1967-04-04

VACANCIES

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Favreau) and the hon. member for Richelieu-Verchdres (Mr. Cardin) written declarations of their intentions to resign their seats in the House of Commons.
Pursuant to section 6 of the House of Commons Act, chapter 143 of the Revised Statutes, 1952, I have directed my warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for an issue of writs for election of new members for the said electoral districts.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to make a personal explanation. Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North raised a question in respect of an alleged statement made by General Allard. He objected to the report attributed to the general criticizing opposition members' motivation in opposing the unification bill. I think it is now clear to all hon. members of the house that General Allard made no such charge. The report which served as the basis for the question raised by the hon. member for Calgary North was an error in translation by the Canadian Press wire service.
In my reply I stated, as recorded at page 14414 of Hansard:
I did not know of the speech hut I have complete confidence in the chief of the defence staff and he is at complete liberty to express himself publicly as he sees fit.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He is not.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should have added, of
course, that I meant within the general's responsibility as chief of the defence staff. If I had risen again on the subject I would have added this clarification and in addition would have suggested that I would prefer to take
the question as notice until I had an opportunity to determine just exactly what the general had said.
I accept the responsibility for the impression that might quite properly be taken from my words. As I indicated, however, I have complete confidence in the general, and consequently he is not obliged to clear his public speeches with me or the associate minister. At the same time I regret very much the harsh words that were spoken in the House of Commons yesterday, because I am sure no member of this house would want to reflect unfairly on the chief of the defence staff, a very gallant and distinguished public servant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, on this same question of privilege I, of course, regret that the Canadian Press dispatch in regard to the statements made by General Allard was incorrect. However, I now have a copy of yesterday's La Presse which gives a different version of what General Allard said, and which has not been denied as being incorrect. I shall not read the report in French. I shall give a translation of it which I have secured.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Some hon. members laugh, so I will read the French and then we will get the translation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It reads:

This week end General Jean V. Allard commander in	chief of	the Canadian	army	has askedhimself if	certain	members of	the	opposition,
"these former ministers", really tell the truth and what they really think when they oppose the unification of the Canadian armed forces.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

The translation which I will give is:
This week end General Jean V. Allard commander in	chief of	the Canadian	army	has askedhimself if	certain	members of	the	opposition,
"these former ministers", really tell the truth and what they really think when they oppose the unification of the Canadian armed forces.
April 4, 1967

Appointment of Governor General
This is not as flagrant as the report we had yesterday, but I submit that in principle it is basically exactly the same sort of thing complained about; that is, an officer of the armed forces, particularly the commander in chief of the armed forces, impugning the motives of members of parliament in respect of the stands they take in this house. Although as I say the statements are not as flagrant as those reported yesterday, the basic principle is the same and I think this is a practice which must be brought to an end.
Yesterday I asked the Acting Prime Minister to take steps. I am glad the Prime Minister is now back and I would ask that he take steps to see that officers in the armed forces do not make statements of this nature which seriously impugn the motives of members of this house, and particularly members of the Privy Council who are ex-ministers.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, also on the question of privilege, I should like to say that I think this statement which has been read out is worse than the one read yesterday. This statement contains a speculation as to whether we are speaking the truth. It is all right for members of the House of Commons to make remarks of that nature, because other members can immediately reply to them and they can be either withdrawn or substantiated. In this particular instance General Allard must substantiate his statement, prepare another apology or provide some explanation as to misquotation. This statement which now appears in the language which he apparently used in the course of his address is one which I consider to be worse than the statement which appeared in the press yesterday.
I hope the Minister of National Defence, with regard to General Allard will exercise the right he has in respect of any officer in the forces and the right that he intended to exercise against Admiral Landymore, whom he accused of making statements which he was not authorized to make. Why must there be a special protection for General Allard? Admiral Landymore was threatened with court martial proceedings. I think it is quite contrary to the custom and practice within the services for the minister to get up and say that General Allard is entitled to make any statement he wishes. Let the minister or the Prime Minister take some action to discipline a person who makes these attacks on members of this House of Commons and makes accusations that they are not telling the truth. This, sir, is what I object to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has approved my recommendation that Honourable Roland Michener be appointed as Governor General of Canada.
Mr. Michener needs no commendation to this house. We remember well his distinguished service as our respected and esteemed Speaker from 1957 to 1962. He was born in Lacombe, Alberta, the son of Senator and Mrs. Edward Michener. He graduated from the University of Alberta in 1920 and proceeded as a Rhodes scholar to Oxford University, where he studied law and obtained the B.A. and B.C.L. degrees. He was called to the bar of England in 1923 and to the Ontario bar in 1924.
Mr. Michener's whole life has been one of public service and in many capacities; in the R.A.F. during the first world war; as a member of the Ontario legislature; as secretary of that province; as a member of this house, and its esteemed and respected Speaker, and as high commissioner for Canada to India and ambassador to Nepal. His dedication to and interest in public service are shared by his wife, who will be of great and experienced assistance to her husband in carrying out his new duties.
The government has been deeply aware of the responsibility placed upon it in recommending to the Queen as her personal representative in Canada a successor to the late and beloved General Vanier, whose services to Canada will never be forgotten and whose passing we lament so much.
The position of governor general has been filled with great distinction during the 100 years of our history by 19 outstanding men, each of whom brought to the office some special quality and all of whom served Canada well. The standards that have been set in the past have been magnificently maintained by the last two Canadian governors general.
We will all, I know, be particularly appreciative of the willingness of Mr. and Mrs. Michener to assume such onerous responsibilities on short notice, in the full knowledge that in the next few months they will be faced with an extremely heavy program of duties in relation to our centennial celebrations.
April 4. 1967

I am sure the parliament and people of Canada will join me in extending to the new Governor General warmest wishes for success and happiness in the high office to which he is being called.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the appointment has not been unexpected. For the past four months it has been very clear from press references that Mr. Michener would be appointed. The appointment will receive widespread approval.
The Prime Minister has referred to the services of successive governors general. At no time in our history has the position of governor general been of more importance than it will in the next few years. Few realize the importance of the office. Many regard it as a sinecure consisting largely of ceremonial duties without constitutional significance. That view, widely held, is not based on experience.
During the time when I was prime minister there were two governors general, Right Hon. Vincent Massey and Right Hon. Georges P. Vanier. During the terms of both in respect for the traditional role of the governor general they were fully consulted as the representative of the Queen has a right to be. He also has the duty to give an opinion to the Prime Minister with regard to those things he believes necessary for Canada.
There are too many who hold the view that the position is obsolete or about to become out of date. Certain press references recently have suggested that Mr. Michener may well be the last governor general of Canada. Believing as I do in the monarchical system of parliamentary government, I see Canada in the second century preserving the form of government we have today.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Indeed, the governor
general not only is the representative of the crown but the symbol of the crown in parliament. He is the linch pin of our whole system of British parliamentary democracy. Beyond his constitutional responsibilities the governor general can wield an immense power and influence for national good and unity, as a rallying point for all Canadians. He can be a stabilizing influence in times of ferment and discord within our country.	.
When I say these things I am simply outlining the manner in which the late General Georges P. Vanier carried out his duties. I did

Appointment of Governor General not have an opportunity of saying this at the time of his passing, and I may be pardoned now for the observation I am about to make, that he in his person did more than anyone living to bring about a new concept of unity within our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was a measure of, his dedication. The Prime Minister referred to the fact that when a country can mobilize people like this to serve, it is well for democracy. I recall so well the circumstances under which General Vanier was approached by me at the University of Montreal during the course of a visit to that city. It was only after earnest solicitation that he accepted the post.
To the new Governor General and his wife I wish the continuation of those high standards set by Right Hon. Georges P. Vanier and Right Hon. Vincent Massey.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be general approval of the appointment by Her Majesty of Mr. Roland Michener as the new Governor General of Canada. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on having made this recommendation. This will be a very arduous year for a governor general in view of the heavy program that has been outlined. I have not any doubt at all that Mr. and Mrs. Michener will bring to their high office the dignity and friendliness which are so essential if they are to discharge their duties acceptably.
I think there is much to be said for having a head of state who is outside of and beyond partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe that has been the value of having a governor general and a personal representative of the crown as the head of state in Canada. We have been singularly fortunate in Canada in the governors general we have had over the years, certainly in my lifetime, but I think we can be pardoned for saying that we are especially proud of the Canadians who have occupied that high office. In Mr. Vincent Massey, an English speaking Canadian, and Georges P. Vanier, a French speaking Canadian, we have had two of the finest and most distinguished men to hold this office.
While Mr. Roland Michener follows a most outstanding succession, I have no doubt at all that with his record in the past of getting along with people he will also bring lustre to the office to which he is to be appointed.

April 4, 1987
Changes in Cabinet
I am sure members of all parties in the house will want to say that in so far as we as members of parliament are concerned, we will do everything we can to make his task easier and to make his occupancy of that office an outstanding success.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of Hon. Roland Michener to the high office of Governor General of Canada does not surprise anyone as his name has been mentioned repeatedly of late.
I do not have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Michener personally but I heard many speak very highly of him. When he was politically active although I may not have shared his views, Mr. Michener has always been considered impartial, and as a Canadian who wanted above all else harmony in this land. His appointment to the high office of Governor General of Canada will doubtless please the whole nation.
Mr. Speaker, there will be some in certain areas of the country, and more particularly in the province of Quebec, who will naturally claim that this appointment constitutes a vestige of colonialism. I do not share that view in the least.
If we consider what the late General Vanier meant for the whole of Canada, we have to recognize that a governor general may fulfil a most important role in the whole of Canada since he is above partisan politics, above the political parties, the Governor General may-as the new incumbent will-consider the various elements which make up this country and try to hold the pieces together. From that viewpoint, the governor general does not constitute a trace of colonialism but a symbol of unity and understanding, in one word, the symbol of co-operation and respect by the various elements that make up our Canadian nation.
With all my heart, I wish the Governor General and Mrs. Michener long life. I wish them also every happiness in the discharge of their functions which will enable every Canadian to admire them and witness all the good they are in a position to accomplish for the future of the country and the elements that constitute Canada.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we join with others in welcoming the announcement just made by the Prime Minister. Canada has been blessed with a
succession of able and distinguished governors general, and following the death of the late General Georges P. Vanier, Canadians have wondered who would be chosen to fill this very important position. Among those suggested as possible successors was Hon. Roland Michener, Canadian high commissioner to India and former Speaker of this house.
Mr. Michener is remembered, I am sure, for his kindliness, his impartiality and his sense of justice. He served with distinction in the office to which he was elected by this house. His service as high commissioner to India has been characterized by a quiet and effective discharge of his responsibilities as the representative of Canada in that country. Now as Hon. Mr. Michener becomes Governor General I am sure Canadians will extend to him and to Mrs. Michener the same pledge of loyalty and affection they have always given to those who have served as the personal representatives of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon.
member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) wants to rise on the same subject he can only do so with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much that there is not unanimity.



THE MINISTRY


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce certain changes in the administration. His Excellency the Administrator has accepted the resignation of Lucien Cardin as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and the resignation of Hon. Guy Favreau as President of the Privy Council and Registrar General of Canada.
To these old and true friends I should like to express my deep gratitude for their unselfish and devoted service to the country through their service to the government since it was formed in April, 1963. Mr. Cardin served as associate minister of national defence and as minister of justice. Mr. Favreau served as minister of citizenship and

April 4, 1967

immigration, as minister of justice, as president of the privy council and as house leader. On his retirement from the cabinet Mr. Favreau has been appointed a puisne judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec. I have benefited greatly from their wise counsel, and I greatly value their friendship. To both I should like to express my sincere thanks and warmest good wishes for the future.
On my recommendation the Administrator has agreed to the appointment of Hon. Walter Gordon as President of the Privy Council, and Hon. John Turner as Registrar General of Canada. His Excellency has agreed to the appointment of two members of this house as privy councillors and members of the cabinet; the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), who has been parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, and the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau), who has served as my parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Mount Royal will assume the office of Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche will serve as a member of the administration without portfolio.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I wish to table an exchange of notes between the government of Canada and the government of the Socialist Republic of Roumania concerning the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the house is aware the Prime Minister undertook in response to a suggestion by Hon. Daniel Johnson to arrange, if other provinces were in agreement, for a preliminary conference of the ministers concerned to plan and initiate preparations for a federal-provincial conference on the whole
Dominion-Provincial Relations question of financial institutions and securities legislation. The exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Hon. Daniel Johnson on this subject was tabled in the house on February 13.
While it has not been easy to arrange a date which is suitable to all concerned, I expect that April 10 will be acceptable for the preliminary meeting of ministers in Ottawa, to be followed the next day by a federal-provincial meeting of officials. The purpose of these initial meetings is to identify, consider in a preliminary way, and initiate preparatory work for a future federal-provincial conference regarding financial institutions and securities and the various measures that could be taken by both levels of government to solve problems in these fields. The Canadian government will be represented by the Registrar General, the new Minister without Portfolio and myself.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In
so far as the announcement concerning this conference of provincial ministers of finance is concerned, of course it was forecast during the debate on the deposit insurance legislation. This debate indicated that at one time there was somehow what would appear to be an unfortunate lack of liaison with regard to this question of deposit insurance, as well as something which has been advocated in many quarters of the house, uniform securities legislation to protect the Canadian public from certain unsavory practices that have cropped up in the handling of securities in this country.
I hope this will be a fruitful conference, and one in which the undoubted authority of the federal government will be established once and for all without bringing into the field of banking any extension of the power of veto which has been unfortunately introduced as a result of certain provisions of the deposit insurance legislation act. We will hope, as soon as possible, to have a meaningful report from the ministers concerned. We hope discussions can be held by the minister and his associates in the cabinet with the house committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, because we are vitally interested in establishing this position thereby putting the regulation of our financial institutions on a proper basis. In so saying I do not believe our financial institutions are to be necessarily better if they are to be surrounded by a multitude of regulations.

April 4, 1967
Labour Relations FINANCE


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled today copies in English and in French of a report by the Tariff Board on reference 135, relating to cotton yarns and rovings for use in the manufacture of certain products including cotton sewing thread. I have tabled also a transcript of the evidence before the board at its public hearings.
I assure the house that the board's recommendations will be considered carefully by the government. Interested parties who wish to comment on this report should do so as soon as possible.



AIR CANADA


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the leave of the house I should like to move a certain motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to make this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That the capital budget of Air Canada for the year ending December 31, 1967, tabled March 3, 1967, the annual report of Air Canada for 1966 and the annual report to parliament for 1966 in respect of Air Canada, both tabled on March 7, 1967, be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house will recall that following the resumption, in December last, of work on the ships and docks in west coast ports and as one of the agreed terms leading to the return to work, I appointed Mr. Justice C. Rhodes Smith of the court of appeal of Manitoba an industrial inquiry commission under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to inquire into the work stoppage and make recommendations for the avoidance of similar situations. The commission has now reported.
I should like to ask permission of the house to table the commission's report today in

English. French copies will be available when the translation now under way is completed. The report is very lengthy, running to well over 100 pages, and this accounts for the fact that the French translation is not yet available. The commission conducted an intensive investigation into the causes of the dispute. I do not intend to comment on the findings and recommendations, but I do commend them for earnest consideration by the parties and all those who have the welfare of Vancouver and our other western Canadian ports at heart.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I should like, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government to express sincere thanks to Mr. Justice Smith for his work, and to pay tribute to his work in this very difficult situation. I would also thank and express appreciation for the work of the two assessors, who were appointed to assist him, Captain H. J. C. Terry of Vancouver, and Mr. Joseph Morris of Ottawa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SUPREME COURT ACT


David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-286, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that all judgments of the Supreme Court are written in English only, the purpose of the bill is to request the Supreme Court to present its judgments in French, in exactly the same way as it does in English.
[English1
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE INQUIRY AS TO ACTION PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, Mr. Speaker. And the answer to the preface to that question is that this is not an interpretation. I made a statement based upon information given by the governments concerned.']
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would advise the house of the nature of the reply given to Mr. Justice Landreville's request for an opportunity to
April 4, 1967

present his case before the House of Commons. This was done in the United Kingdom in 1828. Is the Prime Minister going to give the judge this opportunity? When will the government bring in the measure which will bring this situation to termination?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when I read the letter from Justice Landreville to which my right hon. friend refers I acknowledged it at once, and then referred it to the legal advisers to the crown for an opinion on the request that had been made. I received that opinion this morning. I will be studying it with my colleagues, and I hope to be able to make a statement as soon as that study is completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister giving consideration to the suggestion of Mr. Justice Landreville?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am studying the reply of the Department of Justice to my request for information as to precedents and as to the proper course which should be followed in a matter of this kind. Until that study is completed I am unable to answer my right hon. friend's question.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has had an opportunity to study the text of the proposal of Secretary General U Thant with respect to his declaration that there should be a unilateral cease fire by the United States in Viet Nam, under which United States forces would not fire unless fired upon. In view of the fact that the Secretary General has indicated that he may make a proposal for a specific date, or ask governments affiliated with the United Nations to make such a proposal, is Canada prepared to support this suggestion by the Secretary General?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we read with great interest the report of the Secretary General's statement, and we have been in touch with the Secretary General for clarification of that statement, which has certainly been ambiguously reported in certain quarters. As soon as we get that clarification we will be able to make a reply to the Secretary General.
Inquiries of the Ministry
His last proposal is apparently along the lines indicated by my hon. friend, that there should be a unilateral cease fire on the part of the United States. But there is apparently the exception which has been referred to, that this would not apply to returning fire that had been aimed at United States forces, and this might make for a very inadequate cease fire. This is the kind of clarification we are trying to obtain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he was correctly reported to the effect that the suggestion by U Thant, referred to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, was unrealistic. Is that what he meant in the concluding words of the answer he has just given?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The first report of the statement I saw was to the effect that without qualification or reservation of any kind there should be a unilateral cease fire on the part of United States forces. This seemed to me to be a cease fire on one side while the other side kept firing, not a very practicable suggestion. If there is a qualification to the effect that a cease fire should be maintained except against those forces that are continuing to fire, that is another matter and we are giving consideration to it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister, since he has looked at the text, whether that text does not include the words "only to fire if fired upon", and would that not answer the question that has been posed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was not in the
report that I saw initially. In any event I think those words should be clarified before a decision can be reached.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the tremendous urgency in this matter, and the danger of escalation, would the secretary of state discuss with the chairman of our committee on external affairs an early meeting of the committee, at which time the committee could go into this very urgent matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already done that, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that the meeting is to be called on Tuesday next.

April 4, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF REPRESENTATION IN PACIFIC AREA
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that Canadian diplomatic representation in eastern Europe has been increased I should like to ask whether the government is giving consideration to increasing its representation in the Pacific region. I could name some of the countries where we are not represented, or where our representation is shared. This is a region where Canadian trade interests are of great and increasing importance. I am sure that Canadians, particularly in the western provinces, would like to know whether efforts will be made to increase our representation in that area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question of a very general nature; it does not appear to me to be of extreme urgency.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister advise the house whether Canada was apprised beforehand of the agreement apparently reached among the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and West Germany with regard to a serious reduction of forces in West Germany by both the United States and Britain? If so, what is the attitude of the Canadian government toward this agreement? Has Canada signified any intention to follow a similar course in the future?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: I had discussions last week with representatives of the British government and of the United States government. There is no basis for that story. I am sure the discussions which are taking place between the governments of Germany and the United States and between the government of Britain and the other two governments will result in arrangements which will not warrant the conclusion the hon. member has drawn.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This may be the interpretation the minister places on it, but it is certainly not the interpretation which is placed on it in other quarters.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is not an interpretation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In any event I will ask the minister whether consideration is being given by the Canadian government to the withdrawal of dependants from Europe as has been done, in fact, by the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker. And the answer to the preface to that question is that this is not an interpretation. I made a statement based upon information given by the governments concerned.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he condones the statement attributed to General Allard by the newspaper La Presse, a statement which impugns the honesty and motives of certain privy councillors who are members of this chamber. If he does not condone those statements, what disciplinary action does the right hon. gentleman propose to take to ensure that there will be no recurrence of this sort of thing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: One of the statements attributed to General Allard has already been corrected by the Canadian Press which was the origin of the original report, and I think I should be very careful about commenting on other statements attributed to him until there is an opportunity to test the accuracy of the reports of those statements also.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of many representations made during the Easter recess by the
O.F.A. and the O.F.U. on the subject of the hon. gentleman's recent dairy policy announcement, will the minister say whether he is now prepared to amend that policy?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: The policy as announced remains the policy. I have heard many comments on it, many of them favourable, I am pleased to inform the hon. member.
April 4, 1967


John George Diefenbaker: You must have been out of Canada.


John James Greene: I am seeing representatives of the farm organizations with respect to this policy.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: When is the minister going to give complete details of the dairy policy for 1967-68?


John James Greene: I believe the statement made in the house speaks for itself. It is the entire statement, subject of course, to any action which the national dairy commission may take.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister soon be in a position to issue statements with the cheques which go out to individual farmers under the dairy policy?


John James Greene: I am hopeful that very shortly statements will be included on the stubs of the cheques to indicate to the farmers the nature of the payment and quantity of milk involved.



FINANCE


[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 Finance. In view of the commitment made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) on April 26, 1965, when he was minister of finance, confirmed on March 29, 1966 by the present Minister of Finance, that a recommendation from the special committee on drug costs and prices for the removal of the sales tax from drugs would be followed by legislation to that effect, may I ask when we may expect this legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have studied the report of the special committee on drugs. I have also reviewed the statement I made at the time of my main budget last year, and I can assure the hon. member that it would be the intention of the government to proceed to remove the sales tax on drugs as part of an over-all effort to reduce the price of drugs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we expect such legislation in the present session?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot speak for the government. Certainly if it is possible to take meaningful action with respect to the general subject of the price of drugs I hope it will be possible to do something about the tax.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Is it
the intention of the Minister of Finance and the government to remove the sales tax on building supplies at the same time?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Inasmuch as the government is keeping within its budget, will the minister reinstate the workers who have been laid off in connection with the Louisbourg project?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The hon.
member and I had a conversation about this in the house last night after ten o'clock during which I think we said everything on this subject which was worthwhile. We shall reinstate these men as soon as they can do work outdoors.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: It is
because of the statement made last night that I wish now, on a question of privilege, to draw the minister's attention to what he has said and give notice that I will raise this matter for further debate at ten o'clock. I refer the minister to his answer-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member state his question of privilege?


Donald MacInnis: My
question of privilege involves the ambiguous answers we have received from ministers of this government and my endeavour to obtain satisfactory answers to questions I have directed to the hon. gentleman. I would draw the minister's attention in particular to the words he used as reported in Hansard at page 14471 in the first column, where he said the money had been exhausted. Just across the page, only a few hundred words later, he said "We are keeping relatively within our costs..." In view of conditions in Cape

April 4. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Breton at the present time and the answer the minister gave me yesterday in the house to the effect that there had been no change in policy, I ask this government whether on my representations, or on the representations of my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria or else on the representations of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, they will not do something for these men, and never mind this nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the resignations within the Liberal party are weakening the government's position, is the Prime Minister considering calling a general election next June?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will be relieved to know that the answer is in the negative.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in order to promote a spirit of national unity during our centennial year, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to reply officially and without delay to the statements made recently by the hon. member for York-Hurnber (Mr. Cowan) concerning bilingualism in Canada?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether it is true that the Liberal Women's Association is threatening to withdraw from the party if the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) keeps on making stupid and irresponsible statements with respect to French Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question contains allegations and is, therefore, out of order.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Branlford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Vet-
erans Affairs. Would the minister advise the house whether consideration is being given to increasing the pension rate for dependants receiving veterans disability allowances?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I have answered similar questions on a number of occasions in the past. The entire matter is under study, as I have indicated, and in due course a statement will be made after conclusions have been reached.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of great urgency for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister able to inform the house as to the decision regarding the request for a price of $2.10 per barrel for surplus potatoes submitted on behalf of the potato growers of New Brunswick by the government of our province?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the government's emergency program for the relief of the potato growers, whose plight was caused by excess production last year, was announced prior to the recess and provides for a percentage payment of 65 per cent of the ten year average price of potatoes, which does not amount to $2.10.


Hugh John Flemming: As a supplementary question, is the recent request of the government of our province for a somewhat improved program receiving consideration?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we have received such a request for an improved program and it is receiving consideration, but no change has been made to date in the program as announced.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: As a supplementary question, has the minister had a communication in the last day or so from either the government of Prince Edward Island or the legislature expressing their dissatisfaction with the program as announced previously by the minister?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any specific communication from Prince Edward Island in this regard but I shall be glad to take notice of the hon. gentleman's question and check to see if there is such a communication.
April 4, 1967



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry DIVORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I understand that the seven nation nuclear planning group of NATO is meeting in Washington later this week and according to United States Secretary of Defence McNamara will be discussing the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system. Will Canada be participating in these discussions with respect to the installation of such a system for North America?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the discussions will cover a wide range of problems affecting the alliance, including all aspects of the application of nuclear power and the effects of the use of such weapons systems. I imagine this will cover the whole alliance but not specifically the Canadian aspects. Any possible Canadian aspects would, I think, be discussed bilaterally between ourselves and the United States.


Francis Andrew Brewin: As a supplementary question, would the minister be able on some appropriate occasion to make a statement on the policy of the government in regard to the installation in Canadian territory of such a system [DOT]or part of such a system?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the hon. gentleman and I think all hon. members an assurance that there will be a discussion in the house on this subject before any plans are finalized that would involve Canada. I think this is a reasonable assurance because it is a very important area of development.
Frankly, I hope the negotiations between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be successful and that they will agree mutually not to deploy these weapons systems. I think this would be a good place to end the arms race and put the money to more productive uses. However, in the event that this should not be possible and the negotiations become fruitless, we shall have to discuss the technical details carefully, and that would be the time for debate in the House of Commons.
On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to the introduction of legislation to provide for an extension of the grounds for divorce? At present divorces are only granted upon the grounds of adultery. Is the government considering legislation to cover the ground now recognized in British law in legislation passed at Westminster?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government is considering and will be considering recommendations of parliamentary committees on this and other matters with a view to taking appropriate legislative action.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Bumaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister to clarify the statement he made in Vancouver in this connection over the week end. He referred to legislation concerning birth control and divorce reform. Did the Prime Minister mean it would be presented in the spring session of parliament or not until the fall?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be difficult to introduce legislation on a subject of this importance before the autumn because of the existing calendar year, among other things.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on the brief presented to the government by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which in part urged that a careful study be made of the effect on the Canadian auto industry and its employees as the result of the Canada-United States auto agreement. In view of this would the Prime Minister now consider my suggestion that the Canada-United States auto agreement be referred to a standing committee of the house so that a careful examination could be made of it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has based his

April 4, 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry question on the brief of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which I received myself only this morning, and I would like to study the particular part relating to what my hon. friend has said before replying in the house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington-South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for housing. In view of the existing critical housing situation is the minister giving consideration to increasing the $10,000 loan ceiling applicable to the purchase of existing houses?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Further to my question, Mr. Speaker; in view of the fact that only 71 loans have been approved since this program was put into operation some time ago, does the minister not feel that serious consideration should be given to extending-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would want to be accurate. This legislation was introduced last November.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforfh):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's interesting speech out west dealing with new initiatives in the field of housing to meet the present crisis, has the government decided upon such initiatives and what is the nature of them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are considering them now, and I hope the minister responsible will be able before long to make a statement in the house.



REPORTED ADVANCE BY CORPORATION TO YORK TRUST CO.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a question that was put by the right hon. 
Leader of the Opposition on March 22, as recorded at page 14,331 of Hansard, when he inquired about certain advances made by C.M.H.C. to the York Trust and Savings Company during the year 1965. I might say that as a matter of policy C.M.H.C. does not provide information about particular loan transactions. Borrowers, however, are themselves free to volunteer whatever information they see fit, and in this particular instance York Trust and Savings Company did indicate in its annual report for 1966 that it had made use of section 11 of the National Housing Act during the previous year and that it was able to reduce its indebtedness to the corporation from $20 million to $5.2 million.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, would the minister say that this type of transaction is a common one or were the Sinclair Stevens' interests placed in an unusually favourable position in the matter of that $20 million?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, section 11 of the National Housing Act provides for short term credits of this nature. The purpose of the section is to encourage banks, insurance companies, trust companies and other lending institutions to invest money in existing mortgages and to promote the development of secondary mortgages under the National Housing Act.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
WAR CRIMINALS On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and I do so at the request of a number of persons who are quite concerned about this matter. In view of the statement made on the C.B.C. on April 1 by Mr. Simon Wiesenthal that Canada is harbouring at least 15 nazi war criminals and that he advised the Canadian government of this fact some time ago, has the minister been advised by Mr. Simon Wiesenthal of these war criminals being in Canada and, if so, what action does the minister intend to take on this information?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the question is one of urgency to the extent that it should be asked at this time. I suggest it should be placed on the order paper.
April 4, 1967



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mariial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the new Minister of Justice and, at the same time, I should like-


An hon. Member:: He has not been sworn in yet.


Martial Asselin: I am still going to ask my question, Mr. Speaker, and he might answer it later.
Is it the intention of the new Minister of Justice to send observers of his department to attend the sittings of the royal commission on crime established by the Quebec government?
I think that the minister might take this question as notice and answer it later on.



QUEBEC-POSSIBLE SALE OR LEASE OF ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could he tell the house whether all branches of the departments concerned have now made their views known concerning the possibility of selling or renting Quebec city grain elevators?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid those discussions have not concluded yet, sir, but I hope they will soon.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister agree to the tabling of any correspondence between the provinces and the minister or his department about Bill No. C-278, respecting the occupational training of adults, before this bill proceeds to a further stage in the House of Commons?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection if the interested provinces have no objection. If the hon. member wishes to identify the correspondence he would like to have tabled I could get in touch with the provinces and if they have no objection I will be glad to table it.


Mr. Fairweather:: Thank you.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I understand the hon. gentleman is now ready to answer questions which were asked earlier by the hon. member for Pictou and myself regarding the future of the hydrofoil program.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the fire which occurred in the ship on November 5, 1966, a thorough review has been made of the entire program and it has been decided to seek Treasury Board approval for continuation of the hydrofoil project. Ship launching is now scheduled for mid-1968. Following contractor's sea trials, weapons system installation and over-all system evaluation, it is hoped to complete the project by mid-1970.
I should emphasize, however, that this is a development program. It is being completed as part of an over-all desire to increase our scientific knowledge in a number of areas of interest to Canada and our allies.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In so doing I should like to express our gratitude for his visit to Vancouver recently and, since he looks so relaxed now, to suggest that it might be a good place for him to retire.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You mean a good time.
April 4. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent visit of the Prime Minister to Vancouver, his tour of the harbour and his telephone conversation with the premier of British Columbia, may we be informed concerning whether he anticipates appointing a cabinet colleague to meet with provincial and municipal authorities on the matter of a new bridge or tunnel crossing the north arm of Vancouver harbour?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my conversation with the premier of British Columbia and representatives of municipalities, which I found to be a very helpful one, visualized the initiative being taken in respect of these discussions by the government which has the initial responsibility in this matter; that is, the government of British Columbia. I emphasized to the premier of that province that if and when he would initiate these discussions a minister would go to Vancouver immediately. He suggested that perhaps the initiative should come from the mayor of the city of Vancouver. My reaction to that was that it should come either from the mayor or the premier and that it should come quickly. I said at that time we would send a minister to work out the details so that all levels of government would know exactly what was happening and what part of the cost they should bear.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in the land of the daffodils over the week end did he discuss with the premier or other officials certain plans for access to the Vancouver international airport over the Fraser river?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but at the moment we have been in touch with the minister concerned, the minister of highways, and have asked certain questions arising out of the discussions we have already had. Until those questions are answered it is difficult for us to state exactly the extent of our commitment in this regard. The situation is that the federal government has a certain commitment concerning the axis road and when we receive the information requested we will be able to make progress.



CO-OPERATIVES INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of recent representations, is it the intention of the government to proceed with legislation at the next session to provide for incorporation of co-operatives at the federal level?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will not be possible this session, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend will await the speech from the throne he will then be able to see the proposals for legislation which we hope to be able to put forward during the next session. Perhaps I should add that there will be no delay between the one session and the other.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and he may wish to take it as notice so he can consult with his colleague the Secretary of State. Is it his intention or the intention of the government to ask the committee of supply for approval of supplement F to the 1966-67 estimates?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which will be considered by the government depending on how legislation before the house is proceeded with. I should like to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State and my other cabinet colleagues before stating what the policy will be.



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF REPORT OF AUDITOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.']
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it is the intention of the government to refer the Auditor General's report for 1966 to the committee on public accounts.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be
April 4, 1967

useful to do this very early in the new session. I say this with the belief that this session will not last very long. I believe this would be better than referring it to a committee now and then having to refer it to another committee. If this session should be prolonged I would have no objection to referring the report.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister take parliament and the Canadian people into the government's confidence and have the Secretary of State for External Affairs report to parliament on the changing posture of Canada in respect of defence and external affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Now that unemployment insurance is compulsory for farm labour, can the minister give assurance that penalties for failure to obtain insurance stamps will not be imposed for a reasonable period while farm operators and employees reach a full understanding of their responsibilities under the new plan?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, fortunately or unfortunately the Minister of Labour cannot give an assurance with regard to the administration of a federal statute. The responsibility for carrying out the program under this act rests with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This responsibility has been delegated to it by parliament. All I can say is that in respect of the new legislation I am quite sure the commission will be reasonable and judge each case on its merits.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-SYMPATHY FOR VICTIMS OF MINE DISASTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege
Inquiries of the Ministry and express my sympathy to the miners and their families who suffered during the recent mining disaster at Natal in the province of British Columbia. May I ask the Prime Minister whether steps are being taken by the government to provide some aid in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house want to associate themselves with the expression of regret that has just been made. The government has already sent a telegram to those who have suffered. I have personally sent one as well. I join with the hon. member in placing on the record our feeling of sorrow and regret regarding this very tragic accident. It is our hope that the nine miners who have been taken to hospital suffering from serious injuries received in the disaster will soon recover. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the suggestion is under consideration. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport is on the spot and will be reporting to me within a day or two.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and I had similar thoughts in our minds. I intended to refer to the same matter and direct my question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in order to obtain their comment.
I am sure this tragedy brings a realization to all of us of the dangers faced by the men engaged in this type of work. Having worked in a coal mine and having been fortunate enough to survive an explosion, I realize something of what these men have gone through. I appreciate the remarks of the Prime Minister.



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE INQUIRY AS TO PROCLAMATION AND PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister say whether the Canada Labour (Safety) Code, which was assented to on December 21, 1966, has been proclaimed and have the regulations under that act been promulgated?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I recall that considerable progress has been made with the regulations.
14482	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment That was my information at the time of my last inquiry before the Easter recess. I will take the question as notice and advise the hon. member at an early date.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 3, 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, please. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 was under discussion.
On clause 2-Canadian forces, Canadian armed forces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to confine my remarks to the proposal contained in this bill regarding a single unified force, but since the long speech made by the minister yesterday contained so many misstatements and so much propaganda X feel it incumbent upon me to comment and set the record straight.
At the outset let me express my disappointment in the minister who has continued to create confusion in respect of integration and unification. Many of the difficulties we have experienced so far as this bill and the whole question of unification are concerned have occurred because the great majority of interested people in this country have been unable to distinguish between integration and unification as a result of the minister's use of these terms as being synonymous. Yesterday the minister said in effect that one might call this proposal integration or unification and that any discussion in regard to differences was merely an exercise in semantics. It is my belief that if members of this house and the general public had been clear two or three years ago as to the differences between integration and unification there would have been a great deal less confusion and we might have proceeded in a much more orderly way.
Let me once more state the differences between these two terms. Unification as we find it referred to in this bill and during the meetings of the committee in recent weeks means the formation of a single unified force by the abolition of the navy, army and air force. Integration, on the other hand, means putting together in a single administrative service, those aspects relating to paymasters,

DEBATES	April 4. 1967
vehicle maintenance, the supply of food and all other administrative functions. The two things are quite different.
Anyone in Canada who has studied this whole matter is generally in favour of the principle of integration, although many complaints have been made in respect of the manner in which integration has been implemented by the present government. Generally there has been agreement in respect of the principle of combining administrative services. Most of our complaints and differences of opinion can be related to unification and the abolition of the army, navy and air force. As I say, if this matter had been made clear it could have been looked at by the general public in a much better light.
During the course of the minister's speech he stated that logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that integration must result in unification. Let me say to him what has been said to other ministers in the past, that if one starts with false premises and information he will inevitably arrive at false conclusions. That is exactly what the minister has done.
I should now like to refer to specific statements made by the minister during his speech yesterday. At that time the minister stated: Every opportunity has been afforded those who are opposed to this concept to make their views known.
That statement is completely incorrect. During meetings of the committee we asked that a considerable number of witnesses be called, many of whom have not yet been heard. As most members realize, several meetings of the committee were entirely taken up by arguments on whether or not more witnesses should be called. This was the result of motions by Liberal members of the committee that no more witnesses be called and that we wind up the hearings of the committee. The members of this party argued during the course of two or three meetings that we should call additional witnesses, particularly the former chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Miller. Eventually we did secure four more witnesses, but to state that every person who was opposed to this concept and wanted to make his views known had an opportunity to do so is completely false and incorrect. A considerable number of people who asked to appear before the committee never did appear because they were given no opportunity to do so and, as I say, the Liberal members of the committee tried to cut the hearings off even before we had heard the last four witnesses.
April 4, 1967

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The next point upon which I should like to comment concerns the minister's remarks as reported at page 14430 of Hansard for yesterday. He said, dealing with some of the strategic considerations and so on involved in this question:
All the while that these two matters were being attended to, preparations were in hand for the writing of a long range defence plan for Canada. Study groups were set up which included representatives of the navy, army, air force, the deputy minister's staff and the Defence Research Board.
The minister went on to say that these studies covered a wide range of activities and he specified them. I think the only reason the minister put this in his speech was to try to give the impression that the reports which were prepared by the staffs supported his views in regard to unification. All the senior, retired officers who appeared before the defence committee did not support the minister's views. Not a single one-I repeat, not a single one-of those senior officers who are no longer members of the defence staff supported the minister's views on unification. Some of them said that unification was complete nonsense and they would not have anything to do with it. Others said that it might be all right in the course of time but certainly it should not be tried for a period of three to five years. In view of the fact that the senior officers who are now free to speak have all opposed the minister's ideas with regard to unification, it seems to me he is trying to fall back on these anonymous reports.
I should like to ask the minister-in fact I challenge him-to file these reports in the house so we can see what they do say. I have heard something of these reports. There was one produced by a very brilliant gentleman, now deceased, Mr. Sutherland. I have heard about two or three others that were produced. I have also heard that not a single one of those reports supported the minister's ideas on unification. They supported his ideas on integration. They laid out the advantages of integration, how it could be proceeded with and so on, but not one of them, if my information is correct, supported the minister's ideas on unification. Once more I challenge the minister to table these reports and let us see what they contain.
Following that the minister gave a general strategic appreciation. I do not disagree with this appreciation. In fact I have frequently spoken in much the same way and along the same lines both when I was minister of national defence and since. I think that part of
National Defence Act Amendment the speech was perfectly all right, although it had absolutely nothing to do with unification. It was a general strategic appreciation and from that point of view was all right. However, I disagree completely with the statements which follow with regard to improving the flexibility of our forces by the changes proposed by the minister, that is, by putting into effect the unification of the forces. In my view, and this view was also the view of some of the competent witnesses who appeared before the committee, rather than improving the flexibility of the Canadian forces by these means we will considerably decrease their flexibility and make them less able, particularly from any combat point of view, to carry out the roles and activities which may be demanded of them.
The next matter upon which I should like to comment is dealt with at page 14431 of Hansard. The minister's statement reads as follows:
First of all-
The minister is talking about how much things were improved after he became minister.
-we reversed the policy of 1959, that the Canadian army in so far as new equipment was concerned would only be equipped to training scale for the three-quarters of the army in Canada and to full equipment for the brigade group overseas. I know that my hon. friend from Calgary North has questioned this, but I have the policy before me. It was established in 1959. The formal decision was taken and it applied to over-all equipment purchases. Therefore the policy then in effect, which meant that only one-quarter of the Canadian army would be equipped and available to fight overseas, was reversed.
That is a piece of complete nonsense. The minister raised this matter in the committee and in the committee, of course, unlike here, I had the opportunity to cross-question him. I should like to go over the evidence given in the committee with regard to that point to show how completely wrong is this statement which the minister continues to make in spite of the fact that it has been disproved, namely, that the Canadian army during the period I was minister was equipped to only three quarters of its scale and that there was a policy that that was the extent to which it would be equipped.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I had never heard of any such policy until the minister raised it in the committee. That was the first time I had heard of such a policy. I can assure the house that when I was minister of national defence
14494	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment there was no such policy; as a matter of fact, the army was equipped to full war scale.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was not, during the time you were minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister can mutter away as much as he likes, but I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee what the actual situation was, not what this Minister of National Defence thinks it was. During the period I was in charge of the department and responsible for its policies, I say categorically that I had no such policy and, in fact, that the army was equipped to full war scale in most cases.
This matter demonstrates how difficult it is to deal with this minister. This matter was dealt with in considerable detail in the committee. I cross-questioned the minister on it and forced him to admit that the statements he had made in regard to these matters were not correct. But when he comes back into the house and makes a speech to the committee on this bill he reiterates the statement. In his speech of yesterday the minister talked about myths; he said he wanted to explode some of the myths. The minister is the greatest builder of myths so far as military affairs are concerned that we have ever had in this country. It is extremely difficult to deal with him because after one has exploded one of these broad, general remarks that he makes it does not make any difference to the minister. He comes back in some other place a few days later or a few weeks later and repeats the same, completely false statement that he made before.
As reported in the committee proceedings for February 23, 1967, at page 1600, I was questioning the minister as follows:
Now, next you get on to this matter you have brought up two or three times: "Three-quarters of our army was equipped only to training scales". This is not correct. What about our tank regiments: were they only on training scales when you took over?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Have they been acquired since the change in policy?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said: were our tank regiments on training scales of equipment only, when you became minister?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My contention, Mr. Harkness, was that this is a policy adopted in 1959; it might not apply to-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am asking you a specific question, and I do not want a general answer on the general line you give which does not come down to specifics.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The minister was being asked a specific question but went around in large circles and

DEBATES	April 4. 1967
in the end avoided answering it. The advantage of a committee such as the defence committee is that its members can get down to specifics. The minister answered the question in the following way:
1 think we had quite a surplus of tanks.
In other words, the tank regiments were not only up to full equipment but had a surplus of tanks. I then said:
Yes. In other words, then, as far as our armoured corps was concerned, it was not on training scales; it had full war equipment. What about our artillery regiments? Were they on a training scale only?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Again, Mr. Harkness, if you are talking about towed guns-
Then he tried to drag in a red herring because at that time there was nothing but towed guns.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There should have been.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I could say just as readily that there should have been machine guns in the battle of Waterloo and the troops would have been much better equipped if they had had them. In actual fact, at that time our troops were entirely equipped with towed guns, as they are still. The minister went on to say:
-I think we have had a surplus of those.
In other words, we had more guns for the artillery regiments than were required. He went on to say:
This, I think, is more or less irrelevant to the decision you took that this policy would not be continued after 1959.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What do you mean, the decision I took, and what policy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That in future you would provide only training scales.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My contention is that the forces were not equipped on training scales; that the statement that they were on training scales is completely incorrect. I am going over them arm by arm, in order of their seniority, and you have admitted that the armour was up to war establishment. I think you have admitted, at least indirectly, that the artillery was up to war establishment, and, in fact, that we had a surplus of guns. Is that not correct?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Speaking from memory with respect to the tanks and the towed guns themselves, I suspect that it is so.
He said that after having admitted that the units were not only up to establishment but that there was a surplus of equpment for them. I continue reading:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think we should extend this into other fields, including ammunition and new equipments that were being programmed, where the more current policy applied.
April 4, 1967	COMMONS


Douglas Scott Harkness: Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I think it is evident to everyone in this committee that an army cannot be equipped with equipment and actually in possession of equipment, which has been ordered but not yet delivered, but as far as the equipment laid down for the army is concerned, my contention is that this statement the minister has made that three-quarters of our army was equipped only to training scale is completely and utterly false.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With respect to those two equipments, Mr. Harkness, were they acquired during your time as minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, they were there when I became minister. Now, as far as the infantry is concerned, was the infantry not fully equipped with rifles, machine guns, anti-tank weapons, trucks, mortars, and so forth?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would say: with ancient trucks, with ancient wireless, and with no armoured personnel carriers at all. As you well know, in the appreciation of our capability in Europe these were chronic deficiencies which were reported and about which nothing was done for a considerable period of time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You say, ancient rifles; how old were the rifles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say ancient rifles.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You said, ancient equipment, generally. How ancient were the rifles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I said rifles-and I do not think I did-I did not mean to. I said, wireless and trucks.
In actual fact the rifles of the infantry-battalions in Europe and in Canada were the same FN rifles which they have at present. They were secured some years before that and it was hoped that this rifle would be adopted universally by the NATO forces. The same thing applied to mortars, to machine guns and to other pieces of equipment. The minister tried to wriggle out of this and instead of getting down to the actual combat equipment he went on to speak about trucks. He said:
I said, wireless and trucks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All right, how ancient were the trucks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Oh, ancient enough that it is time they were replaced.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, how ancient were they? You make another general statement; I want you to get down to specifics. How ancient were they?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Which truck are you talking about?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am talking about the general issue of trucks. As a matter of fact-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Harkness, but general issue trucks are divided into categories too. If you could be more specific on that, I could get the answer for you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We will take jeeps; how ancient were the jeeps?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will have to get that answer for you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will tell you; I think you will find that a considerable number of them had just been bought and the same thing applies to a
National Defence Act Amendment large number of the other trucks. There was a constant stream of new trucks and equipment coming into the army during the period prior to when I was minister of national defence and during the period that I was minister of national defence. As I say, I do not think you can point to any specific arm of the army to which this statement truthfully can be applied: Three-quarters of our army was equipped only to training scales. You have not been able to mention one single instance yet where it applied.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the infantry were not
adequately equipped anywhere, and that certainly applies to three-quarters in Canada, and probably to a very considerable extent to the units in Europe as well.
This goes on for another page. However, throughout this exchange the minister did not establish one single, specific instance in which the army was not equipped up to war establishment. He did not establish that the equipment was old, obsolete or anything else along that line. All he did was to draw a red herring by saying such things as that they did not have armoured personnel carriers or they did not have self-propelled howitzers, when in actual fact much of this equipment, particularly the armoured personnel carriers, was on order but had not yet been delivered and in fact was not delivered for several years. I think this is an outstanding example of what we were faced with in the committee when dealing with the minister. First he made a statement of this kind and when it was demonstrated that his statement was incorrect he turned right around and made it again. As long as we have a minister of this kind there can be no confidence in the minister on the part of members of this house, members of the armed services or members of the general public. As a result there will be an unsatisfactory state of affairs in the defence department.
The next statement of the minister on which I should like to comment deals with a considerable number of matters. It is to be found on pages 14432 and 14433 of Hansard. In all instances the minister tried to demonstrate that he has achieved great savings in manpower.
He mentioned intelligence services, information services and various other services and said there had been a 30 per cent saving in manpower here, a 40 per cent saving there, and so on and so forth. Of course there have been certain savings in manpower through the combination of staffs. Nobody disputes that. But the whole purpose of this statement is to try to persuade members of this house and the general public that the minister has
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment made great savings and therefore, by implication, they are going to pay less by way of taxes, whereas the exact opposite is the case. The total cost for defence has gone up. In fact this year it has gone up by as much as $115 million. Except for one year it has risen ever since the present government took office. In addition to the fact that the cost of defence has not gone down and the taxpayer is actually paying more for defence, he is in fact paying a great deal more for less defence. The number of people in uniform is down by some 20,000 and is continuing to decline. There are not enough people to man the ships, the infantry battalions, the armoured units and all other units which are under strength. Not only are we expending more dollars for defence but we are getting a great deal less defence for every dollar expended.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister, as usual, says "nonsense". All he ever does is to say "nonsense" and make general statements which he cannot substantiate. Even though he cannot substantiate them he keeps on repeating them. Apparently he believes it is a good propaganda technique to repeat something, no matter how false, and that if repeated often enough the people will believe it.


Mr. Foy:: Can you substantiate everything you say?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I am able to substantiate everything I say. As a matter of fact the hon. member was a member of the committee and will therefore realize that I substantiated any claim I made there.
The next statement the minister made was with regard to recruiting. The minister said, as reported on page 14433 of Hansard:
Notwithstanding the problems which inevitably arise in the first year,-
He is referring to integration and unification.
-and a reduction of 33 per cent in personnel-
That is recruiting personnel.
-we were able to recuit more people in 1966 than in the previous year.
Later in his speech the minister repeated the statement that he had been able to recruit more people in 1966 than in either of the preceding two years. If we wish to look at the actual number of recruits in those years, we turn to the brief the minister presented to the committee on February 23 to which a table is

attached showing the number of recruits for the regular forces in each of the years from 1956 to 1966. The figures are as follows: 1956, 17,281; 1957, 19,739; 1958, 15,252; 1959, 12,047; 1960,	12,690;	1961,	16,092;	1962,	14,283;
1963-this is when the minister took over-11,804, the lowest figure since Korea, 1964, 10,539, again a new low so far as recruiting is concerned; 1965, 9,883 and 1966, 10,822.
The figure in 1966 is up somewhat from 1965 and it is up very little from 1964. However, those two years were the poorest two years we have had since the Korean conflict so far as recruiting is concerned. The minister compares 1966, which is a little better but not very much better, with the two poorest years in recent history so far as recruiting is concerned and then tries to make the claim that recruiting has improved. This is another deliberate attempt to try to deceive the general public as to the state of recruiting in the armed forces.
Recruiting is not the whole story so far as the strength of the forces is concerned. While this number of recruits was being secured in 1966, what number of people left the service? There were 10,822 people recruited, people coming into the forces for the first time, but a number of men left the service and many of them had been trained for years and years. They were at the peak of their efficiency when they got out or were fired. The number of people who left the service during that time totalled 14,792. There was, therefore, a decrease or wastage in the strength of the forces totalling 3,970 during 1966.
However, the situation was worse than that. At the end of 1966 there were 1,763 people who were still carried on strength but who had actually been discharged or were on terminal leave. The actual wastage in the service for 1966 was, therefore, 5,733. There were that many fewer people in the services than at the start of 1966. In spite of that fact the minister gives us these figures concerning recruiting and makes the statement that recruiting has greatly improved. This statement is designed to give a totally false impression to the people of Canada as to what the situation is not only in regard to recruiting but in regard to the effective strength of the armed forces.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sorry, but I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.
April 4, 1967


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to continue? Does the committee give unanimous consent tor the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I will not carry on tor very much longer. As a matter of fact, I should like to come back to some of these matters and particularly to consider the matter of unification with which I have not actually dealt yet, and for that I must apologize to the committee. I have been concerned about answering some of the misstatements made by the minister. There are one or two more with which I should like to deal, but I will not impose upon the committee for too long. The minister stated, as recorded on page 14434 of Hansard:
One of the stated intentions of the savings that could be made was to use those savings for new equipment for the armed forces.
A bit further along the minister said something else along similar lines about the savings which have been made and which could be used or will be used to improve the equipment of the forces. Yes, it is right on the next page, following an interjection by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre:
I think my hon. friend will appreciate that a reduction in personnel had to be made in order to make a diversion of funds for the acquisition of equipment and that, of course, was one of the objects of the exercise.
The minister goes on with quite a few comments with regard to equipment and does the same sort of thing he attempted to do in committee, that is, to persuade the members and the general public that since he took office a great deal more money had been spent on equipment as a result of the savings he was able to make in manpower and so forth. The committee had presented to it a chart which showed the percentage of the defence dollar spent on equipment. The indication was that the amount had been going down and down every year until the minister became minister and then it began to level off and go up a little. I took objection to this chart and said it was false. This caused quite a stir amongst the minister's officials but finally they had to admit that it was. In fact, they tried to cover this up by saying that the chart had been mislabelled or something along that line.
The actual fact, Mr. Chairman, is that in spite of everything the minister has said with regard to saving money and so on the money
National Defence Act Amendment expended on equipment since he has been minister has been a smaller portion of the Canadian defence dollar than was the case before he took over. If we start in 1961-62, the percentage of the defence dollar which was spent on equipment was 18.8 per cent; 1962-63, 14.8 per cent; 1963-64,-we are still in the estimates which I prepared-16 per cent; 1964-65, 13.4 per cent and 1965-66, which is the last year for which we have the expenditures published by the Auditor General, 12 per cent. This is the actual situation so far as expenditure on equipment is concerned, and yet the minister continues in every speech he makes to try to sell the point to the members of this house and the general public that he has been saving money on administration expenses and buying more equipment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:30 p.ra.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister claps his
hands. Nevertheless, the Auditor General's report gives the exact figures showing how much has been spent on equipment and they disprove completely what the minister says. This makes no difference to him. He comes right back two or three days later or whenever he has the opportunity and makes the same completely false statement again. Once more I say that this makes for an extraordinarily difficult position so far as the members of this committee are concerned because we cannot place any credence in anything the minister says or the statements he makes.
I have a considerable number of other matters on which I wish to speak, Mr. Chairman, particularly in connection with the narrow question of the single unified force provided for in the bill. However, I do not want to trespass on the good nature of the house and I will come back to that at a later time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the speech to which we have just listened by the hon. member for Calgary North, who has shown with great clarity that this house has been deceived by the Minister of National Defence. This is destructive of debate in this house. It is destructive of consideration of a bill as important as the bill now before us.
The hon. member for Calgary North has shown so clearly, by three outstanding examples, that the minister is misleading this house and the Canadian people. I do not see how we can carry on a serious discussion in the House of Commons on a bill affecting the
14498	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
defence services of this country if we are going to be faced with statements on the part of the Minister of National Defence which are palpably untrue.
It has been shown that he was quite wrong in what he said about the equipment of our forces to training scale in Canada. It is shown by the committee evidence quoted by the hon. member for Calgary North that he was quite wrong. Yet the minister repeated this statement in his speech yesterday. It has also been shown that he has misled the house with regard to the strength of the forces. He has said that there has been an increase in recruiting, without acknowledging the wastage that has occurred at the same time which has resulted in our forces in fact being seriously depleted.
How can we carry on a sensible discussion in a situation such as this with a minister of the crown who is not giving the truth to the House of Commons, Mr. Chairman? I suggest that serious consideration must be given by the government to this situation. It should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister.
My point of privilege is that we simply cannot carry on a discussion such as this with the minister failing to give accurate information to the House of Commons. I am prepared to let the minister answer the charge I am making immediately to see whether he can clear up the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Calgary North, but I do not want simply a repetition of things he has said before concerning which he has been found to be not accurate.
I will deal with this matter at length when I speak in the course of the debate, Mr. Chairman, because I drew attention to matters such as this on November 4. But yesterday we again had a repetition of these statements, and the minister has now been shown by the hon. member for Calgary North to be at fault and to be misleading the house. What more dangerous thing can be done than that? How can the members of this house vote sensibly and with accuracy on the bill that he is presenting to us if we cannot rely on the statements that are made by a minister of the crown? That is the situation we face at this particular moment, and I think it is only right to give the minister a chance to reply. If he does not reply I think there is other appropriate action that might be taken.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the time the hon. gentleman has taken will be

DEBATES	April 4, 1967
charged him as one intervention in this debate. I certainly will reply-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are not going to stop my speaking in this debate.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will certainly reply in some detail, to some of these spurious allegations which have been made this afternoon, but at a later stage of the debate. I too get a little sick of hearing this repetitious nonsense from the hon. member for Calgary North.


Hugh John Flemming: He proved everything that he said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He cannot prove the things he said because they cannot be proved.


Hugh John Flemming: He quoted from the record and gave the page.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He was quoting vague generalities.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He was reading from the text.


Hugh John Flemming: He also gave the page. [Translationf


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in the course of this debate, not to oppose unification or integration of our armed forces, or anything of the kind, but merely to obtain some information on specific aspects of the Canadian armed forces.
But before I do so, Mr. Chairman, I want to protest strongly against the earlier outbursts, of the hon. members for Calgary North and of Winnipeg South Centre (Messrs. Harkness and Churchill) against General Allard. I wonder why those two former ministers of national defence hound the Chief of Staff, if not precisely because he is a French Canadian.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Now, that is nonsense.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it denotes partisanship, politicking; it smacks of racism; in short it shows a spirit of denigration which does not belong in this house.


Mr, Lambert:: No more than the nonsense you are now talking.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see that some hon. members are hurt, which confirms one thing: the truth hurts.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You do not know what the truth is.
April 4, 1967


Gilles Grégoire: I would like to advance arguments against the way the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre and Calgary North act with the chief of staff of the Canadian forces. I think that this is improper, and that indeed those two members should withdraw their words and stop behaving as they do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: An old crow is always croaking.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is seeking to protect his colleagues; he should rather seek to protect the truth; it would be much better.
Mr. Chairman, the first point I want to make is what the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) is saying; he wants to speak but is never heard, although this once he is talking. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot will see that last Saturday in La Presse he was called a minister on the way down, or something like that, in the House of Commons. I apologize for not knowing the French translation of the word, but that is going down.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In any case, Mr. Chairman, those remarks were made and I see that they were shocked by them; they do not like to be told such things. Well, if they do not like it, let them desist, that is all.
The first thing I want to bring up about unification is this one. Has the number of air force pilots decreased because of unification of the armed forces? Or will the pilots who had enlisted for three years be kept for a much longer period although they have asked for their release?
One knows, Mr. Chairman, that under a program designed to train officers for the regular army, namely the R.O.T.C., students can enlist for three years and pursue their studies in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Mr. Chairman, for some time now, those flying officers, who have their wings and a permanent officer's commission, who are aircrew members of the R.C.A.F. and who should normally be discharged toward the end of May 1967, since they gave their regular notice in October 1966, that is six months earlier, and who were sure their undertaking would be respected by the R.C.A.F., found employment with civil aviation companies or elsewhere, but today the powers that be
National Defence Act Amendment refuse to give them their discharge and say: We are short of pilots. And they are told: We cannot give you any answer, because no decision has been taken.
When those young men enlisted in the R.C.A.F., they were told certain things and today they are told an entirely different story. They are now told that instructions from the Canadian armed forces headquarters specified that flying officers holding a permanent commission are required to complete five years' service as trained pilots from the date they obtained their wings.
And, Mr. Chairman, I read this in a letter signed by Brigadier Doucet, executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence.
They are told that they are now required to complete five years' service as trained pilots, but when those young men enlisted in the air force, they were told that they were signing up for a three-year term. And they are also told:
This requirement applied to R.O.T.C. pilots as well as to other pilots.
But when those young men enlisted in the R.O.T.C., they had signed up for a three-year term. However, they are told:
This requirement is justified, because It costs the armed forces a lot of money to train pilots.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the authorities knew that when the men signed up. Why were they not told the truth then? Why were they misled then? Today they are told: You will spend two more years of your life as pilots in the armed forces. And that, when these young people could more easily find jobs today in civil aviation or elsewhere in the civil service?
The letter continues:
Believing that they were entitled to be discharged after the three years of compulsory service provided in the case of students in the R.O.T.C.-
They admit this.
-a young man submitted an application for release to be effective on the date of termination of his commitments toward the R.O.T.C.
It is said:
In the meantime, the Canadian forces headquarters informed all pilots having been in the R.O.T.C. and having asked to be discharged, that their application would remain in abeyance until the study in question was completed and the results made public.
How does it happen, Mr. Chairman, that we make a young citizen sign a contract when he enlists and, when the time comes to release him, although he respected all the terms

April 4. 19S7

National Defence Act Amendment of his contract, the R.C.A.F. repudiates the contract and compels the young airman to stay two more years in the air force when there was no provision for that extension.
And the last paragraph adds:
-that a decision on the subject is anticipated in a very near future and that the final result will be disclosed.
Mr. Chairman, that is not the contract which was signed by the young Canadian who joined the air force. He enlisted for a three-year period to get his wings.
I would therefore ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to answer this question: does the R.C.A.F. disavow its commitments toward the young recruits at the time they entered R.O.T.C.? Is the R.C.A.F. ready to fulfil its commitment as the young airmen have respected theirs toward the R.C.A.F.? And those young people who had signed up for three years after getting their wings, will they be released after three years or will they be forced to stay five years although they signed up only for three years? I would like to know what the R.C.A.F. intends to do about this. Would the R.C.A.F. and the Department of National Defence disown their commitment toward those young people?
Mr. Chairman, that is the first point on which I am asking for an answer from the department, namely if actually those who enlisted for a period of three years will now have to stay in the service for five years, and I would like to know if the R.C.A.F. will respect the commitment made, that is a period of enlistment of three rather than five years. I hope that the Minister and the Associate Minister of National Defence will be able to answer that question.
A second point I should like to deal with in this debate on the bill to amend the National Defence Act-


Mr. Cowan:: Not Pascal.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman. I pick up a book and the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) wonders whether I shall quote Pascal. I will not. But I should like, Mr. Chairman, to quote another author, a Canadian citizen, a French Canadian, a French speaking Quebecker, Mr. Marcel Chaput. I have here his book entitled: "J'ai choisi de me battre." Mr. Marcel Chaput, doctor of chemistry, is a good Quebecker who was employed by the National Research Council.

He resigned in 1961. Now, he is working to gain independence for Quebec.
The book is published by the Club du Livre du Quebec. On page 45, there is a chapter headed: "French Canadians in the armed forces."
And Marcel Chaput wrote that at one point when he was with the National Research Council, and before he joined the independent movement in Quebec, he was directed toward operational research.
I should like to quote a passage found on page 44 of the book written by Marcel Chaput:
From this post in operational research created by the Department of National Defence, I acted as scientific adviser to Civil Defence. But the appetite of operational research knows no bounds. It is interested in all problems. Thus the department invited me, a French Canadian, to explain to him one day why, first of all, there are, proportionately speaking, fewer French Canadians than English Canadians in the armed forces and, secondly, why the former advance more slowly in the services than the latter. Are French Canadians less talented, lazy or antimilitarist?
That was his question. To continue quoting from the book written by Marcel Chaput:
It was perhaps expected that my work would confirm the old belief that young French Canadians are not attracted to the army and, therefore, do not enlist, except for those who do not manage to find a place anywhere else, which would leave some doubts as to their intellectual ability.
Figures in hand, I first demolished the preconceived notion that French Canadians do not enlist in the armed forces.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) wants to make comments which could be of some value at another time, but which are holding up our consideration of the bill for they are not directly concerned with it. If the hon. member wishes to make a separatist speech, there are other places and other occasions which are more suitable.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the voice of the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), because I think it is the first time, in at least a year, that I see him rise.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The hon. member for Lapointe is often out of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: That remains to be checked.
Mr. Chairman, this was not a separatist speech, because we do not want to separate
April 4, 1967

anything; we are in favour of Quebec's independence in collaboration, in co-operation. He has called that a separatist speech; it is perhaps less tiresome to hear than his oversimple speeches, but these things must be said.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I believe this paves the way for a question that I wish to address to the Minister of National Defence in connection with unification, and I think it must be recognized, under the circumstances.
I now go back to my quotation.
It may have been expected that my work would confirm the old belief that the army does not appeal to young French Canadians and that they therefore do not join up except those who cannot find jobs elsewhere, which might raise some misgivings about their mental capacity.
Mr. Goyerr I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: I shall first do away with the prejudice-


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Dollard has risen on a point of order to draw attention to the fact that the standing orders of the house are perhaps not being respected at the moment.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Chairman, we are used to blackmail tactics on the part of the member for Lapointe, just as we are used to his empty chit-chat. If the member for Lapointe will kindly indicate to the committee how his remarks may become a question to the Minister of National Defence, we shall listen. On the other hand, he should not trick the house and take the opportunity to make a speech which has no bearing on the matter now under study, and bring it to a close with unkind remarks without putting a question to the Minister of National Defence.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the member for Dollard-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, order. I ask the hon. member for Lapointe to resume his seat, as I would like to stop this exchange on the standing orders. I believe the hon. member for Lapointe is entirely in order when he talks of the participation of the French speaking element in our armed forces, when he says it is more or less important, that perhaps it should be greater, more important, according to the ranks filled by French speaking Canadians.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I thank you. But first of all I should like to rise on a question of privilege concerning the intentions 23033-917
National Defence Act Amendment which the hon. member for Dollard ascribes to me. I must say it is extremely mean of him to do so. Moreover, I had just said that I would connect this to some questions asked in relation to the matter now under consideration.
Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to resume his seat. I do not think his question of privilege is justified. The hon. member for Dollard rose on a point of order only to say that the hon. member for Lapointe was perhaps out of order. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe not to continue in this vein and to restrict his remarks to the bill we are now discussing.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I consider this an event in the life of the hon. member for Dollard, to whom it does not often occur to let out his frustrated feelings. He had an opportunity to do this and I consider the matter settled. If he wants other opportunities to evaporate his frustrations, which I fully understand, I will be very glad to give him some:
And I go on:
With statistics in my hands, I destroy-
I am still quoting the book entitled "J'ai choisi de me battre" by Marcel Chaput, a book which I urge the hon. member for Dollard to read. I quote:
With statistics in my hand, I destroy first of all the notion that French Canadians would not enlist. If their number in the army is not proportionate to Canada's demography, it is not because they do not enlist, but rather because they do not stay in the army.
Thus among the ordinary soldiers and non commissioned officers the average length of service of the French Canadians is only three and a half years, whereas it reaches five and a half years for the other Canadians. More striking yet is the difference in the years of service between the French-Canadian officers and the others: Englishspeaking officers average 21 years of service: French-speaking officers average 11 years of service, that is about half less. English-speaking Canadians make a career in the army; French Canadians cannot bring themselves to follow their example.
With the authorization of the department, in November 1959, I delivered on that matter a lecture to the annual conference of ACFAS held that year at the University of Montreal.
That finding made the headlines in the papers the next day. French Canadians are, proportionately speaking, as attracted to the army as any other group of Canadians, but once they have enlisted, they start thinking about getting out of it. The next step was to wonder why. I wanted to take that step but the English-speaking authorities of the Department of National Defence would not let me.
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
Mr. Chairman, who was the minister of national defence in 1959? The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). He should be here listening. I quote again:
I wanted to take that step but the Englishspeaking authorities of the Department of National Defence would not let me. Or more precisely, they knew the answer: the French Canadians find out very soon after enlisting that they are members of a foreign army.
At the time I am writing this, I learn that the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has just discovered my study on the French Canadians in the army and will put it in its files.
That is my first question, which is directly linked with the unification of the armed forces.
On the verge of unification, I should like to ask the minister and the Associate Minister of National Defence whether they intend to extract from the files the defence department that study which Marcel Cha-put prepared when he was working under the National Research Council, at the request of the Department of National Defence. I should like to know if the minister and his associate minister intend to take this study out of the mothballs and examine it, to find out what its conclusions were?
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, on the eve of unification, I should like the minister and the associate minister, because, in my view, the associate minister is just as important as the minister-they are associated in the management-and that he also has many virtues, many talents-


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: I agree.


Gilles Grégoire: This is why I am always appealing to both, Mr. Chairman. Among all the Quebec ministers, if there is one who, in my opinion, has endeavoured-I hope that he will not take advantage of my complimentary remarks to act in the opposite way tomorrow-to defend the rights of French Canadians in the past, it is he. In fact, I even consider that he is the only one, and I am pleased to pay him this tribute.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Gilles Grégoire: The Associate Minister of National Defence. Some hon. members could perhaps follow his example.
At all events, Mr. Chairman, a survey on the army was made by Mr. Marcel Chaput in 1959. He was not then, far from it, an avowed independentist and, furthermore, he

was not active in their ranks. He was interested in those problems as should any other French Canadian citizen. He made a survey on behalf of the Department of National Defence to come to the conclusion that French Canadians did not remain very long in the army, and I quote the reason given by Mr. Chaput:
-it is that French Canadians find out very soon after enlisting that they belong to a foreign army.
Mr. Chairman, after quoting those excerpts, I would like the minister and the associate minister to tell us what their department intends to do in that connection? Do they intend to bring forward the study made by Mr. Marcel Chaput and give it the publicity it deserves, because it is only then that we shall see whether the department is really interested in making the reforms suggested.
I hope, but I am doubtful somewhat, that the department is interested in making reforms in that field and, if so, let it produce and publish that study, and tell us whether it is intended to take the action suggested by Mr. Marcel Chaput at that time.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It is claimed that the Laurendeau-Dunton commission brought it out of the dust, that they have just rediscovered this study. I would then ask the Associate Minister of Defence and the Minister of National Defence whether they intend to read it, to publish it and to make the necessary corrections.
Mr. Chairman, there is a third point I should like to raise. It will be remembered that last summer, I think, or a year and a half ago, possibly two years ago, a note had been posted on the board at the Bagotville base, signed by an air force sergeant, announcing that in accordance with a decision of the authorities, the use of French as a working language was prohibited there.
I had put a question at that time to the Minister of National Defence, who had answered simply this:
We will inquire into the matter and will give you an answer later.
Mr. Chairman, 12 months, perhaps more, have elapsed since the Minister of National Defence said that he would inquire into the matter and give an answer later. We never had an answer from the Minister of National Defence to a question I put a year ago whether it was true that such a notice had been posted saying that only English was the working language at the Bagotville military base, that French was prohibited. The
April 4, 1967

minister never answered, gave no explanation. I wonder whether today, when we are considering unification of the armed forces, it would not be the proper time to give an answer because, Mr. Chairman, that may mean many things. Unification. This means that the French and English languages are unified and that it has been decided that English will now be the only language. Is that also part of the armed forces unification plan?
For instance, would the minister tell us about the notorious regulation in army manuals providing that English is the only official language in the Canadian army. This regulation applies to all, except the 22nd Regiment, I believe. But, aside from that, for all the other Canadian forces, army, navy and air force, English is the only official language, and French is not recognized.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the minister whether that regulation is still in force; whether it was amended; if so, when and by whom? I should like to know whether the minister could give the house a new copy of the regulations, more specifically of that regulation, if it is still in effect or if it has been changed.
It is advisable to ask ourselves some questions, since we have never been told that this rule had been changed. And the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is right when he says that English is the only official language, since it is laid down in the regulations of the army, the navy and the air force, except in the case of the Royal 22nd regiment called the Van Doos. It is the only regiment to have that privilege, that is to have French in addition to English as a working language.
Then I should like to know from the Minister and the Associate Minister of National Defence if any step has been taken in connection with that rule. Does the minister intend to change it, or has he already changed it so that in the future, the hon. member for York-Humber could say:
Well, from now on, English is not the only official language, but the army rules state that both languages are official. And I am sure that the hon. member for York-Humber, with his open-mindedness, would only be to happy to be able to say that both languages are official. He is generous; he is only too willing to have two official languages.
23033-917*
National Defence Act Amendment
But for the time being, he rightly says that there is only one, since only English is acknowledged in the Canadian armed forces, save when we are granted concessions and privileges.
So I should like the minister to tell me what measures were taken with respect to the unification of the armed forces? Does the old rule still apply? Will it continue to apply or has it been amended?
I should like to raise a fourth and last point, Mr. Chairman, which may be a little more delicate. In the very near future, Canada will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Vimy. For all the Canadian people, of course, it is an important celebration since Canadian soldiers participated in the battle and won a great victory. In fact, several among us number relatives who fought on that battleground where the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Vimy will be celebrated.
It happens that the battle took place on French soil, that the celebration will take place on French soil where veterans of the Canadian army and representatives will be in attendance. The Canadian army, the unified or integrated forces of the Canadian army, are happy to celebrate that victory but the French government will not participate officially as it would have wished in that celebration and many Canadians might not be as satisfied as they should be, because they will be represented officially, I mean not by members of the Canadian government, not by Canadian senators, not by Canadian members, not by the chiefs of the Canadian armed forces, admirals or generals but by Prince Philip of England. I want to say that I have nothing against him but what surprises me is the fact the army and the government have asked Prince Philip to be the official spokesman for the Canadian army and the Canadian veterans at the celebration of a battle won by the Canadian army.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I take the liberty of speaking at this time in order to correct the statements just made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I fully realize that he is sincere and of good faith, but the Canadian government and the Canadian army will be represented at the Vimy celebrations by your humble servant. I am going there as the official delegate of the Canadian government, and I propose to bring along and to read a statement from the Prime
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Minister which will be two thirds in French and one third in English.
It should also be pointed out in all fairness that Prince Philip has been invited as a representative of the Queen of Canada at that ceremony and, therefore, he will enhance it by his presence. Canadians will find there again a participation fully along the lines of their constitution.
A minister of the crown will head the Canadian delegation and, moreover, circumstances would have it that he should be of French origin. As I said earlier, my statement or the message I shall convey will be two thirds in French.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, if the house will allow me to answer the question, I would refer the hon. member for Lapointe to the press release issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The hon. member for Lapointe will understand that the Vimy ceremony is organized by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
According to the press release published in the newspapers, the head of the Canadian delegation in Vimy will be the Associate Minister of National Defence, Mr. Leo Cadieux.
Therefore, I have quite the impression that in delivering my speech in Vimy, I will act
IMr. Cadieux (Terrebonne).]

as interpreter of the federal government at this ceremony and I will speak not only on behalf of the cabinet and the government, but also on behalf of the Canadian people, in paying tribute to those valiant Canadians who fought for liberty in 1917 at Vimy.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Chairman, I can only conclude from the remarks just expressed by the Associate Minister of National Defence, that for representing Canada, speaking on behalf of Canada, the Associate Minister of National Defence will have precedence over everyone else. He will speak on behalf of Canada, the Canadian army, Canadian veterans, at the commemoration of the battle of Vimy.
The Associate Minister of National Defence -if I understood correctly what he has just told me-will have precedence over everybody else. Can the Associate Minister of National Defence tell us whether or not this is a fair statement?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, to enlighten the hon. member for Lapointe, I will repeat to him that the form of my speech in Vimy will be the reading of a message from the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. Therefore, I do not see who, apart from the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, can speak on behalf of the Canadian people. I will be the bearer of a message from the office of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Guay:: He still does not understand.


Gilles Grégoire: I will not waste time on those remarks.
I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the Associate Minister of National Defence knows me well enough to realize that I understand very well. But what I wanted, Mr. Chairman -and sometimes it does good to insist and to have a point cleared up-was to have the associate minister himself say it because it has much more weight than if the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) had said it. Of course if it is the hon. member for Levis who says so it has no weight, no importance whatsoever, but if it is the Associate Minister of National Defence-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: What do you represent in Ottawa?


Gilles Grégoire: -it means something because it is said by someone in authority.


Maurice Rinfret: The member spoke for exactly 35 minutes; I understand that
April 4, 1967

there have been a few interjections by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and that the hon. member for Lapointe has put a series of questions to the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), but I think we can all agree that the time of the hon. member for Lapointe has expired.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I shall close my remarks at this stage, and if I want to elaborate on some points, I shall have another opportunity to do so.


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Chairman, the white paper of March, 1964, which we now find to be a very interesting document, set out five main priorities. At page 24 of that document we find those priorities stated as follows:
The choice of priorities outlined above is based on the following assessment:
1.	Forces for the direct protection of Canada which can be deployed as required.
2.	Forces-in-being as part of the deterrent in the European theatre.
3.	Maritime forces-in-being as a contribution to the deterrent.
4.	Forces-in-being for U.N. peace keeping operations which would be included in (1) above.
5.	Reserve forces and mobilization potential.
Those were the five basic priorities upon which this government founded its current defence policy. The same white paper made it clear that the NATO commitment as we have understood it for many years would continue, probably using what the minister described in the white paper as a declining proportion of our defence resources.
We were told that the peace keeping role was to be given increased emphasis and the anti-submarine role was to be continued without major change. It was also indicated that air transport facilities would have to be substantially augmented. While it was noted that the NORAD commitment would probably require a declining proportion of our forces, it was indicated that the CF-101's assigned to the task would continue to be used during the life of the aircraft and that the Bomarc squadrons would continue to form part of our defence system as long as they remained an essential part of the NORAD system.
These suggestions were the result of a brief survey but they are generally accepted by students of the white paper. My conclusion is that the role of the armed forces as set out will continue into what we might describe as
National Defence Act Amendment the foreseeable future but that the peace keeping role will be given greater emphasis in the future.
Since that white paper was written a decided and notable change in policy has taken place. The policy adopted by parliament, rightly or wrongly, was that which was outlined in that white paper. The policy now being pursued is very different. Let me quote what the chief of the defence staff said on February 28 of this year to the standing committee on defence. At page 1760 of volume 27 of the proceedings and evidence of that standing committee he said:
Canada now wants, while remaining faithful to its existing commitments, to decide itself on the part it wishes to play in the new international society. This is not only its right; it is also its duty. It is its duty to participate to the best of its ability in peace-keeping by supporting the organization which had made itself the champion of the smaller nations-the United Nations Organization.
In short, that is the transformation proposed by the white paper. That is what we are trying to do. My duty is to organize the military forces in accordance with government policy.
The white paper did not speak of the transformation of roles or policies and it did not indicate there would be a change in form. Indeed, quite the contrary was indicated. If that paper indicated anything it indicated only that there would be a change in emphasis, not a change in policy or role.
Throughout the committee proceedings it was stated that unification would only make sense if there was a single role but would make no sense at all if we continued our existing roles. While existing roles remain, the policy of continuing the existence of the army, navy and air force, identifiable as such, is a constant and continuing necessity. One might ask why that is the case. Let me use the air division in Europe as one example.
The air division in Europe is an integral part of the whole air defence system. It was organized and is operated and supplied not as a separate autonomous unit but as a unit forming part of the whole defence system. It works with and is dependent upon the whole system. The only conclusion I can come to, and indeed the evidence of the senior officers who appeared before the defence committee bears this out, is that the air division in Europe cannot be unified.
The brigade group in Europe forms part of the whole military network. Let me read
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment what the chief of the defence staff said in this regard:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Missiles are rapidly replacing bombers, and air defence is no longer the exclusive concern of aircraft, anti-submarine defence is no longer the exclusive concern of ships, and the land forces need aerial mobility. And we are asked why the forces have to be unified.
No matter how often that suggestion is made, the facts of the matter are not related to the ability of one part of the Canadian forces to work with another part of our arms but the ability of Canadian forces to work with and be an integral part of international fighting and defence organizations. If we have a mobile force with its own tactical air support-this is the intention, so we are told, and that the role of the CF-105 is about to be changed-that force can operate successfully only in the direct defence of Canada. Let me repeat that. If we have a mobile force with its own tactical air support, that force can operate successfully only in the direct defence of Canada. The mobile force must give up its tactical air support if it is to be used internationally simply because the control of tactical support of this nature is centralized so as to be available for the support of all ground forces in whatever theatre of operations Canadian troops find themselves as the result of Canada's commitments. In other words, the unifying of our forces into a single force reduces, not enhances, our ability to work in an organization such as NATO. In fact, I would say that in some cases it totally nullifies our ability to work in such an organization.
As long as we intend to maintain the roles laid down in the white paper it would be military nonsense to unify the existing three armed services. The conclusion must be drawn from the expert knowledge made available to the members of the defence committee by witnesses, many of whom were chosen by the minister himself to fill the top posts of operational and organizational responsibility in the defence structure of Canada, that a unified force could not fulfil the role laid down in the white paper. Some of these men were subsequently retired, forcefully, arbitrarily or by mutual consent. As I say, Mr. Chairman, their opinion was that a unified force could not fulfil the role laid down in the white paper. The full, sheer and continuing weight of the evidence of every former senior serving officer who came before us supports the contention that a unified force will not be able to meet and
[Mr. Forrestall.l
fulfil the role set for us in the white paper of 1964.
Let us see what some of these men had to say in support of that position. In the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of February 16, as reported at page 1222, General Foulkes said to the committee:
Anyone who has exercised higher command in war, or who has been engaged in planning at SHAPE, or who has even been exposed to SHAPE exercises, will be aware that the cardinal principle dealing with the operation of air forces is that of maintaining the maximum centralization of these forces. Parcelling them out in penny packages is most wasteful and creates complete chaos in the air over a battlefield and a grave risk that many of our aircraft will be shot down by the neighbouring forces.
It would seem logical, therefore, that our tactical air forces should be organized not as a force united with other forces of Canada but as a separate force with its own command structure so that it can be used both nationally and internationally with equal facility. Since our role in NATO remains unchanged this would appear to be a vital necessity. Even in the context of small wars, brush fires, and indeed of peacekeeping, this would appear a must unless we are going to go it alone in our undertakings in the world.
What did General Moncel have to say on this subject? As reported at page 1305 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee, February 20, that estimable gentleman, a very distinguished Canadian, said:
In the light of the commitments that are undertaken and which indeed are spelled for us in the white paper, a unified force has no place.
When asked if by "commitments" he meant our commitments to NATO, NORAD and so on, in accordance with our understanding of collective defence, his reply was, "Precisely." One must therefore conclude, in the light of this testimony and the weight of similar statements, many of them backed up with facts and experience, that to unify our forces while we maintain our existing roles as laid down in the white paper is militarily impractical and logically makes no sense.
What did Air Vice Marshal Hendricks have to say about this? As reported at page 1447 of the committee proceedings of February 21, he said:
There Is a final fallacy which appears in this concept of where we are heading, and that Is that we can operate by ourselves. We can operate by ourselves only if what we do is very, very simple indeed-
Again, the conclusion to be drawn is that it is necessary to organize our armed forces so
April 4, 1967

they can dovetail readily with NATO or any other alliance that may be arranged. But unification will not permit ready organizational dovetailing capability on the part of our armed services.
Let us come back to the role of the armed forces. The minister has repeatedly stated that the roles are the roles as they have been presented in the white paper. It must therefore be obvious that already the rapidly accelerating degree of integration of the armed forces is on the way to creating an organization which, when fulfilled, will become less usable with our allies than our present triservice organizations.
Moreover, if unification is carried out and Bill C-243 is passed by this parliament we will be endangering our ability to work satisfactorily with our allies. However, there is one escape route. Unification may make sense if it is the intention to drop the roles as laid down in the white paper in favour of the single role of peacekeeping, brush fire operation and so on or, if you wish, create a mobile force for the defence of Canada within Canada and defending only Canadian soil.
General Moncel underlined extremely well the inflexibility of our present system and the narrowness of the limits of a unified force. He said:
If you want a unified force that somehow is going to call up a need for a seagoing element that is essentially a transport element, that is fine-write your commitments accordingly: but do not then turn around and say that you want a fighting, deep sea navy next week, because you will not get it.
It is impossible to get it in that situation. The decision on the role or roles must be taken first, and after that the decision must be taken on the military organization necessary to fulfil the role or roles. We have to get the cart back behind the horse where it belongs. In view of what the white paper says, and in view of what unification requires in the way of a single role, it is obvious that this bill must be shelved until a close scrutiny has been given to the defence requirements. These contradictions, obvious and devious, must first be studied and understood before we proceed. On seven different occasions attempts have been made both in committee and here in the house-as a matter of fact I believe it is now eight or nine occasions-to have this matter referred to the standing committee on external affairs or to a combined committee on defence and external affairs so that we may guard against, if nothing else, becoming the laughing stock of the world.

National Defence Act Amendment
It is a useful practice to examine what armed forces have been doing since the end of world war II. In Korea-and I am neither an old general nor a young seaman, nor have I had any military experience other than a brief period in the militia in Canada-unless I am much mistaken both our land and sea forces fitted in very well with the forces of other nations which participated, even though they were separate forces. I think I am right in saying that the Cuban operations were almost exclusively maritime. The organization of a separate United States navy seems to have fitted this picture extremely well. In Viet Nam today the armies of the United States, New Zealand, Australia, South Viet Nam and other contributing forces co-operate effectively under one over-all, unified command. If I remember correctly, Suez was a military operation which brought French and British land and naval forces together successfully. I cannot visualize how the operation might have been carried out had the contribution of one of these key nations been by way of a unified force.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We had another type of commitment such as the one in Korea. Could a unified force have worked there effectively? The lessons of history do not necessarily bear that out-in fact, quite the contrary. First, our tactical air forces could not reach anywhere on the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans unless transported there by ships or refuelled in flight by very expensive aircraft which as a matter of fact we do not yet possess. But even if they were finally placed in some foreign land how could they fit into the structure of the forces of our allies who would have centralized the control of their tactical air forces?
How would our mobile force with its headquarters in the province of Quebec, miles from the scene of operations, deal with the land forces? Surely the component of the land force would have to be separated, as our brigade group in Europe is separated now, and this in turn would call for an army and not a unified force. The navy, likewise, would be operating almost exclusively in a naval role together with the navies of other nations. It would appear that as part of a unified force it would be poorly served, indeed most inadequately served, by such an organization.
However one looks at this thing, the conclusion that constantly rears its head is that unification, as long as we are working in
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment alliances and contributing to collective national defence, is a change with little to commend it except that is is different. The organization of our forces must be compatible with those of other nations. I reiterate that it must continue to be so as long as the role of our defence forces continues to be the one which was set out in the white paper of 1964.
In committee proceedings No. 14 at page 440 the Minister of National Defence made the following remarks:
I hope that I have been able to Indicate that our defence objectives have not changed substantially ... and that we are prepared In these particular meetings to relate the policy to the structure, roles and equipment required by the forces.
Subsequent to that statement a succession of expert witnesses clearly stated-and I repeat it because it bears repeating-that unification is simply not compatible with the roles outlined in the white paper. Air Chief Marshal Miller made this point most emphatically. General Moncel, General Fleury, Air Marshal Annis and Admiral Landymore all made the same point from their own particular viewpoint based on their expertise and experience. Here we have top officers with outstanding qualifications and very recent experience, particularly so far as Air Chief Marshal Miller is concerned, and representing the three fighting environments and the support component, all clearly of the opinion that unification and the roles outlined in the white paper are incompatible, that there is no way of joining them together. Admiral Landymore pointed out quite emphatically that it would mean the end of an effective maritime defence for Canada and that Canada's international maritime commitments could not be fulfilled.
In the same connection General Moncel said the following, as appears in committee proceedings No. 22 at page 1333:
The more the navy Is forced into carrying the soldiers up and down the coast of Nova Scotia to the exclusion of everything else, the exclusion of going to sea; the more their equipment is rationalized with the army equipment; the more out of phase they get with allied navies-
In fact, General Moncel made this statement as appears at pa'le 1332 of the committee's proceedings:
I think if you want some form of intervention and peacekeeping on a minor scale, if you are satisfied with that and do it in conjunction with other countries, that you could have a unified force and do this thing. But, bear in mind the size of it-
The kind of force that Canada can sustain alone, abroad, on a protracted basis, on a decent battlefield day, fighting at what we called FFC rates, is about a battalion.

He said that this was what we could support ourselves, both logistically and also, I suppose, in dollars and cents.
He also said, as appears at page 1313 of committee proceedings No. 22:
If you press this thing forward your commitments must obviously vary with what the force is capable of doing. If you press a unified force through to its conclusion, you are going to have to drop some commitments, or change them.
At page 1317 General Moncel further warned:
The planning heads have got to keep their wits about them and stay on top of this. It must be a progressive thing all the time, towards the most effective Canadian defence force. This is the object of the exercise; it is not unification. Surely the object must be to have the most effective Canadian defence force .. . once you have unified it you are not going to un-unify it.
On the other hand, we have General Allard and Air Marshals Sharp and Rhyno indicating support for the policy. Bearing in mind that the latter are serving officers with no small obligation to see eye to eye with the minister on defence matters, it would appear to me that the weight of evidence does not favour unification. Perhaps it is unjust to these officers to suggest that their testimony might be somewhat reserved because of their relationships, but it is a fact that none of the present defence staff made any attempt to show, for example, that if our forces were unified they would be compatible with the forces of other nations. This may be an accidental omission, but the very fact that the air division and the brigade group in Europe will retain their exclusive air force and army structures respectively leaves me in some doubt that they were aware of their omissions, especially in view of the fact that the chief of the defence staff gave his testimony after all the others I have named with the exception of Air Chief Marshal Miller. The fact also that the chief of the defence staff used the words: "the transformation proposed by the white paper" indicates to me that he has begun to put far more emphasis on peacekeeping than on fulfilling the roles laid down in the white paper.
The acceptance of any clause of Bill C-243, other than those which were brought in to tidy up some legal matters, will mean tacit agreement or willingness on the part of the members of this house and the people of Canada to accept the total withdrawal of Canada from its existing commitments. These are long-time commitments. Frankly I do not think that this is what we should want or indeed what is needed for this country, but it
April 4, 1967

is what we will get so long as we try to match unification to the defence roles in the white paper.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am sorry the Minister of National Defence is not in the house. I wanted to make some remarks in connection with the statements made by General Allard in his speech over the week end but I will let them go until a later time. I will simply conclude by reiterating that the force and the sheer weight of evidence dealing with ranks, dress, morale, the roles of our forces, the organizational faults, the incompatibility of the unified force in terms of our foreign commitments, the supposed increased efficiency, and the dollars and cents savings which we have not seen yet, at least not in the form of hardware which was to have been the initial purpose, all point to the inadvisability of pursuing unification now. All of the evidence by virtually every serving officer who was forced to retire prematurely or who happened, by coincidence, to have come to the end of his time, points to the inadvisability of pursuing total unification now. Even those who suggest that there might be merit in the concept of a unified defence structure for Canada caution about the speed we are travelling along this avenue and point out that we are blindly going ahead without bothering to read the road signs first.


Mr. McNulty:: Mr. Chairman, during the recent and, I might add, exhaustive study of the problems of the unification program by the defence committee Canada's anti-submarine role came in for close scrutiny. Numerous wild charges were made in the committee to the effect that the navy is being destroyed and that there has been a serious reduction in the operational effectiveness of our anti-submarine forces. A close examination of the evidence given in the committee proves that this is not so.
The first point I should like to consider is the allegation that the navy and particularly our anti-submarine forces are being destroyed. This allegation is not in accordance with the facts. On December 7, 1968, the minister informed the house, as recorded on page 10825 of Hansard:
The naval share of the current five year equipment and equipment development program, ending March 31, 1971, is approximately $460 million. This represents a 23 per cent increase in the navy's share in equipment and equipment development over that spent in the previous five years.
This hardly seems to me to be evidence of an attempt to cut down our maritime forces.
National Defence Act Amendment Charges were made also that the effectiveness of our anti-submarine force had been seriously reduced during the past three years. I would refer those who want the facts to pages 1926 to 1928 of the minutes of evidence of the defence committee for March 2, 1967, where they will find an excellent statement by Commodore H. A. Porter, the director general of maritime forces, on the effectiveness of our anti-submarine role. This statement was made by him and is recorded on page 1927 of the committee evidence. It should be noted that Commodore Porter prefaces his remarks by saying that his testimony is not just his own personal judgment but is the professional opinion of competent officers who are specialists in anti-submarine warfare. The suggestion has been made that a certain reduction in the number of frigates over the past three years has decreased our anti-submarine capability. On this point, Commodore Porter said:
Although it had been planned to dispose of the older world war II destroyers and to place some frigates in reserve as the new destroyers became available, this plan was postponed for a number of reasons including the Cuban crisis of late 1962. Thus, by mid-1963 the Royal Canadian Navy was seriously overextended in maintaining this large number of ships in commission. In particular, some ships were manned with as little as 70 per cent of the crew required for operational efficiency. In addition, in order to man ships, even at that level, crew members from a ship entering regular overhaul and refit periods were transferred to a ship just completing such a period. Changes of 100 per cent in the manning billets in a ship within one year were not unusual.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how the navy's effectiveness was in any way enhanced by keeping in commission 17 out of date under-manned frigates at the end of their useful life and whose operational effectiveness was far below potential. Indeed, Commodore Porter pointed out, as recorded on page 1927 of the committee evidence:
As a subsidiary effect, the morale and efficiency of the men were affected owing to the doubling of duties in undermanned ships, the constant changes from ship to ship, and the reduction in the normal opportunities for many of them to enjoy home life.
Having established the problem, Mr. Chairman, what are the solutions? We have to go on the premise that effectiveness comprises three factors, namely, men, equipment and vessels. The men, we know, are of the highest calibre in the world. There is no question about that. But what of the ships? Commodore Porter says this, as recorded on page 1928 of the committee evidence:
It is believed that in spite of the reduction in the number of ships, the effectiveness of the maritime force has not been reduced since the early 1960's but has improved and significantly so in
14510
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment certain areas. It is confidently expected that in the period ahead the new ships and helicopters under procurement action now as well as the planned retrofit of new weapon systems in older ships, will provide the maritime force with a greatly increased operational effectiveness when compared with 1963.
This point was continually raised during the committee hearings. Some hon. members opposite could not understand, or apparently did not wish to understand, that it is possible to have a more effective anti-submarine force today with fewer ships than we had in 1963, that quality is just as important, if not more, as quantity. I am no expert in this field. However, it seems to me only common sense that if the weapons and mobility of the fleet are greatly improved, as they have been, that the number of vessels, particularly those which are undermanned and obsolete, is practically immaterial.
I should like to give four examples:
1.	The commissioning of the operational support ship, H.M.C.S. Provider, which permits an increase of 3 to 10 anti-submarine escorts to remain on continuous station 1,000 miles off shore in a force of 18 ships-a gain of three times the operational effectiveness according to Commodore Porter. Two more operational support ships are on order. These will further substantially enhance our ability to conduct anti-submarine operations, both in peacetime and in an emergency.
2.	The addition of one submarine, with two more on order.
3.	The conversion of seven St. Laurent class destroyers to carry Sea-King helicopters with mobile anti-submarine systems which give the force a tremendously increased mobility. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, trom the evidence that was presented to the defence committee by senior professional officers, that our anti-submarine capability has been greatly enhanced over the past four years because of the acquisition of the vessels just mentioned.
What about weapons and weapons systems? Surely they are critically important when considering the effectiveness of our maritime forces. Let us just examine them for a moment.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
First, Mr. Chairman, we have the introduction of the variable depth sonar system for underwater detection of submarines. We have the introduction of the Mark 44 anti-submarine torpedo. There are improvements in the long-range detection systems in some aircraft and ships of maritime command. We have

real improvement in the undersea detection and tracking system and, of course, anti-shipping rockets for the Tracker aircraft. Under development for the navy as well is the Sea Sparrow all-weather, close-range, surface-to-surface missile system which is to be fitted into the four new helicopter destroyers and two new operational support ships.
We have talked about the operational effectiveness of our maritime A.S.W. forces under the categories of men, vessels and equipment. We know we have the best men. We also know that although there are less ships in commission today than there were, say, in 1953, their effectiveness has improved significantly because of modernization, refit and mobility. Finally, we know that these ships now have and are getting better and more devastating weapons and weapons systems.
With all these known quantities, Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to understand why anyone should feel nervous about our maritime forces in the A.S.W. role being less effective than they were previously. Actually, I feel that Canadians should be quite heartened by the facts of the situation, that we are not only effectively meeting our commitment to NATO's SACLANT forces but that there is great promise for improving upon this capability in the 1967-70 period. Our naval experts serving today who are truly experts on the situation tell us that there is really no cause for alarm at all.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, it was a little over a year ago during the debate on national defence in this house that my colleague from Halifax made the point that he thought morale in the armed forces, and more particularly in the Royal Canadian Navy with which we are most familiar, was confused. Since the hon. member did not say it was bad-admittedly he did not say it was good but he did not say it was bad-this remark gave some comfort to the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence. I think that if my colleague were to assess morale in the Royal Canadian Navy today he would indeed say that it was bad. When he and I have been home we have had the experience of almost daily contact with officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy and have had an opportunity to assess their feelings. At times we have been bombarded with the problems of those who feel that service life is no longer attractive.
If there is any question among hon. members opposite that morale is not a problem in the Royal Canadian Navy, I should like to
April 4, 1967

refer to the daily orders of H.M.C.S. Saguenay, a destroyer-escort, for Monday, February 27, 1967. I have before me a photostat copy as reproduced in the Dartmouth Free Press for March 17. Part of the daily orders reads as follows:
There will be no leave until morale improves.
The words "no leave until morale improves" have been underlined by the person who sent this excerpt to the Darmouth Free Press. So any attempt to gloss over the suggestion that morale in the services is not the same as it used to be before these strange processes got under way is defeated, and the minister can find no comfort in the state of the morale in the Royal Canadian Navy today, which he can observe just as easily as we can.
A few weeks ago, on a Saturday, a poor lost soul came to see me. He is a civil servant, one of those who work in an office where some form of integration has taken place. As a result of the administrative changes within his office he did not know who his immediate superior was or the man above that immediate superior. In fact, he did not know quite a few of the men in the chain of command until he got to the very top of the administration of H.M.C. Dockyard.
This person related to me something that has happened to quite a number of people who now work as civilian support for the services. These people are confused. They do not know the proper chain of authority or command in the offices in which they work, and when they ask someone whom they think might be their superior officers in that chain of command they get no satisfactory answer. This case of the poor lost soul in one of the establishments supporting the Royal Canadian Navy in Halifax is just one of the many human examples that exist under this integration and unification plan.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question? The hon. member referred to an order which had been posted on the Saguenay on February 27, I think he said, indicating that no leave would be granted. I should like to underline the fact that on Monday, February 27 the Saguenay was at sea, so certainly some of the naval personnel at Halifax have not lost their sense of humour.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is possible they have not lost their sense of humour, and that is one way to look at the situation. But I presume that application must be made for leave and
National Defence Act Amendment this is a matter which is dealt with during the course of a voyage and as the ship approaches port. So if this was an attempt at humour it was an ill-conceived attempt. It meant enough to some people at least that they raised a fearful row, or attempted to, by sending this extract to one of the newspapers in my area.
I did not have the advantage of being a member of the defence committee, though I have read a large part of the evidence presented to the committee. It seems to me that an objective examination of the evidence that was presented, including the remarks of the minister and the associate minister and of those who supported them in their beliefs, as well as the remarks of the former officers who do not support these concepts, would lead any fair-minded person to say that the preponderance of the evidence clearly went against the Minister of National Defence and the unification bill that we are now studying.
In this regard one could mention the evidence of such people as Rear Admiral William Landymore and others, but I think that the most telling evidence was that presented by a man who in a way was responsible for getting the unification show on the road, a man who had something to do with working out the integration that had preceded it. I refer, of course, to Air Chief Marshal F. R. Miller, who was chief of the defence staff when it was formed in July, 1964 and who left that staff in 1966 after approximately two years' service. Surely, the words of a man who worked closely with the Minister of National Defence and the associate minister are words which are well worth weighing when hon. members are considering the bill before them. I intend to review some of the more pertinent points which Air Chief Marshal Miller made.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
First, we find him making this point in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East, as reported at page 2290 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 35:
So that when we embarked on the problem, when the government made this decision that we would go for integration, we were not too sure what it would be, and we regarded it as a pragmatic operation which we would set up-an organization using three services, that would ensure that there was single direction, single management applied to the three services. We saw the next step, the step which is now called unification, as being a subsequent step sometime later.
I do not think anybody is ever completely satisfied with an organization. We made very many changes in our first integrated organization we set
23033-918,
14512	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment
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.
So Air Chief Marshal Miller is giving his blessing to the idea of integration. Further on we read these words.


Harold Edward Winch: I follow up, then, with my next question. While you were chief of staff, was the policy of unification a matter of consultation between the military and civilian authorities, or were you obeying an assumption from the Minister of National Defence?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: I would think the best way to phrase it would be that it was an understanding that that was where we were going. I did not have what I felt was an instruction from the minister. It was an agreement to the policies set out in the white paper. The timing and the method were not spelled out there.
As we know from statements which have been made from time to time during this debate there was certainly no spelling out of the concept of unification in the white paper, though I think there was one mention of it on page 19. On page 2291 of the committee proceedings there is the following statement by Air Chief Marshal Miller:
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.
In other words he is saying, I think, that the "pros" on the side of unification are far outweighed by the "cons"-by the havoc which was being created. This is understandable in the light of the witness' previous statement that he never did get any heart to heart talks with the minister as to the road the hon. gentleman intended to follow.
I turn now to the evidence given by the Air Marshal as it appears at page 2297:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Another thing which was brought up by a number of witnesses is that there was a threat that unification would inevitably-when you had a single unified force-result in a considerable loss of expertise in the three different environments of the sea, air and land warfare. What is your view on that?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Well, that is predicated on the people being dissatisfied with the conditions and leaving. If the conditions are made attractive and information is made available to all the people, you might not lose them-I do not know. The big thing is the loss of people. I do not think we can force people to stay on if the government unilaterally tears up their contracts. If they join the navy and the navy disappears, you have, in my view, to give the men an option as to whether they will continue in the new service or whether they will leave. The decision with which you are facing those

DEBATES	April 4, 19B7
men has to be very carefully considered and prepared for.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You would contemplate then that there might be a considerable further loss of highly trained personnel as a result of this move if it is made, going into effect.
Air Chief Marshal Miller: That is very well worth consideration. I do not think you will ever know what it is until you spell out what the conditions are and put them up to the men and see what the reaction is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is one of the possible serious results.
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Yes.
I should have noted earlier that Air Chief Marshal Miller did not go before the committee with a prepared statement. He made his remarks off the cuff and anyone reading his evidence will appreciate that here was a man speaking from his heart and from his mind as to his actual experience. The whole tone of the evidence inspires a belief in its trustworthiness. As reported at page 2300, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is asking questions of the witness:


Mr. Nugent:: Would I sum up your attitude accurately if I suggested that the case is simply this: Whether or not unification should ever be brought in and how quickly it would be brought in would be determined by a survey of the results of integration alter these experiments had been finished and there had been a chance for an appraisal of their success or failure.
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Certainly the question of taking on unification was predicated on the integration-you call it experiment-the effort working.
Finally I should like to quote what this distinguished officer had to say as reported at page 2302. The hon. member for Kootenay East is the questioner:


Mr. Byrne:: Then, do you believe that the implementation of Bill C-243 would result in significant demoralization of the various forces?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: If rushed, I would think so.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If rushed. Do you consider that Bill C-243 is the exemplification of unification, that is, that it is exemplified in this bill?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Yes, I think it is.
These are warnings which should cause the minister and the government of which he is a member, though a member diminishing in value, to pause. On reading the remarks made by the Prime Minister at a press conference which followed Air Chief Marshal Miller's presentation I thought the Prime Minister was about to take the statesmanlike step of switching on the red light and stopping this process until things had shaken down in the Department of National Defence. That was my impression of the Prime Minister's first
April 4, 1967	COMMONS
reaction to the testimony of Air Chief Marshal Miller before the committee. Then something happened-I suspect it was a long distance telephone call from an annoyed Minister of National Defence-and the Prime Minister backed away from his previous comments.
It has often been said by those who favour unification and integration that they do so because the concept is new and because it will save money. I do not think it will save money-the budget of the Department of National Defence does not bear out that contention-and as for its novelty, it might be expected to appeal to young people. However,
I should like to quote the results of a survey which was carried out in the Halifax area. A questionnaire was distributed to high school and university students and interested adults who visited Dalhousie University during a two day meet the public campaign. About 1,200 questionnaires were returned and, quoting from the Chronicle-Herald of Wednesday, March 22, these were the results:
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
On the issue of armed forces integration, 50 per cent were opposed, 42 per cent were in favour, and 8 per cent didn't care one way or the other.
This survey was carried out by, believe it or not, the Student Liberal Association at Dalhousie University. I once had occasion to become aware of the weight of this splendid organization. They helped nail my hide to the wall in the 1963 election so I quite respect them as adversaries. The survey they carried out would, I think, embrace a fair number of members of that organization and, to put it very succinctly, the results showed that half of the young people polled did not believe in the policies of the Minister of National Defence. Many of these people are those who might be expected to support him when he takes part in the steeplechase approximately a year from now, let us say, for succession to leadership of the Liberal party.
It is no wonder then, sir, that the TriService Identities Organization, in its summation recently sent to all members of parliament, was able to present some ten arguments why unification was not a viable way of moulding our armed forces. Point No. 2 in its summation is an interesting one. It reads:
Claims that other countries are following the Canadian example have not been substantiated. In fact government intentions as expressed in white papers on defence in the United Kingdom, France and New Zealand show no indication of emulating the Canadian plan which will be carried forward if the bill is enacted. Informed persons in both
National Defence Act Amendment the U.S.A. and United Kingdom, as evidenced by recent articles and statements, have indicated concern or disenchantment with the Canadian experiment.
But I do not suppose the Minister of National Defence is any more proficient in reading adverse opinions from abroad than he is in listening to adverse opinions at home.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Lincoln made a point concerning the reduction in operational ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and argued that the ships remaining in service, because of their increased weaponry and other new refinements, are much stronger warships than existed ten years ago. Of course this is true, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it is an act of genius to discover this fact, but the hon. member goes too far when he suggests that we in the opposition misunderstand the effect of the reduction in the number of ships that are operational.
We grant that any one ship is superior in its fighting abilities, anti-submarine warfare abilities and detection of submarines than the same ship was a few years back. But what we are saying is that if we continue to reduce the number of ships and are left with one or two they may be vastly superior but they will not have the same over-all effect as a fully operational fleet.
The MacDuff Ottawa Report in the Dartmouth Free Press of March 2 makes a point which I think is a valid one in assessment of the type of criticism heard in the defence committee. It reads in part:
-what they consistently attack is integration- the process that has been going on for three years, that many of them developed and carried out, the process they say is good.
This has given the defence committee hearings a somewhat unreal air.
As an outsider in respect of the defence committee that point struck me as quite a valid one. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we are still in an area where many of the problems associated with change in the Department of National Defence arise because integration itself has not yet fully worked itself out. I am not surprised at this and in a way do not hold any minister responsible for it in the sense that the department is a very large organization indeed and when you have a large organization it becomes extremely difficult to make changes within it.
I noted the case a few moments ago of the poor lost soul who could not ascertain the chain of command in one of the civilian offices attached to the military establishment
April 4, 1987

National Defence Act Amendment in Halifax. I think that part of the failure to achieve the maximum benefits of integration can be laid to the system itself. We are taking something very huge and trying to change it about. But I do not absolve the minister simply because Parkinson's law happens to be in effect in dealing with this matter. The fact is that the minister himself, by the golden handshake he has given many of his best advisers, or the golden boot might be a better way of describing it, has created havoc in his own organization. By reason of his failure over the past year to support his officers, particularly those in the navy, because of his failure not to berate publicly his own unnamed spokesmen in the department who have tried to turn the naval service into open class warfare, the minister has a great deal of responsibility in this particular area and much of what is happening is a result of the minister's own personal and unique way of doing things. In that respect I would wish that he could learn more from the very gentlemanly Associate Minister of National Defence who has somehow, despite all the uproar, managed to remain high in the esteem of every member of this committee.
Finally, sir, I would quote a program presented in somewhat jocular fashion in a letter by a Robert N. Clements of Spring Garden Road, Halifax, to the editor of the Chronicle-Herald and printed in that publication on February 9 this year:
slr _ it is hard to understand the timidity of Defence Minister Hellyer and his advisers in the promotion of the program of unification now being presented to the Canadian public through parhament.	.
Why hesitate and refrain from a complete job. Why not rename the future defence service as the Canadian Water, Land and Air Department (CWLAD) ?
The senior officers could be listed as superintendents, first, second, and third class, and all the other ranks known as journeymen.
Judging from samples of a few selected recruits displayed on television during the past several months, this action would attract such desired types in sufficient numbers to keep the service from complete collapse.
A simple denim coverall would be good enough for the lot, and equipment could be reduced to a bucket and mop for the navy, a pick and shovel for the army, and some rubber balloons for the air department.
The colossal saving would more than finance complete medicare for the whole country, without cost to any provincial government, with enough left over to do away with Health Minister Mac-Eachen's means test and supply all old age pensioners at least 150 per month at age 65.

[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Following this achievement, our government could turn its limited talents and time toward the integration of sundry splinter groups for unification of Canada into one country, rather than the present collection of Balkan-type states.
As a start it could eliminate any further activity by our $5,000,000-plus, B and B commission which to date has merely served to stir up and create more bad feeling than any other activity in recent Canadian history.
Further suggestions are available on request.
Robert N. Clements
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is again a matter of regret that a workable national defence policy could not have been evolved by members of all parties meeting in a committee with the type of witnesses that were heard by the committee on national defence but with the advantage that a very emotional issue had not been presented beforehand and therefore the advantage that concrete proposals could have emerged which would have represented the best common denominator of thinking in respect of this highly important field. As I say, I am sorry it has not happened in that way. The records of the committee on national defence contain too many harsh interjections by members with reference to each other and red hot clashes of personalities. This matter should not have become a highly personalized issue. I venture to suggest that this would not have been the case had the Minister of National Defence taken the advice to call upon an all-party committee of the House of Commons to deal with the problem of national defence in the future and perforce our external affairs policy which should be considered at the same time. That course was not taken. The government is following a course which has been proven to be one of folly. We shall continue to offer all the resistance we can to it.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, like all my colleagues I thought that everything had been said about that bill during the many sittings of the parliamentary committee and during the hours we spent discussing it at the various stages.
Like many other hon. members, I also felt that it was better to keep quiet in order to expedite the passing of this bill, because many of us are under the impression that everything we hear now is repeated and rehashed. The same arguments, the same testimonies are constantly being brought forward. There is nothing new and I think that all Canadians
April 4, 1967

are beginning to be fed up with those endless discussions which fail to settle anything and take up the time of the house.
But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, two incidents happened yesterday and today which prompt me to make an intervention that I shall try to keep as brief as possible.
The first deals with the opportunity seized by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire)-I am sorry he is not in the house and that the rules did not allow me to say this in his presence-to harp once again on his separatist string. Of course, this afternoon, his intervention was weak and sad in many respects. He put forward baseless arguments; for instance, he referred to the forthcoming celebration of the Vimy battle, and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) left him without a leg to stand on, to use a current expression. He also brought up another disgraceful incident purported to have occurred in Bagotville two years ago and he dragged out musty files authored by Mr. Marcel Chaput, that other high priest of separatism. He very nearly would suggest to the minister, in order to settle the problem, that he appoint Mr. Chaput as commander in chief of our army and he himself would become a little corporal, a corporal in camouflage, in which he would undoubtedly excel, to judge from the way he never misses a trick to promote his separatist ideology, with such success as we have witnessed this afternoon.
What seemed most scandalous to me, Mr. Chairman, was to observe the member for Lapointe who seeks to appear as the saviour of the Quebec nation and who never misses a change to grab the headlines and claims to be the only member in this house to defend the rights of the people of Quebec when he opened wide his arms to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) himself a well-known wrecker, even a saboteur of national unity in this country.
We have seen earlier the Quebec separatist leader embracing the Ontario separatist leader; we have seen them billing and cooing, but back in their own ridings, one will say that he wants to protect the French Canadians, the other, the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, I was wishing a while ago that the rules allowed me to snap a picture of those two members of parliament whose ideologies are miles apart-or should be, if they are logical with themselves-whispering compliments to one another, exchanging suggestions to improve somewhat their vicious
National Defence Act Amendment procedures which only boil down to destroying the understanding between the two main racial groups in the country.
I think this warrants a protest, Mr. Chairman, for it eloquently reveals the wolf in sheep's clothing and I am sure that the people of Quebec will soon realize that the leader of the Ralliement national is nothing but an imposter whose arguments do not hold water and who excels at making mental reservations and at twisting the truth to suit his purpose. Such an attitude had to be brought out into the open, Mr. Chairman.
Another incident occurred yesterday. The integrity of General Allard was questioned here in this house.
Mr. Chairman, General Allard was born in my riding and lived in my home town. He is somewhat younger than I am. I saw him grow up, go to school, go through his first campaign in the army. I know him well and I must say, in all sincerity, that he is a man of unassailable integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Had he not been convinced that unification, that the integration which the government proposes to bring about were a good thing, I know he would have resigned rather than speak against his convictions.
Therefore, I think it rests with me, Mr. Chairman, to rise and defend him against his detractors.
And I am surprised that so much consideration has been given to the military men, the generals and admirals who sharply criticized that policy of the government and whom we read the evidence with attention and even respect. Many of those who allowed such a free criticism of the government will not permit the authorities of the Canadian army to defend the policy of their government as loyal Canadians should do.
I think that is illogical and that someone should point it out. It is the duty of General Allard to defend unification, because it is the policy of his government. I have never thought that it belonged to the servicemen to establish the policy of the country. Moreover, it behooves the government to establish the policy of the country and the military men to respect it. This is what General Allard is doing: his duty.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: And had he acted differently, he would have been disloyal and he would have deserved the dismissal which some of his colleagues had to face.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the morale of the troops was low. I am a bad judge in these matters. I choose to take General Allard's word, for he is better acquainted with them than I. However, should it be true that the troop's morale is low I believe that many members of this house should confess their guilt for it would be the result of their efforts to bring discredit on the government's policies and the high officers who are trying to implement them.
What would you think, Mr. Chairman, of someone who told 30 students in a classroom that their teacher was not following the right course because he insisted upon following the instructions of the School Board and the school principal? You would say: that is disloyalty. And eventually those students would lose confidence in their teacher. Their morale would suffer. The same thing happens in the army at the present time. And I think that members abuse here, in this house, of that criticism, and that they take advantage of too many circumstances to put in a bad light the responsible heads of the Canadian army who, for conscience' sake, want to defend the government policy.
Generals and admirals with a vast experience were called upon to give evidence. Everyone said what he had to say. It remains now for the government to adopt a policy, and neither those in favour of unification nor those against it can be muzzled, unless closure is to be imposed here.
Mr. Chairman, I think it should be added that General Allard is not a man who speaks through his hat and that he earned through hard work and experience the position he now holds. I should like to give, as briefly as possible, that it may be placed on Hansard, outline of the experience which allows him to speak knowingly of all the problems of the Canadian army.
1933: He received his commission in the nonpermanent active militia.
At Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Chairman.
1939: He went on active service and became a major in the Trois-Rivieres Regiment (armoured). Between 1939 and 1943 he held several positions in Canada and overseas to become, in 1943, second in command of the Royal 22nd Regiment in Italy.
At the front. I feel that the fact that he risked his life for his country in 20 battles,

that there might be peace in the world, should be reason enough to spare him the sneaky attacks now inflicted upon him.
December 1943: While acting commander of the 22nd, General Allard received the ''Distinguished Service Order" (D.S.O.) for his courage, initiative and military competence in the battle of the Arielli, near Ortona.
January 1944: He assumed command of the 22nd Regiment and, in September, his outstanding record, in the break-through of the Gothic line, brought him a first bar to his decoration.
March 1945: He was promoted to brigadier, and was placed in command of the 6th Canadian Infantry Brigade in Holland. During that period, he received a second bar.
1945-48: He was sent to Moscow as military attache to the Canadian Embassy, and he later became commander of the eastern Quebec command.
1950-51: He spent a year at the Imperial Defence College in Great Britain, then became vice-quartermaster general of the Canadian army.
1953: He was appointed commander of the 25th Canadian infantry brigade in Korea and represented Canada at the signing of the cease fire at Panmun-jon on July 27, 1953.
1954: He was commander of the 3rd Canadian infantry brigade at Valcartier, then commander of the eastern Quebec sector until his promotion to vice-chief of staff of the army in Ottawa in 1958.
November 1961: Her Majesty the Queen approved the promotion of General Allard as commander of the 4th division of the British army on the Rhine, in Germany, the first Canadian to hold such a post.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: October 1963: He came back to Canada as major-general in charge of survival operations at army headquarters.
1964: At the time of the integration of armed forces, in September, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general and appointed chief of operational preparedness.
September 1965: He took charge of the new mobile force command.
1966: On July 16, 1966, he was promoted to the rank of general and appointed chief of defence staff for Canada.
Decorations: In addition to his decorations received for bravery, General Allard is commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, was awarded the Croix de guerre and the Legion d'honneur by France, the Lion of Bronze by the Netherlands, and the decoration of officers of the Legion of Merit by the United States.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, he has not learned his calling solely through books. He has learned it through practice. In fact, he took training in the navy and the air force.
In the air force, for instance, he has accumulated more than 1,000 flying hours aboard Tiger Moths, Pipers, Cessnas as well as aboard L-19 Birddogs. Then, he chalked up a lot
April 4, 1967

of flying time as co-pilot on Dakotas, Beech-crafts, Seabees, Beavers. He also flew the British Hunter as well as CF-104's, CF-101's, DH-125's, Mystere 20's and CF-5's.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that this man is rather extraordinarily competent; his services to his country and to the peace of the world, deserve the respect of every man in this house and should at least protect him from such insinuations as were made when it was said that he supported unification and integration because he had to agree with the minister for reasons of personal advancement. He is not that type of a man and I know he would have the guts to resign if he was not convinced in his mind and in his conscience that it is the thing to do.
So, as the member for Trois-Rivieres, I rise in the defence not only of a good citizen, but of a great Canadian, a great servant of Canada intent on maintaining peace in the world. And I urge my colleagues to show more consideration for services rendered and to stop wasting the valuable time of the house.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see the minister back in the house. Earlier he was absent and I hope he has dined well.
When I was speaking earlier, I suggested that the basic groundwork for a proper and adequate review of the legislation now before us could not be laid by anyone else in the house other than the minister, because he has ample time to set forth his views and understandings of the bill. Members must direct their comments to appropriate provisions; for that reason many of us will be on our feet on several occasions during the course of the next few days.
At this time I should like to extend the remarks I made earlier and outline my understanding of the state of the unification concept at the time the committee meetings concluded. It seems appropriate, in view of the marked division of opinion in respect of Bill C-243, that the minister reassess the evidence given to the committee and the meaningfulness of proceeding with the bill at this time.
We have been told quite emphatically that the government cannot accept any substantial amendment to the bill, that the acceptance of any such amendment would constitute want of confidence in the government and might
National Defence Act Amendment force it to go to the people for a decision. I am not one of those who believe this should not be done. On the contrary, I feel quite strongly that if the people of Canada were properly advised and informed in respect of this measure, they would like to express their opinion on the merits of unification. I suggest this in light of the evidence and opinions which came to our attention during committee hearings.
During the course of those hearings, one very important fact came to light. Senior officers, past and present, openly declared their support for integration. The opponents of unification were most emphatic on this point, and most agreed with the principle of integration. Many of them, in fact all of those men who were retired earlier, worked very hard to achieve integration. Most of them felt that once the problems in respect of the implementation of integration had been solved, and procedures had been developed, not only could it be successful but in terms of serving members of the armed forces, efficiency and dollars and cents savings, it could be achieved.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
It is my opinion, based on the evidence presented to the committee, that the time required to put integration into full effect and properly on the rails varies from three to five years. No one in the present or past defence staffs, in the higher echelons of the defence structure, denied that a great deal of work had yet to be done to bring integration to the end planned and hoped for by the minister and those directly responsible for its implementation. The task involved appears to include a vast amount of organizing in connection with establishments, procedures of supply and materiel, ways and means to judge the cost of various programs, various ways in which economies can be made and money saved, and consideration of the areas of waste that must be eliminated.
There appears to be a very large task of cataloguing in this respect. Indeed it is very desirable that this work should be carried out. In short, Mr. Chairman, there would be considerable work involved in this program, in the opinion of one senior officer who appeared before us. We were told that there already exists in one command a two-year backlog of paperwork. This work involves every branch of the Department of National Defence, including the commands which have been integrated. Not all of them have been
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment integrated, because some cannot be; but there appears to be a vast amount of tidying up, consolidation if you like, and assessing of the merits and demerits of the steps that have been taken to date and those that must be taken as the weeks and months go by.
This being so, in my opinion we have now to weigh the merits of proceeding with unification at this time. We must do this if we are to proceed in any orderly manner toward the goal that the minister desires. As we know, parliament has approved unification in principle. It remains my very real conviction that had the evidence now available to us been made available prior to this stage of the bill, quite possibly the house would have had second thoughts about giving approval in principle to the bill.
Let us review briefly where we stand on the question of unification in terms of the urgency of moving forward with the program at this time. The chief of the defence staff, General Allard, gave us his reason for urging passage of the legislation now, and proclaiming it. His contention was that the officers and men of the armed forces have been kept in doubt for a very long time and the decision must be taken now, or without undue delay. His recommendation was that the legislation be passed forthwith and without such delay. Perhaps I may quote from the committee proceedings of February 28, the last paragraph on page 1769, where General Allard is reported to have said:
Finally, I would refer to the question regarding any suspension or delay in proceeding with the final stage of the reorganization, and that is unification. I sincerely believe a postponement or delay in starting-and I insist on this word-starting this final stage would have a most serious effect on all of us now serving and on our recruiting prospects. What the serviceman is saying to us today is, "Get on with it."
If I might be permitted an aside, what the serviceman is saying today is that he is so fed up and disgusted with what is happening that anything is better than this constant living in limbo. General Allard continued:
And in my opinion any delay-one year, two years, five years, or even a few months-would seriously impair morale.
I question whether morale could be any more seriously impaired than it is now. However, I continue to read what General Allard said:
This proposal is not designed to cope with the past. It is for the present and the future. Although youth today is prone to disregard the past we intend to retain those things that are worth while and at the same time to build for the future.

This, then, is not for people of my age and older, but I hope that I at least can be part of those who helped to design the organization. I am convinced that not only is it right but that it will appeal to the youth of today and tomorrow.
In summary, then, gentlemen, the situation is this: The idea of a single force, in a single, distinctively Canadian uniform, working, living, training and-most important-thinking together as one entity is an exciting and challenging idea. After all, it is designed to meet the problems of a modern world-a scientific world-which is growing away beyond the barriers of the past at a speed that cannot stand the slow pace of yesterday. For all this, you know that we do not intend to proceed in haste-I said it was a starting point- but rather in a carefully planned manner which will extend over a number of years. All that is required now is the authority to do so.
That is a fairly strong endorsation of the government and the defence people to get on with what General Allard terms the starting point of this new piece of legislation. He tells us that there is no other course, or at least he implies that. As I have mentioned, he says this quite forcefully. I suggest that there is a second course of action which we should consider and which would indeed achieve the very worth-while standards and requirements that General Allard has mentioned in relation to morale. He suggested that if we do not proceed with this legislation now, morale will worsen.
The second course of action is not one that is acceptable to the minister or the government, but I suggest it to them because I think it should be given some consideration. This second course of action is that the whole unification procedure be shelved, put on ice, and the men in the three services be informed that this will be done. It should be made clear that this program, which in any case, as I understand it, would take some five years to implement, will not be resurrected until the end of that period.
This course of action has many advantages. First, it will allow adequate time, by all estimates, to complete the necessary work in connection with the all-important phase of this matter, namely integration. Second, it will allow clarification of two important matters. The first is the distinction between unification and integration, which has not yet been successfully defined and spelled out. It will allow a period of clarification in this regard. There could then be implemented or initiated a study and a plan of the reorganizational change necessary, so that in fact the best of the old and of the new could be melded to provide Canada with what I am sure we all desire, namely the most effective force, in terms of our foreign commitments, for the
April 4, 1967	COMMONS
least possible expenditure of dollars and cents.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Indeed, none of us disagree with what General Allard has said in this respect. Very recently we have heard His Holiness the Pope cautioning the people of the world about the inadequacies of some of their present thinking. I will not quote his words but they are a guidepost, a sign and an indicator that what we are doing is not for ourselves but for those who will follow us. It is therefore our responsibility to make sure that what follows is the best. This is our motivation.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, this will permit time for a total organizational study and a reassessment of the necessity for moving toward total unification. It would permit the integration process to be fully studied and worked out after which, according to a plan which would be prepared, we could make a decision about total unification. It is of great importance to recognize the necessity of advising the serving officers and men. This should be one of the first things to be done. We should let them know where they stand, what the plan is, and that they will participate in the period of reassessment and in the full implementation of the first stage of the program of the integration process. We should let them know that the final outcome of the plan and the degree to which it is successful in terms of the standards set down by the minister, the economies and efficiencies, will be based upon these factors.
As I said, it will provide a second benefit. It is not unrelated but indeed it is entirely different in the sense that it would give a new generation of serving forces an opportunity to understand better the changing roles of the defence structure of a country such as ours. It would give these younger men the opportunity of themselves assessing the proper military course. It would provide an opportunity for the world war II combat officers and men to proceed to their normal retirement. It will allow time for another minister to succeed the present Minister of National Defence. Indeed I cannot imagine an effective cooling off period under the present Minister of National Defence. As I said, it would give a new minister with new ideas and new approaches a possibly different understanding and approach to this problem, and an opportunity to bring his expertise to this end product toward which we are proceeding.
Third, it would allow time to assess fully the economic factor in what is proposed. It
National Defence Act Amendment has been stressed that unification will cost very little. Some of us have doubts that the real economies have been studied and are all known. That is certainly quite true of integration and completely and totally true of unification.
Fourth, it would give us pause to consider a revised white paper. I have commented on this in the past. It has seemed to me almost incredible that we are making such a major move in our defence posture based on a white paper that now must be nearing four years of age, a paper which was produced in March, 1964, which means that its drafting must have been commenced in late 1963. It is therefore certainly three and a half years old. As I said, it would give us pause to consider a revised white paper concerning the roles and commitments that the next two or three years may require of Canada, in terms of its contribution to the collective defence of the free world.
It would give us time not only for a reassessment of the white paper in terms of defence but also in terms of our external affairs policy. There has to be some satisfactory solution to our NATO assignment, to our place in NORAD, and our position in the United Nations Organization in relationship to our desire to contribute to the peacekeeping role of that body.
Finally it would allow time for a healing of the relationship between the armed forces and the government. I think we delude ourselves when we attempt to suggest that at present this relationship is good: It is not.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Indian affairs-inquiry as to payment of kindergarten teachers; the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire),
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment transportation-inquiry as to report on maritime study; the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), external affairs- inquiry as to extension of representation in Pacific area.

Shall the committee resume the business interrupted a few moments ago?


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, before the committee resumes its sitting may I point out that I believe it is accurate to say that there is general agreement among the members that the sitting should be suspended this evening between seven and eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: My intuition has suggested to me that it was the desire of the house to adjourn for one hour, but our proceedings require the unanimous consent of the house before we can do so. Shall we resume the business interrupted a few minutes ago and go back into committee of the whole?


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.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The sitting is suspended from now until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


J. Michael Forrestall: When the committee rose for dinner, Mr. Chairman, I had been setting forth a number of advantages to be gained through shelving the unification bill we are now considering. I pointed out that a delay of three to five years, if the bill could not be removed entirely from consideration-this would be the best choice, and of course must be the first one-should be brought about. If the bill could not be dropped, then the good advice of the senior officers who appeared before us should be accepted, namely that the bill should be delayed for a period of from three to five years.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
I pointed out that such a delay would permit time to examine the full effects of integration. It would permit time to foster a better understanding than is possible now of what is taking place at the moment. It would permit an opportunity to review our roles, as set out in the white paper, by the standing committee on external affairs or, better still, by a joint committee of defence and external affairs. It would permit time to assess fully the economic factors involved. It would give time, as I have mentioned, to consider the roles of our country and the production of a new or changed white paper. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it would provide a cooling off period during which time there could be a healing process of the many ruptures that now exist to the good will between the government and the serving officers in our defence forces.
For all of these reasons, as well as many others, Mr. Chairman, that have been dealt with in the last few hours by previous speakers, or will be dealt with by speakers who will take part in the debate as time goes on, there are marked advantages to be gained in delaying the passage of this bill. On the other hand, sir, to proceed now can only add substantially to our present difficulties. We were warned by a number of military witnesses, who came before the committee, that proceeding now might well bring about a situation where a substantial number of good officres and men would consider leaving the forces.
These men might consider this course, notwithstanding the loss of pension and other benefits which might result. There seems to be, as I mentioned earlier, a false assumption on the part of the minister's supporters on the other side, namely that the passage of this bill as the final step toward unification, would resolve the type of problem that is going to be created by this bill. A prime example of this situation was given to the committee by Admiral Landymore. He pointed out the tremendous losses that could accrue to a member of the armed forces in terms of pension benefits, if he were to retire. I will not put all this information on the record, but it is available in the evidence of the committee if any interested parties care to look it up. It is problems of this type, pension problems, morale problems, rank structure problems, materiel and logistics problems, that are going to create in the minds of members of oui armed forces a situation that will lead to the most serious possible consequences to our ability to meet our defence commitments.
April 4, 1967

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
On this basis the best course of action now is to throw the bill out altogether. I suggest to the minister that, in the minds of the serving members of the armed forces today, unification is so vague and undefined that the only moral course the minister and the government can adopt is to make certain that the men are given freedom of choice as to whether they wish to transfer to this new force. They must be given an opportunity to resign, to retire honourably without any pension penalty or loss of benefit, medically or otherwise, accruing to members who retire.
If the government fail to do this but proceed in the way General Allard, as I mentioned before supper would wish us to proceed-that is to say, to pass quickly this unification bill-then the minister must accept full responsibility for this course. I suggest to him that the success of the final implementation of such a far reaching measure as this is to be found in the willingness, loyalty and desire of those affected by the measure to bring about that success.
If the minister fails to recognize the necessity for this type of approach, then indeed it will be much longer than the half generation suggested before the bill and its implications finally become workable, not only in terms of the force itself but in terms of our foreign commitments. Perhaps it would take 20 years. We will have to pass through not one but two whole decades before we find a group which will willingly implement what the minister wants. To this end, Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate stage of the consideration of this bill amendments will be introduced dealing with pension rights, and so on. For the time being I thank the members of the committee for their indulgence.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, according to yesterday's Hansard General Allard, our present chief of the general staff, was reported to have made some very startling statements in a speech to the International Relations Club, and I believe these statements deserve some comment. Indeed, they were the subject of some proceedings in this house today on motions. I wish to make some comment because I do not believe that the people to whom General Allard referred-former ministers of national defence-would feel they should explain the matter to this house; but as a member of the standing committee I wish to devote my time this evening to replying to one part of that speech.
National Defence Act Amendment
In the course of his speech, the general asked a question which I believe should be answered as forcefully as possible, and I intend to so answer it. The question was;
I should like to ask the former cabinet ministers why they are clinging to the name of the navy, the army and the air force?
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, as a member of the defence committee, and being present when the three former ministers questioned General Allard at the hearings, I would say that perhaps one of the main answers to the general's question was his own inability to give intelligent answers to the questions put to him by the former ministers concerned-and I say that with all due respect to the chief of the general staff.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, in his speech to which I have referred he said:
I have attempted to explain my views on unification of the armed forces before a parliamentary committee. I was obliged to say to a member of parliament: "Sir, if you do not understand, there is nothing that I can do".
I say that that is a ridiculous statement on the part of someone holding the position of chief of the general staff. If the members of this house would review General Allard's evidence they would find that his admitted attempt to explain unification could be classified, in my opinion, as a very poor and disappointing attempt, for one holding the position of chief of the general staff.
When asked to substantiate some of his statements with facts he was unable to do so, except to say that he had strong convictions that everything would be all right. I submit that strong convictions are not sufficient or satisfactory answers to questions. The chief of the general staff should have been able to give answers based on facts and figures. We have the right to expect more convincing evidence from a person holding such high office in our armed forces.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I repeat to the general that perhaps his own inability to produce facts and figures, in view of the position he now holds, could be the main reason why the former cabinet ministers clung to the names of the navy, army and air force. They are concerned about the security of our country under the present administration. I submit they have a right to be concerned about the security of our country, in view of what has developed over the past two or three years since the present minister has been head of the Department of National Defence.
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment
I also submit that strong conviction is not a satisfactory answer to the question: How will unification or the single service concept save the Canadian taxpayers money? Strong conviction is not a satisfactory answer to the question: How will the single service concept improve the effective efficiency of our combat troops? They are the troops with which we are concerned, and I will refer to them later in my remarks.
Again I submit that strong conviction is not a satisfactory answer to the question: How will unification improve the morale of our combat troops? Strong conviction is not a satisfactory answer to the question: Can Canada fulfil her present defence commitments and take on the additional role of restoring peace, which to my mind is a very dangerous role for Canada even to attempt? Strong conviction will not replace forward planning of manpower and financial requirements.
General Allard admitted that in this regard he had made no studies. I would ask why this was not done. Strong convictions on the part of General Allard, that unification will not destroy the effectiveness of our combat troops, are not easy to accept in view of the testimony of his former colleagues in the same branch of the service. They are, I suggest, men of long military experience and of recognized stature in military life.
I am only sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Lapointe is not in the chamber tonight, because I understand that this afternoon he suggested that two former ministers, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Calgary North, were raising the question of racism. I want to refer the hon. member for Lapointe to the fact that there were two former generals in our armed forces-they were in the army-with French Canadian names, and to draw to his attention their idea of what is unification and what it will do to our country and to our forces.
I should like to refer the members of the committee to minutes of committee proceedings No. 22. If I may paraphrase what General Moncel said, he was of the opinion that unification may be the "kiss of death" for Canada's defence forces. He also said that unification will work only if our defence commitments are reduced or changed because unification was an uncharted course with a dim destination.

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I believe the hon. member for Greenwood will agree with that. He says he agrees in principle with the idea of unification though he did not really know what the term means. That I can understand. The hon. member indicates he did not say that; perhaps it was some other member in that quarter of the house. Again, he and his hon. friends wish to support the government. But they are sitting on the fence, leaving themselves an opening.
General Fleury says this with regard to his opposition to unification:
I honestly feel that not one word I said here yesterday or today will have the slightest effect on what is ultimately carried out, because so many people have taken up such entrenched positions on the subject that it is very difficult for anyone to back away.
General Simonds said in part:
My own view... is that this unification having regard to all the implications of what defence policy should be, is not in the national interest.
He also said:
If we are called upon to meet our obligations we could not do it. It could not be done with the manpower we have today.
This is a most revealing statement for one of our generals to make. I suggest that General Allard should review the evidence given by his former colleagues. I say that the chief of the general staff, together with the minister have, so far, accomplished six things in connection with this question of unification, and I propose to list them: 1. They have confused administrative tidiness with operational efficiency. 2. The have tried experiments when they should have prepared plans. 3. They have increased the defence budget and reduced the public understanding of it. 4. In themselves they have taken stubbornness for insight. In others, they have mistaken disagreement for stupidity or even disloyalty.
5.	They have discouraged the prospective recruit and dismissed the seasoned officer. 6. They have jeopardized our national security. Perhaps these observations will make it clear to the general why former defence ministers still cling to the conception of a separate navy, army and air force.
I should like now to refer to a speech which was made in this house yesterday by the hon. member for Roberval. He said he was representing small business and would like to say a few words on behalf of the small business people of our country. It was a very confusing speech but I do not blame the hon. member for Roberval on that account; I blame the minister for the confusion which

April 4, 1967	COMMONS
has been created. This hon. member said, in part:
I fail to see why in the military field as in all other fields, expenditures should not be reduced as much as possible.
With this, we agree. Then he said, as will be found on page 14451 of Hansard;
Therefore, I am rising this evening in order to express the views of our group concerning the unification of the three armed services, because we consider primarily the savings to be made.
Here again, with regard to this question of possible savings, the minister has misinformed the members of this house. In fact, there are no savings to be made as a result of unification. Anyone who undertakes a serious review of the evidence given before the committee, especially of the testimony given by those who have been involved in planning for the extension of the services, will agree that this is the case. I refer again to the testimony given by General Moncel, that if we were to carry out the commitments we have already made plus an additional role as a peace keeper or peace restorer, our requirement in manpower would be 150,000 men and the cost would be close to $2.6 billion. This is as close as he could estimate, and he had studied this situation.
Another point was made by the former minister of national defence, my hon. friend from Calgary North. He went back over the estimates and put it on record that since the present minister had taken over the department there had been less capital expenditure than ever before. He proved this contention to the satisfaction of most members of the committee. Yet the minister still says his program will save money for the people of Canada.
The only way in which the department has saved any money, and kept within its budget, has been through a reduction in manpower. Nor has this reduction been the result of anything proposed by the minister. It has come about simply because recruits are not forthcoming. The minister told us he wanted to reduce recruitment by 10 per cent. Well, he now has the figure down by 23 per cent -down below what I believe to be a safe figure.
The hon. member for Roberval went on to say:
According to military technicians it would also be beneficial to the unity of the army itself on the economic level, which would necessarily reduce administrative costs.
National Dejence Act Amendment
Here again, the minister has created confusion in the minds of members because administrative costs have absolutely nothing to do with unification. Here, the confusion between the terms integration and unification goes too far. Any reduction in administrative costs is entirely due to integration, not to unification at all. The bill before us tonight was not necessary in order to obtain any reduction in administrative costs. Integration itself could have done that, and could have taken place without this bill being passed.
The hon. member for Roberval has apparently swallowed what the minister has been trying to put across, and to this extent he is like many of the Canadian people. He tells us he has great admiration for the minister. He feels the minister is doing a good job. But then he contradicts himself and says:
Let me speak as I did at the beginning, as a simple civilian. As civilians we notice mainly the military budget. I said earlier that we were expecting a reduction in the expenditures, but when we look at the military budget we notice that this year, in spite of all the minister's predictions, it is yet much higher than last year.
A little later the same hon. member said:
We had hoped that the budget would be reduced by at least one third, but it is not the case and I want to point out to the minister that we are a little disappointed in that respect.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Well, I want to point out to this committee that they will be a lot more disappointed if they swallow what the minister and the chief of the general staff are trying to push down their throats. Unification will accomplish nothing which the minister has told us will be accomplished. Proof of that was evident in the meetings of the defence committee, and anyone who wishes to study that evidence will realize this fact. The testimony given by men who formerly held high positions in the forces has warned us that it will not work. Men who have spent all their lives in this business have told us unification will not work. But what has happened? We have this minister who took office with new ideas, who said, "Yes, it will work. Anybody who disagrees-out they go." Finally he got somebody who did agree with him, a yes man, and the minister is pulling this thing through with the support of the majority of the members of the House of Commons. But still the members will not take time to read these minutes where the evidence has been put before them, will not take time to digest that evidence, and so we get speeches like the one I referred to a few moments ago, which to me mean nothing.
April 4. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment These members agree in principle but they do not know what unification means.
In his speech last night the hon. member whom I have quoted also referred to the party to which I belong and said in part, as recorded at page 14,451 of Hansard:
I am therefore mildly surprised that the Conservatives, as a whole, should so oppose the bill.
All kinds of excuses will be given for holding up the business of the house-
We are not holding up the business of the house, Mr. Chairman. We are carrying out our responsibilities in the manner in which the people of Canada expect us to do. We object to this bill in principle. We have reasons for objecting and we are trying to document those reasons so that the members will understand, if they can understand.
Before this debate is finished all kinds of accusations will be made against us. It seems remarkable that the critics of unification have been categorized as emotional, unprogressive, unreasonable, disloyal, obstructionist, destructive, politically motivated, and without responsibility. I imagine those terms will be repeated time and again as we hear hon. members from the other side get up to make their speeches. But surely members opposite have not been so thoroughly brainwashed, or taken in by the defence minister's misstatements, to believe that because Conservative opposition members, as well as witnesses of stature, hold opinions contrary to those of the minister that they do not do so by reason of knowledge, capability, experience, conviction, concern and sincerity. I hope they will give us credit for that.
I now wish to refer to some statements made by government supporters, which have been reported in the press. I refer in particular to the chairman of the Liberal caucus, the hon. member for Durham, who has said that the government may have to use closure. We heard these rumours and I say to hon. members opposite, go ahead and use closure. We expect that from the Liberal party. It has been done before and it will be done again. But in this connection I wish to quote from an editiorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail on March 28. The minister knows that the Globe and Mail is no supporter of the Conservative party, but this editorial referred to a letter sent by the hon. member for Durham to his constituents. It quotes his letter as follows:
The Conservative party will undoubtedly launch a filibuster to prevent a decision being taken.


The editorial comments:
Now, now, Mr. Honey, don't blame the Conservatives. The hearings before the Commons defence committee made it pretty clear, especially to the New Democrats who had been disposed to support the government on unification, that what the government was actually trying to do was to create a force for the implementation of a policy about which it had neglected to inform the country.
This is what we have been saying ever since this bill came before us. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that on second reading we pleaded with the government, and with the minister in particular, to let us hear witnesses before asking us to agree to the bill in principle. But our plea was not met by the minister, and the Prime Minister was just as bad. He forced the house to agree in principle, before we heard the witnesses. I do not want to read the whole of this editorial but parts of it are very interesting. It says:
Unification only makes sense (unless there is to be a huge increase in the defence budget, and few Canadians would consider that made sense) if Canada is going to abandon many of its NATO and NORAD and sundry other defence commitments, and concentrate almost wholly on a peacekeeping role.
This is what we said in the defence committee, and this is the stumbling block with which the N.D.P. are now confronted. They agree that the single service concept makes sense only if Canada is going to opt out of its other commitments. If we do that I say, and I shall go on to prove, that we will lose our national pride, we will lose our sovereignty, we will have to rely on our big neighbour to the south to protect us, and as a Canadian I would not have much pride left if we did that. If we can do only one tenth of the job, because we have only one tenth of the population of the United States, then we should take pride in doing that in defending the North American continent.
I think all of us will agree that the only defence for Canada is on a continental basis. That is generally accepted. But let us not opt out or phase out of any commitment we have at the present time, until there is agreement among our allies as to that course.
The editorial goes on to say:
That may be a good idea or it may be a bad idea, or it may be partly good and partly bad. But the point is, it hasn't been discussed. Parliament has been given no opportunity for a full debate on what commitments this country should keep, what changes in its policies toward its allies and the world it should make, what new commitments it should undertake. Instead the government has been trying to rush Canada into a new vehicle -unification-without explaining that the reason for it is a change in destination.
April 4, 1967	COMMONS
The opposition would be less than responsible if it bought the new vehicle-
I shall not quote further from that editorial.
Even if this debate goes on for weeks and weeks we would not fulfil our responsibility if we let the minister and the government get away with unification until we know what it is, what it does to the security of our country, and what it does to our allies. Do we let them down? We should not pass the unification bill until we know what it is going to lead us into. This peace restoring role can be very dangerous. This experiment that the minister, because of political expediency, is trying to rush through is not for the good of Canada but for his own personal political advancement.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the crux of the bill, namely unification. It is not my intention to deal with the subject of integration because I do not accept the suggestion that integration and unification are one and the same thing,-although the minister has tried time and time again to confuse hon. members and the Canadian public that integration and unification are good for Canada.
Certainly we agree that integration is good for our forces. The minister wasted a lot of time in the defence committee bringing in certain of his staff who dealt with nothing but integration. I say again that if we want to integrate our forces we do not need this bill. Integration has been worked on for years and years. Maybe it has not taken place as quickly as it should. I believe we would have given credit to the minister if he had insisted that integration be completed within a certain length of time. A certain amount of integration is O.K., but someone has said that the minister is putting the cart before the horse, and when integration starts to interfere with the effectiveness of our combat troops we say it is going too far.
Again we say that integration and unification are two entirely different subjects, regardless of the fact that the minister has tried to confuse us. Yesterday he spent 50 minutes of the time of his speech talking about integration, although we have told him time and again that we agree with it and have no objection to it. Perhaps we could criticize parts of what he is trying to do in integration, but integration has nothing to do with unification.
The minister spent only ten minutes of his speech yesterday dealing with unification, and
National Defence Act Amendment the whole confusion is in the difference between unification and integration. It is on this confusion that the minister is playing, and this is why he is going to ask hon. members to vote for the bill, knowing full well it is the first step towards conscription, towards compulsory military service in Canada. Other hon. members will deal with that phase of unification.
I would say integration deals with and concerns the supply and administration of our forces and does not touch or interfere with our combat troops. For simplicity's sake I can say to those hon. members who have not had military experience that we can break our forces down into two elements with different training and different supply problems, the administrative element of all three services and the combat element of all three services.
[DOT] (8:40 p.ra.)
I say again that if you put the cart before the horse for the sake of the administrative and supply element at the expense of the combat units, it does not matter how good your supply, administration and transport is if your combat troops cannot fight. This is what we are trying to impress upon this house. The minister is destroying the combat troops and making them useless so that they will not even fit into the commitments we have today. They will not fit into the NATO alliance. The NATO commander has made his plans. He knows what he wants. If he is given a force of people equipped with bows and arrows he will say that he cannot fit them into what he has planned. It is the NATO commander, and not the government of Canada, who is responsible for the NATO plan. The government of Canada cannot go to the NATO commander and tell him the way to run NATO. This is what the N.D.P. party has been trying to impress upon this house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does the hon. member not know that the commander has indicated very clearly the need for a mobile reserve force to which Canada indeed is contributing, and to which it could contribute even more.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, these terms, such as "mobile reserve" could mean several things, just like "integration and unification". One would have to ascertain from the NATO commander in detail what he means by mobile
14S26
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment reserve. One could have a mobile command of cavalry, with horses, but it would be no good in the operations the commander has planned. As I say, when we give our troops to that commander we are giving them to him to use in the manner in which he sees fit, and therefore he should know what he is getting from each country. He should know the type of reserves and force he will have, so that he can plan the defence of what he has to defend. If Canada should come along with a force which will not fit into any of his plans, then he will say that Canada might as well keep that force at home. Possibly that is what the minister wants.
We do not oppose the bill as it refers to the dental personnel or logistics. We said this before. The minister has wasted our time in bringing such officers before the committee. Any criticism we have in respect of integration has to do with its being carried on to the extent of interfering with the effectiveness of the combat elements of our forces. On the other hand, we believe the intention of unification is to change the structure of our combat troops, and with this intention we violently disagree. We have put before this house our reasons for disagreeing with this.
Most of the controversy over unification has arisen because of the mystery which has developed over the meaning of the term "unification". I say the minister is directly responsible for this mystery. We attempted to find out from him what he meant by the term "unification". Time and time again we asked him what this meant. He gave us some highfalutin reason, but during the committee hearings he stated that he wished he had never used that expression. He said that he wished he had used the expression "single service concept". Had he done that in the beginning there would not have been the confusion which there has been in respect of the word today, and I do not think the detrimental press reports which there have been in respect of the minister would have been made.
Had the minister conveyed the idea to the members of this house that he had in mind the best interests of the force, rather than political expediency, I think he would have been a big man today, rather than a "has-been" next leader of the Liberal party. What should have been purely a military problem now has become intensely political, because of the manner in which the minister has handled this matter. The question in the minds of members of the opposition was whether or

not this was an attempt on the part of the government to direct our attention from a contemplated change in foreign policy. This is what we wonder about. Over the past couple of years events show that the politicians have been deciding military matters with little regard for the views of the military experts. The Canadian public was confronted with such statements and headlines from the minister as, first: Unification is probably the boldest plan of military reorganization ever tried by a modern nation. He received headlines all across the country as a result of that statement. Then he said that we are now becoming a leader in defence organization, and thinkers, not just followers. He said that this is something new for Canada and new for the whole world. The third headline was that Canada will have indelibly etched her name as a world leader in military organization.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, but I must advise him that the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member may continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to say that
the hon. member has not obtained the unanimous consent of the house to continue with his speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We should let him continue. His speech is getting better all the time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you. I will remember this, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Frank Foy: Mr. Chairman, many times members of the official opposition have said that more witnesses should have been called and heard before the standing committee. I would have had no objection to the calling of more witnesses before the committee, had it not become apparent that the members of the official opposition were dedicated to kill this bill. I stated this in the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have been listening to the minister.


Walter Frank Foy: At the time when the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona joined the
April 4, 1967

committee as replacement members-to replace members who had seemed to have a reasonable attitude-the committee then became clearly a partisan exercise. As I have said, official opposition members were dedicated to killing the bill. In the committee we heard many statements, such as we have heard from the member who just sat down. These were statements which were insulting to the minister, insulting to the serving officers and to many others. I should like to refer to that old war horse from Winnipeg South Centre. I use this phrase with the greatest respect because I have respect for this gentleman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He has a funny way of showing his respect.


Walter Frank Foy: Mr. Chairman, may I continue. My time is limited. The hon. member I have just mentioned delights in stirring things up.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. We have an expression of opinion from the hon. member that he should be given an opportunity to continue his speech without interruptions.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. It arises out of the statement made by the hon. member to the effect that I had joined the committee and then had proceeded to insult serving officers. My one simple question to him is, how many serving officers appeared before the committee as witnesses after I joined the committee?


Walter Frank Foy: I will answer that question later.


Donald MacInnis: Answer it now.


Walter Frank Foy: I would have to look up the records.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, further on the question of privilege-


Maurice Rinfret: I do not think there is a question of privilege. Therefore, I think we should allow the hon. member for Lambton West to continue his speech.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made an accusation against me and I rely on the privileges of this house in asking him to either back up that accusation or withdraw it. He has indicated that I insulted serving officers. When I asked him how many
National Defence Act Amendment serving officers were called as witnesses before that committee after I became a member of it, he said he would have to consult the record, because he does not know. If he does not know that answer, he should not make such a statement. He should now withdraw it, and will do so if he is any kind of man.


Walter Frank Foy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is doing exactly what he was doing during committee meetings.


Donald MacInnis: What you are talking about is a lot of lies. You are trying to put across lies. Stick that down your throat.


Walter Frank Foy: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre took great delight in stirring things up. He does the same thing in this house. He often says terrible things and demands resignations. After really stirring things up he takes his seat and conceals his laughter. Mr. Chairman, very often the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and others sit in their places grinning from ear to ear, after causing a great disturbance.


Mr. MacEwan:: Surely that is terrible.


Walter Frank Foy: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre loves to play the game of party politics. He loves that kind of action. I suspect that the hon. member agrees with the principle of this bill. He cannot convince me that with his vast experience in parliament and in military matters he is against it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Would the hon. member throw away his notes and make a speech.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote it for you?


Walter Frank Foy: Mr. Chairman, I hope the time being consumed by these ridiculous remarks is not considered as part of my allotted time. Whenever a member tries to make some reasonable comments this is the kind of thing we hear from hon. members such as the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
One of the most oft-repeated criticisms of the unification program is that the government is moving too hastily, or that it somehow plans to invoke instant unification. While I am sure that some of the critics who make this charge are sincere and I suppose well-intentioned, my membership on the standing committee on national defence has made me equally sure that they could not be more wrong in this regard.
During the course of the last few months, the hon. member for Northumberland has been travelling throughout the country making incorrect statements, one of which is to
14528	COMMONS
National Defence Act Amendment the effect that our servicemen will be transferred from ships to the air force, or to the infantry. This is a ridiculous statement. Perhaps, like Diogenes seeking an honest man, he is seeking the leadership of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We all know he aspires to this position. If he is successful, by some fluke he could become prime minister of this country. That hon. member should take the time to learn the true facts about unification, before expounding on this subject about which he does not seem to know anything.
What this government is asking for is not permission to complete unification within a few days, a few months, or even a year. If anyone is labouring under the impression, he is mistaken and has not bothered to follow the evidence heard by the standing and special committees on defence. This would also obviously indicate that he has not followed the statements made by many serving senior officers and by the minister himself. I think we should examine some of the testimony given by these men.
Let me quote the vice-chief of the defence staff, Air Marshal Sharp, who gave this evidence before the committee on February 7 of this year:
Because this is a very complex job, very thorough and careful planning is required. The department has, on the one hand, been accused of acting too quickly, i.e., not doing sufficient planning, and on the other hand, accused of not deciding sooner the details of what is involved in unification. Since planning takes time and since the details cannot be decided and divulged until the planning has been completed, it is obvious that the department cannot satisfy both of these criticisms. To take time for adequate planning means that there will be some delay before the details of unification can be announced. To quickly announce the details implies inadequate planning. However, to postpone the decision to unify until all the details have been worked out is contrary to common sense. It is tantamount to saying that the decision to build the trans-Canada Highway should not have been made until all the details of construction had been completed.
Air Marshal Sharp is an intelligent and distinguished officer who has been deeply involved in this program since its beginning and he knows what he is talking about. I am sure that the air marshal does not believe we are going to instantly unify our forces. Obviously he does see the logic in obtaining permissive legislation so that he and his colleagues in the Canadian armed forces can get on with the job.
[Mr. Foy.J
DEBATES	April 4, 1967
On February 23 the minister made the following statement before the standing committee regarding the timing of unification:
It is an continuing evolution that will not be completed until 1970-72, as has been stated by many serving officers, including the heads of training command, materiel command, the vicechief and myself.
There is no way you can bring about 'instant unification'. Nor is there any intention to do so. It will all be done in a step-by-step, carefully calculated manner, with full regard for our operational effectiveness and the best interests of our servicemen.
Why do official opposition members continually say here in Ottawa and elsewhere that unification is to be completed immediately? Because they do so I suggest there is a lot of partisan politics being played as there was at the meetings of the standing committee. This type of thing is continually practised by hon. members opposite. They know very well that instant unification is impossible.
If we followed the advice of stand pat reactionaries every time we sought to enact important legislation for the benefit of Canadians, we would never get anywhere. It is only by realizing problems and acting on solutions that we are ever going to progress; that we are going to develop this great nation's full potential.
During this session the government has set a record by passing more important and long overdue legislation than at any other time in history. Such vital appendages to our prosperity as a guaranteed annual income for old age pensioners, medicare, the Canada Assistance Plan, manpower programs, a new transportation program, Bank Act revisions and such things as a Science Council and a health resources fund cover the broad spectrum of human need in Canada. I suggest to hon. members that this is accomplished because we are willing to progress and not stagnate.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Clearly, any delay in obtaining parliamentary approval for the unification of our armed forces would have a most serious effect on the morale of our great servicemen. They are, I am sure, anxious to get going on this imaginative program, but uncertainty is their biggest enemy-uncertainty as to when they will be allowed, as General Allard has said, to get off the front pages of the press and back to the job of running the forces. In fact, the general in his brief to the committee on February 28 outlined very lucidly the rationale for obtaining approval from parliament to enact the legislation and, of course, he too
April 4, 1967

dispelled any fears we might have about instand unification. I should like to quote General Allard in this connection:
Finally, I would refer to the question regarding any suspension or delay in proceeding with the final stage of the reorganization, and that is unification. I sincerely believe a postponement or delay in starting-and I insist on this word-starting this final stage would have a most serious effect on all of us now serving and on our recruiting prospects. What the serviceman is saying to us today is, "Get on with it." And in my opinion any delay-one year, two years, five years, or even a few months -would seriously impair morale.
Then further on he concludes:
In summary, then, gentlemen, the situation is this: The idea of a single force, in a single, distinctively
Canadian uniform, working, living, training, and___
most important-thinking together as one entity is an exciting and challenging idea. After all it is designed to meet the problems of a modern world -a scientific world-which is growing away beyond ,e harriers of the past at a speed that cannot stand the slow pace of yesterday. For all this, you know that we do not intend to proceed in haste- I said it was a starting point-but rather in a carefully planned manner which will extend over a
"ff, oft yaars- A11 that is required now is the authority to do so.
I should like to follow up on this eloquent plea by Canada's top serving military officer by saying this: The integration-to-unification program for the Canadian armed forces has been exhaustively scrutinized and debated since the white paper was issued early in 1964. Evidence given to the committee and to parliament during interim supply alone amounts to more than 4,000 pages of standing committee minutes and Hansard. To put these figures into plainer terms, the number of pages represents about a dozen comprehensive text books of information. So far we have talked about defence matters more than 114 days and have heard from over 130 different committee witnesses, many of whom have appeared two or more times. Any attempt by hon. members of the house to defeat this bill by a talkathon could only be regarded by the men and women of the forces, and the public alike, to be a ridiculous procedure, wholly infringing on parliament's responsibility to act.
It is said by hon. members on the other side of the chamber that there has been an undue rush toward unification. I say this is not so, Mr. Chairman, not at all. Having exhausted everything that can be said about the unification legislation, it is now our responsibility to turn the program over to our servicemen, let them implement it, let them get on with the job, and let them confirm our conviction that
National Defence Act Amendment this is the right policy for our servicemen, for Canada and for our allies.


Mr. Smilh:: Mr. Chairman, the fact that the last speaker and some of those who preceded him have been so worried about the length of time this debate is going to take and have started to talk about closure, when we are not quite through the second day of discussion of the bill in committee, makes me wonder what they are trying to conceal. It seems a shame that so much of the debate and so many of the pages to which the hon. member who preceded me referred have been filled with ir-relevancies, in so far as the problem of unification is concerned. Indeed, the professional staff, Air Marshal Miller and others who gave evidence and helped fill up the record, confronted us with a great many irrelevancies. For example, in a list in one of the briefs submitted to the committee there was included as one of the benefits of integration and unification the acquisition of the fan jet Falcon, that nice little, executive jet that cabinet ministers are getting to whizz them around the country. That aircraft was listed as one of the pieces of equipment we were acquiring because of the savings from unification.
A great deal of the argument put forward in support of unification has had nothing at all to do with unification; it has dealt with integration and the benefits of integration. Indeed, most of the witnesses who appeared before us, and I think most of the committee members, realize that there is a great deal of good to come from the integration of command, of certain supply services, and so on. But that is irrelevant in so far as this bill is concerned.
My friend the hon. member for Greenwood, with whom I often find myself in agreement, has also introduced irrelevancies into this discussion. He talked about unification in the light of a new role for the Canadian forces. I should like to suggest that while it may be very desirable that we increase our intervention role and build up our mobile force, whether or not our forces are unified will not make that intervention force or peacekeeping force any more or less efficient. In so far as this bill is concerned, that is an irrelevant argument.
However, I do agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that what we need is a new statement of defence policy, a statement indicating the priorities that we are attaching to our defence roles; because unless you know what you are doing or why you are doing it,
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment you cannot organize your forces to meet those commitments.
I do not propose to quote at great length any of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. I should like to read two or three passages from the evidence of Air Marshal Miller, and for a particular reason. The reason is that he is the serving officer who very strongly supported integration; he had more to do than anyone else with the initial planning of integration, and until just six months ago he was the chief of staff. His definitions of integration and unification impressed me very much.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I think it would not be a bad idea if we had them in the record in close proximity. His definition of integration appears at page 2290 of his evidence, as follows:
By that I mean the operating of the three services under a single-what I would call-management. A single defence staff, a single planning organization, an d single budgeting arrangement.
That I think, sir, is a fine definition of integration.
His definition of unification appears at page 2311 of the committee's proceedings, where he said the following:
Unification is the formation of a single force, single rank structure, single administrative chain, the wearing of a common uniform and calling trades and ranks by common names. In other words, a single force instead of three forces.
What does Air Chief Marshal Miller say about the advantages and disadvantages of unification, always bearing in mind that he is a very strong supporter of integration? At page 2291 he said:
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.
The following exchange appears at page 2297 of the proceedings:


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you, yourself, see any financial advantage accruing from the proposed scheme of unification?
Air Marshal Miller: There are no significant financial advantages whatsoever as far as I can see.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you see any military advantages flowing from it?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Again, there are no significant military advantages.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you see any military disadvantages coming out of it?

Air Chief Marshal Miller: The disruption is an unknown factor, and one which I have always rated rather highly. I did not want to have anything occur that would cause disruption in the services. I felt a lot of careful planning was necessary, and that probably time to educate people was required before the next step of unification was taken.
There is one more quotation of Air Chief Marshal Miller which I should like to read. It appears at page 2293. He was speaking about the loss of efficiency, and he said this:
I think it is a very bad thing for the forces. Many of the people who had left had a great deal to contribute to the forces organization in the future if they had stayed on. There were some key men who left.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would you consider then that the loss of considerable numbers of highly trained personnel extending right down into N.C.O's and so on, and technical trades, has impaired the effectiveness of the forces?
Air Chief Marshal Miller: Yes. With the loss of skill and talent from our pool, the pool is bound to be poor thereby.
Now I would like to turn to General Allard's evidence. Lately General Allard has been making some speeches. I found that his statements to the committee were most unsatisfactory. They were unsatisfactory in many ways. They were tinged with political overtones, they were irrelevant and in some instances they were misleading. If lately he has brought a certain amount of political fire about his head, he has no one to thank for it but himself. When in the committee we pressed him for details on his planning, his attitude was: you are just a civilian; you would not understand; this is a professional matter. In looking through his statement one can find many instances where he seems to have taken that attitude.
Some of the people who were questioning him, myself included, are of course very ignorant in military matters and have not had much experience. However, I still think that we are entitled to better answers than those which General Allard gave us in his rather haughty and arrogant manner. It was the only time when Rear Admiral Landymore made the statement about a military commander taking over. I agreed with many people that Rear Admiral Landymore had gone too far, but some of General Allard's statements to the committee made me wonder whether Rear Admiral Landymore's fears did not have some basis.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Smith:: There is nothing to be ashamed of. Anyone can read the evidence. Let me
April 4, 1967

give examples of some of the misleading statements made by General Allard. For example, at page 1764 of the committee's proceedings he drags in the ill-fated Bobcat, which was a military weapon with the development of which governments struggled for some time. I do not know how he could relate that to the benefits of unification or integration, but he did. The same reference on the same page relates to the Arrow program. On the following page he speaks about the national survival system as being something that would not be carried out because of integration or unification, but really it seems to me that this is completely irrelevant.
At page 1821 he made the following statement:
Now, I have made a very careful study of the committee system, in which the army alone spent 50,000 hours-man hours-per year on co-ordination between the three services; this was the committee system.
Therefore, when I finished my study, I was convinced that we had to have an organization that would deal with this centrally.
Again this is a matter of integration, not unification, but he has confused the two. He said, 50,000 man hours. In those terms it sounds rather like a lot. On page 1824 he is questioned about this statement. I asked him:
General Allard, you mentioned in answer to Mr. Churchill a few minutes ago that 50,000 man hours were spent in the army on co-ordination. I have never been noted for my mathematics, but that would indicate to me some 25 or 30 men per year.


Mr. Allard:: It is much more than that.


Sydney John Smith: At 2000 hours per man per year?


Maurice Allard: It is much more than that. If you wish, I will read this to you:
Project ORA which was completed in June, 1964 showed that for army headquarters alone there were 702 memberships in 440 committees, subcommittees, working groups and similar bodies. The total army workload involved in participation m these committees was 52,205 man hours in 1963, equivalent to about the full time employment of 26 persons.
This was the great saving about which he had spoken in his evidence a few moments earlier. This is not the only place where the committee was confused by General Allard's evidence. One of the alleged benefits of unification is the so-called interchangeability of manpower, that it will be possible to take men serving in one trade and in one environment and transfer them easily and quickly to another environment, thereby effecting a great saving.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Many of the witnesses who were experienced commanders at sea pointed out that
National Defence Act Amendment interchangeability is not always as easy as that. They pointed out that a signaler at sea has other trades to learn, and a signaler in a tank has other trades to learn. There would be a great deal of time wasted in retraining.
This was one of the strong points that General Allard made and there is this reference to it on page 1786 of the committee evidence:


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And the man who is a soldier communicator, or a ground environment communicator, will also be a fit man at sea?


Maurice Allard: Yes, Mr. Lambert. Already we have two airmen and two soldiers at sea as a test, and they went quite voluntarily.


Sydney John Smith: What are they doing at sea?


Maurice Allard: -
This is very interesting.
-At the moment they happen to be in a trade which is quite compatible with their ability.


Sydney John Smith: Which trade?


Maurice Allard: Two of them are stewards.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, stewards at sea are ammunition detail, are they not?


Maurice Allard: Yes, they could be trained.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the usual purpose, I think, for a steward at sea?


Maurice Allard: It could be.
Now, that is the type of misleading evidence that we have obtained. This is the sort of thing which makes everyone doubtful having regard to Air Chief Marshal Miller's evidence concerning the lack of planning and the general lack of knowledge, as well as his strong plea for time to get the maximum benefits from integration. When the chief of the general staff is so uncertain about what is happening, it makes one very doubtful whether we should not at this time give credence to Air Chief Marshal Miller's plea for a delay.
You know, one thing about this debate on integration and unification is that the earliest estimate concerning the maximum benefit of integration is from three to five years. Unification will start to become effective at the end of that time, perhaps by 1970 according to an optimistic guess, or 1972 according to a pessimistic one. Of course, not many of the present generation of politicians and very few of the present generation of chiefs of staff will be around to see the horror we have committed by attempting to unify our forces, without any planning whatever.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Lambton West has left the house because he made a few remarks to which I think I should reply. I think for
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment his edification he should be told a few of the responsibilities of the opposition in this house. In his absence, I will state what I have in mind concerning our reason for opposing this bill. I will put my remarks on the record and the hon. member will be able to read them in Hansard tomorrow.
First of all, I want to refer to a few of the other remarks he made. Oh, I see he is here now. He said that the government was not proceeding in haste with this unification program. Well, I would remind the hon. member for Lambton West that every move in connection with this whole program has been made in haste, regardless of the promises given to members by the minister during his second reading speech, when he said we would be given ample opportunity in committee to question all the witnesses we wanted after the bill had been given second reading. This was one of the carrots he held out to members of the house. In addition, the Prime Minister gave the people of Canada the assurance that the critics of this unification program would be given ample opportunity to question any witnesses that they wished.
The minister stated the government was in a hurry to get this bill into committee after second reading. We pleaded with them at that time not to make us agree to the principle of the bill before we understood what it meant. I am surprised that some members in this house have made the remark that they agreed with the principle, but they did not understand what it meant. How could a person agree with a principle without understanding what it means? We would be delighted if we could agree with the principle and if we could believe it would be good for Canada. However, we do not understand what unification means, and I do not believe the minister understands what unification means. If I were to ask the hon. member for Lambton West what unification meant, he would not be able to give an answer. We proved this in the committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I gave an answer.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Even the minister could not give us a definition of unification.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I gave you one.


John (Jack) McIntosh: But did you try to interpret it? You stated in the committee that you wished you had used the term "single service concept" instead of unification. We wished that also, because you have tried to confuse


us with this term "unification". I agree with one of the writers in the press who said he thought the minister had used the word "unification" and then dreamed up a force afterwards to fit. It appears to us that unification is bad for Canada. Certainly, we are going to object to this bill as long as we can or until the government can convince us it is good for Canada. All the evidence we have gathered so far proves the opposite.
Unification will not save the taxpayers money. It will not improve the effectiveness of our armed forces. Unification will disrupt and destroy the alliances to which we are now committed. It will destroy our national sovereignty and destroy our national pride. It will get us into many situations that will be dangerous for us.
Before I go into that, I want to indicate to the hon. member for Lambton West that we are opposing this bill because we feel it is our responsibility to do so. In order to refresh his memory, and in case he does not know that an opposition is an essential part of parliamentary democracy, I should like to remind him of the nineteenth century dictum of Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This dictum remains as true today as when it was laid down. There is no protection for liberty simply in the word "democracy". Unchecked, the best of rulers become autocratic. This is the nature of man. We have seen evidence of this in the present minister.
Autocracy, tyranny and dictatorship are shadows that ever stand in the wings of the freest of parliaments. In the absence of a strong opposition, a cabinet with a commanding position in the house could and would rule without regard to individual or minority rights. The hon. member for Lambton West was alleging that we had no rights here, that we had no right to oppose this bill. We certainly have a right to oppose it, indeed it is our responsibility to oppose it until we know what it means.
The need of a strong opposition is supported by almost every political writer. Among these is Professor Basset who in his "Essentials of Parliamentary Democracy" has stated that the opposition is not merely tolerated but treated as indispensable. He emphasizes the existence of an opposition as an example of the difference between democracy and autocracy. As I said before, an opposition is as
April 4, 1967	COMMONS
necessary to the parliamentary system as is the cabinet. The two are inseparable. One without the other would mean tyranny or chaos.
One of the most important functions of the opposition is to constructively criticize the executive. This is what we are doing and this is what we intend to do, regardless of the remarks from members on the other side and regardless of the press. We are carrying out our responsibility to the Canadian people. An opposition that discharges its parliamentary responsibilities properly is bound to appear as obstructionist to those opposed. We are bound to appear to be filibustering. But it is the very essence of our system that if the opposition party feels strongly on a matter of principle it must carry its opposition to the utmost extent allowed by parliamentary usage, and that is what we intend to do. Parliament is a place for responsible discussion. The weapons of the opposition are discussion and argument, and we intend to use those weapons.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Unfortunately, this opposition in parliament has been misrepresented by the hon. member for Lamb ton West to be obstructionist and time wasting, and uninformed critics cry for action. I wish they would become informed. Parliament will only remain the guardian of freedom and the custodian of our free institutions as long as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is fully responsible-as we intend to be-and effective in the discharge of its functions.
When I spoke a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, I referred to the minister glorying in some press coverage he had received across the country.


Walter Frank Foy: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Certainly.


Walter Frank Foy: I understood the hon. member to say that he did not know what unification meant. Is that what he said?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I said I did not understand what it meant.


Walter Frank Foy: Then on that basis the question I want to ask is this. If the hon. member does not understand what unification means, how can he state that unification is going to destroy the armed services?
National Defence Act Amendment


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am opposed to any experiment with our armed forces, and I think this is an experiment. I do not know whether it is good or bad until some explanation is given. May I ask the hon. member for Lambton West what unification means? Would he care to answer that question?
During the committee hearings we asked many experienced officers for a definition of unification, and as the hon. member knows -he was there and heard them-most of them said that they did not know what it meant. Those who made the attempt to give a definition gave one which had no relationship to any of the previous definitions, and I might say that this includes both the minister and the chief of the general staff.


David Vaughan Pugh: They were just as muddled as the minister.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Perhaps more so, and the minister made them that way.
I should like to refer quickly to certain headlines across the country for which the minister took credit. One of these was: "Unification is probably the boldest plan of military reorganization ever tried by a modern nation".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister says "hear, hear". He still thinks this is a good headline. Another one read: "We are now becoming leaders in defence organization, and thinkers, not just followers". That one was flashed all across the world to our allies. We all know what General Simonds said when we asked him what our allies thought about this unification program for Canada. He said that they thought we were all nuts, as Canadians, and the minister is responsible for our allies thinking in this way. They are not my words; they are the general's words.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He was thinking of the opposition.


John (Jack) McIntosh: He could have been thinking of the opposition, but time will tell us who are the nuts.
Another headline read: "Canada will have indelibly etched her name as the world leader in military organization".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister's definition that unification means only a single service concept does not support or fit into these earlier statements, statements to which he just now responded "hear, hear". He still endorses them. The single service concept is certainly not the boldest plan of military reorganization ever tried by a modern nation-definitely not. Whom was the minister trying to fool when he made that statement? He has made us the laughingstock of other nations. I remember saying that of the minister in a speech in January, and this is what he is likely to do. He will likely make the Canadian troops embarrassed. He will embarrass our sailors at any port they visit. The minister has not heard the last of this, even if he is fortunate enough to shove the bill through the house; and with the support of the splinter parties he will be able to do this.
Nor does its implementation in any way make Canada a leader in defence organization. It has been pointed out to us several times in the committee that the United States has been following the single service concept in its marine force for years. I also say at this point that it is used chiefly in an offensive rather than in a defensive role. This is where this program might be very dangerous to us as Canadians.
In Canada the single service concept only makes sense if it is the intention of the government to opt out of our collective defence role and adapt our entire military efforts to the role of peace keeping and peace restoring. Here we enter the field of a change in foreing policy which may be the key to what the government is getting at. This may be the reason that there has been no forward planning in the Department of National Defence. When we ask how many men will be required to take on the extra role of peace keeping and how much money will be required for this purpose, it may be the reason that the minister and the chief of the general staff said that they had made no studies in this regard whatever, which to me is a very amazing statement on the part of the minister and the chief of the general staff.


J. Michael Forrestall: A very revealing one.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, very revealing. Again I state that the only answer we could get from the chief of the general staff was that he said he was strongly convinced that unification will work out this way. I contend that is not

good enough for the members of the House of Commons. We want better answers than that. We are entitled to facts and figures. We cannot understand why this planning has not taken place. That is the duty of these people. That is why the taxpayers pay them. They are paid to plan and to provide these figures, to let us know what our role will be.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, this problem has now resolved itself into two major issues. As I listen to the speeches in this house made by those who are present, it seems these members have also come to this conclusion. The problem now involves our external affairs policy as well as our defence policy.
If this premise is correct, Mr. Chairman, then we have put the cart before the horse in dealing with our defence policy. At present we are dealing with defence policy before we have a clear understanding of what is our foreign policy. The members of this house have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to produce a white paper on foreign policy. If our foreign policy has changed, then perhaps this single service concept might be all right for the provision of a peacekeeping force. But I would suggest to the government that it is not Canada's duty to go alone into this peace keeping peace restoring role. Other countries as well as Canada should participate. We are not the guardian of the United Nations, and we are not the people who should restore peace in these brush-fire wars which are started from time to time in various parts of the world. That is not our responsibility. We are willing to help, and we in the opposition would support such a measure; but I do not think that we should be expected to perform this role alone.


David Vaughan Pugh: Nor pay for it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Nor pay for it, as an hon.
member says, as we are doing at the present time. The cost should be spread over all of those countries in favour of peace keeping and peace restoring.
If our foreign policy is to remain unchanged, then there is no need for a drastic change in our defence structure. I think that was amply borne out by expert witnesses before the committee. There is certainly no need for unification of our combat troops or forces. This is why we object to unification, because it disrupts our combat troops. We
April 4, 1967

should keep those combat troops foremost in mind at all times. Their efficiency is most essential to the defence needs of this country. Perhaps we can have poor supply and administration elements, but we cannot have poor combat troops, which is what is likely to happen if we concentrate on the system that the minister is trying to enforce at the present time. We do not want tidy administration at the cost of our combat troops.
On the other hand, if the government's intention is to change our role in foreign affairs and to adopt a "go it alone" foreign policy -which is what some of us think it is- I suggest that as a small nation we cannot afford to contemplate such action, because it touches on such subjects as our sovereignty and our national pride. Some hon. members will no doubt be thinking that the suggestion that it is Canada's intention to opt out of its collective defence role is a ridiculous idea. It is not so ridiculous. I suggest there is foundation for such a thought. Some will say that government spokesmen have time after time given assurances to our allies and to the Canadian people that they have no intention of opting out of our collective defence commitments. Let us consider the facts and determine whether there is any ground for our concern.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Military experts have told us it is impossible in terms of available manpower at present budgetary figures for Canada to continue both her collective defence role and the proposed peace keeping peace restoring role. Remember the figures General Moncel gave us. We cannot continue to fulfil our commitments to NORAD and SACEUR while taking on another role as peacekeeper. Military expert witnesses have maintained that to fulfil both roles our manpower figures would have to be increased from 104,000-the lowest it has been for years-to approximately 150,000. Where are the recruits coming from?
Our defence budget of $1.5 billion would have to be increased to approximately $2.6 billion to cover a dual role status. This is almost double last year's defence budget. When government witnesses, including the minister, are questioned on cost and manpower requirements they freely state that no study of estimates has been made by the department in connection with increased requirements in either manpower or dollars.
National Defence Act Amendment This is a strange admission, particularly when it comes from those in the department who should be planning this sort of thing. If we embark on a venture of any kind we need to know how many men are required. The Canadian taxpayer has a right to know how much the cost will be. The minister says he cannot tell us. But he intends to go into this venture regardless of the cost. These are facts which must be put across to the Canadian taxpayer.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is not the government's intention to continue both the collective defence role and the peace keeping role. It is parliament's responsibility to determine just what the government's intentions are. This should have been done before we agreed to this bill in principle, but the circumstances were such that we were forced to agree in principle before we understood what was meant. We still do not understand what this bill will mean. Although every member of this party voted against second reading of the unification bill, the government had sufficient support to force it down our throats.
The military expert witnesses testified that the task requirement of our alliances could not be carried out by a single service force. Statements were made that the single service proposed in Bill C-243 would be less effective in defending our country and in co-operating with our allies than the three services we have today. If this is so, why break up the present system? The three services were designed and evolved to operate and fight in three totally distinct environments-land, sea and air. Bill C-243 as written indicates that the single unified service would be basically "army" in character, and indicates a shifting in our defence policy.
I would say that our four brigade groups would in themselves call for most of the limited manpower available today and that there would be little left to fulfil the obligations to which we are being committed. This government, and particularly the minister, is steering us away from the natural modern concept of interdependence and leading us back to the antiquated role of maintaining a national force. In this day and age we are bound to take account of our interdependence vis-a-vis other nations. This is vital to the defence of our country. If the minister does
April 4, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment not agree, why does he not abolish the defence force altogether? If he intends to let the United States protect Canada, why not save to the taxpayer the entire budget of this department? If he does not agree, let him tell this house what he is actually proposing. What is going to happen? Maybe this is not his responsibility. Maybe it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There seems to be confusion between the two policies of this government. Possibly the Prime Minister should straighten this out before we proceed further with the bill before us.
Many Canadians are asking in what circumstances the proposed mobile force will be used. It is generally accepted that at present Canada has no enemies. Are we now, under the guise of peace restoring, intending to become an aggressor nation? God forbid. I submit that such a switch in policy as the minister now proposes means looking for trouble instead of avoiding it.
What will happen to the economy of this country if we undertake such a role as that of peace restoring? The discharge of an independent role in which we are prepared to meet a wide variety of conflicts short of all out war would mean warfare regardless of what it was called and would be carried out at the risk of the lives of Canadian servicemen. In the course of peace restoring we might suffer a military disaster; or we might become heavily involved. The United States started in Viet Nam with 24,000 men. They now have over 400,000 in that theatre and they are engaged in a major war. Let us not be lulled into thinking that there are no risks involved in a peace restoring role. We have a terrible example before us today in Viet Nam.
Military experts have stated it would be foolhardy in the extreme to assume that recruiting, poor as it is at present, would not deteriorate disastrously after the unification of the regular services. I am sure the minister is afraid of this, because he intends to force those who have joined the army, the navy and the air force to be integrated compulsorily in the single Canadian armed force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member like to hear a definition of an expert?


An hon. Member:: Who is an expert?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some of the people he has been referring to.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The hon. gentleman is not an expert. If he were, I would listen to him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member not like to hear this? It might amuse him. The definition goes like this:
Experts have their expert fun
Ex cathedra telling one
Just how nothing can be done.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The author is a philosopher -Piet Hein.


Donald MacInnis: I always thought an expert was a man from out of town.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sure the house was pleased to hear advice from the expert. I am not sure all members of this house would agree with the interpretation the minister seems to place on the words he read. It seems to me that it is facetious for a minister to get up in a debate such as this and quote a passage of that sort. I suggest the minister should take the discussion more seriously.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Representing a great number of naval people as we do, we have to go back to our constituencies and tell them what this unification problem is all about and how it is going to work out. Although I do not give my support to the minister, and am not a supporter of his leader, the Prime Minister, I am very proud when the Prime Minister appears anywhere I am. All Canadian people take pride in his appearance in their midst. We are in a democracy and we in this parliament are in opposition. We are embarassed by the things the government does. We are embarrassed by the comments from other countries saying what they think about unification, but also we are very proud when Canada does something that is notable throughout the world.
We are always very proud of our armed forces, no matter what their role. They have always conducted themselves in a proper manner. We have made friends through the armed forces that we have in Europe, and when we go over there as tourists we are proud of the behaviour of our troops.
We do not want to let our troops become the laughingstock of all the ports of the world. Our sailors say this is what will happen. If the minister continues his determination to rush this bill through, then any effort
April 4, 1967	COMMONS
we make is well worth while if we can delay its passage until possibly the government is defeated and another government takes over. It will take a long time to repair the destruction created by the minister. I hope we do not live to see the day that we regret what will take place because of the passage of this bill.
Military experts have stated on numerous occasions that it would be foolhardy in the extreme to assume that recruiting, poor as it already is, will not drastically deteriorate further under unification of the regular services. They maintain that if this bill is passed, then within the next few years Canada will probably find herself facing again the unhappy and politically dangerous question of compulsory national service because of manpower requirements. Under unification this conscription issue is almost inevitable.
I would caution some of my hon. friends on the other side of the chamber, who in the past have violently opposed compulsory military service, violently opposed conscription, to remember that when they get up and vote for this bill the result of its passage is likely to be conscription. This consideration alone should give parliament serious reason to pause and consider, before blindly endorsing this military fantasy.
Equally important, Canadian unification may place unlooked for commitments on our present allies, and in particular on the United States navy in meeting the Soviet submarine threat. I submit that present conditions do warrant further reflection on this defence issue, and I request the minister to pay heed to some of the pleas from this side of the chamber and withdraw the bill for further consideration. Some of the damage that has been done to him may be undone if he would be big enough to accede to this request.
I am sure that after listening to all the witnesses before the defence committee the minister must feel he is taking a serious risk. I do not want to say anything about his military experience, but I suggest that the number of people he has had to deal with since taking office, experienced military career officers, men of stature, should have had some effect on him through their advice.
This brings up the question that has been asked about the minister's treatment of Admiral Landymore. When the minister made a statement on the reason Admiral Landymore was fired, and then found out his discharge was not warranted, I cannot understand why he does not reinstate him once
National Defence Act Amendment again so that Canada may again be served by this man of experience.


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


Michael Starr: Carry on.


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have expired, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, there is hardly time tonight for me to do justice to a topic as interesting, engaging and serious as the unification bill in the two minutes that are left, so may I just make a comment with regard to the hon. member for Lambton West who contributed some semi-complimentary remarks about me.
The hon. member for Lambton West is a genial member of the house. He was a good attender at the meetings of the defence committee. He is what I call an anchor man in a committee, a man who is always there and who can be relied upon to do whatever he is told. He is the type of committee member that a minister likes to have, and his attendance at the defence committee should put him in line for promotion of some sort or another.
He gave unthinking obedience to the minister and to the minister's very active assistant during the course of committee meetings, and without any great thought to the bill he responded to all the suggestions made to him by the minister or the minister's assistant. In fact he reminded me of a Colonel Blimp in civilian clothes, and his genial attitude made it possible for us to put up with him and rather enjoy his company from time to time, but his contribution to the committee proceedings was not any greater than his contribution to the debate tonight. I was sorry that the hon. member stumbled a bit tonight when he was reading some of that Lee stuff that had been placed in front of him. He should have had a little more time to study it and get the sentences straightened out.
Tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the basic feature of the bill which is touched upon in clause 2. This clause modifies the present statute which, if I may paraphrase it, says that the Canadian forces shall consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air
14538	COMMONS DEBATES	April 4, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Force. The amendment in this bill strikes out Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force. In other words it eliminates the three services that we have known in the past. It destroys their identity and it is that subject which I wish to deal with tomorrow. May I now call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask whoever is leading the house what business do we switch to tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not realize I was leading the house, but since the hon. gentleman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are not doing it very well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I am doing as well leading the house, in my absent minded way, as hon. gentlemen opposite are in carrying on the debate. We will go on with the unification bill and give them more scope 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.

["Subject to those considerations I wish to point out that the expansion of Canada's external affairs department and the expansion of Canadian activities has brought with it great pressure to\nApril 4, 1967\nexpand our diplomatic missions not only in eastern Europe but also in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.\nI would also point out that this pressure, along with the already heavy obligations that the department has, has brought a great pressure on the number of officers we have and on the number of missions which we are able to open at any one time. Therefore, while I can assure the hon. member that the opening of further missions is continually being directed to the attention of the government, and\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion the government does intend to open missions not only in Asia but on the other continents, I cannot at the moment give him a specific assurance that the particular missions to which he has referred will be opened. I will point out to him, however, that the question of trade is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I am sure his remarks will be of great interest to the minister of that department.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.", '14543', 'Wednesday, April 5, 1967']
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I know the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) feels proud of the increasing expenditure that the Indian Affairs branch has made over the past few years in respect of education. I know he appreciates, perhaps to a greater extent than do some of his colleagues, the necessity to concentrate efforts in the field of education for our native people.
With the increasing population of native Indian people, consequently there are more younger people involved and this is part of the reason for the increased expenditure on education. Many, in fact most, native Indian parents did not, on balance, have the same educational opportunities that the non-Indian people have. In many instances there was a denial of educational opportunities. As a consequence of that and as a consequence of the fact that some of the Indian communities

are relatively isolated and have been for some years, Indian children in some cases have a more difficult time developing their learning ability, and the speed with which they grasp things in school.
This situation is more difficult in isolated communities. It is the isolated communities, the Indian communities wherein there are day schools as distinct from the integrated schools, about which I should like to speak this evening. I should like to make special reference to kindergarten classes. I think we must concentrate on bending over backwards in an effort to assist in placing more emphasis on kindergarten classes, and that age group of children, so they will have a better opportunity to proceed through school at a pace comparable to that at which non-Indian children proceed through school. This is recognized by the department.
I should like to make reference to a form letter which was sent to the principals and chief councillors from the district superintendent of Indian schools at Prince Rupert. The subject is kindergarten classes, and the letter reads as follows:
The branch is willing to provide books for teachers and supplies for a village kindergarten operated by a kindergarten committee.
That certainly is a recognition of the necessity to place some emphasis on kindergarten classes. The letter goes on to say that classes can be held at certain times and then makes reference to the age of the pupils who would attend in the 1967-68 year. Here are two other sentences which I should like to quote in their entirety:
We are unable, at this time, to provide wages for those in charge, and so they must be voluntary workers.
It is suggested that, if the people of the village are interested, the principal of the school and the council discuss this matter, and advise me of their plans.
The letter is signed by Dr. C. E. Johnson.
I would urge the minister to expand what is already a policy of recognition of the necessity to extend kindergarten classes, and to expand the policy which now offers books and supplies from the branch for kindergarten classes. I would hope that this would be expanded into a recognition that it may be necessary to employ teachers to teach in kindergartens in order to ensure that there is some continuity of approach in kindergarten classes for the native children, and so that the native children will have that much more opportunity to proceed through school and make the most use of our educational system.
April 4, 1967	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, when I first heard this question I did not know whether the hon. member was attempting to be critical of the department or whether his well-known kindness toward me activated him into giving me an opportunity of telling him what a whale of a job the department was doing. He has now read a letter which purportedly was sent to a reserve, indicating that they would have to use their own money to pay their own teacher. He will have to give me more particulars in this regard, because this is something about which I know nothing.
At the present time we have 159 classes of children of this age group in federal and provincial schools receiving kindergarten instruction. Indeed, we have 3,000 Indian children attending these schools in Canada. That represents about 35 per cent of Indian children of five years of age. I have little knowledge of the number of kindergarten classes for the white population in Canada but I question whether 35 per cent would be attending kindergarten.
We have been pressing this policy as rapidly as we can because we want to telescope the opportunity for those children coming from Indian parentage, with little knowledge of the English language in some cases, by providing comparable classes and conditions to those the white children have. We are endeavouring to do this by offering this instruction. Within the next five-year period, by 1972, we expect to have 80 per cent of all five-year-old Indian children attending kindergarten classes. If we are successful this will be a magnificent record.
Not very long ago I had the opportunity of observing one of these classes in operation at the Cowichan reserve. This was a remarkable experience because there was evidence in these five-year-old children of some of the artistic qualities that Indians possess. I was very much impressed.
We pay regular salaries commensurate with the schedule applied to all teachers. Indeed in some instances at the present time, when these teachers have special qualifications, we pay additional salaries over and above the present scale. I am of the opinion that the letter which precipitated the hon. member's question was addressed to a remote or very small reserve. All reserves of sufficient size to accommodate a teacher and a classroom, and

I was given this information when I was in British Columbia, has a kindergarten class paid for entirely by the department.
There is one exception. The Vancouver schoolboard is making a contribution toward the teacher's salary at the Musqueam reserve. In addition, one of the service clubs in Vancouver wanted to contribute $10,000 toward the accommodation of such a school and we gladly accepted that offer. If we are able to persuade other organizations of this kind to participate I think we will obtain the best advantages of the world in which we live.
I certainly will make inquiries in respect of the hon. member's question, but I think it must relate to a reserve where the number of children of this age group is not adequate to constitute a class. If that is not so, as the hon. member indicates now by shaking his head, we will attempt to rectify the situation as soon as possible.



Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) today whether or not the government, having completed arrangements for additional representation with Roumania, would be giving consideration to increasing its representation in the Pacific region. That is a question which seems to me to be of immediate significance to this country. As authority for its significance to Canada today, I should like to quote the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) as reported in the Vancouver Sunday Sun of April 1. I trust that the date of the report is no commentary on its significance. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
We know In Ottawa that Canada needs British Columbia.
The article goes on to say:
He said-
Referring to the Prime Minister.
-he is very much aware of the importance of export markets to B.C. industry.
He said B.C. interests in the export markets can be negotiated more successfully by the federal government "than if this province (B.C.) had to face the world alone."
Finally, the Prime Minister referred to British Columbia's interest in expanded trade with Japan and other Pacific countries. We in British Columbia appreciate those remarks,
14540	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion but there is a world of difference between going out to British Columbia and making a speech and seeing it translated into action here in Ottawa. This is the problem that was inherent in the question I asked this afternoon.
Certainly the completion of the exchange of representatives with Roumania does not have much to do with trade. I have before me the figures for exports from Canada to that country and three Pacific countries. In 1965, for the total year, Canadian exports to Roumania were $641,202; to Korea, $822,564; to Taiwan, $6,577,329, and to Thailand, $5,620,820. For the first six months of 1966 our exports to Roumania amounted to $672,610; to Korea, $13,015,792; to Taiwan, $5,162,889, and to Thailand, $4,937,854.
We know that we do not have representation in Thailand or Taiwan and that our ambassador to Korea is actually our ambassador to Japan. The interests that our country has with Japan constitute a full-time job for anyone in that position. So when the Prime Minister is quoted as having said that the federal government could do better than British Columbia facing the world alone, one wonders how, when its representation in the area is as inadequate as it has been for a very long time. We in British Columbia are interested in developing trade throughout the Pacific rim. We are interested in Canada taking its place as a Pacific nation. This has been advocated not only by people from this party but by people from the government benches.
I have here a copy of an address given by Robert L. Houston, executive director of the Canada-Japan Trade Council, to a luncheon of the Vancouver Board of Trade on February 13 last. I shall quote very briefly from it. Mr. Houston mentions Canadian business visitors to Japan in 1965 and says:
Compare the 264 Canadian business visitors to Japan in 1965 with the much higher numbers of 1,150 Australian, and 16,000 American business travellers during the same year.
Later in the address he said:
I feel that Canada could take a lead in exploring the setting up of an economic association between the U.S.A., Japan and Canada-
He goes on to elaborate on that idea. In this one address enough ideas are presented to keep the Canadian ambassador to Japan an extremely busy person, without having him also concerned about the neighbouring country of Korea. I know that the Asian nations I have mentioned are three of the strongest 
DEBATES	April 4, 1967
bulwarks against communism but I would hope that would not be a factor in the reluctance or slowness of Canada to move to increasing its representation there. I realize that Roumania is one of the communist nations of Europe and we have representation already in several of these countries. Roumania is not a nation with a large ethnic group in Canada to be concerned about.
I would hope that perhaps some of the reasons for the exchange are ones that will be of benefit to this country. I am sure we could benefit from immigration from that country, particularly from its province of Transylvania which compares somewhat to my own constituency. I know that criticism in my constituency has been expressed to the effect that the province of British Columbia does not put forward sufficiently in eastern Canada, the opportunities for industrial development in British Columbia but I feel that one of the difficulties it faces is that it must go out into the Pacific and do some of the representation there which is not being done by the federal government at this time.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to point out to the hon. member that in directing his questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs he was somewhat misinformed. It is clear from his remarks that he is primarily interested in the question of trade. He will probably recall on reflection that the expansion of Canada's trade contacts is not primarily the responsibility of this department but of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the trade commissioners service. Therefore I am not able to give him information on whether or not we have trade commissioners in the post which he has named. However, I would point out to him_


Robert Norman Thompson: No, it has not.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member for Red Deer would contain himself I would be able to answer the question put by his colleague. We have a farflung trade commissioner service and I do not doubt that we are represented in those posts.


Robert Norman Thompson: No, we are not.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subject to those considerations I wish to point out that the expansion of Canada's external affairs department and the expansion of Canadian activities has brought with it great pressure to
April 4, 1967
expand our diplomatic missions not only in eastern Europe but also in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
I would also point out that this pressure, along with the already heavy obligations that the department has, has brought a great pressure on the number of officers we have and on the number of missions which we are able to open at any one time. Therefore, while I can assure the hon. member that the opening of further missions is continually being directed to the attention of the government, and
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the government does intend to open missions not only in Asia but on the other continents, I cannot at the moment give him a specific assurance that the particular missions to which he has referred will be opened. I will point out to him, however, that the question of trade is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I am sure his remarks will be of great interest to the minister of that department.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

14543

Wednesday, April 5, 1967