1958-06-11

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1958
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 11, 1958

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication informing me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely:
Of Hon. Jean Lesage, member for the electoral district of Montmagny-L'Islet, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer for a new writ of election for the electoral district.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
r ANNOUNCEMENT OF SURVEY TO BE CONDUCTED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL GRAHAM
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to announce that Lieutenant General Howard D. Graham, following his retirement on August 31 from the post of chief of the general staff of the Canadian army, as announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, has agreed to undertake on behalf of the government a comprehensive survey of all aspects of Canada's civil defence policy and program.
I might say that in the view of the government the need for a thorough reappraisal of current policies and programs at this time is underlined by the changing nature of the threat which confronts civil defence in this and in other countries. In the post-war decade, 1948-1958, during which civil defence has been active, the scale of attack has shifted from atomic to hydrogen weapons. For the years immediately ahead, civil defence faces the need to re-examine present plans and assumptions, based largely on hydrogen weapons, in order to make sure that 57071-3-66
they take sufficient account of the new threat posed by the intercontinental ballistic missile.
It is expected that General Graham's survey will require him to visit various provinces of Canada in order to see for himself what progress in civil defence is being made at provincial and local levels. In this he will be expected to consult with provincial and municipal leaders, as well as those familiar with civil defence policies at the national level.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May I ask
the minister if General Graham's assignment will include a recommendation regarding the sharing of cost by the three levels of government, or will he just recommend to the minister proposals for reorganization of civil defence?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would expect that General Graham would probably study that angle of the problem.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister suggest to General Graham that when he visits the municipal civil defence authorities he would be well advised to get in touch as much as possible with the persons who have been interested in civil defence, the rank and file. I think it would be of great value to him if he did so and that he would have a better understanding of their needs, requirements and dissatisfactions.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to pass on that suggestion to General Graham.



STARRED QUESTION


Mr. Cardin: 1.	What was the total amount of Canadian dollars paid to the United States in 1956 for imports of farm tractors manufactured in the United Kingdom and assembled in the United States?
2.	Was this amount taken into consideration by the dominion bureau of statistics when compiling its figures regarding the Canadian trade deficit with the United States?
3.	Are other products manufactured in the United Kingdom and imported into Canada from the United States? If so, what items?
4.	Has the government taken any steps to encourage British companies to assemble farm tractors and other British products in Canada rather than in the United States? If so, with what results?

Orders for Returns


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This question, Mr. Speaker, is a refurbished edition of the one asked by the hon. gentleman last session on January 29, 1958. My answer on that occasion will be the one I give now. It is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, no records such as are asked for by the hon. member are kept, and the information is not easily obtainable as it involves tracing the country of origin of components in manufactured articles coming from the United States.
That answers the first, second and third parts of the question. As to the fourth part may I say this. British companies are free to establish branches in Canada, are encouraged to do so and have done so in large numbers. The recent United Kingdom trade mission to this country had that as one of its objectives.


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, questions numbered 19, 30, 39, 46, 48, 50, 51, 57, 69, and 71 should be changed to orders for returns.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I just point out that these questions come after orders of the day and really are not on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Laurier will look at the bottom of page 3 of the order paper he will find that it is at this stage that the opportunity is given for making questions orders for returns.


Lionel Chevrier: 1 am afraid I was not alert.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: 1.	What are the names of the Indian bands or reserves which are within the electoral district of Skeena?
2.	Upon what dates since January 1, 1956, has (a) an Indian superintendent; (b) a doctor; (c) a dentist, visited each band or reserve?


SALK VACCINE
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	To what countries does Canada now export the Salk vaccine?
2.	When were the first shipments of the Salk vaccine authorized for export to any receiving country?
3.	How many children in Canada have received three shots of the Salk vaccine as of March 31, 1958?
4.	What is the total financial contribution of the federal government under dominion-provincial arrangements for the free supply of the Salk vaccine, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958?
5.	What is the age beyond which the federal government does not now contribute to the free supply of the Salk vaccine in any or all of the provinces?

6.	What proportions of the Salk vaccine program in Canada are now manufactured at the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories, the Institute of Microbiology at the University of Montreal, and private manufacturers?
7.	Is the Salk vaccine production in Canada provided by private manufacture in Canada or do all commercial supplies now come from the United States?	_
8.	How many private commercial companies have received permission to sell and distribute the Salk vaccine in Canada?
9.	Are the British controls or tests prior to use of the Salk vaccine the same as those provided in Canada?


GOVERNMENT PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES
Mr. Argue: 1.	How many passenger automobiles have been purchased or contracted for by the government during the present year to date?
2.	Of such automobiles, how many are manufactured in (a) Canada; (b) the United States of America; (c) other countries?
3.	For what purpose are cars in categories "b" and "c" being used?



KITIMAT


Mr. Howard: How much money, if any, was spent for the conducting of the 1957 general election for each polling division in Kitimat, British Columbia, for (a) enumerators; (b) remuneration to the deputy returning officers and poll clerks; (c) the rental of premises; (d) other expenses not mentioned above?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Broome: 1.	As of latest date available, how many civil service employees of the federal government who have reached retirement age are still employed by means of extension permits granted for (a) six months; (b) one year?
2.	Are extensions granted for longer periods than one year?
3.	If so, how many of such extensions are in effect as of latest date available?



WELFARE PAYMENT REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any group or association requesting (a) an increase in the old age security pensions to an amount of $75 per month, payable at age 65 with a means test; (b) amendments to the old age security and old age assistance acts to permit payment of pensions regardless of the country of residence; (c) housing facilities be made available to pensioners through C.M.H.C. or some other government agency; (d) amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act to increase the allowable income to $2,000 for married couples and $1,600 for single persons; (e) amendments to the disabled persons allowances act to broaden the definition of a disabled person?
2.	If so, has the government replied to such representations, and what reply was given?



TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLIES AND PARTS-IMPORTS

Mr. Broome: 1.	What is the value of automatic transmission assemblies and parts imported from the United States by the automobile industry, in each of the years 1955-56-57?
2.	What is duty rate on (a) complete transmission used in assembly of motor cars; (b) on parts?



ROADS, BRIDGES, ETC.  ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES

Mr. Argue: 1.	What has been the total federal government expenditure for the fiscal years 1956-57 and 1957-58, in each province on (a) roads; (b) bridges; (c) grade separations?
2,	Of the total amount for each fiscal year, how much was paid to each provincial government, and how much directly by the federal government for work under its jurisdiction?



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Mcllrailh: What were the names of advertising firms employed by each department of the government, (a) on April 1, 1957; (b) on April 1, 1958?



FEDERAL STEPS TO CURTAIL TRAFFIC DEATHS

Mr. Houck: 1.	How many persons have died in Canada during the year 1957, as a result of automobile and highway traffic accidents?
2.	Has the federal government collected any information as to plans or programs designed to curtail loss of life from automobile or highway traffic accidents?
3.	Has the federal government taken any steps to distribute such information or has it taken any such steps to assist in curtailing loss of life?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Racine:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the town of Beauceville, and any person or persons, and the federal government, concerning the flooding of the Chaudiere river, last December.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the study or survey made by the Department of Public Works, or any official thereof, of facilities required at ports and harbours along the great lakes-St. Lawrence route, arising out of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and the opening of this route to 27-foot navigation in 1959, and more particularly of improvements to harbour and river works at such ports.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for the production of reports which are made by officers of my department to more senior officers in that department, and as such I believe they are privileged and should not be produced.
57071-3-66$
Motions for Papers


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this motion is because of a discussion which took place during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I would like to quote from page 930 of Hansard for June 6, 1958, as follows:
I simply wanted to bring to his attention-
That is to the attention of the minister.

the fact that he should deal with all ports In the same manner, and in order to do that it seems to me that the best way is to have a survey or study made.
A little further on the minister intervened as follows:
It has already been done for practically all the
ports.
To which I replied:
I am glad it has. If it has, I hope the results will be available to those of us on this side of the house-
It seems to me that it would be useful if these surveys of ports which are made could be given to the house so we would have some information and some knowledge of what improvements are contemplated at such ports.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, these investigations are made by the officials of the department in the course of their duties, and we cannot disclose confidential reports of this kind. If this were to be done in the course of administration we would get into an impossible position. I have in my hand Bourinot's fourth edition, page 251, which reads as follows:
The practice of asking for reports from officers, addressed to particular departments of the executive government, is considered to be open to serious objection. As to "confidential documents" passing between officers of a department, Mr. Speaker Peel observes: "They are not necessarily laid on the table of the house, especially if the minister declares that they are of a confidential character."
The reports for which the hon. member for Laurier is asking are of a confidential character, and I suggest they should not be produced.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I may have a further word on this subject, the hon. gentleman did not say during the course of the discussion that the reports were confidential. He does state that now, but all I am saying at this juncture is that the position he takes is entirely different from that which he took when he sat on this side of the house and demanded the production of similar documents.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member can produce any statements in Hansard to back up what he has just said.


Lionel Chevrier: Hansard is replete with them.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Cresiohl:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This motion is not debatable. It is a motion for an order of the house to issue in respect of certain papers. It is not debatable, and the only course is to accept or reject the motion. I am advised by the Clerk that that is the method of disposing of such a motion as this. I ask, then, whether it is the pleasure of the house to adopt the same motion.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will consider initiating or pressing for the initiation of bilateral conversations with the Japanese government which would make possible the sale of Canadian uranium to that country, and thereby prevent the loss of this market to uranium producers in other countries.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to discuss that question with my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is also interested.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. According to yesterday's press, regulations now make it unlawful for Canadian deep sea fishermen to carry both large and small nets on their draggers. Nets must now be one size or the other, with penalties for infringement ranging up to $1,000, or imprisonment, or both.
Will the minister advise how this regulation will be enforced upon foreign shipping fishing on Canada's banks off the east coast of Newfoundland, or does this only apply to Canadian fishing draggers?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minisfer of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is superfluous for me to say that this government has no jurisdiction over foreign vessels fishing on the high
[Mr. Chevrier.l
seas. However, there is a convention among most of the countries interested in fishing in the northwest Atlantic, the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries, and the countries who subscribe to it set up by mutual agreement certain regulations as to net sizes and other conservation measures. The various countries concerned take the responsibility for enforcing these regulations as far as their nationals are concerned.
I am answering this question off the cuff, and if my information is not complete, or is incorrect, I will add to the answer tomorrow.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with due decorum I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received a protest from the British Columbia lumber manufacturers' association, supported by the British Columbia interior lumber manufacturers' association, against a recent decision of the Canadian tariff board in appeal No. 446, which results in an increase in duty on softwood lumber imported into Canada from the United States from 7 j per cent to 20 per cent?
In view of the serious repercussions this decision will have on the lumber industry in British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question. He is now, apparently, about to make a statement on the subject.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am just going to ask the question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider an immediate investigation into the situation and take action in the best interests of the lumber industry and the employees concerned?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, representations, as I think they should be called rather than protests, have been received from the association with reference to this particular decision of the tariff board, and the matter is receiving very close study.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent threat by the Danish islands in the north

Atlantic to follow the example of Iceland and extend their fishing limits to 12 miles, can the minister advise the house if the Canadian government recognizes the extension of the fishing limit to a 12-mile width of waters off their coasts, as announced by the government of Iceland?


Sidney Earle Smith: I will accept that question as notice.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which the minister may also take as notice. In view of the statement made in Halifax on Sunday, June 8, by the Minister of Fisheries to the effect that Canada would try to obtain a compromise arrangement concerning the 12-mile fishing limit at the next conference on the law of the sea, can the minister advise the house if the government has altered its so-called firm stand on a 12-mile limit to a compromise position on future negotiations?


OPERATION OF SHIPS OFF NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister comment on the presence of Soviet ships operating off the banks of Newfoundland in a manner calculated to give rise to suspicion and anxiety on the part of the people of Newfoundland?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. My colleague the Minister of National Defence has graciously undertaken to answer it.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported to me that Soviet vessels have been operating off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. These ships have been operating outside of Canadian territorial waters. I am sure the hon. member for Trinity-Conception noticed, as I did, the statement of the Russian minister of fisheries made in Halifax the other day to the effect that these Russian ships were carrying out scientific surveys of fish migrations in the area. I would suggest that the residents of Newfoundland should not be unduly exercised by this fishy business, as the area is patrolled by the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force. [Later:!


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence arising out of the reply
Inquiries of the Ministry he gave to the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. Would the minister take steps to verify reports that these Russian trawlers operating on the banks of Newfoundland are totally blacked out at night and do not carry even the ordinary navigation lights, thereby constituting a menace to shipping operating on the banks? If the reports are verified, would he inquire as to why such a practice would be necessary for ships that are engaged merely in tracking fish migration?


George Randolph Pearkes: I would be pleased to get a report on that matter.


LAOS, CAMBODIA, VIET NAM    STATEMENT ON STATUS OF CONTROL COMMISSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East asked me a question concerning the status of the international commissions in Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam. With respect to the part of the question concerning Laos, may I say that in November, 1957, an agreement was reached between the royal Laotian government and the dissident Pathet Lao. This agreement provided for integration of the Pathet Lao into the Laotian national community and also provided for supplementary elections to be held in a few months' time to give representation in the national assembly to the Pathet Lao. These elections were held on May 4, 1958.
During the past two months the royal Laotian government has twice requested the international commission to leave Laos after the May 4 elections. It expressed the view that these elections represented the final stage of the political settlement provided for in the cease-fire agreement on Laos which was signed at Geneva in 1954.
It is also the Canadian government's view that, with the achievement of a political settlement in Laos and with the fulfilment of the terms of the cease-fire agreement, the tasks of the international commission for supervision and control have come to an end. The Canadian government considers that the indefinite extension of international agencies of this kind after their tasks have been completed will tend to bring the whole concept of international supervision into disrepute.
For this general reason, and in support of a request of the royal Laotian government, the Canadian delegation to the international commission was instructed to introduce a resolution calling for the dissolution of the commission. The Indian and Polish delegations are opposed to dissolution, and as yet no final solution has been reached.

Inquiries of the Ministry
With respect to the international commission in Viet Nam, the Canadian government considers that since a political settlement has not yet been reached in that country, the commission there still has a task to perform. We are therefore anxious to continue our participation in the work of that commission and thereby contribute to the peace and stability of that area.
With respect to Cambodia, more than two years ago, as the hon. member no doubt recalls, the Canadian delegation to the commission in Cambodia tabled a resolution calling for the dissolution of that commission which, in the opinion of the Canadian government, had completed its task. However, because this resolution was not supported by the Indian and Polish delegations but particularly, I am informed, because the royal Cambodian government requested the commission to remain, no further action was taken at that time or has since been taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs if, in view of the situation in Cambodia which he has just described, he does not think a further attempt should be made toward the dissolution of the commission in that country? Perhaps he would be prepared to look at the matter and give us a statement later.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, in reply, I should like to see the Laos situation dealt with first, but I will look into it.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which perhaps could be taken as notice in his absence and answered when he returns. Has the Department of Transport received a report from Canadian Pacific Steamships relative to the operation of steamships between the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver island to the effect that a more efficient and faster service between the two points is possible? If so, what plan does the department have for the institution of such a service?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Naiional Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and see that it is brought to the attention of the minister concerned.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to give the hon. lady notice of my intention to ask this question. Is the minister aware that the Singer Sewing Machine Company of St. Johns, Quebec, has closed down its operations, and that as a result many persons are out of work? Has she any comment to make as to the reasons for the closing down of this plant?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that information
has not come to my desk as yet, but I rather fancy that would be under provincial jurisdiction, would it not?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on June 2, as recorded at page 725 of Hansard. The unemployment insurance commission has just completed a special survey made throughout Canada to obtain the number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefits as of May 31, 1958. The total number of active claimants at that date was 550,959. Of this total there were 367,942 claimants for regular benefits and 183,017 claimants for seasonal benefits. These figures, I might add, compare with a total of 722,252 active claimants on April 30, 1958, comprising 495,382 regular benefit claimants and 226,870 seasonal benefit claimants.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as he will recall, asked for the number of persons receiving benefits. Because of the varying frequency of payments-some weekly, some bi-monthly and some even less frequently in more remote areas-and because of the continuing turnover of those receiving benefit, it is much more difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of those receiving benefit than of those claiming benefit. Accordingly the figures assembled cover, as I have said, the numbers actively claiming benefits as at May 31, 1958.



STATEMENT ON MONTHLY STATISTICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to

deal with the question concerning unemployment raised by the hon. member for Essex East yesterday, as recorded at page 900 of Hansard. The hon. member referred to the monthly labour force survey made by the dominion bureau of statistics. This survey is made regularly during the week following the middle of each month. It requires one week for enumeration and two to three weeks to process the information obtained. The results are made available in the press release on the employment situation issued jointly by the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics around the twentieth of the following month. This was the practice, I might add, which was followed by the previous government, and it is being continued.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would care to comment on a report from Washington which appears in the press today to the effect that United States law specifically forbids any foreigner, which includes a Canadian, to command American nuclear weapons; and that as virtually all United States squadrons are armed with nuclear-tip air to air missiles Air Marshal Slemon, deputy commander of NORAD, could exercise no authority or control over United States aircraft under that command.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that as the question appears to relate to a matter that is now under debate it could perhaps be more properly dealt with in the course of that debate.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister consider tabling at an early date a copy of the agreement recently signed with the province of Newfoundland under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
11, 1953	1039
Inquiries of the Ministry IRRIGATION



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. Has the government now agreed to grant the Saskatchewan government a loan for the hydro power works on the South Saskatchewan river project? If not, what are the chances of the South Saskatchewan river project being started this year?
Righi Kon. J. G. Diefsnbalter (Prime
Minister):	Mr. Speaker, the question of
finance and assistance to the province in that direction is receiving consideration. The held of divergence between this government and the government of Saskatchewan is being narrowed, and my hope certainly is that we will be able to achieve a measure of agreement in connection with the question of finance which will enable a start to be made.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I have already sent notice. Perhaps the acting minister will take notice of it. Has an application been made for fifth freedom rights on behalf of Trans-Canada Air Lines at United States airports, and is the government contemplating renegotiation of the air agreement between Canada and the United States this year?


George Clyde Nowlan: I will take notice of the
question, Mr. Speaker, and see that the minister is made aware of it.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of which I gave notice yesterday. Did the province of Ontario apply to have its road project between Kenora and Minaki recognized for a federal contribution under the access roads program to relieve winter unemployment announced by
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister last session? If so, can the minister say why work came to a halt soon after March 31?
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the road in question was part of many requests by the government of Ontario to the federal government under the roads to resources program. There has been no agreement between the province of Ontario and the federal government (a) as to the individual roads that will be part of a general agreement or (b) as to the general terms of the agreement between the two governments.


Mr. Benidickson:: May I address a supplementary question. There have been some press reports concerning a new policy with respect to roads to resources. On January 7 during the last session of the house the minister asked permission to have printed as an appendix to Hansard his letter to the premiers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: -in which he made an
offer with respect to access roads of a relatively smaller nature than is indicated in the press releases. Would he tell the house the new policy that has been offered to the provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very
glad to be able to correct any false impression of this nature. The original offer made on January 7 is still the same. The reaction of seven provinces has been enthusiastic and completely co-operative. The negotiations that are being carried on with the government of Ontario are very active both at the ministerial level and at the official level. As a matter of fact, the very fine mining and access roads program of the Ontario government has been an inspiration, I believe, to all provinces in the matter of opening up resource areas.
I think I have caught the main points of the hon. member's question. If not, I will answer further.



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING ELECTION PROMISES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the words spoken by Professor D. W. Fox, the Ontario young Conservative, as reported in this morning's Gazette by Mr. Blakely, to the effect that


the only thing one has to do to be elected to office is to make as many promises as one can?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I am glad to see that my hon. friend is reading the proceedings of the young Conservative association. As an answer, I would suggest that he consult with his own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who made many promises which did not prove as effectual as the prophecy made by the gentleman in question.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF NEXT MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question, now that he has mentioned promises.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think most hon. members will recognize that the last question was not one which was properly introduced. Perhaps we can offset the reply, which was in the same category, and not carry it any farther.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a promise of another character. May I ask the Prime Minister if, as a result of his luncheon yesterday with the premier of Ontario, he is in a position to tell us now when the next dominion-provincial conference will take place?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer to that question is simply this. I did not have luncheon yesterday with the premier of Ontario.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henri Courtemanche: In reply to the inquiry by the hon. member for Kootenay West on Friday last concerning certain civil servants receiving their salaries without performing any duties, may I say that I was in touch with the civil service commission and was informed that the commission does not know of any such cases. I feel that the hon. member should be asked to supply the names of such civil servants and the departments in which they are employed, so that a further search can be made.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall be quite willing to do so.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen-baker:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning the organization and operation of the North American air defence command (NORAD) signed at Washington May 12, 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, during the remainder of the time that I have available to me I shall continue to answer the various questions which were asked during the debate yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition asked for information as to the principles and procedures under which our air force will operate under this plan, that is the NORAD plan. He also asked various questions regarding the system of command.
The note on NORAD states quite clearly that the commander in chief, NORAD, will be responsible to the chiefs of staff committee of Canada and the joint chiefs of staff of the United States, who in turn are responsible to their respective governments. Then it goes on to say that he will operate within the concept of air defence approved by the appropriate authorities of the two governments, who will bear in mind the objectives for the defence of the Canadian-United States regions of NATO.
Then later in paragraph 6 it states:
The plans and procedures to be followed by NORAD in wartime shall be formulated and approved in peacetime by appropriate national authorities and shall be capable of rapid implementation in an emergency.
In paragraph 3 it defines "operational control". Since the Leader of the Opposition and I served during the first war this term "operational control" has been invented. It was not one we understood in those days long ago. I have therefore endeavoured, and perhaps it is wishful thinking, to put down in a very few sentences what I feel is the function of the headquarters of NORAD at Colorado Springs, both in peace and war. I hope I will not confuse the issue even further.
In peacetime the function will be to develop plans and procedures to be used in war. These plans and procedures would be agreed upon in peacetime and be ready for immediate use in an emergency. I might add that these plans are being worked out, modified and improved continuously. There is always a plan which could be put into effect, 57071-3-67
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement but that may only be a temporary plan awaiting further modification and ultimate approval, we hope, by the governments concerned.
These plans as submitted by the commander in chief of NORAD will be reviewed, amended and approved by the chiefs of staff of both countries. It will be a responsibility of the commander in chief of NORAD to formulate a general pattern of training and the general supervision of practice exercises in order to ensure the readiness of the forces and facilities which may be available to him in time of emergency.
In war it will be his responsibility to direct the air operations in accordance with the plans that have been agreed to in peacetime. Once the air battle is joined, NORAD will keep the subordinate commanders informed of the over-all air situation, and he will be in a position to reinforce threatened areas with any forces that might be available. He exercises that command, so far as Canada is concerned-again I have used the word "command", and I should have said operational control. He exercises that operational control through the headquarters of the air defence command of the R.C.A.F. at St. Hubert.
Perhaps a situation such as this might occur. Unidentified aircraft are located on the radar screen of the distant warning line. These aircraft are seen to be approaching Canada. It is then the responsibility of the officer commanding the air defence command of the R.C.A.F. to dispatch interceptors with the idea of identifying the planes. The radar screen, of course, could not give any definite identification. It would eventually be able to give some estimate of the number of tracks there were, or in other words the number of aircraft which were approaching Canada.
Assuming that these aircraft were a number of enemy aircraft and that they had been identified as such by the aircraft sent up by the officer commanding at St. Hubert, the officer commanding at St. Hubert would then direct interceptors to engage the enemy, once it had been established that these aircraft were of hostile intent. At the same time the information reached the officer commanding at St. Hubert the same information would have been passed to the commander in chief of NORAD. The commander in chief of NORAD might also be getting other radar recordings from other parts of the continent of North America. He would report those to the officer commanding the R.C.A.F. air defence force. If the number of hostile planes moving through Canadian air space approaching the various targets were more

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement numerous than could be dealt with by the squadrons of the R.C.A.F. under the command of the air defence commander at St. Hubert, the commander in chief NORAD could and would send United States air force fighter squadrons to assist the R.C.A.F. in their task of intercepting these bombers.
I see several ways in which this assistance might be given. The commander in chief NORAD might instruct the officer commanding the R.C.A.F. at St. Hubert to direct all the Canadian planes against a certain group of hostile bombers which were attacking, let us say by way of illustration those which were moving down through the Mackenzie basin. As to another group which might at the same time be attacking across Labrador, the commander in chief at Colorado Springs could say that he would look after that group with United States air force squadrons.
In such instance the R.C.A.F. commander would direct those planes which were perhaps originally going to engage the bombers over Labrador to divert and go to the Mackenzie valley. It must be remembered that from the time the interceptor takes off from its airport until it actually becomes ready for engagement, it is under constant direction from the control system of the Pinetree line which is directing that aircraft, so that it approaches and changes its route according to the changes of route taken by the hostile planes. Hence it is in constant touch with command headquarters at St. Hubert.
Another situation might be such that the commander in chief of NORAD would say to the commander of the air defence command of the R.C.A.F. that NORAD would place a certain number of specified squadrons under the operational control of the commander of the air defence command at St. Hubert. In other words he would make available to the commander of the R.C.A.F. certain United States squadrons which could be employed as and how the commander of the R.C.A.F. saw fit.
That seems to me to be the sort of control which is exercised by the NORAD commander during an engagement. It should be appreciated that the R.C.A.F. squadrons are, as it were, front line troops. They are the first which would engage any hostile bombers coming over Canadian airways, and they would be assisted by the United States air force squadrons if the task before them was greater than they were able to carry out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question?


George Randolph Pearkes: Might I suggest that as a number of questions have been asked, I might

be given an opportunity to answer the questions which were asked yesterday. Then if I have time I shall be only too pleased to endeavour to answer any others.
I do not know whether that statement has cleared up the situation but I have tried to explain it in as simple language as possible, in the way I see that operation being carried out.
Another question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition was with regard to the effectiveness of NORAD. He asked me if I would deny certain press reports and rumours which had been spread indicating that perhaps in some quarters there was not at NORAD the degree of co-operation which is considered to be desirable.
Of course I am not in a position to report directly on the behaviour of the commanders of another country. However, I should like to report emphatically and definitely that when General Partridge was here he was loud in his praise of the ability, talents and conscientiousness of Air Marshal Slemon, who is his deputy there. Furthermore, Air Marshal Slemon spoke in enthusiastic terms with regard to the co-operation he had received from the various members of the staff at NORAD. He said that when General Partridge was away he was in supreme command, and his authority was recognized and accepted without question. He went on to say that he received full co-operation from the subordinates who would under those circumstances be under him.
I recall very clearly a remark he made. He said, "These are dedicated men who are working for the defence of the North American continent". He went on and used these particular words: "They no longer regard themselves either as Americans or Canadians, as army, air force, navy or marine officers. With that evidence I feel that it is possible for me to deny the suggestions which have been made that NORAD is not working effectively. If we have had reason to communicate with NORAD officially or with General Partridge on a more personal basis we have always received immediate and courteous replies. I have absolutely no reason to believe that NORAD is not functioning effectively.
The hon. member for Essex East asked whether it was not true that the United States will concentrate on missiles and that manned aircraft will be operated by Canadians only. Of course that is not true; the Americans are manning piloted aircraft today which, if an emergency arose, would be available to assist the Royal Canadian Air Force, and as far as I know it is the intention of the United States to continue to man piloted

interceptors for a long time to come. They are, of course, carrying out work on research and actually have in operation certain missiles which would be available in a battle for the protection of the North American continent. Canada is also carrying out investigations and is training men in the use of missiles, which perhaps in the not too distant future may be required to supplement the defence of our country.
The hon. member for Essex East next asked if it were not true that the service chiefs could pull units out of NORAD when they saw fit. Again the answer is in the negative. As will be seen in the note it says that North American air defence command will include certain combat units and individuals as are specifically allocated by the two governments. No service chief can withdraw a unit which has been definitely allocated to a certain command by a government.
The next question was whether Canada will continue to contribute its air division to NATO forces in Europe. Of course we are going to continue to have those forces in Europe, and no doubt the house will recall that when the president of the West German republic was here recently the Prime Minister gave an emphatic promise that as long as Canadian forces were required in Europe they would remain there. At page 772 of Hansard for June 2, 1958, the Prime Minister used the following words:
I wish to make it clear that whatever threats may be made against those nations which believe in the mission of NATO and the necessity for its continuance, Canada will maintain forces in Europe as long as international disquiet and justifiable fears require Canadian participation.
I merely quote that as the most recent statement on this subject, and I am sure the hon. member did not really believe it was likely that the Canadian government would withdraw those troops just because we were making an even greater effort to provide for the security of this continent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Withdraw or reduce.


George Randolph Pearkes: Withdraw or reduce.
The next point with which I would like to deal is the question of timing. Suggestions have been made in this house that we should not have acted as we did last summer with respect to this headquarters, be it of a temporary or a permanent nature; and I always understood that it would be of a temporary nature until the formal notes had established it. I did not emphasize that position at the time; perhaps I should have done, but I took it for granted that it would be considered as a temporary appointment until such time as it was confirmed in the formal note.
57071-3-674
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
The question was, should we have acted then or should we have waited until the formal note had been agreed to by both governments and had been discussed here in parliament? We did gain ten months because, as experience has shown, the formal note was only recently received and has been discussed in parliament yesterday and today at really the first opportunity which has been available during this session. The note was not ready during the last session of parliament. It may be said that it should have been done more quickly, but it was not done more quickly and I do not know how it could have been done more quickly.
Should we have waited? I would like to ask hon. members to consider the situation as it was last summer. Russia had refused to accept the resolution on disarmament or the limitation of arms which had been endorsed by a very large number of the western nations. Russia had walked out of the disarmament conference, and at that time had just launched its first earth satellite. There was a good deal of concern, not only on this continent but in Europe, and there was a speeding up of defensive arrangements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to inform the minister his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that the hon. minister may proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall finish in just a sentence or so, Mr. Speaker. At that time there was great concern, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom came out to discuss the international situation with the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. I submit that it was only prudent for this government to press on as quickly as possible, have the two commanders concerned get together, set up their staffs and bring up to date a plan for the defence of this continent. It is my opinion that it would have been unwise to have delayed longer and to have waited, in the circumstances which existed in the world a year ago, until several months later when the formal notes might have been presented.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. gentleman will agree there was no suggestion of that.


George Randolph Pearkes: Certainly it was my understanding that the suggestion has been that we should not have moved as quickly as we did.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No one suggested that.

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement


George Randolph Pearkes: I am positive.


Mr.   Beil@Saint John-Alberi: Your speech was the one that suggested it.


George Randolph Pearkes: Well, I am saying that the world situation as it existed a year ago fully justified the government in taking that action, and I am delighted that we have had the benefit of ten months of very productive work at the headquarters of NORAD.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether before the minister takes his place he would be able to throw any light on the question I addressed to the Prime Minister on the orders of the day, regarding the inability of the Canadian deputy commander of NORAD to exercise any control or authority, operational or otherwise, over American squadrons carrying nuclear-tipped missiles?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have not read the report. I have not had the opportunity of getting any advice from elsewhere, but I can only give the hon. gentleman my personal interpretation of what it might mean.
I do not regard the command of NORAD as having actual command over either United States or Canadian units. The actual exercise of executive command is carried out by subordinate commanders, the squadron leaders. My interpretation of the statement about which the Leader of the Opposition has informed the house today would be that the Americans consider that NORAD headquarters is given directional and operational control over the units of the United States air force which are commanded by American officers. I would interpret that statement as not affecting the position of Air Marshal Slemon, in that he is in the nature of being a senior officer at a very high command, and that he is giving direction to the officers in actual executive command of the various units. However, I should like to have the time to explore the situation and find out about it more definitely, because it has not been brought to my attention.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this important debate I think it is now abundantly clear that the official opposition attitude in insisting that intergovernmental agreements or treaties be brought to the house and debated was the right one, and I am glad the Prime Minister, with his ear to the ground, took notice of that attitude, reversed a previous decision and granted us this discussion.
We have had the advantage in the last day or so of getting some answers to many of our questions. I will not be so unkind as to use the words which appeared in a Canadian Press dispatch under the dateline

Ottawa, May 30 to the following effect: "The flow of conflicting statements on NORAD continued unabated today". At least we have had the advantage of hearing from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, and that is all to the good.
I should like to make a few general statements and then ask what 1 hope will be a few pointed and intelligent questions to which I hope answers will be given in due course. It seems that in these days when new weapons and different tactics impose a reappraisal of our national defence plans there can be little argument against the contention that this country has a need for an effective defensive alliance. We can agree among ourselves that democratic governments seem to avoid making choices except when the danger is real and apparent, but the last two wars show that when survival is at stake nations, in spite of jealously guarding their sovereignty, can co-operate quickly, even though the burden may not be shared equitably by each nation. Canada is certainly one of the two NATO nations which have financed their own military needs and supplied effective aid to their NATO partners, and I say that Canada has exercised its sovereignty in a very mature way rather than surrendered it.
Canada has always been very careful to protect its independent status vis-a-vis her powerful and friendly next door neighbour to the south. In fact, to defend its sovereignty on Canadian soil Canada has been prepared to make expenditures for Canadian defence installations which it might scarcely have contemplated except for the urgent interest of the United States.	'
Now, what is the relative position of NORAD to NATO? Is there any legal connection between the two? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that NORAD is simply an extension of the NATO pact, and that parliament approved the NATO pact years ago. Is there any legal connection between the two organizations? If there is, it seems to me that any legalistic connection between NORAD and NATO was nullified about two weeks ago when the secretary general of NATO, Mr. Spaak, said at a press conference in Ottawa:
NORAD is not a part of NATO, although we are very interested in it. It is not under the command of NATO.
And when some correspondent questioned him further on the point and asked him whether he would wish it part of NATO, he replied:
Nobody asked for that. It is quite another question. NORAD has never been referred to or discussed in NATO.

It seems to me, to summarize the situation, that NORAD reports only to Ottawa and to Washington, and that its tie with NATO is only an undertaking to keep NATO informed.
What is the actual situation? If I am right in my interpretation it seems that NORAD, through the standing military group, advises NATO only for the purposes of planning. Operationally NORAD is under direct United States and Canadian control, and only under their control. The commander in chief, General Partridge of the United States and his deputy, Air Marshal Slemon of the R.C.A.F., report to their governments jointly. General Partridge is responsible to both governments for any major decisions.
And so I come to my first question, which is this. In the absence of General Partridge -let us suppose he should be sick-does Air Marshal Slemon report to both governments, and is he responsible for any major decisions. It this the intention of the government of Canada? The NORAD agreement places the R.C.A.F. continental defence forces under American operational command in the event of war.
I have another question. Will the United States commander of NORAD have authority to order the R.C.A.F. to shoot down planes which the commander considers hostile, without first clearing his order with the Canadian government? To my way of thinking the most important single element in NATO's defensive strength, at least until this time, undoubtedly has been the United States strategic air force. Although NATO's defence forces would be meaningless without this deterrent in the background there has been no sharing by the United States of its responsibility for or control of this key military power.
What about the question of civilian control? The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that NORAD does not deny the "primacy of civilian authority". Section 1 of the agreement states that the two governments will approve "a concept of air defence". Section 6 of the agreement states:
The plans and procedures to be followed by NORAD in wartime shall be formulated and approved in peacetime by appropriate national authorities and shall be capable of rapid implementation in an emergency.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs told parliament that the two governments had approved the detailed terms of reference, and those latter words are found in section 7 of the agreement; but he went on to say that in the interests of national security he could not disclose them. Paragraph 3, if I may call it
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement so, of the preamble which appears on page 1 of the copy of the agreement which I have refers to "a demand for rapid decision to keep pace with the speed and tempo of technological developments" and says that, "to achieve effectiveness, defensive operations must commence as early as possible and enemy forces must be kept constantly engaged". I suppose the idea is to stop an enemy in the far north if that be possible.
The question that comes to my mind is this. In the event of attack would there be time for consultation before countermeasures were taken? Another question is, has General Partridge been given authority to shoot first and ask permission later from Washington and Ottawa? If so, where is this shown in the agreement?
According to the remarks made by the Minister of National Defence last evening no squadrons have yet been assigned or committed to NORAD; and I ask the question, if the agreement is to have any value, why not? Is the government holding back until parliament has approved this agreement? After all, up until a week ago the government had no intention of submitting the agreement to this house for discussion. Why is this? How can NORAD be effective without our participation? What is the purpose of this agreement if we do not participate?
When General Partridge, the commander in chief of NORAD, was in Ottawa some ten days ago no opportunity was given hon. members to hear his views in a closed session. When General Montgomery, General Norstad and General Gruenther came to Ottawa this opportunity was provided. Why the mystery? Why was no opportunity given hon. members to hear the views of General Partridge?
I think it is obvious that air defence for North America must be provided by the United States air force and the Royal Canadian Air Force, and not by NATO. It is quite understandable that the United States wants to keep NORAD outside the authority of NATO in the interests of military efficiency, rapid decision and speed of implementation. The government might consider sacrifices of national sovereignty for NATO's sake because Canada believes in collective security with several other nations such as those in NATO, but the government should carefully consider the surrender of any sovereignty in a twoway partnership with the United States. There is a great difference in power between the two countries, and this might in turn react to Canada's disadvantage in arriving at a joint NORAD decision.
I would like to know how much authority the Canadian government has conceded to the

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement United States commander of NORAD. Speaking in the House of Commons on May 19 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the interests of national security prevented him revealing the terms of reference for General Partridge on which Ottawa and Washington had agreed. It might be better if these terms of reference were made public. I do not imagine they would startle the mentality of any enemy general considering what we may say in this debate, and it might be a good thing for Canadians to know where we stand in the whole picture of NORAD.
The question of sovereignty is important because it touches on our feelings as a developing nation. We have not had full sovereignty for so long that we can afford to give it away in bits and pieces. While the military realities are such that we depend on the United States, this should not obscure the fact that the forms of sovereignty need to be observed if we care to respect our own feelings of nationhood. We have new air problems with the United States, and it is important for us to again assert our sovereignty over the air, the water and the Arctic. In my opinion the Prime Minister should clarify that NORAD is a defensive and not an offensive mechanism.
Another important question I wish to ask is this. Can an armed United States bomber fly in Canadian air space on the way to the Soviet frontier without our specific consent? If the answer is yes then there must be an agreement with the United States, because NORAD does not cover this eventuality.
Basically speaking, political sovereignty today almost appears to be what the great powers tolerate. It is one thing to be part of a group of nations for the purpose of collective security and defence, and indeed we are happy to be part of NATO; but it is quite a different thing to enter into a bilateral agreement with our neighbour to the south in which we are only a junior partner. Although the United States is bound as the strong force to direct operations, the facts remain that Canada occupies the northern part of the North American continent, that Canada is now sandwiched in between two great powers, Russia and the United States, and that there is a possibility of our country becoming a second Belgium. Being in possession of our sovereignty we are the people with the say-so about our own territory. The United States would not tolerate any invasion of their sovereignty by us, and I think it is important that Washington remember that on the northern part of this continent it is a matter of Canadian sovereignty.
Actually it is extremely important for us to examine and demand the reasons for this
[Mr. Macnaughton.l
joint NORAD policy. If I may say so, it would be very good for the people of the United States, too. We should see to it that the plans of both countries are reasonable. We have a contribution to make in that respect. Ultimately the larger burden of defence is on the United States, but we as Canadians have the right to expect that our views will be listened to concerning the risks the United States runs in the name of defence, for those risks may become our liabilities.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like first of all to make a comment or two on an interjection made yesterday by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) as shown on page 1022 of Hansard. In order to be correct I will read what he said in commenting upon the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). He used these words:
-I do not mind his reading his speech, but when he reads a speech by the C.C.F. ghost writer, David Lewis, that is another question. And I see it is going to come in instalments. The other speakers are going to give David Lewis part two-
At that point apparently he was interrupted by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


An hon. Member:: He meant Russ Bell.


Frank Howard: I am not sure what he meant but that is what he said. If hon. members on the other side say things they do not mean, it is far beyond my ability to deal with them. Whether he meant Russ Bell or David Lewis is immaterial. Contrary to what he may be accustomed to in the Conservative party, we in the C.C.F. do not employ other people to write our speeches. He may consider that the reading of written speeches is a communicable disease but those of us over here have been inoculated with a vaccine of intelligence and hard work. Consequently every C.C.F. member who rises to speak in the house presents his own arguments as prepared by himself. We not only prepare our own speeches but we do not act like we are reading the script of a radio opera when we present them to the house. When we make our speeches we deliver them as well as we possibly can without sticking too closely to notes. I thought for a minute you were going to interrupt, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I was going to interrupt the hon. member and say that we are not discussing the method of giving speeches but the motion that is before the house.	[DOT]


Frank Howard: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your remarks but inasmuch as what I said was related to the debate I thought I would prepare the way by

saying that neither David Lewis nor Russ Bell had anything to do with the preparation of this speech. However, I will say that I got a great deal of help in preparing my remarks, and whenever that happens I always give due credit to the individual or individuals who have assisted me. I am honest enough to admit it.
We are thankful for the opportunity to participate in a debate of this nature for the purpose of attempting to understand the implications and obligations of NORAD. In the discussions that have taken place in the house and outside it prior to this motion being presented it has been evident that there was a great deal of conflict in the minds of hon. members, newspaper men and the general public. There was a general state of confusion and bewilderment as to just what NORAD meant and how it would apply. There was no genuinely concrete understanding of NORAD, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) have at one time or another participated in contributing to the confusion that existed prior to the motion being presented.
We hoped that when the mover of the motion introduced it there would be some elucidation with respect to NORAD. We hope that if other government speakers participate in the debate there will be further elucidation on their part as to what NORAD means. I must say, however, that I was disappointed with the Prime Minister's remarks. The understanding we have now is not much better than we had before. I hope that this situation will be cleared up later in the debate. So far we have seen the understanding of NORAD degenerate from a paradoxical perplexity to a state of deliberate and apparently organized confusion. In my opinion the Prime Minister, with all the legalistic training he has at his command, did nothing but bewilder the house by attempting to stretch the NATO agreement to justify some previous statements. I do not intend to deal with that because I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), even though he does not have NORAD or SAC under his command, did quite an effective job in shooting the Prime Minister down in flames so far as this matter is concerned.
I come to something now that has been prepared for me by somebody else. I must confess I could not have prepared it myself because it is too contradictory. The ghost writers here are the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence and evidence of their kindness towards me can be found in Hansard of yesterday. I should like to - make reference first to what is known as
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement the plan of NORAD. On page 995 of Hansard for yesterday we find the Prime Minister had this to say:
When you look at the plan, and when you see it again in detail in this report to which I have made reference, namely, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1957, you realize how difficult it is to understand why there should be so much said about a matter such as this.
On the same page he went on to say:
-this agreement represents the culmination of negotiations carried on by the previous government.
The reference to culmination would indicate that this is the highest point to which these discussions led and that the agreement tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is it. It can go no farther. It is all inclusive and all we have to do is look at it and we will understand completely what NORAD means. With reference to the action of the government shortly after taking office the Prime Minister went on to say, as found on page 995:
When we took office the government came to the conclusion that this integration of operational control of our air defence was important and should no longer be delayed, and authorized the establishment of the joint NORAD headquarters on a provisional basis pending the working out of some detailed minor terms of agreement between our governments.
Obviously the agreement that has been tabled represents the detailed minor terms of agreement to which the Prime Minister made reference, the implication being that there are many more things to come, and in the light of what we have heard so far from the government benches there certainly is, in our opinion, quite a bit more to come. The Minister of National Defence also made some reference to this plan at page 1028 of Hansard for June 10, 1958. Apparently this was in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition:
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked whether there was a master plan drawn up during the two days when General Partridge was visiting Canada. Plans for the defence of this country- complicated plans such as those which must be eventually completed-cannot be drawn up in a few hours. I explained that they were preliminary discussions leading up to a plan which is continually being evolved.
We have the Prime Minister saying there is a plan. Then, we have him saying, no, there is no plan; these are just some minor details of the agreement. The Minister of National Defence said at one stage that there were a number of plans, and then said, no, there was not. He said we are still consulting about it and eventually we hope to have some sort of a plan. I do not know whether or not there is a plan, and I am sure many hon. members on the government benches are not too sure just where we stand on this

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement particular issue. We would be in a much better position if the statements emanating from the government benches were consistent and not contradictory. We would have an idea of just where we are going on this particular item.
There is another reference to this plan that I should like to quote. At page 1029 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence is apparently referring to a question by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and said:
The hon. member who has just sat down wanted to know why we did not bring this note before the house last October. He gave the answer himself-the note had not been completed, it had not been worked out, and what is the use of bringing a half-baked scheme before parliament and taking up the time of the house before it is completed?
Apparently the reference was to some half-baked scheme the Liberal party had in mind but which had not reached a state of culmination yet, as the Prime Minister put it. If what we have before us is anything more than a half-baked scheme, then I do not know what it is. It is not only half-baked, it is still in the raw state. We are being asked to swallow this concoction without any idea what it is. We have the Prime Minister substantiating our claim it is a half-baked scheme, as the Minister of National Defence indicated to us it was.


Mr. Pallell:: Certainly, the hon. member would recognize one.


Frank Howard: I do not mind the interruptions if they are made loudly enough for us to hear.


John Cameron Pallett: I merely submitted to the hon. member that he would be able to recognize any sort of half-baked scheme.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: If the hon. member is asking a question he should ask the hon. member who has the floor whether or not he will accept the question.


Frank Howard: At page 993 of Hansard, near the bottom of the page, we have the Prime Minister admitting that this document which was tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is nothing more than a half-baked scheme because he said:
Indeed, on March 11, 1957, 40 copies of a submission to the cabinet committee on defence were approved by the Minister of National Defence and forwarded to the secretary of the cabinet defence committee for inclusion on the agenda of the meeting of that committee to be held on Friday, March 15. No action was taken thereon. The agreement into which we have entered represents, in almost complete measure-when I say almost complete measure there are slight deviations in terminology and in routine matters-that which had been, to all intents and purposes, agreed upon by the former minister of national defence on behalf of the then government.

In March, 1957, this half-baked scheme had been prepared. There was a slight change in terminology, and then that selfsame half-baked scheme is presented to this house for acceptance.
Let us get back to NORAD and NATO.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Frank Howard: Yes, you would like to do that I am sure.


An hon. Member:: You wrote that part yourself.


Frank Howard: My hearing aid must be turned down because I cannot hear these interruptions. If it is the intention of the government to have this half-baked scheme as part of NATO, which apparently they indicate is desirable, but other than in the straight reportorial fashion that NORAD reports to NATO-I do not know in what fashion they do that-then, we are going to give you every opportunity to make such an arrangement. Instead of the government asking us to buy a pig in a poke, which is what they are doing at the moment, we hope the government will exhibit sincerity

not that they have not done so in the past-by indicating support for the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words:
And in the opinion of this house consideration of the interests of collective security and the principles of the United Nations make it advisable for the government to give consideration to the taking of such steps as are necessary to integrate these agreements within the structure of NATO.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I do not
believe this amendment is relative, but I should like permission of the house to leave that decision for Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Yes, that is agreed. I have completed my remarks.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of traversing the ground that was covered so completely and, may I say, so clearly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) with respect to the question of the relationship of NORAD to NATO. I made a statement in this house on May 19 to the effect that I consider NORAD an amplification of and extension under NATO. I must say very faithfully that nothing I have heard in this debate has changed my mind with respect to the validity of that statement.
I must say very frankly that I was surprised, and indeed astonished, by the observations made in the debate last evening by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he brought into this house the name of Mr. Spaak. I regret very much that the name of

this distinguished leader of the west, the secretary general of NATO, has been brought into this political debate. Wherein did the surprise and astonishment that I experienced arise? The Leader of the Opposition read from what he told us was a transcript taken from a tape recording of the press conference that Mr. Spaak held when he was here. The extract taken from that press conference and the observations of Mr. Spaak read as follows:
Q. Mr. Spaak, you said just now that NATO was-
I cannot make out the word.
-looking with interest at NORAD. Do you consider NORAD part of NATO?
A. No, it is not under the command of NATO.
Speaking for myself, as that was uttered by the Leader of the Opposition I was left with the impression that Mr. Spaak had said it was not part of NATO; but if you read as is printed in Hansard these words, "No, it is not under the command of NATO", that is something different from the impression that was left. Some of us did not have the opportunity to see the manuscript to which the Leader of the Opposition referred.
But now that the name of Mr. Spaak has been brought into this debate, I can say that he himself personally told me that he got rather mixed up in the press interview. He did make at least two subsequent statements that qualified the impression that was made in the press conference. I am confident that the Leader of the Opposition must have known of the qualification. I could refer to a meeting we both attended. Although Mr. Spaak made the qualification in French, I am sure the French of the Leader of the Opposition is better than mine but I understood that he was qualifying his statement on that particular occasion. But I go to the public press. I am reading an excerpt from a clipping from the Halifax Chronicle Herald that appeared on June 4. Mr. Spaak is quoted and the remarks are in quotation marks:
NORAD Is not the direct concern of the NATO authorities in Paris as SACEUR, SACLANT and the Channel command are-
This government has never claimed that NORAD was a command of NATO. We agree with that statement. But then he goes on to say this:
-but the military plans of NORAD are known to the standing group and the military committee-
The two committees senior to NORAD under NATO, under the NATO council.
-through the Canada-U.S. regional planning group and studied there-
The Canada-United States regional planning group is an integral-as I said on
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement May 19 in this house-or an integrated organization within NATO. It is organic and it has definite responsibilities under the NATO general organization. But I repeat that part again:
-but the military plans of NORAD are known to the standing group and the military committee through the Canada-U.S. regional planning group and studied there-
It is not just have been informed; not just have been reported-comments were made in the house on the word "informed"-they are studied there.
-thus supplying a base for co-ordination between the plans made by the supreme commanders directly under the standing group and the plans of NORAD.
Mr. Speaker, if they are studied in the standing group and they do not seem to fit into the general over-all defence plans and defensive plans, retaliatory plans of NATO, then there will be discussion of them with the members of the Canada-United States regional planning group. It is in this context therefore that NORAD's role in the general framework of the over-all defence of the North Atlantic treaty area can be justified. This particular group, the Canada-United States regional planning group, is made up of the chiefs of staff of the United States and the chiefs of staff of Canada or, to give them their technical titles or designations, the chiefs of staff committee of Canada and the joint chiefs of staff of the United States. That personnel is identical with the personnel of the group also mentioned in the note, the group to whose component parts the commander in chief of NORAD is responsible. Last evening the Leader of the Opposition stated that the commander in chief of NORAD would have a dual responsibility. I do not think of it in that way. He will be responsible to the joint chiefs of staff of the United States and, not or,-studying together, working together-the chiefs of staff committee of Canada.
I come back to this point that was referred to by the last speaker who said that he would like to be satisfied about political control. I am not going to repeat what I said in the house on May 19 when I traced the political responsibility of the commander in chief of NORAD. He reports to this joint group, the same personnel who are on this planning group, an organic part of NATO. Then they are responsible to their two governments. They must review such proposals and the governments will be bound to accept, and of course accept readily, the responsibility of examining the proposals that are put up to them coupled with recommendations and confirmation that those are militarily acceptable proposals. There is a line of political responsibility. Also the terms of

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement reference which are mentioned in the note must be prepared with the concurrence of the governments. Also with respect to the plans or procedures-and those are strictly military, I am informed; I have not seen them-they must be acceptable to the national authorities.
The question with respect to sovereignty was raised this afternoon. I put the matter this way, Mr. Speaker. It is very simple. If I enter into a contract with, let us say, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), in so far as I restrict or limit my course of action to any particular degree, I am bound. If that is said to be loss of personal freedom, I would dispute that contention. I go to other treaties; I mention other treaties. I mention entering into a treaty involving abrogation or even surrender of sovereignty. I go to the North Atlantic Treaty which was approved, as we have been told on several occasions, in this house. I might be able to accept the proposition that there has perhaps been a temporary delegation of sovereignty. If that could be validated, then I would say it is undoubtedly justified, having regard to the military danger in which we find ourselves.
In his speech last night reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition to the question of consultation. He remarked that he was very happy to note that continuous consultation should take place. This was emphasized in the note between Canada and the United States. Over the years there has been set up machinery and procedures for consultation. The Leader of the Opposition would well know of the accuracy of that particular observation on my part. I agree with what has been said here that the establishment of NATO makes political consultation between the two countries much more necessary. And that is why we were happy in our negotations with the state department to find that they were eager- not only willing, but eager-to emphasize this point and this is evidence of continued and full co-operation. The emphasis is to be found in these words contained in the note as follows:
The two governments consider that the establishment of integrated air defence arrangements of the nature described increases the importance of the fullest possible consultation between the two governments on all matters affecting the joint defence of North America, and that defence co-operation between them can be worked out on a mutually satisfactory basis only if such consultation is regularly and consistently undertaken.
I would say, however, that we do not propose to set up new machinery merely for the sake of doing so, but that if we find our present machinery-and I think now of the joint defence board and other organizations
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac).I
in addition to our normal diplomatic communications-is not sufficient to provide the proper machinery for consultation, then we will endeavour to improve what we have or will even look at the possibility of making changes.
Let me assure the house, as I did on May 19 last, that in both Ottawa and Washington there exists determination to ensure that such consultation will be carried out and that the procedures and methods of integration between our two countries, not only in respect of NORAD but also in respect of other facets of continental military defence, will be fully and frankly discussed.
This afternoon a question was raised with respect to the powers and responsibilities of the deputy commander in chief of NORAD. I have consulted with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), and he confirms the information I am about to give. I do think, incidentally, that this information is quite clear in the note; in the absence of the commander in chief the deputy commander will assume his powers and his responsibilities. It is stated very clearly in the note that in the absence of the commander in chief, NORAD, command passes to the deputy commander, and there are no reservations in this very positive and categorical statement.
As the Minister of National Defence indicated last night, the commander in chief, NORAD, has been away on many occasions and the minister stated today that the deputy commander, Air Vice Marshal Slemon, has been recognized by his colleagues as full commander on such occasions. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) last evening indicated that in his view NORAD really is not an agreement at all, and I would like to quote briefly from page 1027 of Hansard for June 10, as follows:
The agreement is not an elaborate one; in fact it is not an agreement at all. The material before us does not represent an agreement, it represents an agreement to agree on something. It is no more than that.
In reply to that, I would say to this house that all one has to do is to read carefully the articles to be found on pages 3 and 4 of the note. I am not going to examine the details at this moment and thereby take up the time of the house but I would just mention that in articles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 we find the word "will" and we find the word "must", which is even stronger when used in that context.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East last evening and at that time I had on my desk a copy of the North Atlantic treaty. Here is the article which provides for the machinery for defence

under NATO, and I am referring to page 13, including even the Canadian-United States regional planning group. Article 3 states as follows:
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective selfhelp and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
There is nothing there about SACLANT or committees or SACEUR or anything else, and indeed the note which has been presented to the house is much more specific and sets out much more detail than the proposals outlined in the North Atlantic treaty.
I would like to conclude by reminding the house that having regard to the organic nature of the Canadian-United States regional planning group and, with the same personnel as the joint chiefs of staff to whom the commander in chief of NORAD is responsible, I believe we can say that this is an amplification and an extension of NATO. I would like to express the hope that we will have a unanimous endorsation of this proposal by this house. The proposal embodied in the note provides for the effective defence of Canada under a single command which, it has been demonstrated to us by our military advisers, is much more effective as a means to meet the needs of the day and the possible dangers with which we may be faced where immediate action within minutes or even seconds, is of the utmost importance. The proposal also provides for the more effective co-ordination of the two air forces than had been possible up to August 1, 1957. I would also remind the house that the military authority under this proposal is subject to civilian control and that NORAD is part of the defences of which we find the apex in the strategic force and, in NATO, the defence of the west against possible nuclear war.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: And that, Mr. Speaker, is the speech of (he Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith), on perhaps one of the most important issues ever to come before this House of Commons. Here we have a treaty between Canada and the United States-a solitary foreign power-dealing fundamentally with the defence of Canada in the event of aggression and the placement of a major part of our armed forces under the ultimate control of that foreign power. And that is the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this subject. It is almost inconceivable that that is all the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to tell this House of Commons.
Priority was given to trying to explain away a very definite statement made by Mr. NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Spaak. It was not quite fair in my estimation, at least, for the hon. gentleman, perhaps not intentionally, to cast a slur upon hon. members who may have quoted that esteemed authority. It is only correct that they should have quoted him, because, after all, he is the secretary general of NATO and perhaps the highest authority who could be quoted in the circumstances with respect to a treaty which, the government maintains, is an integral part of NATO itself.
I was most interested to read back on May 20 in various newspapers across the country a statement by a Canadian Press staff writer to the effect that the Canada-United States agreement on the air defence of North America must rank as one of the fuzziest international documents of recent times. That certainly was my impression at the time, and I know that everyone in this chamber had a heartfelt hope that when this matter finally came up for discussion the fuzziness would be cleared away and that a plain explanation would be given with regard to this treaty and the principles of its application.
Mr. Speaker, one can only speak for oneself, but I wish to state that in my estimation the entire situation still seems to be in a welter of confusion and contradiction; even the statements made by hon. members on the government side during this debate have done nothing to clear up the discrepancies. I cannot reconcile the statements made in the past by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). They have not yet been explained. Government speakers have been endeavouring to argue-or make it clear as far as they can, I suppose-that NORAD is an emanation of NATO and that political approval of NORAD therefore flows directly from approval of NATO. The Prime Minister had this to say on December 21, as reported page 2721 of Hansard:
I want to re-emphasize what I pointed out there, and it was accepted as a fact, that these integrated forces are an integral part of the NATO military structure in the Canada-United States region.
It was not so many days after the Prime Minister made that statement that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), on January 4, asked a question of the Minister of National Defence which is to be found on page 2865 of Hansard of that date. He asked a question as follows:
Is it the intention of the government, when agreement has been reached with the United States on the political arrangements covering the defence organization, to submit that political agreement to the NATO council for discussion with the NATO partners in the hope, perhaps, that an agreement of this kind can be made an integral part of the NATO organization?

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
To that question the Minister of National Defence made the reply to be found on page 2866 of Hansard, and he said:
That matter would, of course, have to be discussed with the United States. I cannot make any firm commitment. I can only express a personal opinion which it would not be wise for me to express here. It would have to be discussed, as the hon. gentleman knows, with the United States.
So, Mr. Speaker, here we have the Prime Minister stating that NORAD was an integral part of NATO, and then we have the Minister of National Defence saying he could not say whether it was or not without discussing it with the United States. That contradiction has not yet been cleared up, either yesterday or today. As a matter of fact, the only definite statement we have on the subject whatsoever-and I say this though it may hurt the feelings of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-is the clear-cut statement made by Mr. Spaak as quoted verbatim by the Leader of the Opposition last evening.
Now, let us turn directly to the formal notes with which we are actually dealing. What does this document say?
It says this:
In view of the foregoing considerations and on the basis of the experience gained in the operation on an interim basis of the North American air defence command, my government proposes that the following principles should govern the future organization and operation of the North American air defence command.
(1) The commander-in-chief NORAD will be responsible to the chiefs of staff committee of Canada and the joint chiefs of staff of the United States, who in turn are responsible to their respective governments.
Where is NATO there? NATO is just not there at all. The formal note continues and says, in paragraph 2:
The North American air defence command will include such combat units and individuals as are specifically allocated to it by the two governments.
Let us review that very briefly: "In view of the foregoing considerations and on the basis of the experience gained in the operation of the North American air defence command" I would have thought that the Minister of National Defence or, at least, the Prime Minister, would have told us just what experience was gained in the operation on an interim basis of the North American air defence command, because we were told last night at about a quarter to ten by the Minister of National Defence that no Canadian squadrons have yet been allocated to NORAD, and I have yet to read anywhere that the United States has allocated any to NORAD either. It would be interesting to know that too. But on the basis of what we do know with regard to our own country, namely that no squadrons have been allocated to NORAD, just what is the experience that has

been gained in the operation which has convinced the government that there should now be this Canada-United States agreement as has been outlined and as is now before us for consideration?
I say, "for consideration" and not for ratification because there is already a signed treaty in existence between the two governments. This brings to mind another point which I think is worthy of the utmost consideration, and that is that a treaty between Canada and the United States of this nature is most certainly a matter of external relations and is, surely, just the type of subject which we have established a standing committee on external affairs to consider. I am amazed that on a foreign relations question of this importance and nature action of this sort should not have been taken. As I have said, on the basis of the exchange as outlined in the formal notes I can find nothing which would constitute NORAD as an integral part of NATO.
I was interested when the Secretary of State for External Affairs just a few moments ago stood in his place holding in his hand a little blue booklet called "North Atlantic Treaty Organization". I presume it is exactly the same one I have, published in Paris in 1957 by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization under the authority of the information division. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to one page of that booklet and said that there was to be found conclusive evidence of our tie-in with NATO. It does not do any such thing.


Sidney Earle Smith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I never used that document for that purpose.


Harold Edward Winch: It certainly sounded that way. Far be it from me to question what the minister intended to convey. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members of this house and particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs just what is the meaning and position of NATO and for that purpose I am going to quote from page 5 of this booklet under a section headed, "Why the Treaty was Signed". It states:
The North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington on 4 April, 1949, arose from a community of interest long visible in the history of the west, but never before given such clear recognition and expression in time of peace. Today, the North Atlantic no longer represents a vast barrier separating two continents, but the inland sea of a closely-linked community. Its seaways and adjoining waters serve a group of nations which have been nurtured in common traditions and which share a common respect for the rule of law, and individual liberty . . .
Now, for the first time, they pooled their resources for collective defence before aggression started, in the hope and conviction that in this way they would preserve peace.

May I interject at this point to explain what the words "pooled their resources for collective defence" mean to this group. Hon. members of this party over the years have emphasized the need for collective security and collective defence and at all times supported measures calling for these things but when we use the word "collective" that is exactly what we mean, the pooling in one collective security organization and not individual nations entering into collective security agreements when they choose and remaining outside when they wish to do so. We believe in true collective security. I continue quoting from page 5:
The treaty could not have come into existence without a major change in the policies of some of its signatories, and yet it was signed by 12 widely spread nations, varying in size and importance from the United States to Luxembourg and representing two continents. North America was represented by the United States and Canada.
In what way do the United States and Canada tie in? We can find that too, because on page 21 we read:
The council then proceeded to establish a defence committee, composed ordinarily of defence ministers, and charged with the task of drawing up unified defence plans for the north Atlantic area. It suggested specifically that the military part of the organization should include a military committee and certain regional planning groups.
May I emphasize the following comment:
The regional planning groups were instructed 'to develop and recommend to the military committee, through the standing group, plans for the defence of the region".
In that same paragraph of the booklet Canada and the United States are indicated as one region and as such they were instructed to develop and recommend to the military committee through the standing group plans for the defence of the region. On page 47 of the report under the heading "Canada-United States Regional Planning Group" we read:
This planning group, which covers the North American area, develops and recommends to the military committee, through the standing group, plans for the defence of the Canada-United States region.
Throughout this entire official document of NATO it is understood that Canada and the United States as a regional planning group are to develop and recommend to the military committee of NATO the over-all defence plans and according to my interpretation NATO exercises supreme authority.
On the last page of this booklet there appears a graph which shows the chain of command from the supreme allied commander Atlantic right down through to our own air force and navy on the Atlantic coast. It is a graph very much different from the one supplied to the hon. members of the estimates committee yesterday by the Minister of National Defence.
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
As I said, we in this group have always supported to the fullest extent the concept of collective security and collective defence but we are still in the dark as to the direct relationship in conformity with NATO that exists as a result of the introduction of the NORAD treaty agreement with the United States. We strongly feel we have not been given the information which as members of the House of Commons we are entitled to receive which would give us a satisfactory understanding of the situation. There is still too much confusion and contradiction. I have already mentioned one example of the squadron control.
I suppose we cannot challenge the statement of the Minister of National Defence to the effect that the strategic air command planes of the United States air force do not fly over or from Canada and yet on the same day that statement was made the Prime Minister announced that permission had now been granted for the establishment of tanker refuelling stations in Canada. There may be a logical explanation but we have not heard it yet as to why the United States should want to establish tanker refuelling stations in Canada if United States planes are not flying over or from Canada.
There are many questions which have not been satisfactorily answered. Several contradictions have not been reconciled. The confusion has not been cleared away. I do not think hon. members of this house should be expected to reach a decision on this matter until such time as the confusion has been eliminated and the conflicting statements of ministers of the present government have been reconciled and until we have been taken into the confidence of the government as completely as possible within security provisions to enable us to appreciate the necessity for this action and be convinced that this is a direct part of the NATO command.


Mr. Speaker:: May I take this opportunity to deal with the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) while the Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea) was in the chair. The Acting Speaker expressed the view that the amendment was probably irrelevant but reserved decision. I concur in the view he tentatively expressed as to the irrelevance of the proposed motion which I think is apparent from a consideration of the motion itself which calls for two things; first, that it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement and, second, that this house do approve the agreement. That is all that the motion puts forward. In effect, if the motion is affirmed it will approve the agreement and

NORAD-Canada-ZJ.S. Agreement if it is negatived it will disapprove the agreement. If the amendment has the effect of denying the motion it is unnecessary and irrelevant because those members who wish to disapprove the agreement have only to vote against the motion as it stands.
If the amendment adds something to the motion in a positive way it is a declaration of principle in these terms, that it is advisable for the government to give consideration to the taking of such steps as are necessary to integrate these agreements within the structure of NATO. Assuming that the amendment and the motion were accepted you would have the agreement approved but you would have added to it a declaration of this independent principle which is not related to the motion nor is it necessary for the decision of the motion in question.
That view is reinforced by a consideration of the limited number of cases where it is possible to introduce a principle by way of an amendment. There are only three or four cases. A very similar matter was considered by the Speaker in 1932 as set out on page 48 of the Journals of the house for October 20, 1932. If I may, I should like to read the relevant portions to indicate the limitations that all members are under in an attempt to add a principle to a motion of this kind. The Speaker of that time said:
There is no doubt in my mind that under standing order 48-
Which is now 44.
-this motion can be amended. The original motion before the house approves the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa 20th August, 1932, between representatives of the government of Canada and of the government of the United Kingdom. The amendment proposed both approves and disapproves of the agreement. It is out of order for the following reasons.
Then the Speaker deals with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed amendment which I do not need to cite and goes on to deal with paragraphs 4 and 5 about which he says:
Paragraphs 4 and 5 affirm general principles which cannot be moved as amendments to motions of this sort but which could be moved on other occasions.
For example, a motion clearly could be brought forward for the purposes of this amendment but it would have to be on notice and as an independent motion. I continue with the quotation:
May, Bourinot and Redlich indicate that the only motions upon which amendments declaratory of principle may be moved are motions for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, motions to go into committee of ways and means and supply and for the second reading of public bills.
Then he cites the references in these three authorities. On these grounds I must declare the amendment to be out of order.

(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the house reads as follows:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning the organization and operation of the North American air defence command (NORAD) signed at Washington May 12, 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
In moving this resolution, the Prime Minister forces us to approve of principles which we have long recognized as necessary for the defence of our country and that of North America.
On the other hand, so many objections were raised by the various speakers in this debate, that we are wondering whether, in fact, it is fair to ask parliament to approve of an agreement so lacking in clarity as that which was signed on May 12 by the Canadian Ambassador, Mr. Robertson, and by the Hon. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State for the United States.
However, this discussion will have enabled us to see a second side to the Prime Minister of Canada whom we have heard in the past invariably advocate, in grandiloquent statements, respect for the rights of parliament and rebuke the government of the day, in and out of season, for not respecting the rights of parliament and of hon. members. If he has come forward with this resolution at this time, it is not however of his own volition, but because he was forced into it by repeated demands of the opposition which required that this matter be submitted to parliamentary approval. We know also that since last October, the Liberal party and the C.C.F. had requested that the government acquaint the house with the discussions which were taking place regarding North American defence. This request was always refused on the ground that the agreement had not proceeded far enough as yet. Moreover the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) had said: "How can this matter be brought before the house when there is nothing final or complete about it?"
Nevertheless, this year when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) spoke about the agreement he did state categorically, at least originally, that in his opinion NORAD was an integral part of NATO and that, therefore, there seemed to be no necessity to have it discussed by parliament since it was merely an extension of something which had already been accepted and existed at that time. The Leader of the Opposition, and several other opposition mem-

bers, rose to insist on an opportunity being offered hon. members to discuss this agreement signed on May 12 in Washington. It was only as a result of that insistence that the Prime Minister rose to say that we were to be given the opportunity of discussing it, and that we were to have before us a resolution which would provide for a complete and useful discussion.
At the time we began to study this resolution, we already knew that there was a great deal of confusion about it. Yet, with each of our hon. friends opposite rising in an attempt to clarify the situation, it grows murkier than ever.
There is no doubt that the United States and Canada have been on friendly terms for a long time. In fact, even if at times there have been causes of friction, Canada and the United States have been living in peace side by side since 1813. This is evidence of the fact that we are old-time friends of the United States but it does not mean that we should give up our personality as a nation and that we should not be considered as an autonomous country with rights of its own.
I believe that, according to the agreement signed on May 12, we are surrendering part of our sovereignty. As the Leader of the Opposition so aptly put it, there is nothing in this that compares with the sacrifices we are making for NATO. Several countries of the world have agreed in the face of danger to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good. Is this agreement between the United States and Canada identical with the NATO agreement? NATO is made up of several countries whereas in this case there are only two countries making decisions outside of NATO. Regardless of what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Defence, this agreement is quite distinct from NATO, because the Secretary General of NATO, who was in Ottawa recently, admitted that NORAD is not part of NATO, that he had not heard of it, that it had not been discussed beforehand and that it was an experiment being looked at with interest by NATO. However, there was no statement from this international authority to indicate that it is indeed part and parcel of NATO.
On the other hand, here is what I read in the introductory paragraphs of the letter sent by Mr. Robertson to Mr. John Foster Dulles:
The Canada-United States region is an integral part of the NATO area.
11, 1953
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
So far, we are all agreed; no one denies that the United States and Canada are members of NATO in so far as the defence of our common good is concerned.
In support of the strategic objectives established in NATO for the Canada-United States region and in accordance with the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty-
Please note that there is no mention of "strategic objectives established by NORAD", nor of "strategic objectives established by the Minister of National Defence of Canada and the Secretary of State of the United States", but there is mention of the "strategic objectives established in NATO." Up to this point, NATO had not been consulted and had not been informed of what Canada and the United States were to decide. ..
-for the Canada-United States region and in accordance with the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty, our two governments have, by establishing the North American Air Defence Command, recognized the desirability of integrating headquarters exercising operational control over assigned air defence forces.
Now, I do not see here any likeness, no comparison with the treaty binding the NATO nations. Besides, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) while making his comparisons, pointed out many details proving that the agreement which we have entered into with the United States is certainly not one that falls within the framework of NATO.
I note in the preamble of the articles of the agreement the following:
In view of the foregoing considerations and on the basis of the experience gained in the operation on an interim basis of the North American air defence command, my government proposes that the following principles should govern the future organization and operations of the North American air defence command.
However, in the preamble immediately preceding the agreement which was signed, there is absolutely no reference to NATO. Yet we were given as an excuse that this agreement should not be submitted to parliament because it did form part of the NATO concept.
Well, if the right hon. Prime Minister were still in the opposition, I wonder whether his approach of the matter would have been the same. Those who have been members of this house since at least 1953 will recall the many times when the present Prime Minister rose in criticism of the former government's attitude, which, however, was very much broader than the present administration's, for no statement, no international agreement was ever made or signed without being first submitted to this house.
We are now before an accomplished fact. The fact is that we have signed an agree-

NORAD-Canada-V.S. Agreement ment. It is an agreement which was entered into without parliament having had the opportunity of looking at it, and since yesterday, members of the opposition have been asking many questions that have yet to be answered, which proves that there are still many details to be clarified.
This agreement should have been submitted to this house many weeks or months ago. This government would thus have introduced something much more intelligible, not to say intelligent.
We have been asking numerous questions since yesterday and no definite answer has yet been forthcoming. I have read rather carefully the answer which the Minister of National Defence tried to give yesterday to the different questions but, in spite of all my efforts and good will, I could find no clarification. He merely repeated the questions which had been asked and, in what seemed unending verbiage, he gave explanations which instead of clarifying the situation made it more confused. I would be inclined to repeat the speech he made; it would be enough to show that the minister did not dare answer.
However, a question has been asked by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to which no answer has been given either by the Minister of National Defence or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The hon. member asked whether, in the absence of the supreme commander, General Partridge, the Canadian commander, his deputy, would have the same authority as General Partridge, under section 3 of the agreement, to give orders to American troops and squadrons without consulting the American government. If he has not, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have not answered that question and I even wonder whether the Prime Minister, in his final reply, will be able to answer it.
At first we heard that, because the situation was not clear, this question could not be discussed before being submitted to the American government, but I wonder whether the American government would answer in that way before the question had been submitted to the Canadian government.
Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out and I would not like to take up too much of the time of the house, but I would have liked to have at least 40 minutes. . . . (Applause). I take it that this applause expresses the wish that I sit down, because when the remarks made do not hurt anyone,

hon. members seem to be rather indifferent but when they are not indifferent, it means that they are being hurt.
Mr. Speaker, why were we promised at the last session that the agreement would be submitted to the house before it was signed, and why does the government refuse to submit it this year? Why was the agreement signed before being submitted to the approval of the house? Has the government reached the point where it believes itself made up of supermen, who cannot be wrong?
The discussion which has been going on since yesterday, the remarks of my leader, the Leader of the Opposition and those of the hon. member for Essex East, the numerous questions asked by these two members and by members of the C.C.F. party, to which no answer has been given, show that there is still much confusion, that the question is not clear, that it has not been clarified and might never be.
I hope that, from now on, whenever this government signs an agreement with another country, it will at least have the decency to ask the opinion of members of this house, to whatever party they belong, so that the government may be enlightened and may proceed more efficiently in the future.
(Text):


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the house listened with much interest yesterday to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the NORAD resolution. We were a little bit surprised that on a matter as important as is this subject he should have introduced a political note here and there. I rather regretted it. At the beginning of his remarks, as recorded at page 992 of Hansard, he said this;
I do not intend to enter into anything of a controversial nature in making this presentation,-
For many years now, as far as foreign policy is concerned or at least in so far as foreign policy relates to matters of national defence is concerned, we have had in Canada fairly unanimous support of one policy on the part of most sections of the Canadian people.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: May I ask the hon. member a question? If that is so, is your group going to vote for this measure?


Erhart Regier: I should like to advise the hon. member to await the event. If he will listen to what I have to say, near the end of my remarks I believe he will have the answer; and the onus will be placed on the Prime Minister of Canada. It will not be upon us.

We regret that in what may be a matter involving life and death for many of our people and indeed for hundreds of millions of the world's people the Prime Minister should have injected political notes and overtones. We feel that he was not doing the cause any good when he resorted to that procedure. We were awaiting with considerable anticipation the speeches that we thought were to be given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) because they are the two members of the cabinet who are most directly involved, being responsible for matters of this kind.
After the election we heard that our Secretary of State for External Affairs had made a trip down to Washington in order, according to press reports, to receive a briefing on what was happening in the world today; and we heard, according to other press reports, that General Partridge appeared in Ottawa not so long ago to give our Minister of National Defence a briefing on what was happening in defence matters in the western world. The people of Canada were hoping that their first major speeches in this house on defence matters would provide much of the information that they had gleaned-and in the opinion of many, that they apparently had to glean-rather regrettably, in another country or from the nationals of another country. We had hoped that they would have been adequately informed by the senior officials of their own departments and would not have had to be briefed by United States officialdom.
We maintain that there is nothing that is as harmful to our defence as is a misinformed or uninformed Canadian public. One of our strongest weapons of defence is the conviction of our own people that everything that can possibly be done in these matters is being done. However, after listening to the debate yesterday and today-and I am sure the people of Canada upon reading Hansard will have to agree with me-I feel that very little has been done to inform our public. Our public will be as confused as are many members of this house; and many of us have no hesitation in admitting that we are very much confused indeed.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) some time ago described this whole problem of NORAD as Canada's greatest crossword puzzle. After two days of debate, it appears that not only is it a crossword puzzle but that in the interval several of the essential pieces of that crossword puzzle have been lost, and there does not seem to be any hope that the pattern can be established. The intent of my remarks today is
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement to make, on behalf of this group, one final appeal to the Prime Minister to clear up so many of the uncertainties which have existed in the past and which exist today to a greater extent than ever.
The Prime Minister gave one version yesterday. He attempted to build a nice little nest. We were hoping for a nest of security into which all of us might climb, as we have so often done on other occasions in the history of the Canadian parliament. However, that nest has been considerably fouled up by the several speeches that have been made. As recorded at page 995 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
For this purpose the agreement puts these forces under the operation of a single joint headquarters, of which the senior official is a United States air force general and his deputy is a Canadian air marshal.
He refers here to the agreement putting these forces under the operation of this joint headquarters. Yet the Minister of National Defence indicated very clearly that there may well not be any forces. Hence we are left in the dark on that score. As reported on the same page of Hansard, in referring to his meeting with General Partridge the Prime Minister said this:
We reviewed as well their problems and the plans they formulated to meet the changing circumstances,-
I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. Who formulated the plans? Then, of course, to that confusion we have added the confusion of the Minister of National Defence who indicated that there may not be any plans since he said that plans cannot be formulated in a matter of a few days and that there is nothing more now than there has always been, namely continuous consultation. I presume he was going back as far as the Ogdensburg agreement when he referred to continuous consultation. However, we are then told by the Prime Minister that the plan is for maximum effectiveness on a moment's notice.
Surely, if there are no forces, if it is only a matter of consultation, how can we take the Prime Minister at his word when he refers to "maximum effectiveness" and "on a moment's notice" and "under the command of a single joint board"? The Prime Minister adds to the confusion when later on he says that this command will have powers which he describes and on page 996 of Hansard of June 10 he says:
I have seen these commanders, I was impressed with them, and I feel that the Canadian people and the people of the United States can have confidence in them. Over and over again they underlined the fact that the role of NORAD is defence, not attack; that its objective is defensive, not aggressive. It

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
will not and cannot start wars. It can come into action only if potential aggressors are over our territory.
And yet in another place he says "it contains as well the powers to retaliate against aggressors".
I find it hard to reconcile those two statements. He assures us that he has met these commanders and we should have every confidence in them, that the role of NORAD is defence and not attack and its objective is defensive, not aggressive; that it can go into action only if potential aggressors are over our territory and at the same time he says it contains as well the power to retaliate against aggressors. For a defensive force to be able to retaliate requires a little more than simply powers of a defensive nature.
There has been further confusion with respect to the planes of the strategic air command. We were assured as long ago as 1957 that a large portion of the planes attached to SAC were continuously airborne in order to be ready to implement our policy of instant retaliation as our major contribution to the so-called deterrent to war, and yet we were assured by the Minister of National Defence that except in special circumstances none of these planes is in Canadian skies. For many months, in fact as much as half a year, we were assured that if they were over Canadian territory they were, except under special circumstances, not equipped with nuclear weapons, and many of us were wondering what was the purpose of having these planes in the air if they were not ready to start retaliatory action which might be needed at a moment's notice. What was the purpose of it?
However, we now have the situation where, possibly to further clarify the matter, we are assured that they are avoiding flying under ordinary conditions in their routine flights over Canadian territory, and I repeat the question put by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch): Why do they want refueling bases if they are not to be found over Canadian territory?
I would like to refer for a moment to the proposal put forth some days ago when the Prime Minister, in his efforts to be political in this matter, was attempting to bait the opposition into opposing the NORAD agreement and when he made reference to continental defence. I have with me a copy of the Ogdensburg agreement which, I believe, was the first conscious effort at providing for continental defence. This was read into the record by the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, on November 12, 1940. Mr. King read as follows:

The Prime Minister and the President have discussed the mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States.
It has been agreed that a permanent joint board on defence shall be set up at once by the two countries.
This permanent joint board on defence shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems including personnel and material.
It will consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere.
The permanent joint board on defence will consist of four or five members from each country, most of them from the services. It will meet shortly.
That was an advisory committee set up to study the mutual problems of defence and to then make appropriate recommendations to their respective governments in respect of such action as might be considered necessary. That was an altogether different matter from the NORAD agreement now before us. I very much regret that we were not given the chance to take a close analytical look at this agreement, that we were not able to consider it in committee, even in a committee on external affairs meeting in camera. We have not been assured that this is going to be done.
We are rather concerned, as was so ably pointed out by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that in our opinion there seems to be-and I want to be fair-a departure from the principle of NATO. NATO was an organization formed wherein some 16 countries agreed that an attack on one was an attack on all. We now have a new arrangement whereby two countries, or possibly even one country-and I am not sure whether under the NORAD agreement this is not possible-one country alone may engage in warfare without consultation with the 14 or 15 NATO allies.
An indication was given by the Prime Minister that NORAD was not a diminution of Canadian sovereignty. We do not, however, need to fool ourselves. Every time we sign an international agreement we relinquish Canadian sovereignty. That is the sole purpose of affixing our signature to such an agreement. We have never been really disturbed or alarmed at the prospect of relinquishing Canadian sovereignty provided such sovereignty was relinquished to a world-wide organization devoted to the cause of peace, such as the United Nations, or previously to the League of Nations, or even to a group of nations having ideals very similar to our own and who have decided to band together for reasons of collective security.
Much confusion still exists as to who gives the orders. We were at one time given to understand in this house that the decision would be made at Colorado Springs. Our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) made much of the fact that he could get into

contact with Colorado Springs within 40 seconds. X wonder whether this also applies to the possibility of his attending a political meeting in a little red school house somewhere in northern British Columbia-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erhart Regier: -or I am hoping that, like the rest of us, he will be able to take a holiday. Will the 40-second phone call rule also apply to him if he is out on the golf links somewhere? We recall also that St. Hubert is involved and our own command in Canada is concerned and would also be consulted.
I am very pleased that the Prime Minister introduced the subject of the rules of engagement as they were first issued in 1951. I think the Canadian people ought to be told, and can safely be told, that the orders have already been issued. I do not think we should try to hide that from the Canadian people. The officers commanding all branches of our armed forces have already received orders governing their action in every conceivable eventuality, and for us to pretend there is going to be wide consultation among civilian authorities in the case of an emergency is clearly a lot of eyewash intended to lull the people of Canada into a false sense of security. I would go so far as to say that all NATO area commanders have already received their orders and it is rather foolish for us to be threshing straw and attempting to define who is responsible for giving the order which would have to be given at whatever might be the crucial moment.
I particularly regret this desertion of the principle of collective security in favour of an agreement with one other nation. It completely changes the concept of collective defence. I believe that all our allies in western Europe have for some time felt uneasy at the desertion of the traditional policy of NATO. When NATO was founded we told the Soviet union that one foot on the soil of any one of us would mean instant retaliation. Now, the nations of Europe have been told this no longer applies, that they are expendable and that an invader will be allowed to swallow them up inch by inch and yard by yard.


An hon. Member:: Sheer nonsense. They will be disturbed if they hear your speech.


Erhart Regier: Hon. members can shout "sheer nonsense" all they like but I know that the policy of the United States is continental defence first and western Europe defence second.


Mr. Nesbitt:: How do you know that?
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement


Erhart Regier: All their actions over the past several years have tended in that direction, and there is great concern among all the allied NATO countries in Europe. There is a feeling that this concept of limited warfare in which as much as a whole European nation could be involved has now been accepted in North America, and I do not think the people of Europe are going to feel very happy when they hear that Canada and the United States are now making arrangements of their own. They feel that we will help them along, supply them with missile bases, give them missiles, even with atomic warheads and so on, but that if the fatal day should arrive we would not necessarily abide by our NATO undertaking that an attack on the territory of any one power is to be regarded as an attack on the territory of all.
I am sure the Prime Minister is hoping for the unanimous agreement of this house with regard to the NORAD resolution. However, we would like him to explain to us how this agreement hastens the day when we will have an international police force; we would like him to explain how it strengthens NATO; we would like him to tell us what satisfaction our European allies will receive from the existence of the NORAD arrangement. We want to know where the NORAD agreement is in force, who gives the commands. What does the Prime Minister mean when he refers to new and further developments? Is he hinting at some great expansion in defence expenditure when he refers to NORAD? We are not yet clear as to where SAC planes are in the air. If they are not in Canadian skies-and we occupy more than half of the northern hemisphere -where are they? And we are not yet satisfied with regard to their carrying nuclear weapons. Yet if they are not loaded with nuclear weapons what is the purpose of having them in the air at all?
Speaking for myself I should like the Prime Minister to explain how the NORAD agreement is in line with the statement he made in Edmonton as reported by the Canadian Press, as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker says leaders of the free world must have a positive and vital program in the race for men's minds instead of employing a negative and defensive policy designed to answer soviet propaganda.
I hope the Prime Minister will explain how that ideal of his, which I am sure all of us share, and which we think is most urgent and vital today is being assisted by the NORAD agreement. We feel that the NORAD agreement may well be a danger to peace and render a disservice to western Europe unless we receive satisfactory replies to the

NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement questions we have asked, and we feel we can have no confidence in the confusing answers which the two senior ministers have given. We expect the Prime Minister himself to clear up these misunderstandings. This movement has always been in support of collective security.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: How about German rearmament?


Erhart Regier: It has always hesitated to do anything that might endanger the peace of the world or the safety of our country and in answer to the hon. member for Oxford I may say that in the last parliament the C.C.F. section had a higher proportion of veterans in its ranks than any other section of the house. We are asking these things in all sincerity and we expect our Prime Minister to answer them.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I would have been allowed sufficient time before the adjournment hour today to have dealt with the many arguments that have been advanced, but this now appears to be impossible having regard to the fact that only ten minutes remain and it is necessary for me to leave very shortly in order to meet the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who commences his visit with us this evening.
However, in a few moments I will deal with one or two matters that have been raised. I have listened to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I am one of those who through the years have had a regard for my friends opposite, and when they speak with sincerity, whether I agree with them or not, they do uphold the principles of parliament. The hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat spoke with great vehemence and because I have known him through the years I can also add that he spoke with sincerity and I pay tribute to him in that regard.
To my hon. friends of the C.C.F. may I say that to a major extent they all endeavoured at the beginning of their arguments, including the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), to suggest that because NORAD was not connected with NATO and might have a weakening effect on NATO action therefore should be taken to bring it under NATO control completely and directly. All the hon. gentlemen of that group who spoke on this matter are from the province of British Columbia and all based their arguments on that ground. To that end they moved an amendment in these words:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words:


And in the opinion of this house consideration of the interests of collective security and the principles of the United Nations make it advisable for the government to give consideration to the taking of such steps as are necessary to integrate these agreements within the structure of NATO.
That was their view but it strikes me as passing strange that on June 2, 1958, at their convention in the province of British Columbia, the British Columbia C.C.F. party went on record as being opposed to NATO, urging Canada's withdrawal from it and finding collective security through the United Nations. A report to this effect is contained in the Vancouver Province of Monday, June 2, 1958. Apparently they have the best of two worlds: they have adopted one policy for their party in British Columbia from which most of them come and another policy in the House of Commons when they are speaking to the Canadian people as a whole.
A former outstanding member of this house who represented the constituency of Nanaimo, Mr. Colin Cameron, spoke on that occasion to the convention and as reported in the newspaper article to which I have referred said:
It is an open secret in Ottawa that from a military point of view NATO is down the drain. Proof that it is down the drain comes from the United States consistent refusal to place under it the American strategic air command.
Mr. Cameron went on to say this:
NATO has proved to be the major stumbling block to settlement in Europe.
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of inconsistency, ambiguity and confusion that arouses the doubts to which my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) referred. Where is the consistency? My hon. friends of the C.C.F. have spoken long and volubly of their deep affection for NATO but even before they rose to speak in this house the organization that speaks for them officially from the province of British Columbia went on record as saying, "Do away with NATO".
Now we come to the Liberal attitude. My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke about doubts, ambiguities, confusion and contradiction. I say it is dangerous for any political party to arouse fears in the hearts of people. My hon. friend and those -associated with him endeavoured to do that during the recent election campaign. They said to the people of Canada all the things they have said in this house in the last 24 hours. They indulged in what my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition likes to refer to on occasion as "agitated exaggeration" but the Canadian people would not be stampeded

by the kind of fears that he and those associated with him endeavoured to plant in their hearts.
As my hon. friend continued his course of seeking to plant doubt and confusion during the campaign he finally brought forth the most amazing thought of all when he contended in so far as trade with the United States is concerned that we must naturally protect our interests without their being prejudiced by United States policy; that we must, for instance, make it quite clear that the United States cannot expect the full and complete co-operation in continental defence which is desirable if she treats us unfairly in her tariff and trade policies.
Mr Speaker, I spoke with restraint when I introduced this matter but now I am tempted to speak more strongly. One would never have expected that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that we should attempt to use Canadian trade as a weapon in respect of continental defence by saying to the United States, in effect, that it will be without a partner in the preservation and assurance of our joint defence unless that country does what Canada wants it to do.
All during the campaign the Leader of the Opposition attempted to arouse doubt, fear and uncertainty in the minds of Canadians with respect to air defence. I have many clippings here. One article appeared in the Ottawa Journal on February 22, 1958, under the heading, "Raps Lack of Pact with United States". Reporting on a speech made by that hon. gentleman in London, Ontario, the article states in part:
He concentrated his main evening attack on the government's handling of the North American air defence setup, a move undertaken, he said, without any firm agreement between the two countries and without the prior consent of parliament.
He didn't criticize the fact that the Canadian-American air defence had been integrated-it was the only way to defend the continent against attack -but attacked the action of the government to agree to the setup without a pact.
In an article in the Toronto Star of March 21, 1958, under the heading, "United States Missile Bases Soon Not Needed in Canada" the Leader of the Opposition is reported as having said at Blind River:
Liberal leader Lester Pearson gave qualified approval last night to the idea of U.S. bases in Canada for intercontinental ballistic missiles. But he made it clear he did not favour such bases until more attempts had been made to reach an agreement with Russia and had failed.
The Windsor Star of February 15, 1958, reports the hon. gentleman as having said in Toronto:
-the Progressive Conservative government has given the United States "far-reaching control" over Canada's air force without first completing a political agreement to restrict the measure of that control.
NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement
He went on to speak of the dangers to the Canadian people. The hon. gentleman went across the nation with the same arguments that he used last evening.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why do you not answer them?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker I know my answer to that type of attitude and I know my hon. friend will agree with me because he has said it on a number of occasions. It is necessary to realize in the world in which we live that action has to be taken defensively.
I believe in the necessity for a positive and imaginative policy such as the hon. gentleman spoke of a moment ago in his concluding remarks but while advancing that policy we must above everything else maintain our defences. That particularly applies to us in North America because we are perhaps more vulnerable than any other portion of the world at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) but it is now six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Prime Minister have the unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer these arguments in five minutes because I wish to go into some detail. I have waited here today to take part in this debate and I do not intend criticism in saying that but in order to cover this matter fully, having regard to the haze that has been cast over this subject by the opposition, which haze was first created as a smokescreen during the recent campaign, I think it would be desirable for me to take some time in order to complete my arguments.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business is for tomorrow? I take it it is private members' day but would the leader tell us what the government intends to do on Friday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is private members' day. On Friday we shall conclude this debate and then go on with the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 12, 1958