February 2, 1967

PC

Alfred Dryden Hales

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons for my participation in this debate on unification. One is, and I hope I will not be considered presumptuous in stating, that I represent the riding of Wellington South, and the new name of the riding will be Wellington. It is named after that great general, the Duke of Wellington, who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. I must remind the minister that the man who won that battle did not know about unification, nor has the country for which he fought ever brought about unification. Although they have considered it, they have never brought it about. Wellington won that battle with an army and a navy, but I think we can say that the man he defeated had unified forces because he fought a one-man battle.

There are, as I say, many reasons, of which the above is only one, for my speaking on this subject. That portion of Ontario from which I come has a great military history and a great tradition in the military field. As far back as 1837 we had a volunteer unit called the Wellington Rifles. In 1866 we had the 11th Field Regiment which celebrated its 100th anniversary just last year, and of which Hon. George Drew is honorary colonel. We have the 34th Battalion which was mobilized in 1915. As I say, this area has a great tradition and these units along with many others have brought honour and glory not only to themselves and to our county, but to the world in general.

When I think of unification I am reminded that all of this tradition will disappear. I am one of those who realize that we cannot live on tradition; we must have change. However, here is tradition that has been tried and tested down through the years by all the great military nations; yet here we are, a young nation, wanting to throw overboard this tried and tested tradition. I want to state at the outset that I believe in integration. I believe integration is very necessary in order to bring about efficiency of operations and curtailment of expenditures. We have proven the success of this approach in the medical field. As a matter of fact, it was the Conservative party that integrated the defence medical services. The padre services were integrated, and there has been integration in the purchasing and other branches of the Department of National Defence.

National Defence Act Amendment

However, the fact that we have made a success of integration does not mean we should go one step further and go into unification by bringing all the forces into one unit. I am sure there are many who agree with me that there is only one answer, and that is an emphatic no. In my opinion there are many valid reasons for continuing to maintain separate units of the army, air force and navy. There have been many excellent reasons given, and wonderful speeches have been made on this very point.

Four reasons come to my mind, why we should keep the tri-services and I do not think they have been dwelt upon, at least not to any great extent in this debate. I would list them, Mr. Speaker. First, the constantly increasing need for military professionalism; second, the value of competition and a system of checks and balances; third, efficiency of management and, fourth, the intangible but real value of esprit de corps.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

Let us look at them one by one. First, the question of professionalism. There was a time not too long ago when a soldier could move from infantry to artillery to calvary, and even to aviation, with a minimum of training. An airman could transfer quite readily from pursuit to observation to bombardment duty. Machines of war were relatively simple. Peacetime forces were small, and wide oceans provided time for mobilization in the event of an emergency.

All this has now changed, Mr. Speaker. We need professionals today. We have to maintain large and instantly readied combat forces which can be moved swiftly to any trouble spot on the globe, or meet an attack against this country with no more than a few minutes warning.

May I cite a little practical example where I think professionalism has proven its worth. In the medical field years ago there was the family practitioner, the general practitioner, who was able to handle all phases of sickness and disorder. As medicine and science progressed and drugs became more varied and more difficult to administer, there developed the professional, the specialist. Since the arrival of the specialist in the field of medicine we have been able to give better service to mankind.

So I think it is with the Department of National Defence. They need specialists, those who can look after this section or that section. I am sure that by unification we will not promote professionalism.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Hellyer:

You integrated the doctors, you have just said so.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
PC

Alfred Dryden Hales

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hales:

The professional produced by the services is just as essential at the level of the joint staff, and department of defence staff, as they are in the field, in my humble opinion. Their expert advice is indispensable in planning strategy, deployment of forces and weapons requirements. So to sum up this point very briefly, Mr. Speaker, military professionals, military equipment, military doctrine and their ultimate expression, effective military forces, must be developed for each of these media of warfare-air, land and sea.

As to the second point, competition, I am one of those who believe that the existence of three services, the army, the air force and the navy, serves to create a feeling of competition among them. This has been the lifeblood of the Canadian forces. I think it has been proven that wherever competition is stifled it generally follows that the rate of progress declines. It does not matter whether it is the army or business: When you stifle competition, progress declines. Unification will be bound to stifle competition.

In the militia, competition engenders new ideas and forces everybody to examine critically the old and accepted ways of doing things. We would not suggest for a minute, Mr. Speaker-I do not think anyone here would suggest this-that Ford, Chrysler and General Motors should be merged into one to form a non-competitive giant in order to produce a better and cheaper automobile. Yet this is what we are suggesting for our forces. Such a thing is not done in business; it has been tested there.

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that it is just as unlikely that a merger of our three military services into a single service would produce better military thought and performance. However there is one qualification here. Competition must be controlled so that it creates a positive contribution to the nation's defence. I believe there are adequate controls on inter-service competition which should be exercised by the Department of National Defence.

The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in his speech indicated that competition was dangerous because we have already experienced some of the bitterness of inter-service rivalries. I do not think there is anything wrong with inter-service rivalry, inter-service bickering, or whatever you call it. We should remind ourselves that in this house where we are working for the good of the

February 2, 1967 COMMONS

country we are often involved in bickering with each other when discussing various subjects. On the college campus such debate would be called discussion, or in the Supreme Court it would be called deliberation. So what is wrong if the members of the three armed services deliberate, discuss or even bicker between one service and another? I think that is all to the good and should be so, and I would hate to see this principle done away with.

My third reason for retaining the three services is efficiency of management. I expect someone right off the bat will immediately ask: How could you have that in three services as opposed to one service? I should like to give one or two illustrations of this. The personnel strength of the armed services is something like 105,000 in uniform, with more than 40,000 civilian personnel. This constitutes one of the largest organizations of people in the country, exceeding that of General Motors by as much as six times. Yet General Motors, like every large corporation, has found it desirable to organize semi-autonomous, even competitive divisions for effective management and greater profit.

For example, General Motors built a separate plant within its own business to manufacture the differentials for its cars. It has set up other companies under the direction of the main company to build other parts for its cars. Why do they do this, Mr. Speaker? It is because they have found they have greater control, more effectiveness, and better financial results are produced by dividing their organization into component parts under the ownership of the main company. Yet what do we want to do with our defence forces? We want to put them all together and create one great conglomeration over which we will not have the control that we exercise today.

Let me cite another example, that of the Thomson-owned daily press in this country. I do not know how many papers Lord Thomson owns in Canada-perhaps 30 or 40 of them. But has he brought them all together and said that they must do this or that? Has he unified the press? No. He has integrated parts of it, such as the finances, head office costs and other items; but as far as the individual papers are concerned, whether in my area or anybody else's area in which Thomson daily papers circulate, the editor of the paper is allowed to run things in the way he sees best for the community. Business organizations do not believe in unification; why have it in our three armed services?

National Defence Act Amendment

Finally there is the question of esprit de corps, the value of which all of us recognize. We know there must be a great spirit within each organization. If you do not have that, Mr. Speaker, you are lacking one of the greatest binding factors. Throughout history the majority of men have always functioned most effectively as members of an identifiable group; that is beyond dispute. Men fight better when they are identified as a particular group.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

This is particularly true of the military profession in which certain values are held superior to life itself. The spirit of unity, of brotherhood, is enhanced by tradition, by pride in one's organization and by a distinctive uniform which is a mark of membership. Now we want to throw that away.

The value of esprit cannot be measured with precision. I realize that no price tag can be placed on it; yet we all recognize its intrinsic contribution in the quality of armed forces. It is the heart of the true fighting force.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
PC

Alfred Dryden Hales

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hales:

Our minister wants to throw all these things aside, to disregard them. He wants to move in the opposite direction to which the oldest military countries in the world have decided to go. The United States Congress repeatedly has opposed unification. In 1945 they considered unification for the first time in the United States; in 1948 Congress opposed it. In 1949 the Hoover commission recommended it, yet Congress opposed it. President Eisenhower suggested unification; when the matter went to Congress the answer was no; they opposed it, because congressmen represented the viewpoints of all American states. They debated-discussed it, and in line with the thinking of the people of the United States they said: No, we will have no part of unification. Yet our minister, in Canada, knows better than the congressmen of the United States. He wants to bring unification to Canadian armed services.

Let us look at Great Britain. What has Great Britain done about unification? She has studied it, given it careful thought, but here again they have opposed it. I have here a quotation from the Central Organization for Defence Paper of July, 1963, page A3, paragraph 10. This was published just three years ago, and this is what they say over there, in

12G06

National Defence Act Amendment summary, about whether they should adopt unification:

The services must preserve their separate identities. In action they are increasingly interdependent. This interdependence must be expected to increase. Nevertheless all experience shows that the fighting spirit of the individual man in battle derives largely from his loyalty to his ship, his unit or his squadron. Services are an important vital factor in morale and fighting efficiency. This must be preserved.

That is what Great Britain says about unification. Yet our minister ignores the viewpoints of! two tried and tested military powers of the world which have looked into the subject very carefully.

In a pre-election speech the minister said: "Sailors will always be sailors; soldiers will always be soldiers; airmen will always be airmen." I should like him to explain this. Let us take it to a committee where it could be explained. Maybe he could give us information there. How will sailors always be sailors? Let us consider these remarks of the associate minister as they appear at page 12537 of Hansard:

This is the crux of the problem. From a single force containing land, sea and air elements-

I do not know whether he means sailors, soldiers or airmen. He refers to "elements". Continuing:

-we must be in a position where we can detach the required portions necessary to fulfil a particular commitment. If the particular commitment requires a combination of land and sea elements,-

Again I think he means soldiers.

-or land and tactical air elements, or just a land element we can provide this portion by detaching from the single force the strength and type of force required.

How in the name of goodness will you do this if you have unification? The minister said sailors will always be sailors, soldiers will be soldiers and airmen will be airmen. For the life of me I cannot understand this, and I am sure that thousands of Canadians do not understand it, either. They want to know more about unification, as we do. We want to move this to a committee where it can be studied in greater detail.

I say to the minister and his associate, "slow down and look". This matter is important for Canada. I, for one, can simply not see why we, as a young country would want to over-ride, to ignore what great military countries of the world have decided to do. The minister wants to rush into unification and do the opposite to the great military powers of the world.

This concludes my remarks on unification along with the hope that the minister will send the bill to committee. I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forres tall):

That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"The further consideration of Bill C-243 be deferred until the principle thereof has been examined by the standing committees on national defence and external affairs meeting together."

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Rinfret (Chief Government Whip's assistant; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):

Perhaps at this time I could ask for an expression of opinion from members of the house on the validity of this amendment.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question of relevancy comes into the argument. If you will look at Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 396, under form No. 93, you will see the heading "On Second Reading". There are three methods of determining amendments on second reading, and you will notice that the first one reads as follows:

The question being proposed "That Bill No....

intituled An Act be now read

a second time";

Mr moves in amendment

thereto, seconded by Mr that

all the words after "That" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

This is the meat of the matter. I quote:

The further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has,-

And this is the only portion where the present motion differs from the motion approved by Beauchesne. I read on:

-by means of a Referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada.

That is the end of the quotation. That is a recognized form for moving an amendment on second reading. We are here suggesting the deferment of second reading until the bill has been examined by two committees sitting together.

The means by which it is done are immaterial. It is the deferment of the bill until that study has been made. The amendment is based directly upon the form approved by Beauchesne.

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Nay.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

It is the desire of the house to call the question immediately, without ringing the bells?

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I declare the motion carried.

Bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on national defence.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner (Minister Without Portfolio)

Liberal

Mr. Turner:

Mr. Speaker, I was paired on both votes. On the first vote I would have voted against the amendment and on the second vote I would have voted for the motion.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
PC

David Samuel Horne MacDonald

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacDonald (Prince):

Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted yea and nay in that order.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink
PC

Heath Nelson Macquarrie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macquarrie:

Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Had I voted, I would have voted the same as the hon. member for Prince.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Subtopic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PC

Michael Starr (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Starr:

Mr. Speaker, would someone on the government side tell us what business we will be taking up tomorrow.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence T. Pennell (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Pennell:

Mr. Speaker, the first business will be item 121, second reading of Bill C-261, an Act to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; then, item No. 62, house again in committee of the whole on Bill C-204, an Act to provide for the establishment of a Canadian Film Development Corporation; then item No. 116, house in committee of the whole on the resolution to introduce a measure to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. Again, continuing in the same optimistic vein, we would consider item No. 120, second reading of Bill S-55, an act to provide relief in certain cases against loss or hardship suffered as a result of interruptions of normal postal services.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

February 2, 1967