April 3, 1967

RA

Charles-Arthur Gauthier

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Gauthier:

I agree that the reports took four days to reach us and that consideration of these documents was delayed until they were printed. But the debate began when the last report was received. That is what I mean. The same happened today: discussion was begun when the last report reached our office. In the other instance, we had to wait four days because about 12 French reports were missing. 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.

I do not know whether this is due to the fact that the country's expenditures are higher or whether the cost of updating our armaments have increased but everybody, the people in general find that a military budget of about $2 billion for a small country of 20

14452 COMMONS

National Defence Act Amendment million people is just outrageous. 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] (8:20 p.m.)

That situation may be due to the purchase of airplanes, mainly those we use for military training. I know that in my area, for instance, there is a centre where all day long they play with those small toys worth a million dollars apiece. When you replace 140 of those toys because they are a little worn out, at a cost of $140 million, we can imagine that the military budget is going to go up as the minister mentioned. I would not repeat that word, had the minister not used it but he spoke about waste in the Department of the National Defence. I think that we suspected it for a long time. In his statement, the minister said that there had been some waste, and I am confident that he will try and stop such waste so as to save in that respect.

What we really need, in brief, is an army to protect this country, not an army of which two or three battalions could fight abroad, for foreign interests. We do think and the people in general feel that we need an army in order to protect this country.

Canadian citizens are ready to pay for their own aircraft, but what they do not accept today is the fact that, after 20 or 22 years, namely since the last war, they still have to pay the costs of training and the travelling and living allowances of Canadian soldiers stationed in Europe and all other countries. In fact, they are wondering what a poor little country of 20 million people like Canada is doing there.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest it would be preferable to direct our dollars and our energy toward peace production rather than try to thrust peace upon people by force of arms. I believe that if we earmarked 50 per cent of the military budget for production, in order to give food to people in starving countries, we would be doing something useful.

Now, we cannot all be of the same opinion and, as I said a while ago, a soldier speaks like a soldier, a civilian like a civilian. That is why I admire the minister who defended his own cause in this house and defended it well. This does not prevent us from having our own opinion and from wishing that we may, some day, think more about feeding

DEBATES April 3, 1967

the people, for the sake of peace, instead of thrusting peace upon them, by force of arms.

I wish that day to be the nearest possible, I wish that the minister would think about organizing the army so as to provide protection for this country itself and that he would earmark the difference of millions of dollars to feed the people of this country first of all and then have them benefit other countries that are in need.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson

Social Credit

Mr. Olson:

Mr. Chairman, my first remarks at this stage of proceedings on Bill C-243 are to commend the standing committee on national defence for the great deal of work they did in examining in detail, with the benefit of expert witnesses, the provisions laid out in the bill. I do not pretend to be familiar with all provisions in the bill, as it is now or before it was amended, because this was a specialized study undertaken by a number of competent members in this house. While it is obvious that there is not full agreement among members, it seems to me that they have performed a useful service to parliament and to Canada by making their examination.

I rise tonight to express some opinions respecting Canada's role in international affairs politically and militarily. We in this party have long advocated that there ought to be far closer liaison between the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs. I do not suggest that the ministers or supporting staffs of these departments do not co-operate. I do suggest, however, that the policies of the two departments ought to be more co-ordinated than in the past.

If we are to talk intelligently about Bill C-243, which is designed to bring about a new structure for our armed forces, we ought first to discuss what the purpose and role of those armed forces will be. In this day and age I suggest that that purpose is completely tied to our foreign policy. I suggest, as has been said before, that Canada through obligation or choice, whichever term one wishes to use, occupies a unique position in world international relations. As the minister said a few moments ago, there is so much military power in the hands of the super powers that it is not likely either one will deliberately embark on a war calling on both sides to use all the power they have. As a result I think that Canada ought to use its resources in manpower and material in some way to keep the peace of the world. I had not intended saying

April 3, 19S7

this, but perhaps in the context of my argument I ought to say that I am not particularly interested in Canada's strength as a military power. I am, however, interested in Canada's capacity to assist in keeping world peace.

If we agree that Canada's major role in international politics is to have available men and equipment to be used anywhere in the world to extinguish small wars or disputes, we must examine our armed forces to see if they have the capabilities to perform those functions.

There is good reason for our role in the world today. Canada's troops are accepted by other nations for this purpose. For example in many parts of the world the troops of the U.S.S.R., the United States, France or Britain would not be accepted. I do not think United States troops would be accepted in some Asiatic or African countries. I doubt if those countries would accept Soviet Union troops. Were those troops to come in, the countries concerned would be apprehensive. They would be afraid that there would be an extension of Soviet power and influence, were the troops of that powerful country allowed to come in. Also in the middle east, the far east and other places in the world United States troops and military equipment would not be acceptable. The outstanding example of that might be Viet Nam, although I shall not discuss that now.

I suggest that the troops of the United Kingdom and France, former colonial powers, would not be accepted in countries that were colonized by Britain and France in times gone by. I have attended international meetings from time to time, some in the United Nations and some in our own parliamentary associations. If there is one thing that is obvious, it is that these new countries, these developing countries which were formerly colonies of Britain or France simply will not accept troops in their territories for any purpose. They do not want them. There is an obsession in many of these countries to rid themselves of all traces of former influence so that they can concentrate on governing themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that at this stage the forces of former occupying powers would not be allowed back if border disputes broke out between any of those nations. So I think Canada ought to accept this role. I recognize we have done so in a number of areas, even though we were perhaps not well prepared from a military point of view to fulfil this function.

National Defence Act Amendment

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

Another reason for my thinking that Canada is well suited to this task is that among the smaller nations of the world-and I am thinking in terms of population-there is not one which is in a better position, because of the extent of its material resources, to support a peace keeping force.

This is an important consideration since we know that if the major powers, the major contributors to the United Nations, fail to agree on whether a peace keeping force should be sent, it is the practice for those who do not agree to withhold financial contributions in respect to such a force. This happened in the case of the Congo, to mention one example. I am thinking of circumstances where the security council has authorized a peace keeping force to begin operations, but where the assessment levied in connection with the force has been withheld. The need therefore is for a nation which is willing to provide a service of this kind, and whose material resources are sufficient to support such a force. The presence of the peace keeping force in Cyprus is an example of a service of this kind, and there are other examples. If there is wrangling in the United Nations about whether a force should be sent or not, great damage might be done while these arguments or discussions were going on, and the situation might deteriorate to the point at which no useful purpose would be served by sending in a small peace keeping force such as Canada can provide.

Having agreed that Canada ought to accept a peace keeping role and having drawn attention to Canada's unique position in being able to assume a role of this kind in international affairs, I come to the next logical step, namely how to design our armed forces in such a way as to make the greatest possible contribution to this concept. I said I do not pretend to be an expert on military matters. It might be possible using separate armed services to provide the forces and the equipment required. I am not sure. I know that these forces have been provided on several occasions in the past, though I suspect not without difficulty. It seems to me that acceptance of the concept which I and other hon. members have outlined is a quite different matter from devising the best possible means of carrying it out.

My hon. friend from Fraser Valley has pointed out, as reported on page 12423 of Hansard of January 30, that we in this party

April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment have long taken the position that certain adjustments should be made within our armed forces. His words on that occasion were:

We ought to redesign Canada's defence strategy and military forces to eliminate useless expenditures on forms of defence obsolete in the light of modern circumstances.

This is even more important. We should, he said-

-concentrate on establishing powerful, well-equipped. highly mobile forces strategically deployed and capable of immediate airborne transport to any area of Canada.

This was contained in a policy statement we issued several years ago. Having regard to the passage of time, I think the last part of that statement should now read-"capable of immediate airborne transport to any area of the world." So this concept is not new. It is not something we have very recently discovered. The bill before us represents in some respects the culmination of this idea; we are reaching the point at which action is to be taken in a direction we advocated a long time ago. It seems to me that for the purpose of fulfilling a role as a peace keeper in the world, a unified and integrated force would be more effective than three separate forces.

Nevertheless, I believe we should move rather slowly in the field of unification and integration. Sometimes I am puzzled about the interpretation of those two words as they are defined by various hon. members. If integration has already been achieved, and if all this bill will do is provide for unification, I am afraid I do not follow the argument. However this may be, it seems there is some reason and logic in having a single service under a single command if we are to provide the kind of force I have tried to describe. In the initial stages, at least, there has to be a higher degree of co-ordination between the services than we have now. Earlier this afternoon the minister suggested there were some deficiencies in co-ordination among the three forces we have at the present time. It is understandable that this should be so, whether or not one is intimately familiar with the organization of the armed forces.

So we agree to the concept of Canada's new role in international affairs, and we can find some measure of agreement upon integration, and even unification, up to a point. But I suggest to the minister that for the sake of morale we should not lose some of the very useful parts within our forces, and that we should go a little bit slowly in trying to set up

a completely new structure. There are traditions in the Canadian forces that are proud and glorious, and rightly so. We should move very slowly, to make sure that no attempt, or apparent attempt is made to destroy these traditions or take away from the proud history of Canada's armed forces.

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

I am not suggesting to the minister that he is deliberately setting out to destroy such traditions, but accusations have been made that he is. If we move slowly, as I have suggested, and as my colleague from Fraser Valley suggested several weeks ago, we can make sure of providing a clear concept in the minds of all the men in the armed forces as to where we are going, and our purpose can then be achieved without too much pain.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the minister and to the government house leader that public debate, and debate in the House of Commons on integration and unification of tht armed forces have gone on just about long enough. I do not believe that anything useful is going to come, from here on out. The defence committee accepted a lot of amendments to the bill. No doubt representations were made to the minister and the department about other amendments.

I know there are those in this house and in other places who are hard and fast in their opposition to the provisions of the reprinted bill, but I believe we reach a point, and I think we have reached it, where nothing further of great usefulness can come out of extending the debate. I suggest to the minister that he get together with the house leader, look at the provisions of provisional standing order 15-A, and invoke some of them if this debate evolves into what appears to be developing, namely some kind of filibuster, the wasting of time to achieve certain things.

In my opinion the provisions of standing order 15-A are not too severe. Subsection 2 states:

During routine proceedings a minister of the crown may propose that the question of allocation of time for any item of business, unless otherwise provided for, be referred to the business committee, and upon such proposal being made that question shall stand referred to the committee.

Although I was not in Ottawa at the time, I have heard that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre supported that there ought to be some discussion at least with respect to limitation of time on this debate, if there are members ot the house who are determined that it is going to become an interminable debate.

April 3, 1967

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Before we get into trouble.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson

Social Credit

Mr. Olson:

Yes, before we get into too much trouble, because it would be very difficult to limit debate after the house deteriorated, if that is the right word, into an ugly mood so far as the bill is concerned.

Subsection 3 of the standing order states:

The business committee shall report back to the house on or before the third sitting day following such reference.

The minister can decide for himself how long he wants to wait before using this standing order. Maybe he thinks the bill will pass in one or two days. I would be willing to wait about three days, but after that time I suggest that he take it upon himself to move a motion referring the matter to the business committee. The rule provides that the committee is required to report back to the house within three days. But the committee might sit for only an hour before it became completely obvious its members could not agree, or it could sit for the full three days.

Subsections 5 and 6 of the standing order provide that in the event the business committee cannot agree, the minister may move for limitation of time. Subsection 7 states however, that-

-no motion made by a minister trader sections 5 and 6 of this standing order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time less than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill.

I would suggest to the minister that he be careful not to impose the absolute minimum of time specified in the standing order. Even if he finds out from whoever is on the business committee from the Conservative party that they are not going to agree to anything-and that has happened before, you know-

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert:

You are being very sanctimonious.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson

Social Credit

Mr. Olson:

-he does not have to impose the absolute minimum of time in the standing order.

There are some 48 pages in the bill and I suggest the minister should not give the *Conservatives cause for the old cry that closure is being imposed by imposing the absolute minimum under standing order 15-A. What I seriously suggest to the minister is that if it becomes apparent that there is not going to be any agreement by the business [DOT]committee, then we should have about three [DOT]or four days for the committee stage. I think

National Defence Act Amendment one day is enough for third reading, but we probably need more than two days in committee on something as important as this.

I hope the debate is not going to go on, and on, and on. It has gone on for a long time already and it can only get more acrimonious as the days go by. If there has not already been opportunity for all members who want to make representations with respect to the bill, then we should continue for a few more days, but I believe we have reached the stage where almost everything new that could be said about the bill has been said, and debate will be a little repetitious from now on.

I suggest we could continue for another three or perhaps four days before the minister imposes the provisions of standing order 15-A, and while the matter is before the business committee we could discuss some other item of business. But when the matter returns from the business committee I suggest another four or five days debate would be enough. Let us not have the House of Commons and the whole country bogged down because there are one or two, or half a dozen of our members unwilling to accept the majority decision of the house.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

Will the hon. member accept a question?

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

If the hon. member's suggestion of closure is adopted by the government-and he often acts as a spokesman for the government-what percentage of time in that limited period would be given to his party of four and a half members? I think one member of his party is sort of leaving them now.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson

Social Credit

Mr. Olson:

Mr. Chairman, I have to

straighten the hon. member's thinking out again, as I have often had to do. First of all, I am never the spokesman for the government. In case the hon. member was not sure about that-

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

Should I have used the word stooge?

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson

Social Credit

Mr. Olson:

The hon. member said I am often the spokesman for the government, and I am telling him I have never been appointed spokesman for the government. He then described as closure the procedure that I suggested. Closure does not come under standing order 15-A, which provides for allocation of time.

April 3, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

Closure of debate.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson

Social Credit

Mr. Olson:

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre knows very well that, if there are a number of clauses, closure is a situation in which a minister of the crown moves every day that the question be put at the end of that sitting day. I think that is the way it works. I never was in the house when closure was used. There has been some type of stigma attached to it since 1956. I do not have the mental block in respect of closure some people have, because I believe closure has its place, if the majority of this house is being frustrated day after day and week after week by a very small minority. Although this conduct is confined to a large party, I believe it is only a small minority in that party which intends to hold up the proceedings. I believe there is a proper use of some form of allocation of time so that the majority still can run this country. I think we in this party would be willing to accept our fair share of the amount of time allotted under the use of provisional standing order 15-A.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Question.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
PC

Donald MacInnis

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacXnnis (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that we would hear from a number of the Liberal members who were members of the national defence committee. It would appear, however, that possibly the officials of the minister's department have not finished writing their speeches for them, as was the case during the committee hearings. As has been suggested, possibly closure already has been applied to the Liberal members who were present during the hearings of the national defence committee.

At the beginning I should like to point out that I joined the committee on national defence in the very late stages of its deliberations. I was in attendance, however, long enough to realize that the Liberal members who served on this committee were there for the express purpose of feeding to the different witnesses whatever questions the officials of the department wished fed to them. This was a disgraceful performance on their part. With the exception of a few members who had enough on the ball to ask their own questions, the Liberal members were depending on the officials who sat behind them during the committee hearings to feed them questions to which answers were desired.

This afternoon we heard a very weak argument by the minister in respect of the unification bill. For 50 minutes he spoke about equipment and many matters other than the unification bill itself. At no time, other than in the last few closing remarks, did he concentrate in any way on the bill before us. He stood up and misled the house with the suggestion that because of integration or unification of certain operations in the services there had been a saving of 30 to 40 per cent. He used these percentage figures to indicate that there has been a terrific saving. If there is a staff in Washington or London, 30 per cent of that staff would mean the saving of only one person on that particular staff. Therefore his percentage figures will not mean a thing.

I should like to ask the minister to stand up in this house at the proper time and indicate that the percentages which he gave as savings are accurate. I should like him to say whether 30 per cent of a particular group, or 40 per cent of another group, were actually struck off strength or merely transferred to another branch of the service. Is the minister implying that simply by the reduction of a certain staff by these large percentages a saving has been accomplished? It is my understanding of the services that if a man is no longer required in his job he probably is transferred somewhere else.

The saving the minister implies is nonsense, unless the percentages to which he refers apply to people who actually are struck off strength. If he can give us this assurance, I will accept his statement that there is a saving. I suggest, however, that that is not the case. All we need do is look at the estimates for the Department of National Defence. It is nonsense and hogwash for the minister to tell the Canadian people that tremendous savings have been effected in the Department of National Defence.

I might refer back to the minister's propaganda team which sat in the gallery and fed propaganda to him. I say again that the saving the minister has implied is a lot of nonsense. In another place I would call it what it is, bluntly, but the rules do not permit me to do so. As appears at page 1582 of the evidence of the committee the minister wrapped up the summary by saying:

Finally, may I say that in recommending the changes consequent on this Bill I do not wish to reflect in any way, on individual members of the Armed Forces. They are wonderful people and I am proud of my association with them. I have stated repeatedly, and I mean it with all my

April 3, 1967

heart, that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are without peer anywhere in this world. They have served Canada well, in war and peace, and they deserve the deepest gratitude of the Canadian people.

Immediately afterward the minister went out and accused a loyal serving officer of the Royal Canadian Navy of being disloyal over an 18 month period. The minister should read his final words when he appeared before the committee when he said "I mean this with all my heart". It is strange that the minister then would go out and accuse a man, such as Admiral Landymore who has displayed loyalty and performed service to his country, of being disloyal over an 18 month period. This is the approach the minister takes. I might say that his remarks were about as far removed from the truth as they could be.

During the question period in the committee the same Minister of National Defence said that Admiral Landymore was fired for 18 months consistent disloyalty to the policies of the people he was paid to serve. Of course the press reports indicated that the minister made an apology in this regard. Having made the apology he then makes another statement which withdraws the apology he had made. In the first place the apology was not one which should have been publicized in the way it was, because the minister did not emphatically withdraw the charges he had made. Having accused Admiral Landymore of disloyalty over an 18 month period the minister, having been placed in a position where he found it necessary to make an apology, if he were any kind of a man, would have resigned his position instead of attempting to lord it over the serving officers in this country.

Not too long ago, after a briefing of the highest order by admirals and other members of the upper echelon of the NATO command, the minister released information which was classified. This is the type of man who speaks of loyalty and disloyalty. Hon. members on the other side are laughing so I shall repeat what I said: The minister should be behind bars. More drastic action might have been taken in other countries under similar circumstances, yet the minister merely stands and talks about disloyalty among serving officers in this country.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

How does he back up his charges of disloyalty? During the committee hearings when he was asked about his charges of disloyalty against Admiral Landymore the minister said

National Defence Act Amendment this, as recorded at page 1624 of the committee proceedings:

I do not think that he had any right to call that kind of a meeting. I do not think he had any right to demand personal loyalty from his officers, and now that you have raised the question I want to make this statement. I have never asked a military officer his politics, his religion, or for his personal loyalty. Yet Admiral Landymore in giving testimony before this committee said that he had extracted a promise from his officers.

The hon. member for Halifax then asked the minister the following question:

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
PC

J. Michael Forrestall

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Forrestall:

What type of a promise?

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Hellyer:

The promise was not to resign.

Because a serving officer asked his men not to resign from their commissions in the navy, the minister accused him of being disloyal over a period of 18 months. As recorded at page 1623 of the committee proceedings, the minister said that Admiral Landymore was fired because of 18 months of consistent disloyalty. The minister stated, as recorded at page 1623:

Yes, I think I could. I would say that following a meeting of commanders in Ottawa, as I recall, on November 19, 1964, Admiral Landymore fully understood what we had in mind. We planned to develop in this country a single service concept and that he was unalterably opposed to it at that stage and that he went back to Halifax to do everything he possibly could to prepare for an ultimate confrontation on the issue.

In reference to what the minister said regarding Admiral Landymore's understanding of the plans for the development of a single force in 1964, let me point out that the former chief of staff, Air Marshal Miller, indicated to the committee at that time there was no discussion about unification whatsoever. He indicated that there was no complete understanding of unification. He had only been retired for six months. How can the minister truthfully accuse Admiral Landymore of taking the action he took with a full understanding of what was to take place as far back as 1964?

The minister was asked why disciplinary action had not been taken against Admiral Landymore. I suggest that the hon. member who just spoke should read some of these answers in order to understand why we should not be limited in our time of debate, but given as much time as hon. members require. Let me remind the committee that the minister and the Prime Minister promised that ample opportunity would be provided for the discussion of this bill. In spite of that promise the Liberal majority on the committee rushed the conclusion of the committee's

April 3. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment sittings, even though it had been indicated that the members wished other witnesses to be heard. Surely this government will not propose closure on this matter in the lace of that promise. This committee of the whole house is entitled to all the time it requires to delve into the matter of unification. I accept the Prime Minister's promise and I expect he will live up to it, regardless of what the Minister of National Defence may wish to do. His obligation means nothing. I have not depended on his words or promises for a long time, and in this instance I put my trust in the Prime Minister's promise that we will have an ample opportunity to examine every angle of this proposal for unification.

In answer to questions as to why disciplinary action was not taken against Admiral Landymore the minister said this:

No. I said If the issue involved had been anything less serious or less comprehensive than the single service concept and he displayed the disloyalty which he did throughout that period, then I would have had to insist that he be court-martialled.

If I have ever heard a ridiculous statement, that surely is it. The minister implied that if the matter was less serious he would have taken more serious action. Where is the logic in that approach? Since the matter was apparently extremely serious he did nothing about it.

I am afraid I can see no logic in that approach. If someone can point out its logic, then I must have a complete misconception of law and justice. Why should a less serious charge for similar action in respect of a less serious subject demand more serious action by the minister? That is an idiotic approach; yet, so is the minister. This is the same type of logic he has shown throughout. The minister has consistently refused to face up to the facts and pay attention to the advice of his senior advisors.

Without further reference to the minister's answers, I should like him to consider again his remarks relating to the incompatibility of Admiral Landymore and his second-in-command. As I recall the situation, the minister said on several occasions that these two officers were incompatible. He was asked where he obtained this information and he indicated that the information came through official channels. Air Marshal Miller was asked to give his understanding of what official channels might mean. He replied that the commanding officer would necessarily initiate communications through official channels.

In view of what Air Marshal Miller said, the reference by the minister to his information coming through official channels must be ridiculous, because this information must have come from Admiral Landymore. It is not the custom in the services of this country for subordinate officers to bypass their commanding officers when sending in reports. The commanding officer is always aware of what passes through official channels. In spite of this the minister has told us that he heard certain things about Admiral Landymore through official channels. Again I suggest to the minister that this is a lot of nonsense.

It is also interesting to note that the minister in referring to his source of information indicated that he spoke to junior officers. When asked where and when, he replied that he had met these people on many different occasions. The implication was that he could have met them at a cocktail party or something like that. I say to the minister that if he discussed anything in respect of this particular matter with a junior officer anywhere, whether it was at a meeting, a cocktail party, in his home or somewhere else, he was inviting that officer to break the written rule that is laid down which forbids any officer in the services to discuss political matters. Therefore the minister has been contributing to junior officers in the Canadian forces breaking the rules. Of course, what can we expect? What would the minister know about rules?

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

I understand that the minister is so determined to bring about unification that he is prepared to put his seat on the line on this question. Not everybody in the minister's party supports him. I would remind him that cocktail parties are held around here at which people drop the odd word. Some fellows get pretty loose in the lip at these cocktail parties. The minister should check this out, because he has not the support in his own party that he thinks he has. Perhaps on an occasion such as this somebody overheard the minister threaten to resign his seat and impose another calamity on this government, as though it had not suffered enough calamities already, unless the party saw fit to back him completely on the question of unification.

Having read the evidence of the recently retired chief of staff, according to the press reports the Prime Minister said he thought this matter required further looking into. The press immediately indicated that there would probably be some kind of saw-off in respect of unification. But apparently the minister

April 3, 1967

went back to the Prime Minister and made another threat, so the Prime Minister, having said he had read Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony and having indicated that it deserved looking into, has now said he is once again in full support of the minister. The support of the minister has been on and off.

What interests me is that the testimony given to the defence committee by Air Chief Marshal Miller became available to this committee only today. So the Prime Minister was perhaps referring to the coverage given this matter by the press. If that is the case, I suggest that the Prime Minister should read carefully Air Chief Marshal Miller's testimony, and if he made a decision on the basis of press reports, having read this testimony I am sure the Prime Minister, in all fairness to the people of this country and the men and officers serving in the forces, will demand a second look at the unification bill.

In the committee an amendment was moved that before the unified force came into being members of the army, navy and air force, the services which are to disappear when unification becomes effective, be reattested and that each and every individual serving in the forces be given the choice as to whether he was to become a member of the Canadian forces. The Judge Advocate General gave evidence before the committee that this is just a matter of paper, and is not necessary. I say to the minister that it is not just a matter of paper. It always was the practice, but that practice is being discontinued; whether legally, I do not know. However, it would not be difficult to produce for the minister evidence to the effect that men who during the war served in more than one service were discharged from that service before entering another. Having been discharged from that service, anybody who served in two of the services during the war obtained two discharge certificates. I do not know whether this is just a matter of paper, but the evidence given before the committee is something that I will not accept. I can produce for the minister discharges obtained by individuals which show service in the army and in one of the other services. In other words, it is not just a matter of paper, and before a man is signed into one service he must be discharged from the other.

Therefore why should it not follow that if you are going to wipe out the army, navy and air force, the men serving in those forces should be given the choice of entering the

National Defence Act Amendment unified force? It is said that this is not necessary, but there are a number of precedents in this country which indicate that it is necessary. During a national emergency, a time of war, no man in the services was required to do other than that for which he signed up. I would refer to the "Official History of the Canadian Army", which is recommended reading for the Minister of National Defence, who might learn something from it. I would point out that in the writing of this volume the author was given full access to relevant official documents in the possession of the Department of National Defence. On page 43 is set out the first precedent. This was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but it bears repeating because I believe that if you wish to get anything across to this minister you have to keep pounding and pounding and pounding, and even then I doubt whether it will sink in because he has a stubborn attitude, for his own political reasons.

The minister has never denied that he threatened to resign if his party did not back the unification bill. I referred to that matter 10 or 15 minutes ago, and I remember a former Speaker ruling an hon. member out of order for not taking up a question of privilege within seven or ten seconds. I raised this matter 10 or 15 minutes ago, but the minister has never denied that he threatened to resign if his unification bill was not passed. He cannot deny it now on a question of privilege, because the time allowed for this has expired. I would ask the minister to pay particular attention to these words which appear at page 43 of the book to which I have referred:

"Government decided to place militia on active service in Canada (mobile force). Although all submissions to council were ready and all plans made, we were horrified to hear-"

I repeat that.

-we -were horrified to hear the cabinet decided at the last minute to change the name of the mobile force from "Canadian Field Force" to "Canadian Active Service Force". The result being many changes, torn up stencils, and $65,000 worth of mobilization forms almost useless. Very hectic day-but we managed to get the general order 135/1939 issued and in the mail to all districts.

Here is a clear-cut precedent established during the time of an emergency, wartime, when it was required to re-attest all servicemen just because the cabinet at the last minute changed the name of the force. They were not abolishing any force; they were just changing the name of the force from Canadian Field Force to Canadian Active

April 3/ 1967

National Defence Act Amendment Service Force. For the minister's benefit I read the following passage:

General order No. 135 announced that the governor in council had "authorized the organization of a Canadian Active Service Force" and had "named as Corps of the Active Militia" and "placed on active service in Canada" certain specified units. The accompanying schedules listed nearly 300 individual units and formation headquarters, including the headquarters of "1st Corps C.A.S.F.", the whole of the 1st and 2nd Divisions, C.A.S.F., and quotas of corps, army and lines of communication troops. In addition, this order incorporated in the C.A.S.F. the units and details of the non-permanent active militia which had been called out under general order No. 124 to guard vulnerable points and man coast defences. Some additions were now made to the original list. The N.P.A.M. soldiers on duty were attested into the C.A.S.F., except for those not wishing to enlist, who were released in due course.

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

This again is another well established precedent indicating that when the original list was changed the N.P.A.M. men were reattested into the C.A.S.F., except those who did not wish to enlist. They were released in due course.

The precedents are many, Mr. Chairman, and I do not have time to review them all. However, I will again draw the minister's attention to page 63 of the "Official History of the Canadian Army", where the following statement appears:

The decision to send a force overseas involved changing the basis on which men had so far been enlisted into the Active Service Force.

So the decision to send these men overseas required this change to be made. I continue:

The Minister of National Defence had explained to the House of Commons on September 11 that under the Militia Act (Section 68) no man could be required to serve in the field continuously for a longer period than one year, unless he had volunteered to serve for a longer period or "for the war". He suggested that if a decision were made to use part of the Active Service Force overseas the men might be "re-enlisted for overseas service".

I call to the minister's attention that at this time this country was at war. These men were in the active service of Canada, but before they were sent overseas they were going to be re-enlisted.

The statement issued on 19 September confirmed that this would be done, the men of both divisions being re-attested on a basis of volunteering for service in Canada or elsewhere for the duration of the war. Orders were shortly sent out that the whole of the Active Service Force was to be reattested in this way."

And so it goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. During the war active service personnel were reattested to be sent overseas. This minister,

along with his supporters in committee who do not understand the matter, voted against giving the men of our services today the opportunity to be reattested. In other words, they were given no choice whether they want to belong to the unified force or whether they want their discharge. The members of that committee voted against giving our armed services a privilege that this country saw fit to give them even during time of war. They are denying this to our servicemen.

What, in effect, did these members do in denying our forces this privilege, Mr. Chairman? I would draw this matter especially to the attention of the members from Quebec. They voted for conscription-because that is what it is, in effect. There is no voluntary aspect to this unified force unless the men are given the opportunity to be reattested and voluntarily become members of it. Unless this is done, the minister, with the support of the members of that committee, is conscripting every serving man in this country today into this unified force and denying him the right to make his choice.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Hogwash.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to his speech has expired.

Topic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink

April 3, 1967