Rémi PAUL

PAUL, Rémi, Q.C., B.A., LL.L.

Personal Data

Party
Independent
Constituency
Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
Birth Date
June 10, 1921
Deceased Date
December 20, 1982
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rémi_Paul
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=01245d17-8749-4393-a294-c31fbd956d8b&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
  • Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole (September 27, 1962 - February 6, 1963)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
February 18, 1965 - September 8, 1965
IND
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 155)


April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Brandon has a nice

sound. I went there every week end for two summers.

Topic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

I continue quoting:

The future demands the utmost in efficiency. Let us listen to Mr. Hellyer.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let us see briefly who is against this policy. They are of many categories. First, there is the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) who still endeavours to define unification but who did not bother to read the record of the committee proceedings in which, on many instances, the minister defined unification as follows:

When I refer to a unified force, I refer to a single integrated service encompassing the naval, land, air and support units necessary to carry out its assigned roles and missions, and operating under unified management.

That is clear enough, I think. And then there is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). I intended to take up every point of his numerous statements. I am not in the habit, on the other hand, of launching verbal attacks against anybody in an unparliamentary manner. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) must have noted that I have followed his remarks very closely. I have listened to his many interventions which are always made

April 19, 1967

courteously. 1 obviously disagree with the hon. member, but I must admit that he expresses his views in an acceptable and reasonable manner, at least in this house.

His participation in this debate is not to be compared with that of the member for Ed-monton-Strathcona who is constantly using insulting language and always suspecting conspiracies everywhere, behind the curtains, in the office of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and in the Liberal caucus.

I would rather not mention the hon. member's remarks, but I say to this house that whether or not we are in favour of the unification and integration of our armed forces, we ought never utter such words. That was unfortunate, and if I were allowed to do so, I would apologize for him before the house for the remarks he made here.

Next, there is the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). All hon. members know him.

He is a jumping member, always very devoted to his constituency, I would agree; but when it comes to these large and important questions I think he is completely out of order. I am sorry he is not here; I am sure we could have a good debate between us. Perhaps we shall have it at another time.

But for some reason, which is beyond my understanding, the member for Cape Breton South replaced the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) during some of the committee meetings.

The major contribution of the hon. member of Cape Breton South during the discussion was a personal and malicious attack against the minister. I took out several other epithets, because I want to concentrate on what I said earlier about the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. Mr. Chairman, I pass over three lines of the text which I had prepared and over all the epithets which I could have used to qualify, not the member for Cape Breton South personally, but his statements. So, he said these things about the hon. minister, and above all, he offered the fallacious idea that unification would lead to conscription.

Moreover, our hon. friend, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) said the same things last night. He also saw the dark cloud of conscription looming on the horizon.

National Defence Act Amendment He knows that his words may cause the people to follow him, the nation or the state call it what you will; I do not like semantics as much as that. He will try to arouse the feelings of the French speaking population which seems to be afraid of conscription. I think the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and for Cape Breton South get on well together. They will probably be conscripted, but certainly not in the army.

Now, I shall talk about the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, instead of dealing with Bill No. C-243, made a violent diatribe against the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) who, it seems, had written some articles in a magazine called Cite Libre. Therefore, I made a few inquiries. I remember when I was a student, regularly reading Cite Libre as all the University students did in the province of Quebec.

I particularly remembered that the new Minister of Justice was even then an impartial observer, and that he had not merely talked about Liberal members and the Liberal party.

In an article I will be allowed to quote-I will do exactly as he did-written by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in Cite Libre on April 16, 1960, here is what the author said of the then prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker now Leader of the Opposition:

Topic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) have asked for a pause in order to think things over and make sure we are heading in the right direction. But did they stop to think whether it was wise to clamour for the resignation of the chief of staff, General Allard, or to tell him in the house to "shut up"? Did they take the time to check the accuracy of the reports published in the press? Surely not. No more, indeed, than they apologize for the off-hand manner in which they handled this unfortunate affair.

On the other hand, we find on the part of headquarters nothing but sensible and effective planning, checked and double-checked, with the assurance that it is time to go ahead, that we are going in the right direction and that the time to act has come.

Mr. Chairman, I pass over two quotations, because I would like to read the last one. I shall not say-I do not think I will be forced to do it-who said this.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)

If you should like to know who made the statement let me read you the last paragraph of my speech. Before doing so I should say that I am not referring to any hon. member of this house. This is the quotation:

Any idiot can go on doing what has been done before, but it takes real courage, intelligence and character to assess the needs of the future, to devise a sound program and carry it into effect. This is particularly true of the armed services, which become merely an expensive luxury unless the process of improvement, modernization, forward thinking, and planning goes on continuously.

Topic:   DIEFENBAKER UP IN A BALLOON
Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a contribution to this debate, because I think it is a most important and most interesting one, and because I cannot understand the stubbornness of the official opposition in fighting this legislation, particularly the stubbornness of the flying squad, if I may call it that, composed mainly of the hon. members for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis).

One of the arguments of the official opposition against Bill No. C-243, from the start of this debate, has been that all retired top officers oppose the unification of the armed forces.

At the beginning of my remarks I should like to put on the record some of the statements issued by officers who are surely as distinguished as those who are opposed to unification and integration, by high-ranking retired officers who give their unqualified support to unification.

The first is that of Air Vice Marshal Sully, as reproduced by the Canadian Press on November 9, 1966, and I quote:

When so many ex senior officers are bursting into print with emotional opposition to Mr. Hellyer's plans for unification of our defence services, it is time that some of us who support this forward movement spoke up.

As an experienced senior officer and as a businessman,-

And I emphasize "businessman".

-I find it difficult to understand how any rationally-minded man could oppose this excellent move to unification of our defence services.

Topic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

I would ask you now to hear what Commodore A. B. Fraser-Harris has to say:

Topic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Full View Permalink