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Army?
I believe I have found the answer to these questions in an article written by Mr. Terence Robertson which appeared in one of the supplements attached to the newspapers of this country. I regret that I do not know the exact newspaper to which this one was attached but it was published in 1966. Mr. Robertson is a great admirer of the Prime Minister, and in his book on the Suez crisis he pays him great tribute for his efforts on that occasion. Mr. Robertson has maintained an interest in military affairs. Last summer he wrote this article and perhaps someone can identify the newspaper company which published it. The title of the article is "The real reason for putting them all together". He was referring to all the members of the three services. Let me read some of the statements in this article. Mr. Terence Robertson states:
There should be a sign outside defence minister Paul Hellyer's office saying "Keep Clear-Nationalists at Work". For behind all the uproar, all the insinuations and ill feeling that surround the future of our armed forces, lies the one big issue of Canadian nationalism.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister interrupts me and asks me if I believe everything I read in the newspapers. I do not attack the newspapers; I commend them for a great many things they have done. I read the articles written by Charles Lynch which deal with the Minister of National Defence to find some inkling of what he is like. I am inclined to believe that sort of article. I do have some confidence in the writings of Mr. Terence Robertson.
That hon. gentleman then states in this article:
If any cabinet minister undertakes a policy that will politically justify replacing symbols of our past with new and distinctively Canadian ones, he can be sure of Prime Minister Pearson's wholehearted support.
15074	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
Hellyer's defence policies are bang in the middle of this new tradition. He is trying to Canadianize the armed forces by ridding them of the trappings of "foreign" (British) origins.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Someone on the other side said "good". Just because my ancestors happened to come from Great Britain they suggest I should be ashamed of them and that I should deny my origin and have no pride in it. On the contrary, I have a great deal of pride. I hope those people whose origin is French will have pride in that origin. Apparently anything now that is British is foreign.
Mr. Terence Robertson then writes:
I believe this is far more important for the country, the government, Hellyer and for the forces themselves than any purely military argument on the merits of one service, three, or even a dozen ...
According to Hellyer's plans, the front line formations of the navy, army and air force will function in the future much as they do today. But they will be the sea, air and land arms of the new service-not the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Artillery, or the Royal Canadian anything else.
This is what is said by an observer who suggests that the real reason behind this whole program is a policy of the Prime Minister, supported by the Minister of National Defence, to do what Mr. Robertson calls Canadianization of our armed forces by getting rid of our traditions. These have been noble traditions.
Let me continue with Mr. Robertson's article as follows:
Uniforms are the most tangible trappings of any military structure ...
No matter how much Hellyer integrates or unifies, he cannot succeed in Canadianizing the armed forces without first getting rid of the present uniforms for they are the ultimate public symbols of Canada's military heritage.
The most effective and economical way to Canadianize the forces is to put everybody-soldier, sailor and airman-into the same suit. This would have the effect of putting a single service on public display without actually creating one, and without imposing any fundamental disturbances on the existing military structure.
Apparently we should meld them together by dressing them the same and by getting rid of all our past traditions. In this way we might Canadianize the armed forces. Having served in the Canadian Armed Forces on a good many occasions over a good many years, let me say that neither I nor my friends had any doubt that we were Canadians and not anything else. We were never confused for

DEBATES	April 18, 1967
the British, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans or United States soldiers.
Mr. Robertson then states:
When Hellyer took office three years ago, he was deliberately vague about the lengths he would go with integration. "Integration breaks new ground" he said then. "We don't know yet where it will end".
It's quite possible that he didn't really know himself-that though he knew of the Prime Minister's intention to Canadianize Canada, he hadn't worked out how the principle could be best applied to the armed forces.
He is still very vague and he still does not know where this is going to end. It will end in great confusion and will be a great disaster for Canada. Mr. Robertson then states:
Hellyer needed time, not only to learn about the entire defence organization, but also to assess where, and from whom, he might expect opposition. His most senior officers were relatively young. They had superb records in war and peace, and they controlled forces that enjoyed unexcelled reputations for efficiency and elan among NATO allies.
Those are the men the minister started to work with, and he paid them a great compliment.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The article continues:
Most of them supported the idea of integration from the outset, and Hellyer has said all along that he couldn't have got integration off the ground without their enthusiastic support.
These are the men that the minister threw out of office just a year ago, in the summertime. These were the young, able men with good records in war and peace who supported the minister when he commenced this operation of his, and he disposed of them last summer. That's gratitude for you. He could not have got his operation off the ground had they not supported him; yet he threw them to one side when they opposed some of his plans. This same author, Mr. Terence Robertson, writing a year earlier in "Weekend Magazine" of February 6 had this to say with regard to that assistance:
Hellyer readily admits even though he didn't reap a whirwind of protest, his revolution might have stalled at the white paper stage had it not been for the co-operation of the senior officers at defence headquarters. The chiefs of staff fell in behind him, decided among themselves to set an example to all ranks by avoiding controversial public debate and by declining to comment in the press.
The Minister of National Defence owes everything to those men. Mr. Robertson in that article of 1965 goes on to speak of some of them. Just listen to the names: Air Chief
April 18, 1967

Marshal Miller, Lieutenant General Geoffrey Walsh, Vice Admiral H. S. Rayner. Where are they now? They are cast off. They were useful to the Minister of National Defence when he was launching his plan. They supported him with regard to the white paper. They started off the program of integration. But having squeezed them dry, the minister discarded them. He used their ability, brains and assistance and was grateful for it at the time, and he said so; and the minute those men said, "Slow down. We are not yet ready for unification", he said, "Out". That is what this minister has done to the men who helped him in the days when he really needed help.
Who is helping him now? Not even the Prime Minister. I continue to quote from the article of 1966:
By last July, four admirals, three air marshals and two generals had quit, some helped along with an early retirement bonus. With so many vacancies at the top, Hellyer was able to couple Canadianization with the appointment of a chief of defence staff. He was fortunate to have a widely respected French-Canadian officer, Genera] Jean Allard, available for the job.
Allard's views coincide closely with Hellyer's. He is reputed to believe that only regiments with pure Canadian origins should keep their identities because the others, those with foreign impurities in their histories, have nothing Canadian to lose through unification.
There is Mr. Terence Robertson's objective view of what is behind this program. He set it out. He is a man with years of experience, a man who has a knowledge of Ottawa, a man who is a close acquaintance of the Prime Minister, from whom he has high regard, a man who obviously must have had some conversations with the Minister of National Defence or certainly with his staff because he writes with knowledge of this situation. There he gives us the real reason behind this exercise of the Minister of National Defence.
The idea of the minister is to Canadianize our forces. He says: Dispel tradition; forget the past; forget second Ypres and Vimy Ridge; forget the landing on the Normandy beaches in 1944; forget Dieppe; forget Hong Kong-we are starting afresh. The minister says: Wipe out the Royal Canadian Navy; wipe out the word "Royal" wherever it appears. He says: Canadianize our forces. Yet, as I have said so often, this country has an admirable history, an admirable tradition extending over centuries. All national groups that have lived in this country have made a contribution to that tradition, the sacrifice that has gone into building up this country
Business of the House
and maintaining our independence, the sacrifice that has gone into sustaining that independence and the freedom of the free nations of the world during this century. These things have been based upon the forces which the minister now wishes to change and for which apparently he has little respect.
This minister wants to wipe out most of the things that serving men have ever treasured with regard to the life they have lived. Why wipe out the Royal Canadian Navy or change the uniform of the men in the navy? After all, they are volunteering to sacrifice their lives in case of emergency. Surely they should be permitted, then, to retain those things which they consider to be part of their life. Is not the same true of the Royal Canadian Air Force, those men who volunteer and risk their lives. They die even in peacetime; I do not know how many pilots we have lost during the last 10 or 15 years. These men are ready to die in wartime. Why cannot they retain their title "Royal Canadian Air Force" and their uniform?
The same is true of the army and all our famous regiments. Forty eight Canadian infantry battalions fought at the battle of Vimy Ridge, which we were commemorating a few days ago. The famous 22nd regiment was there. There were 47 other battalions there, all of whom went over the top at Vimy Ridge in two waves, 15,000 in the first wave and 15,000 in the second. Are not those battalions entitled to maintain their traditions? Of course they are.
Sir, I have now placed on the record of this historic document of Canadian Hansard the real reason, according to Mr. Terence Robertson, why this unification program of the Minister of National Defence was started and has been carried through. Now we know why the Prime Minister has made this minister go ahead with that program; in fact, it is the Prime Minister's idea and it is with his approval that the Minister of National Defence is carrying on in the way he is.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could ask whoever is leading the house whether we will go on with other government business tomorrow, or are we to provide another opportunity for government members to speak on the subject of unification?
15076	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped that all hon. gentlemen opposite would have had an opportunity by now to express their views fully and completely in respect of clause 2 of the bill. But in view of the fact that they apparently have not, we will carry on this debate tomorrow. I would hope, however, that very early in the day we could get on to another clause. Perhaps we could agree to stand clause 2 so that we could give adequate consideration to all the clauses in the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much. I have another speech ready for tomorrow.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is timely that I should have listed for debate this evening after the ten o'clock adjournment the subject matter of the government's dairy policy. It is timely because, after all, it was this afternoon that one hon. member on this side of the house attempted to adjourn the house under standing order 26 in order to debate the urgency of the situation regarding the inadequacy of the government's present dairy policy. Of course it is not my intention at this time to go into any details regarding the many ways in which the present dairy policy is inadequate. Other hon. members in the course of the past week have advanced many reasons why the present policy falls short. However, it is necessary to point out with emphasis once again that the problem in the dairy industry has been growing in a very dramatic and alarming way in the past few months.
It is a long standing problem which this industry has faced, along with other sectors of agriculture, but it has been increasing to an alarming degree. Everything the government has said through its minister, and through other speakers today, has not offered a solution to the problem. On the one hand we have a minister who takes an attitude of almost complete indifference to a problem that is facing the nation, namely one of continuing low income among our food producers, a minister who is showing indolence and nonchalance, and on the other hand we have

DEBATES	April 18, 1967
a minister who is trying to push through the house legislation unifying our armed forces, a matter which is of no urgency at all. The government is spending days and weeks ramming through legislation of no urgency, and yet the Minister of Agriculture, despite repeated pleas, refuses to give any indication that he will reconsider a dairy policy which is damned and condemned by all spokesmen of the dairy industry in this country.
I cannot understand the government's order of priorities and its poor sense of proportion with regard to problems that face our country. No doubt tomorrow the Minister of National Defence will again insist on the passage of this legislation, while the Minister of Agriculture might very well not be around to answer some of the pointed questions which will be put to him by members on this side.
The question I asked last Tuesday, as recorded at page 14765 of Hansard, dealt specifically with the jurisdiction and responsibility for price support on fluid milk. I must admit that the minister has stated repeatedly that under the new policy there will be a more clear division of responsibility with regard to the dairy policy, that the federal government is subsidizing manufacturing milk to a greater degree, which is a fact that no one disputes, and that therefore the fluid milk price levels will become the responsibility of the provinces. However, there is a flaw in the reasoning there because fluid milk in excess of the quota becomes surplus fluid, and in effect manufacturing milk, and the federal government therefore should not try to absolve itself of its responsibility in that field.
As I said on the day when the minister made his statement a few weeks ago, I think the federal government has made a great mistake in transferring to the provinces the control of price levels for fluid milk.
Other members have put this compelling argument to the Minister of Agriculture, and it is a very reasonable one. Since surplus fluid milk goes into manufacture, on what basis can the federal government withdraw its support? Under this new policy support has been withdrawn and this will mean that the shippers of fluid milk will find themselves in a much more difficult position financially. Statistical data put out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and that compiled by the dairy, organizations themselves, has shown that in the last few years, despite the existence of a small measure of federal support for surplus fluid milk, there was a deterioration in the income position of fluid milk shippers.
April 18, 1967

Now that the federal government has withdrawn support, the problem becomes aggravated.
I must ask therefore the question I asked last Tuesday, and to which I received no reply. Was his decision to withdraw any degree of support for surplus fluid milk taken by the federal government unilaterally, or only after consultation with the provincial governments and perhaps upon their request? I would find it inexcusable, may I say in conclusion, if the decision were taken by this government in a unilateral manner without even acquiescence or a request by any provincial government. Time will find this out.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: My presence here tonight is dictated by the fact that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is in London looking after the interests of Canadian food exporters. His parliamentary secretary is out of town on government business.
The decision to apply federal dairy subsidies to shippers of manufacturing milk and cream and not to shippers of fluid milk, is a policy decision to avoid a conflicting jurisdiction of federal and provincial authorities. In this decision, the federal government is accepting responsibility for the returns to manufacturing milk and cream shippers.
The hon. member may recall that the province of Quebec has, for a few years, paid subsidies for manufacturing milk and cream, and that the Ontario government introduced such a subsidy last fall. In discussions with the ministers of agriculture of those two provinces last fall, our Minister of Agriculture undertook to recommend to his colleagues that starting the 1st of April this year the federal government, in its support program, would make up the amount of the subsidy paid by the provinces. At the same time, the ministers of agriculture of Ontario and Quebec undertook to withdraw on that date from the subsidization of manufacturing milk and cream. The federal program has of course gone well beyond meeting that commitment financially.
The economic situation of fluid milk shippers is of course subject to matters which are under provincial or local control, and over which the federal authorities have no jurisdiction. The two major factors in this are the fluid quotas and the price of fluid milk. These are determined locally within a province.
The decision to apply the direct federal assistance only to manufacturing milk and cream shippers is, therefore, an acceptance of 23033-953
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion responsibility for the basic returns to that part of the dairy industry whose product is used entirely for manufacturing purposes, while leaving to the provinces, who have the jurisdiction, the responsibility for the fluid milk side of the industry. This is a cleancut and desirable division of jurisdiction and responsibility.
I am sure the hon. member understands, of course, that surplus milk from fluid shippers does benefit from one phase of the federal stabilization program. That is the phase which supports the market price of major dairy products on all fronts and which establishes the basis of price for all milk used for the manufacturer of these products.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



AGRICULTURE-CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR HIGHER PRICE FOR INDUSTRIAL MILK

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the new dairy policy of the present government is distinctly unfair to Canadian farmers and dairy producers.
First of all, because it does not meet the minimum goal of $5.10 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk, and second, because the amount of money put at the disposal of the Canadian Dairy Commission is insufficient. Indeed, a government that can make available to the Minister of National Defence an additional $115 million should surely be in a position, through the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp), to put another $60 or $80 million at the disposal of Canadian farmers.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee that the subsidy will normally remain at $1.11 per hundredweight that is $1.21 less 10 cents for the export premium. If the amount allowed for export, namely 10 cents per hundredweight, proves insufficient, the Canadian Dairy Commission will have to deduct the necessary amount from the $1.11 subsidy; this means that the subsidy of $1.11 is liable to be lowered as a result of the export premium, quotas, etc.
According to the statement of the commission, each producer is allowed an individual quota equal to the amount produced last year. This means that greater milk production will not be encouraged in Canada. Quotas are not to exceed what they were last year.
Now, last year, because of bad weather, hay and feed crops and pastures did not supply quality feed, with the result that milk production went down.
15078	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Now, this year, there is no intention to promote or facilitate any production increase, although we are forced to import butter and other dairy products from foreign countries. There is no intention to help our Canadian farmers.
Surplus fluid milk of producers, namely milk of categories 2, 3 and 4, is not eligible for subsidies. Cream producers receive no special subsidy.
What farmers want is a minimum price, not an average national price. In 1966-67, prices varied from $3.74 to $4.44, including all federal and provincial subsidies.
Every member of the Ralliement Creditiste has asked for a better policy for Canadian farmers, and it is true that the hon. member for Springfield* (Mr. Schreyer) has just asked the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) has also asked the same thing. And this afternoon, when I moved the adjournment of the house, in order to discuss the dairy policy, not one government member from the province of Quebec had the courage to stand up to make his views known -including the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, last night on the national news, I heard the national president of the C.F.U., Mr. Lionel Sorel, state that members of parliament lag behind with regard to the dairy policy. Now, Mr. Sorel, for his information, if he is not intellectually dishonest, must admit that we took our stand on the side of farmers, of dairy producers in this country, and particularly in the province of Quebec.
Here, in the April 5 issue of La Terre de Chez Nous, a farm newspaper, we read:
Under the circumstances, the C.F.U. leaders must come to the conclusion that the members of parliament, particularly those from Quebec, only tried to save their interests so as not to lose face.
And today, Mr. Speaker, we read in La Presse statements by Mr. Sorel and Mr. Harvey, president of the Canadian Farmers Federation. Mr. Sorel says:
The farmers will attack the members of parliament in all ridings to make them aware of the farm problem.
Well, here I want to tell Mr. Sorel and Mr. Harvey: We never needed them to become aware of the problems facing the farmers, because I know those problems personally.
Hon. members, my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste know what those problems are in their respective ridings. We realize

DEBATES	April 18. 1967
that hon. members from Montreal do not understand them at all, because they have never seen a cow being milked, but in the rural ridings, Mr. Speaker, we know the problems of the farmer and when we get the opportunity to move a vote of non-confidence, we will not hesitate a single moment and we are ready to face a general election on the specific problem of agriculture in Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec.
However, as far as the C.F.U. is concerned, we are tired of hearing from people, such as Mr. Lionel Sorel, who have no idea of what is going on in the house. Those people think that a vote of non-confidence can be moved at any time of day. Unable even to understand parliamentary procedure, they start among the farmers rumours to the effect that here, in parliament, we have no feelings, we do not want to assume our responsibilities to the farmers.
There are farmers in my riding of Ville-neuve. There are some also in the next riding of Pontiac-Temiscamingue, and I do not hesitate to take a firm stand for the farmers. But I distrust, for instance, some agricultural leaders of the C.F.U. who attempt to stir up the farmers by making representations which prove to be rather a storm in a tea cup. Let those people be honest with their members, and we, as members of parliament, will be honest with the farmers. And when I say honest with the farmers, I do not mean only honest with Messrs. Sorel or Harvey; it means honest with the farmers, the dairy producers of our country and of our province.
That is the stand taken by the Ralliement Creditiste, and I ask the government to revise its dairy policy; otherwise, one of these days, it will have to face very soon, as soon as possible, a non-confidence motion with regard to the dairy policy implemented at the present time by the Liberal government in Ottawa.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member will be kind enough to forgive me for replying in the only language I have a facility with. Had my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture been here tonight he would have used that happy facility in replying that I do not possess. As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Agriculture is attending the meeting of
April 18. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	15079
Canadian and United Kingdom ministers in London and I have not been able to inquire of him the exact nature of any discussions which he may have had with dairy producers.
I would doubt, however, that he would have implied that if the $120 million allotted to the Canadian Dairy Commission is not fully expended at the $1.21 per hundredweight subsidy rate, any balance would be used to increase the rate of subsidy. The $120 million will permit the payment of the $1.21 subsidy on approximately 99.5 million hundredweight of milk. This also is approximately the quantity on which subsidy was paid to manufacturing milk and cream shippers in the year just ended, and is also approximately the amount required to meet domestic requirements for dairy products.
As has been announced, each shipper will be given a quota for 1967-68, which will be the amount of milk or cream on which he will be eligible to receive subsidy. The quotas will be related to each shipper's deliveries in 1966-67. If the quotas are not fully utilized, which would be the only circumstance under which there would be unexpended funds, I would think it more likely that the residue would be used to make any deserving adjustment in quotas rather than to increase the subsidy rate.
I understand that this, in such an event, would be the procedure which the Canadian Dairy Commission would recommend.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



TRANSPORT-REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT RESPECTING LEVEL CROSSINGS

Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, before entering into the heart of the matter, to explain to my hon. friend from Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) that if we did not ask for an emergency debate this afternoon, it is because we knew that the standing orders did not allow a debate of this kind under such circumstances. The Chair proved that we were right when he rejected the request. So,-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Auguste Choquette: There is no point of order at this time.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Auguste Choquette: There is no point of order at this time.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is it the hon. member for Lotbiniere who will decide whether or not the point of order is well taken?	t
[English]	,


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point of order which can be allowed at this time, but I would suggest to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he should adhere, to the question which he rose to ask and comment upon.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr.) Pickersgill) tonight a question concerning a subject which I have already had the opportunity of raising in other circumstances in ' this house, that of grade crossings.
There is no need for me to repeat what I asked in the past, but I should like to call the attention of the authorities to a problem which is becoming more and more pressing, that of very fast trains, called turbotrains, soon to be put into circulation.
It is extremely important that the govern- ' ment draw up a modern grade crossing policy taking into account the new needs which will arise as a result of the greater chances of accident attending the operation of these very fast turbo-trains.
That is why I believe some short term measures could be taken to meet this situation.
Mr. Speaker, there are things which are difficult to understand in the legislation. First, the contribution coming from the gradecrossing fund amounts to $15 million a year and that, up to a maximum amount of $500,000 for any project.
It is obvious that this is just nonsense, because works to be built at dangerous places- I think of Dorion in particular-would amount to several million dollars, and with a federal contribution of not more than $500,-' 000, it is impossible to initiate such works unless the legislation is amended.
So, a first improvement is required.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is getting more and more urgent to increase the contribution of the grade-crossing fund precisely because of the new requirements due to the operation of new trains.
Money is requested often and everywhere, but this will show certain associations which sometimes make excessive demands, that the
15080	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion administration is extremely difficult, because everyone is always asking for more money.
Another suggestion I would like to put forward is that I believe, Mr. Speaker, if we are to be guided by the reports of the Board of Transport Commissioners, they have absolutely no time to deal properly with requests connected with grade crossings.
For instance, I read in the 1965 report that the Board of Transport Commissioners has received 2,584 requests under various pieces of legislation they administer. They have issued 3,080 orders and two general orders.
It is obvious that the Board of Transport Commissioners is overworked and that applicants sometimes have to suffer from the delays in procedure and the slowness to make decisions. It is not intended to criticize the board, but to deplore a factual situation from which the board itself has to suffer. It is only through amendments to the legislation that we will be able to correct this situation.
As to the safety measures already suggested in the past, namely the installation of rotating lights on the engines or phosphorescent lines on every car, or still convex mirrors, a great many have been suggested in the past. I wonder how intensively they were studied by the Board of Transport Commissioners. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we realize regretfully at this time that the grade-crossing policy is not in accordance with the new modern requirements of very fast trains, that is turbotrains, that will be put in operation.
Therefore, I urge the authorities to act accordingly, so as to provide the public with maximum security.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker,
first I should like to compliment the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for the very forceful representations he made this evening and for the representations which he has made in the past. He has shown a very great concern in respect of this matter and I am sure this is not the last representation he will make to government.
DEBATES	April 18. 1967
As I am sure the hon. member will understand that, at the moment the question of grade separation is one for determination by the department of highways, or its counterpart, under provincial jurisdiction. It is for them to determine where and when a grade separation should be made. Then the federal government pays 80 per cent of the cost of the grade separation up to $500,000. The hon. member has said that $15 million in the fund is not sufficient. I have not heard, however, of any circumstance in which an application has been denied on the basis that there were insufficient funds. They have been denied by the board rather on the question of whether or not the facility so recommended is of sufficient importance to justify the cost.
Usually, of course, the railway company makes its recommendations based on the count at the crossing, and so on. No one of course can guarantee that an automobile accident will not take place; this is one of the hazards of the modern age. Just the other day in my riding a completely inexplicable accident took place on a straight stretch of road between two automobiles driven by responsible people. Seven persons were killed; no one survived. So, accidents do happen on the highways, certainly more frequently than at grade crossings. This is not a suggestion that we should not give this matter urgent consideration, particularly in respect of the high speed train program which is being developed.
There is no question but that high speed turbo trains must operate on a completely protected track. It is unthinkable that there would be a grade crossing where there might be a train travelling at speeds of 100 or 120 miles an hour. Even a bird could cause damage if it were to hit a train travelling at such a speed. A collision with a gasoline truck or a similar obstruction would simply mean that an entire train would be in flames in a moment. There is no question but that this policy must be reviewed and the government is giving it a great deal of consideration. [DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Wednesday, April 19, 1967