April 20, 1967

?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
?

Mr, Diefenbaker:

Mr. Speaker, they can gag us by brute force with the assistance of third parties, but they cannot gag our belief and that of millions of Canadians that what is being destroyed here is tradition, which the minister sweeps aside. He said, "What does it matter what your uniform is?" I am going to refer to his words in a moment when he gave his views on the processes that brought about this situation.

I now come to the explanation of the minister. From the beginning he has pursued a tortuous course. 1 have always had a rather warm feeling for him. While we sit opposite one another and express ourselves strongly in debate, there is still something within us that admires ability and capacity, and above all willingness, to do one's best for one's country. If I may make a diversion at this moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring a simple example to the attention of the house. This happened in 1961. My wife and I were in London. We were invited to a dinner given in our honour by the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Sir Winston Churchill came that night. My wife sat between the prime minister and Sir Winston. I was on the other side of the table, away down. I had been introduced to all who were present there but I did not realize who the lady was next to me. Her name was Mrs. Chamberlain. I did not associate her in any way with the prime minister of the United Kingdom of the late 1930's and the early months of 1940. Sir Winston was in unusually good humour that night. I turned to her at one point and said: "Is it not wonderful the way he enjoys life at his age? He is happy tonight." She said: "Yes, if it weren't for him we wouldn't be here."

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel

Liberal

Mr. Habel:

That is a bedtime story.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I know it registered nothing in the mind of the hon. gentleman. That is my idea of public life. Mrs. Chamberlain's

late husband was driven out but she maintained that tradition which is the essence of the British parliamentary system. The interference opposite indicates that the hon. members do not know parliament.

I have followed the minister's course with a great deal of interest but the manner in which he has given explanations to the house indicates that when he is faced with arguments he takes up another position. His first statement was that all the experts and all the servicemen were on his side.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Hellyer:

I never said that.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

That was proven to be completely without foundation. His second position was-

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Hellyer:

On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman gave the impression he was quoting from something I said. Would he give the source and the time and place so I can find it?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

It has been said over and over again. Those who did not agree were retired, so naturally he must have felt he had the unanimous support of those who were permitted to remain.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Hellyer:

You paraphrased it.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

If the minister can name me one high officer who dared say he did not agree with unification and is not yet out of the services, I will give him the opportunity.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

Robert Muir

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):

This is Hitler's birthday.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

There is an expression which I cannot repeat here but, to paraphrase, it means that when you advance an argument you should stand by it.

That was the minister's first position. There was the case of an admiral of the fleet who was condemned and denigrated by the minister. Six months later the minister said: "I really did not mean it". I wish he had developed the same epidermis with regard to the comment made by the member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. But no, the minister was going to sue. He had no case because only what was said in the house was repeated outside it.

I wonder when legal action will be taken? Never since General Currie in the Port Hope trial has there been anything like the reaction of Hellyer versus Nugent. I know him as Terry. When is the minister going to start the action? He must start it within a certain

April 20, 1967 COMMONS

number of days. He will lose the right unless he acts soon.

Then the minister said: "Well, what they said really did not matter because after all they did not know". Let us read his words. They could not have been unprepared. They have every appearance of having been sent from above. They could have come from nowhere else. He said:

Having listened to all of the points of view which have been expressed, I think it is incumbent on members and ministers to make up their minds on this matter. We have to use our own God-given intelligence to take a decision instead of simply relying on evidence of people in favour or the evidence of people not in favour.

As long as these generals, admirals and air marshals said they believed in a measure of integration their evidence was sound. But when they said they did not believe in unification they ceased to have that God-given intelligence which apparently is the monopoly of the minister and those associated with him. Farther on he went on to say:

-believe me, Mr. Chairman, this is all I have done and it is what the associate minister has done.

Then he said:

All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that we use our own God-given intelligence and examine all of the

changes in technology which have taken place during the last 20 years.

This is one of the strangest doctrines I have ever heard. Everybody is wrong but the minister and the associate minister who possess something that is denied to other members of parliament and which apparently has been arrogated to the minister and those associated with him, namely, God-given intelligence.

I ask the minister, where was this God-given intelligence in 1961 and 1962 when the minister said that the whole idea of having any nuclear arms is wrong? He said, "we will have nothing to do with it; it is pouring money down the drain." In January of 1963 the God-given intelligence received intelligence from another country.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

J.-E. Bernard Pilon (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. Pilon:

From NATO.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

God giveth, God taketh away.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

This issue cannot be determined by this government. No doubt the other parties will say that the rights of parliament have not been trampled upon. I say to my friends in the New Democratic party: Your predecessors, the C.C.F. party, were wrong in every policy on national defence from 1938 onward. I have the record here.

Proposal for Time Allocation

I would like to know where Canada's contributions would have been if it had followed the policies of the New Democratic party. Unless it becomes necessary to elucidate I will leave the subject there, but the record stands. I repeat that in 1938, in September, 1939, and in 1941, the party which claimed so often to have a monopoly of humanitarian intelligence was wrong. I hope the passage of years has brought them a new capacity to judge on questions of defence.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
NDP

Harold Edward Winch

New Democratic Party

Mr. Winch:

Where is the Conservative party's God-given intelligence?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

If the hon. member wants quotations, I can furnish them without any difficulty at all. I would ask him to read the record and I will be glad to discuss the matter with him now. Let him read the record of the declaration of his party's policy in 1937. Let him read the record of his party's policy in 1939 when there was complete agreement in the socialist party that not one man should be sent overseas and that Canada's aid should be solely economic. They say that parliament's rights have not been trampled on. But, sir, we in this party have taken our stand on this subject. They can trample on our views but if the correspondence that is coming in means anything, it is clear that this government has embarked on a policy that is not acceptable.

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

Someone criticized me for having said that General Allard has political ambitions. I think it was the Ottawa Journal, which used to be independent Conservative too. I was simply referring to a fact that the press had reported. I know also that in 1951, if I am correct in the year, General Allard was offered a portfolio but felt he ought to stay with the armed forces for a while longer. On the one hand we have the chief of staff and on the other we have a number of gentlemen whose names I am going to read. This list reads like a Who's Who in Canada's glorious record of service. They are: General Charles Foulkes; Lieutenant General Robert Moncel; Vice Admiral H. S. Rayner; Air Vice Marshal M. M. Hendrick; Admiral Brock; Admiral Pullen; Admiral Stirling; Lieutenant General Fleury; Air Marshal Curtis; Air Marshal Clare Annis; Lieutenant General Guy Simonds; Air Chief Marshal F. R. Miller, and the man who stood, Read Admiral W. M. Landymore.

There is the list of some of those who spoke out. Do not these men possess that God-given

15130 COMMONS DEBATES April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation

intelligence of which the minister has spoken? Are these men endeavouring to bring this nation to a position of degradation by their stand? What has happened here has been that this government, and more particularly the minister, has been playing politics with the defence of this nation.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Hellyer:

Absolutely untrue.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

As I said before, and I repeat, defence is being used as a platform for personal ambition.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Paul Theodore Hellyer (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Hellyer:

Absolutely untrue.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION RESPECTING DEFENCE ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

April 20, 1967