PAUL, Rémi, Q.C., B.A., LL.L.

Personal Data

Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
Birth Date
June 10, 1921
Deceased Date
December 20, 1982

Parliamentary Career

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

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 155)

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Brandon has a nice

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

Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Air Vice Marshal Sully. [Translation]

Let us listen now to Commodore A. B. Fraser-Harris, who said the following in a telegram he sent to the Canadian Press, probably to Mr. David Macintosh, of whom I should like to speak later:

Heard from abroad the traditionalist uproar against service unification. At a time when enlightened people throughout the world are learning at last that the pigment of human skin is not a mark of quality, local concern over the colour of a uniform or the title of a man appears singularly unimpressive.

And please listen to this:

Let us always be willing to learn from history and be strengthened by tradition but let us never forget that history is made by the actions of men

April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment and that men create tradition and pride of title not vice versa.

Unification of the three services is undoubtedly sound and timely. Let interservice jealousy, personal rivalry and the extravagances of triplication give way to a single, effective and streamlined service in which Canadians can build future history and new tradition in the service of Canada, whether by land, sea, air or space.

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:

Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Mr. Diefenbaker had to rush to overshadow him by rising as a giant on the international scene.

April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment

You remember Mr. Chairman, his dream, his vision of a great commonwealth-

To go on:

Unfortunately, his balloon sprung a leak over Asia, notably in Pakistan where misery, riots and anti-parliamentary governments showed him a thing or two on the hazards of a common policy-

But there was also Mr. Howe, this satyr of trade and finance who had left his indelible imprint on the direction of our economy.

Mr. Diefenbaker decided that any trace of that man had to disappear, and he hurriedly announced a drastic 15 per cent reorientation of our international trade. In terms of political economy, it was very odd; but Great Britain made as though it played the game by proposing a free-trade system between our two countries.

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

There was also Mr. St. Laurent, one of the main architects of NATO and, who, in another field, was responsible for the repatriation of part of the Canadian constitution by amendment No. 2 of 1949. To outdo as fast as possible the achievements of the former liberal leader on strategic matters, Mr. Diefenbaker hurriedly led us into certain commitments towards NORAD with such an ill-considered zeal that our country finds itself in a state of military dependence which brings it back 100 years. And now, in the constitutional field, Mr. Diefenbaker announces that he will repatriate-

I spare you the rest, Mr. Chairman, but I wind up Mr. Trudeau's article, and I have many others anyway. Therefore I quote:

In all those instances, and in many others, those were generous measures but-one must regret it- they remained for the most part, just good intentions. They were balloons filled with hot air and pushed by the wind which invariably crashed with their operator before going too far.

Mr. Diefenbaker's good intentions have failed so often that we are justified to find in them the very nature of his style-

And he has not changed, as you will note.

-now, as Buffon said, the style is the man himself. Thinking that inspiration does for reflection, he lacks the patience or the modesty to hurry slowly, he does not find it necessary to gather around him men able to establish the Canadian policy on deeprooted reason.

I will spare the house this quotation and go on.

Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi wants to, he can tell it himself to the Minister of Justice who will surely reply.

I ask the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to note the essential difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties. I therefore quote the member for Winnipeg South Centre who said on Wednesday April 5, 1967:

I begin, by expressing my regret that in our centennial year we should be involved in a debate such as this. During centennial year, we are emphasizing the history and traditions of our country in every hamlet-

I will read no further, Mr. Chairman. But when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre rose to speak and set forth his theory on Canada, my speech was ready and I wanted to rise and say:

As we enter the second century of our existence, we must come up with bills such as the one proposed to us by the defence minister, which are oriented toward the future, without necessarily disavowing the past.

But the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was consistent with himself and with the policy of his party, which is to look to the past and ignore the world in which we live. He is consistent with the policy of his party. I do not blame him for it, I am not insulting him. Let us not disturb him, for he is listening carefully.

April 19. 1967

That is the basic difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. Perhaps, the Conservative party needs a unification and integration bill, for the integration of the forces which are scattered for unification.

There are retired officers. I think Group Captain Patrick-and I should like to insist, because I would not want the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or some other hon. members opposite to say that I am trying to speak against our British institutions, for I respect them-

-I will say that in English. I respect our traditions and our past. I am proud to be a member of this House of Commons where we have the British parliamentary system. I respect that; but I am not so blind that I cannot look to the future-*

-said exactly what I should have liked to say, but I prefer to quote his own words, which are at the bottom of page 1284:

One of the fears expressed about integration which does have a certain amount of popular appeal has to do with tradition-and tradition is symbolized by one word, "uniform".

We do not have a Canadian uniform, just as we did not have a Canadian flag. Many of the same kind of people who raised such a fuss about getting a new flag now do so over the uniform and for the same reasons.

I went to the trouble of seeking out the names of those who spoke in the flag debate. I went to the trouble of listening to the 290 speeches made in this house at that time. I was a brand new member of parliament. The same arguments were repeated then. The hon. members taking part in the present debate are the very same ones who spoke then. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) spoke eight times; the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) spoke three times; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) spoke five times; the hon, member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) spoke ten times; and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke 22 times. These same people, today, when we are studying a bill to Canadianize our institutions, are again rising to accuse us of wishing to repudiate our past.

I do not deny our past and our Canadian institutions. But I believe Canada is the coun-

National Defence Act Amendment try in the world which has known the longest and most peaceful evolution toward complete sovereignty.

And I say that this bill is part of this normal evolution of Canadian institutions. When I look to the future, does that mean that I jeer at the past? Does that mean, for instance, that I am not proud of the part played by my brother who served in the armed services and fought in Europe during seven years? Does that mean that those who died, whether they were French speaking or English speaking-

Personally I am becoming a little tired of speaking in both English and French. I should like to make this clear, however, that I am proud to be participating in this debate as a French Canadian. To correct myself, I will say I am proud to be participating in this debate as a Canadian of French culture. So I am going to speak in your language because I like you. At least you stand for your principles. I disagree with your principles, but at least you stand for them. However, as a Canadian of French culture I believe you know where I put the emphasis. I think this is a good bill; it is a bill for the young Canadians to be proud of.

I do not see why the hon. member would not be proud to take part in it. Air colonel Kenneth Patrick continues by saying;

We do not have a Canadian uniform.

The Canadian Navy uniform is a copy of the British Navy uniform.

And I have another quotation.

I think it was Admiral Brock or Admiral Rayner who explained that the Canadian Navy uniform is different because it has a zipper. Big deal.

I will continue with the quotation:

The Canadian Army uniform is the British Army uniform.

There is nothing distinctively Canadian about any of our uniforms and this has already caused some real problem in our peace keeping tasks. There is a quotation here which is very long and I do not intend to read it, but I suggest that hon. members might read it. During the last war and during the years since, Canadian servicemen have had a

15108 COMMONS DEBATES April 19. 1967

National Defence Act Amendment problem to identify themselves as Canadians. One of the ways of doing this is with a distinctive Canadian uniform. Is it being antiBritish to ask for something that is proCanadian? I should like somebody some day to explain that to me.

There is evidence at the moment that in England there is a new demand for one armed service. I turn to the Morning Herald of Sydney, Australia.

You should read this article. It is very interesting.

The debate has been given impetus by the submission of annual plans by individual departments.

Critics are saying that Mr. Healey's latest reforms, mainly the abolition of separate ministers for each of the three services, do not go anything like far enough.

It is known that proposals for much more sweeping reforms have been put to Mr. Healey-

Not Hellyer-Healey.

-particularly for a unified policy on weapons.

Mr. Healey has rejected these proposals. He is a "strong" minister who feels he can overcome inter-service rivalries and he refuses to contemplate an ultimate unified armed service. He argues that tradition is too deeply embedded.

It seems that only Canadians could think that our minister could not do something good in this way. It seems to be the belief of some that everything the minister does, because he sits on this side of the house, is wrong. I have read the article in the Sydney Morning Herald where it refers to Mr. Paul Hellyer as the able and thrusting Canadian defence minister.

I conclude-I still have five minutes; I kept track of my time-with Mr. Patrick's last paragraph.

There is talk about the new uniform, the colour and what type it should be. I do not think anybody really cares so long as it is sensible and functional.

Mr. Chairman, a fortnight ago the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-he has a lot to say-asked that the Red Ensign be flown at Vimy. I respect the Red Ensign, but it no longer is the Canadian flag. The single leaf flag is Canada's flag.

Mr. Chairman, much is said, often blindly, within the bounds of tradition, with no possibility of escape toward new attractive concepts.

Full View Permalink