1960-08-05

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, this morning Right Hon. Arthur Meighen passed away. In his passing Canada has lost a devoted statesman, the commonwealth one of its founding fathers, and the world of letters one of its master craftsmen. His career from his first participation in public affairs to the present spanned more than half the history of Canada since confederation. He first came into the House of Commons in 1908. He was appointed solicitor general in 1913 and -was sworn of the privy council of Canada on October 2, 1915. Later he became a member of the imperial privy council, and was twice prime minister of Canada.
It has been given to few Canadians to have served so long and made so distinguished a contribution. This is not the time to review his life or his achievements, but it can be said that the true nature of that contribution grows with the years as historical perspective makes clearer the real truth of this man and his mission, often misunderstood.
I had the opportunity some months ago of seeing him for the last time, and I could not but marvel at his attitude toward life and his freedom from recrimination whatever the vicissitudes of his life had been. Indeed, his own words displayed the nobility of this man. He said on one memorable occasion:
Fortune came and fortune fled. It is only the lot of all of us, at least of all who strive-the joy of the upward struggle, the successes, disappointments and defeats. Perhaps it has been my fate to have had more than the average on both sides of the account, but I promise you there Is going to be nothing of bitterness carried forward after the page is turned . .. Whether now judged right or wrong, whatever I have said, whatever I have done, is going to remain unrevised and unrepented .. .
The page of his great life is now turned forever. The book of our history is richer because he wrote upon that page. His life was characterized, above all, by stainless integrity, courage and steadfastness of faith. I have mentioned the honours that came to him throughout the years and I shall not
repeat them. Only one member of this house was here during the days when Arthur Meighen occupied so great a place in this forum, and that is the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe).
I heard him speak on a number of occasions, and they were unforgettable. He had the unique distinction of having been the only Canadian who had held the four great offices of parliament, for he was both prime minister and leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, and government leader and leader in opposition in the Senate. His voice was heard in adornment of 23 sessions of the House of Commons and 13 sessions of the Senate.
Arthur Meighen was my friend. I twice contested a seat in parliament under his leadership. I heard him on the hustings many times, and whenever I heard that man the words of Lord Curzon, as he described another great statesman, Right Hon. Herbert Asquith, came to mind:
Whenever I have heard him on a first rate occasion, there arose in my mind the image of some great military parade. The words, the arguments, the points, follow each other with the steady tramp of regiments across the field; each unit is in its place, the whole marching in rhythmical order; the sunlight glints on the bayonets, and ever and anon is heard the role of the drum.
Sir, he had the amazing capacity to marshall his facts and express them in language so clear and colourful that the pages of Hansard will always be a monument to his memory.
He was an outstanding scholar. From his boyhood days in St. Mary's to his last days he was immersed in the classics of the world's literature. Indeed, many of us will remember that speech on his favourite subject, Shakespeare which he delivered ex tempore, which was copious with long quotations from memory; that speech reproduced time and again in anthologies containing collections of the world's greatest speeches.
To his intimates he was a warm and sensitive personality. This was so in his latter days, but those who knew him well will also bear witness that even in his most controversial days he maintained a spirit of generous forgiveness to those who wounded; an attitude of companionship in a common dedication to those with whom he disagreed; an uncommon loyalty to his friends and followers. I think of his words regarding his predecessor in office as prime minister of
[Stage Direction]
The Late Right Hon. Arthur Meighen Canada, Right Hon. Sir R. L. Borden, of whom Mr. Meighen used these words, so applicable today:
Happy indeed are they who, as the night of life approaches, find that the inner vision does not fade. Happier still are they who, as the shadows lengthen, have full assurance that they bore with head unbowed a strong man's measure of the heat and burden, who are conscious that they enjoy the undimmed confidence of everyone who shared with them their struggles and anxieties, and who have just cause to hope that when all is over there will be heard from their fellow men the simple and sincere benediction: "He served his country well".
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when we heard a short time ago of the death of Mr. Meighen I think we shared with all Canadians a feeling of sorrow at the death of one of Canada's outstanding citizens; a man, as the Prime Minister has put it, of great nobility of character; a former prime minister who made a distinguished contribution in politics and in business to the development of our country and our commonwealth.
Few Canadians in all history have surpassed him in intellectual brilliance and scholarly attainment, in incisive skill in parliamentary work and, above all, in parliamentary debate. Few Canadians have ever served their country in so many fields of activity so selflessly and so well over such a long period of time. May he rest in peace as he served with honour.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that members of the C.C.F. party heard of the passing this morning of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
Mr. Meighen, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have so well pointed out, was an outstanding Canadian statesman, a man of great courage, a skilful debater, a tower in Canadian parliamentary history. His public career extended over more than half a century. It was interspersed with many victories and some defeats, but on all those occasions Mr. Meighen showed himself a master. He was an outstanding leader of the Conservative party. He was a great Canadian, and our nation will mourn this day at his passing.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the house leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Assiniboia, have eloquently expressed, I am sure, the sentiments of all members of this Canadian House of Commons. However, perhaps I might have permission to pay a personal tribute to one with whom I have been associated in different ways for many years.

It was my privilege, as the Prime Minister has said, to enter parliament as a member with Right Hon. Mr. Meighen in 1925. Many others who joined us on that occasion have not been so privileged as I have been with health in survival. However, this outstanding Canadian was known to those of us who were closely associated with him as many other Canadians have been known by their close associates.
His ability was legendary. He was brilliant on the floor of parliament, and in all the history of the Canadian House of Commons and Senate debates his debating skill has never been surpassed. As the Prime Minister said, he achieved many outstanding distinctions in our Canadian history.
I also feel that while his ability was legendary generally, his outstanding loyalty, statesmanship and leadership inspired all those who were close to him. Indeed his sterling political integrity and character earned the lively respect of all those who dared oppose him. I have valued very highly my close association with him through all these years to which I have referred. His friendship has been an inspiration to me and his loyalty has never been in doubt amongst his close friends.
I could add many things from the memory I have of him, but let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all my associates here that I am sure I am only expressing the feelings of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House of Commons when I say that Canada has lost a great Canadian, the senior privy councillor, having been sworn in in 1915. He was the oldest living ex-prime minister. His memory to me will always be an inspiration. To Mrs. Meighen and to the family I express on my own behalf, and on behalf of my family, our sympathy and high respect.



CIVIL DEFENCE


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I have a brief announcement to make concerning fall-out shelters. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, at the request of the emergency measures organization, has prepared a pamphlet giving basic criteria on the method of designing a basement fall-out shelter for new housing. The pamphlet is being issued today.
Entitled "Blueprint for Survival No. 2", it is the second in a series showing survival techniques in the event of radiation fall-out. You will recall that the Prime Minister announced the first pamphlet "Blueprint for

Survival No. 1", in this house on June 17, 1960 which explained the construction of fall-out shelters in existing houses.
If they so desire, borrowers under the National Housing Act may include a fallout shelter when planning their houses and the cost of the shelter may be considered in the appraised value of the house for mortgage loan purposes. Up to $500 of additional loan will be made available to assist in the financing of an acceptable fall-out shelter in new housing built for home ownership. Where necessary, the maximum loan regulations can be exceeded by up to $500 for this purpose.
I must emphasize that the additional $500 may only be used to incorporate a fall-out shelter in a new house. Fall-out shelters for existing houses, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, may be financed with home improvement loans under the National Housing Act.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to announce that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to support the price of sunflower seed produced in the province of Manitoba at 4 cents per pound, Canada No. 1 grade, 10 per cent moisture, basis delivery crusher, Altona, Manitoba. This is the same support price as last year. The prescribed price of 4 cents per pound is 93 per cent of the base or 10-year average price of 4.3 cents per pound.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
July 25-The Minister of Trade and Commerce- the following proposed motion:-
That the report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, presented Monday, July 25, 1960, be concurred in.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): I would ask that this motion stand with the proviso that it may be called later today. There are certain consultations going on which have not yet been completed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture if it is true, as
79951-0-480
Inquiries of the Ministry reported in the Financial Post, that the government has decided on a program to assist western farmers by way of an acreage assistance program not to exceed $200 per person and not to exceed in total $40 million?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it is well understood that it has never been the practice in this house for ministers to comment on reports alleged to have appeared in newspapers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then will the hon. gentleman announce a program in principle along the lines I have foreshadowed?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the letter sent by Mr. Gowan T. Guest to the Saskatchewan farmers' union, in which it was stated that there would be no delay in contacting that organization as soon as it was possible to suggest definite arrangements for such a meeting, can the Prime Minister say whether this meeting with the liaison committee will be held after the government's announcement of policy or whether it can be held before, in order that the opinion of the liaison committee might be taken into consideration?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: As I endeavoured to make very clear yesterday, the government has at all times the benefit of the experience and knowledge of many members from the western provinces who support this administration. The government has discussed with them the policies which might conceivably be brought into being.
In so far as the liaison committee is concerned, there have been a number of appointments with them. They started with the concept that only a deficiency payment was the answer. We replied that the deficiency payment, which would have cost the Canadian people some $330 or $340 million, was out of the question. Later we asked them whether they had an alternative upon which in effect they could agree. That alternative has not yet been determined. However, I stated in the letter that every opportunity will be given at the appropriate time to meet with the liaison committee, as indeed this government does with any group representative of the various fields of economic activity in the country when they make requests.
I simply say I am hopeful that we shall be in a position very soon to place before the
7596	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian people the considered decision in regard to the position of the western grain farmer. We have had the opinions of all our members on this subject. Having not received a sole alternative to deficiency payments from the liaison committee we are therefore in a position where policy can be determined. Thereafter, no doubt, the liaison committee may have other suggestions to make, at which time the Minister of Agriculture and I will be most happy to meet with them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the policy he has just mentioned will be placed before this house before the end of the present session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am always hopeful that that will take place.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Did not the western liaison committee, on behalf of the farmers' union, submit a brief to the government on May 12, to which there has been no reply to date? Can the Prime Minister say why the government is taking the position that this policy will be announced and consultation will take place afterwards?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for policy is that of the government and those associated with it. No group anywhere in this country can do other than make suggestions. The determination will be that of this government. I have pointed out that we have the benefit of the opinions and views of some 50 western farm members, who have made very clear their views as to the needs and requisites of the western farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I asked the Prime Minister whether there had been a reply to this brief, and I ask him now whether he does not think that the course he is now taking is an insult and a slap in the face-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now trespassing on the privileges that are offered to him to ask questions, when he makes contentious and provocative statements.


John George Diefenbaker: My simple answer to the hon. gentleman is that having read some of his recent statements in western Canada I would not take any advice from him in the art of insult.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question on this subject to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the reassuring statement, which at long last marks progress in this matter, given by the Prime Minister, can the Minister of Agriculture say whether, before the closing


days of this session, he will bring in, by way of a supplementary estimate, something that will enable parliament to examine the government's policy with regard to the request made by the farmers of western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think this is merely a repetition of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition of the Prime Minister, and the answer the Prime Minister gave is, I think, the answer to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Would my friend do whatever he is going to do while the hon. member for Assiniboia is in this house; because next week the latter will be in Regina.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government or the house can conduct its business merely to serve the convenience of the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, would the farmers not welcome an earlier announcement rather than a later one?



INQUIRY AS TO SUPPORT POLICY FOR OIL SEEDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture based on the announcement he made this morning regarding deficiency payments on sunflower seed. Does the minister have in mind applying the same policy to all other oil-bearing seeds?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker. We apply whatever form of support happens to be the best for any particular commodity. The type of support provided for soya beans in eastern Canada and for sunflower seeds in western Canada is the same type of support and at approximately the same level.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Agriculture not think that the representations of the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort for greater and closer attention to the problem he has raised, which representations I have supported-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That would kill it for sure.


Mr. Hees:: You are getting a little too heavy for that band wagon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
farmers from the west please give the mem ber a chance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the importance of my question has been lost in the wide appreciation of its enunciation. Does the minister not think that before we prorogue the urgent representations made by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort should be met by an announcement of government policy that will really assist those interested in rapeseed?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating in another form two questions that have already been dealt with.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy with an answer to either one of them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this so-called question is an example of the sort of statement which the hon. member for Essex East constantly makes, not for the purpose of obtaining information but for the purpose of attempting to put over a point, which he has no right to do at this period in our proceedings.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You are answerable to the house still.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In spite of opposition by retail merchants and chambers of commerce, the government allowed duty free shops to be established at U.S. border points.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Graffley:: Out of order again.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question I suggest that he ask it, instead of making a statement.


Hubert Badanai: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I have to set up a basis for the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I interrupted the hon. member because he began by saying that in spite of certain things the government has proceeded to something else. That is not a search for information in the spirit that I hope hon. members will follow in asking extemporaneous questions before the orders of the day.


Hubert Badanai: On March 18 I asked the minister whether the government had made any attempts to evaluate the impact that the selling of duty free goods at border points
79951-0-480J
Inquiries of the Ministry was going to have on small retail merchants. Five days later the minister replied as follows:
It is a problem which is engaging the attention of the department at all times and one to which we are giving special study.
My question is, is the minister now in a position to say what the special study of his department has revealed; whether as a result of the operation of these duty free shops-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no doubt the hon. member has a point which he wishes to make, but it does not seem to me that he is asking for any information that can be given briefly on the orders of the day.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the point is, what is wrong with asking for the result of an investigation?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am prepared to deal with that question, without accepting for one moment the lengthy preamble, most of which was inaccurate, which was read to us by the hon. member. There has been one of these so-called duty free shops in operation, only one, and it has been in operation for only two or three months. It will be impossible to determine its effect until after the end of the season. We are watching the situation carefully in the hope that by the end of the season, from the operation of this one example, we shall be able to make some assessment.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, the sixth minister in charge of civil defence. Will the minister be good enough to amplify his welcome statement of this morning and indicate to the house whether the "Blueprint for Survival No. 2" contains provision for a structure which, unlike that contained in "Blueprint for Survival No. 1", meets the local building codes of municipalities across the country?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): I will be glad to hand my friend the brochure, which I have here. It has many of the blueprints in it. Whether or not they meet the building restrictions in the many municipalities across Canada, which vary very widely, I am not in a position to say. We have not had a chance to examine them all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister say whether the specifications meet the standards of

Inquiries of the Ministry Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and of the national building code?


David James Walker: They certainly meet the
standards of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They sometimes issue blueprints that do not.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister please advise whether he is in a position to reply to a question I asked on June 23, which reads as follows:
Could the minister say what steps are being taken to avert tragedies similar to that which recently occurred on lake Williams, Nova Scotia, when a boy was drowned because a pilot, taking off from the lake, failed to notice the sailboat in which he was a passenger?
To which the minister replied:
Under the air regulations certain regulatory procedures aimed at guarding against mishaps of this nature are prescribed. We have not yet received from our district officials the formal report with respect to the tragedy referred to by the hon. member.
I should like to ask the minister if he is in a position to advise whether a report has been received, because there have been further mishaps in this area involving low flying aircraft since the fatal accident which I brought to the minister's attention on June 23.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the departmental investigation has been completed and the report is now in process of being prepared.



STATEMENT ON REPORTED INEFFICIENCY OF APPROVED LIFE PRESERVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the inquiry yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay West regarding drownings when people were wearing life jackets, I am advised that my department has received no complaints from organizations or individuals to the effect that recent drownings of people wearing life preservers approved by the Department of Transport have taken place.
[Mr. Heilyer.)



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I wish to apologize for not having been in a position to send him notice. It has to do with the establishment of a radar station in Manitoba and a request sent to me by a person at Gypsumville, Manitoba, that the housing for personnel in connection with this station should be located in the town of Gypsumville rather than at the site of the station. Would the minister give consideration to this request?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: We will be pleased to consider that. I cannot say offhand exactly how far the site is outside the town of Gypsumville, but I will look into the matter.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on August 3 the hon. member for Gloucester put the following question to me:
Has the minister taken the necessary steps to notify all departments of government concerned that hospital premiums have been abolished in New Brunswick as from July 23, and that the deductions from salaries of federal employees in New Brunswick to cover such premiums should be discontinued?
All federal agencies which had been paying premiums to the New Brunswick hospital insurance commission were advised by that commission on July 23 that hospital insurance premiums had been abolished in the province. In some instances this direction was received too late in the month to anticipate the regular deductions being made for that month in the case of those federal employees who reside in New Brunswick. In the case of any such deductions, refunds are being made.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, based upon a report in today's Globe and Mail indicating that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport have been in consultation about

bringing more work to Canadian shipyards. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the Canadian maritime commission is preparing any program or policy to bring more shipbuilding to Canadian yards.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the maritime commission and my department have this matter very much under consideration at the present time.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the passage by the house of the bill of rights and the Prime Minister's statement that what is required now is for each of us to mobilize in our hearts to make freedom work, can the Prime Minister say whether any action can be taken under this law to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms to a distinguished civil servant like Mr. Ter-tullien, who had difficulty in obtaining housing because of colour?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the legal interpretation of the effect of the statute does not come within the ambit of any member of this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
direct a supplementary question on this subject to the Minister of Public Works. Now that the bill of rights has been passed by the house, is he in a position to announce the formula to be used by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation administration and which will represent the determination of the federal government that loans will not be denied to Canadian citizens because of colour, as was the case in the particular situation to which I directed the minister's attention concerning a respected negro in the city of Windsor?


David James Walker: The regulations have been worked out. The exact clause to be put in the mortgage is still under consideration and scrutiny by the Department of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: May I add one word. I did not identify the particular case by the name. The case to which the hon. member for Assiniboia referred is a matter within provincial jurisdiction, as the hon. member knows.
Supply-National Defence CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



REPORTED INTENTION TO CURTAIL SLEEPING AND DINING CAR SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister comment on the report that, beginning October 30, the Canadian National will institute a severe curtailment of sleeping and dining car services on its transcontinental trains? Would the minister be prepared to consult with the management of the Canadian National in the hope that this reduction in railway services and employment may be avoided?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The management of Canadian National Railways advise me that the question of off-season operation of transcontinental trains is now under study, and no decisions have yet been reached. I shall be glad to pass along the words of the hon. member to the management of the Canadian National.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can report on the proposed meeting of the disarmament commission of the United Nations, now set for August 15?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker; we have had no further word with regard to this meeting as yet.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it will be clear to the committee from the statements which have been made from this side of the house on this item that we propose to criticize, as strongly as we can, the defence policy of the government in so far as it has been submitted to us by statements from government spokesmen. Our criticism will be strong, but it is designed, notwithstanding what has already been said from the other side, to be constructive. When we advocate, as we have advocated, the scrapping of certain weapons
7600	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and equipment, and indeed the scrapping of certain policies, because we do not think they meet the requirements of the present situation, we also propose something else which in our opinion will be more effective and more useful.
It is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that criticism of the defence policy of the government is not confined to members of the opposition in this House of Commons. The minister said in his statement yesterday that Canadians support the commitments we have undertaken. Perhaps Canadians do support the commitments, but it is obvious from a study of the Organs of public opinion throughout the country, from articles, from editorials, that a great many Canadians do not support the way this government is undertaking to carry out its commitments. The criticism is widespread; it is general, and it has been expressed in far stronger language than any that has been used in this House of Commons.
I want to say at the beginning that any criticism from us is no reflection on our armed services, for whom we have the same admiration as that which has been expressed by spokesmen for the government. We know that our armed services will discharge, as they have in the past, with skill, with loyalty and with effectiveness and devotion any tasks which may be submitted to them. In addition, Mr. Chairman, our criticism is not aimed at the minister personally or anyone associated with the minister in the government. There is no personal reflection of any kind in what we may say. Some of us on this side, because we have had the responsibility of office, are aware of the terrific responsibility which the minister of national defence in any free country must bear in an international situation of tenseness, and uncertainty, such as exists today, and where conditions change rapidly almost from week to week and certainly from month to month.
The government through the minister, who is facing this terriffic responsibility, feel that their defence policy has been a great success. Yesterday the minister said the fact that our country continues to be secure indicates the success of their policies. He would indeed be an optimistic person, Mr. Chairman, to feel that, in the circumstances of today, our country or any other free country is secure. Surely there must be more important evidence of the success of the defence policy of the government than that, before we on this side will be impressed by that success.
So we criticize policy alone, and we recognize, as my hon. friend from Trinity said yesterday, that in our criticism we do not have all the facts of the situation. It is inevitable that the minister will have more information than we have, because there is certain


information that he cannot, for security reasons, make available to us. We recognize the fact that because of the availability to the minister of information which perhaps cannot be made available to us, criticism from this side should not only take that into consideration, not only should it be constructive, but also it may have to be revised in the light Of information which later becomes available. We base our views of defence policy on what we know, which includes what we have been told by the minister.
We have learned very little indeed in this session about defence policy, and the considerations on which it is based, except those very general considerations which are non-controversial. We had hoped from the beginning of this session that provision might be made by which we, on as non-partisan a basis as is possible, could analyse, discuss and examine defence policy in its broadest as well as its more detailed aspects, before a parliamentary defence committee called for that purpose and with terms of reference which would have made that possible.
We tried to get such a committee, Mr. Chairman, and we failed. There was a defence committee set up. It was set up initially to discuss expenditures which had been made, and only after a debate in this house were its terms of reference broadened to include the estimates before us this session. It was set up after a good deal of delay and a good deal of confusion. We suspected at the time the debate took place in this house that such a committee, with such terms of reference, would be prevented from making a real inquiry into defence policy. And it was. Our suspicions were realized. As was said in the debate setting up that committee-


Mr. Lambert:: By whom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman will be patient I will quote chapter and verse to confirm what I have just said. You might save your interruptions until I have finished my arguments. The record is quite revealing in this regard, and I will quote it and put it in Hansard. I will quote first from the record of the debate in this house and then from the record of the meetings of the committee. The Minister of National Defence said on March 17 of this year, at page 2180 of Hansard, talking about the work of that committee:
To discuss that policy-
That is defence policy.
_would not be within the competence of the
committee.
Then a few minutes later on the same day, on page 2184, the minister seemed to contradict himself:

Whenever estimates are submitted to a committee or to the house in committee of the whole, policy can always be discussed.
But the Prime Minister on the same day, on page 2180, had this to say:
. . . the committee shall not discuss defence policies.
He was talking about the proposed defence committee. On the next day, March 18, the Prime Minister made it quite clear that expenditures discussed before this committee were to be considered in relation to the general policy, but that the general policy was not to be discussed. I quote what he said:
It will be up to the committee itself to decide where the dividing line between administration and policy is drawn.
That was the final reference to the work of this committee before it was set up. Let us see how the government members of the committee, the majority of the committee, drew this line between administration and policy. The committee began its meetings late in the session. The Liberal members of that committee had hoped from the beginning, and indeed expected, that expert witnesses would be called; not, of course, defence officials or serving officers, but others, for questioning on any policy matter. The subcommittee on agenda and procedures on May 11 recommended that, and I hope from its minutes-
-the witnesses at the start be restricted to the minister and the departmental officials.
Then the committee, on May 17, at page 69 of its minutes, adopted a recommendation that-[DOT]
-in the event that the committee decided to call witnesses other than officials of the department . . .
They would be heard after the minister and after the officials. Then we went on. On June 1 the subcommittee-I quote from page 183 of the minutes-
*-agreed to refer these matters-
That is, the calling of outside witnesses.
-to the main committee for determination.
The main committee agreed that after it had examined all the items in the estimates it would leave item 1 open, and I quote from its report:
-then the committee would consider the advisability of calling other witnesses.
Then we get to July 8, toward the end of the work of the committee. My hon. friend from Trinity asked:
When is it the intention of this committee to hear other witnesses, if at all, or is it true that there has never been any intention on the part of the government to allow other witnesses to appear?
Supply-National Defence
In reply to that question the chairman of the committee said the matter would be discussed by the steering committee; and the final action of the committee, on July 19, was to ask the steering committee to consider again the calling of outside witnesses and report back "with reasonable dispatch". Then this question was resolved by a majority vote of the committee not to call any at all.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if that was not stalling by the majority on the committee, to give an impression that witnesses might be called, without any intention of permitting them to be called.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In any event, they were not called and there was no opportunity of examining anyone on defence policy, except the minister. What opportunities did members of the committee itself have to examine defence policy and put forward ideas to the government? Practically none.


Norman Platt Lambert: You were not there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have read every page of the minutes of proceedings of every meeting of the committee, and all you have to do is read the record and see what happened. I will put some of it on Hansard. On page 326 the chairman of the committee had this to say, and I quote from the record, underlining my statement that we could merely ask questions and not discuss policy:
All I wanted to tell you, Mr. Hellyer, is that if there is no money included in the 1960-61 estimates, then we are not going to ask the minister any questions about that at all.
That was even a restriction on questions. Then at page 327 of the same day's meeting the chairman said this:
If there is not any money included in those estimates for nuclear warheads, I do not see how we can ask questions about this.
At page 330 in the report of the same meeting Mr. Hellyer said this:
All you have to do is say it is the policy of this government that both these weapons will be equipped with nuclear weapons, or they will not be.
What did the chairman say to that?
Bring that up next year ... We are not spending money on it now.
Again, at page 352, the chairman said:
All we are doing here is going through the estimates of 1960-61 in which there is no money provided for psychological warfare, and therefore any questions are out of order.
Then he said to the member for Burin-Burgeo, who had brought this question up, or tried to bring it up:
Have you another field?
And Mr. Carter replied:
It has to do with ideological warfare.
7602	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
As perhaps the warfare we are facing in the world today is even more ideological than military, the hon. member thought it might be suitable in the defence committee to make some reference to this fact. But the chairman said:
We are not spending any money on that either, so that is out of order.
On page 383 the hon. member for Trinity began to question the minister on the problem of defence and its relation to national sovereignty. Surely that would be a subject suitable for discussion in this defence committee. The parliamentary secretary to the minister said:
There is no item on sovereignty, Mr. Chairman.
Then the chairman said:
No, X was going to suggest that after the session is all over, we all get together and have a picnic and ask questions then.
Then on page 497 of the minutes the chairman said:
Would you please ask direct questions and not make so many comments ... Leave off the statements.
That, Mr. Chairman, is how defence policy was analysed, examined and discussed in the defence expenditures committee of this house. So we did not get very far in our discussion of defence policy. What then is the position now in this regard?
We have been left completely in the dark, in the record of the committee certainly, in respect of such important matters as nuclear testing and the use of nuclear weapons by Canadian forces. There was very little if anything done is this defence committee to elucidate the position of the government in these matters, though there was something done, I confess, to register the existing confusion in regard to them.
Let us look at nuclear testing for the moment. Government policy, as we see it, is one of shifting and changing. This has already been discussed in this house. The Prime Minister laid down the policy of the government in this matter on August 22, 1958, in words which have already been put on the record, at page 3944 of Hansard for that year:
The house will recall that on several occasions since I became Prime Minister I have advocated the suspension of nuclear tests, but always providing there was adequate international control to ensure the observance of the undertakings made in that connection.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated what he had said earlier when on February 9, 1960, as reported at page 866 of Hansard, he said:
Our position is very clear, Mr. Speaker; we are against further nuclear tests, period.


If that is not a contradiction between positions I do not know what is. But when I questioned the Prime Minister in regard to this contradiction and tried to get it resolved in order that we would know where we stood on such matters of vital importance, the Prime Minister said:
I see no contradiction in the viewpoint expressed today and that expressed two years ago, except that naturally with the events that are now taking place modifications become necessary in order to meet changing conditions. Possibly what I have said should not be considered as a modification. What it is in fact is an interpretation of an actual reality existing today.
I was there quoting the Prime Minister, as reported on page 2252 of Hansard for this year. That is meant to mean, presumably, that the Prime Minister had altered his position from August, 1958 and had now joined the Secretary of State for External Affairs in coming out against nuclear tests, period.
Not long after, on June 4, 1960, the Prime Minister associated himself with the President of the United States in a communique which said:
Particular attention was paid to the importance of achieving, with effective international control, an end to nuclear testing-
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that represented no change, and the Prime Minister said that represented no change. When the Prime Minister was questioned on it a couple of days after the communique he said, as reported on page 4599 of Hansard:
We have made it very clear that we believe in the complete termination of nuclear testing.
It was not made very clear in a document so important as a communique which was signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. Apparently, notwithstanding this communique -because we base our views not on this statement but on decisions made in this house- the government now rejects any form of nuclear testing even under international control and agreement; even if it is for nonmilitary purposes, such as has been proposed for the Alberta tar sands; even if there were no fall-out, such as would be the case in an underground test, and even if it were under United Nations or other form of international control.
If that is the position of the government, that position should be made clear outside Canada as it is meant to be made clear inside Canada. I am not questioning that position taken by the government, but to take such a categorical, unqualified position, if that is what it is, while at the same time accepting nuclear weapons which could not be brought to their peak of efficiency without testing,

would be inconsistent with the policy of the government in regard to testing to the point of hypocrisy.


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing of the kind, and you know better.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I repeat what I have said.


John George Diefenbaker: That will not make it any more powerful.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will put it on the record again. To say in one breath "We are against nuclear testing, period" and in another "We will use nuclear weapons" which obviously cannot be brought to the utmost of efficiency without testing, is inconsistent.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the justification for the latter part of the statement? That they have not done sufficient testing now so that nuclear weapons and their potency can be established?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The answer to that should be obvious to anyone; that nuclear weapons, when they are ready for use, have been brought to that position as the result of nuclear testing. The Prime Minister is against nuclear testing, but we will perhaps use nuclear weapons.
Let us see if we can find out the position of the government with regard to this other related matter, the use of nuclear weapons. On June 23 before the defence expenditures committee, as reported on page 323 of the report, the Minister of National Defence said this:
The Bomarc anti-aircraft missile to be effective would require nuclear weapons.
That statement, of course, has been confirmed by many United States experts and military authorities, most recently by the general commanding NORAD. The Prime Minister made the same kind of statement on February 20, 1959 page 1223 of Hansard for that year, which I think was quoted last night by the minister. The Prime Minister said:
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads.
Before the defence committee, page 294 of the report, the minister said with reference to another weapon:
When the Honest John-
Not "if" the Honest John.
-is supplied which will be a year from now, then our forces will have a nuclear capability.
I assume no one would wish to have a weapon in the Canadian forces which was not of maximum effectiveness, and as the Bomarc can only be of maximum effectiveness if it has nuclear warheads, so we are
Supply-National Defence told, then if the Bomarc is supplied it would be supplied for use in certain circumstances with nuclear warheads. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any circumstance where a weapon would be used without its maximum effectiveness.
Who will control this nuclear capability? The minister made that perfectly clear before the defence expenditures committee. As reported on page 312 of the report he said:
My understanding is that the authority has to come from the President of the United States before nuclear weapons are used. These warheads belong to the United States. That permission having been granted to Canada to use these weapons, then the decision is made by Canada as to whether or not she will take advantage of that permission given by the United States.
Later in the same meeting he said, page 313 of the report:
I can only give this to you in general terms. The nuclear weapons cannot be used until they are released by the President of the United States. They then would be released to the supreme allied commander in Europe.
On this occasion the minister was talking about nuclear weapons with NATO forces on the continent, I believe. Later, again at the same meeting, page 322 of the report, quoting the Prime Minister the minister said:
We cannot change the principle of United States ownership.
Then the minister went on, page 331 of the report:
If those disarmament conferences are not successful, then we may, as the Prime Minister said, require those weapons to be used by Canadian forces.
I think we have the right to conclude from this and other statements which have been made, Mr. Chairman, that the situation with regard to actual use is somewhat fluid at the present time. Indeed, that was the word used by the minister, I think in the committee; that the situation was fluid at the present time. Well, if it is fluid-and I think that is the minimum expression which could be used-are there negotiations going on with regard to this matter which may clear up these difficulties? Yes; or no; or perhaps; depending upon which statement you read. In February, 1959 the Prime Minister, as reported on page 1223 of Hansard-I think the minister quoted this yesterday in his statement too-said this:
The government is, therefore, examining with the United States government questions connected with the acquisition of nuclear warheads for Bomarc and other defensive weapons...
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, following a question I asked him in the committee on external affairs as to whether

Supply-National Defence negotiations were still going on with the United States government on the use of nuclear weapons and their control by Canadian authorities, said:
There has been no agreement on that... I am not in a position to make any report on that at the moment... Certain negotiations are underway. but I think not on the particular point you mention.
That extract is to be found at page 73. of the report of the committee on external affairs. In other words, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said there were negotiations going on, but only, he added, in respect of the storage of nuclear weapons; that is, the storage of United States nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. On page 73 of the report of the committee I added:
-and there are no negotiations going on in respect of this supposed change of policy at all.
I was referring there to the use by Canada of nuclear weapons. The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
No. There are discussions going on, off and on, between the various allies in NATO.
Is it surprising that we on this side are in some confusion as to what is actually happening in regard to the negotiations on such a vital matter as the use and control of nuclear weapons? When the Minister of National Defence used the word "negotiations" with regard to the storage of such weapons by the United States at Goose Bay, which is territory leased by the United States, he apparently meant, because he made that clear in the committee, political negotiations leading to an agreement. When he used the word "negotiations" or "discussions" regard-ind the use of nuclear weapons by Canadian forces, presumably he meant something very different, and this is one source of our confusion.
The minister said as reported on page 327 .of the minutes of the defence expenditures committee, referring to negotiations with the United States:
These negotiations regarding nuclear weapons have not been pressed very urgently because we have no Bomarcs yet.
And again, as reported on page 333, he said:
We have not got to the stage of exchanging notes regarding any other of the nuclear weapons. However, talks have been going on between officials and ministers on the matter.
He was questioned by the hon. member for Calgary South on this point, as follows:
You would have discussions at the service level followed by cabinet discussions where a policy decision would be arrived at by the cabinet as a whole-

Then the hon. member added this:
Then the Department of External Affairs at the diplomatic level would exchange notes. Is this the complete sequence?
To which the minister for defence replied, yes. In other words, on the evidence we have before us, on the statements made, negotiations in this field which is of such vital political as well as military importance, becomes a matter for the Department of External Affairs only when the stage of exchanging notes is reached. Presumably the Secretary of State for External Affairs agrees with that, because he has already told us in this house, and he reported to the committee, that he was not participating in any such negotiations.
Well, Mr. Chairman, you know what I mean when I say this matter seems to have been left in the air. We bring in those responsible for foreign policy only when the formal notes have to be exchanged. That is made clear in the report of the committee on the defence estimates. So I ask, could there be greater confusion anywhere, or could there be a more important measure on which to be confused than this? I suggest that this confusion was made even worse by the minister's statement yesterday when he mentioned the matter, as reported on page 7557 of Hansard, as follows:
We are, therefore, going ahead with the procurement of the vehicles which can use these nuclear weapons, but the decision as to the acquisition of nuclear warheads depends on circumstances which might develop some time in the future.
So we are going ahead with the preparation of facilities for the use of nuclear weapons; we are preparing for the possibility of using nuclear weapons, but we have not as yet made a decision, according to the minister, as to whether or not we shall use them or, if we do, on what conditions shall govern their control. At the present time, unless the situation has changed as a result of diplomatic negotiation and agreement, such weapons cannot be used by any Canadian force except by agreement with the President of the United States. That is the situation with regard to this matter and I suggest it is a very unsatisfactory situation indeed.
What should be our policy with regard to these matters? What do we on this side think our policy should be? Following what my hon. friend from Trinity said yesterday, I should like to put forward in a general way-because it can only be done in a general way at this time-some views, some recommendations, on defence policy and its relationship to foreign policy as we see it on this side of the house.
It is a time, we think, for radical change in our defence policy. It is not a time for

weakening our defences. It is certainly no time for wasting our money and for drifting along without a policy. Especially for a country like Canada it is a time for reexamination from the ground up of what we are doing, a re-examination in the light of strategic developments going back to the day three years ago when the Russians threw their first missile into outer space and thereby the whole concept of strategy was changed in as revolutionary a way as it was by the invention of gunpowder. It is a time to re-examine our policy in the light of the western coalition which has also changed in recent years; to re-examine it in the light of our resources, and to re-examine it in the light of our national interest. When I talk about the national interest I am not thinking of the short range, selfish national interest but of the long range national interests, the paramount one of which is to help maintain the peace, to help build up a coalition, a genuine coalition, as a basis for collective security, collective welfare and collective progress and to give a lead to other middle powers in the achievement of those objectives.
I agree with the Minister of National Defence when he said, though he perhaps did not use these words, that narrow nationalism will not do today. There can in my view be no neutralism for Canada in defence or foreign policy. I have been getting a good deal of correspondence, and no doubt so has the minister, on this question of whether we should disengage ourselves from the western coalition, and whether we could not play a more important and constructive role by virtue of such disengagement by moving in the direction of what has been called neutralism. A good deal of the comment which I get in the letters I receive is based on Mr. Minifie's book. I have replied to these letters, and perhaps I can put some of my words on the record:
I agree with a great deal of what Mr. Minifie says in his book. I certainly believe we should reexamine our defence relations with the United States, and indeed our foreign policy generally in the light of some of the considerations which he puts forward.
I cannot, however, go as far as he does in advocating that Canada should dissociate herself completely from the North Atlantic coalition and substitute for the present policy of collective action and collective security one of neutralism without any commitments except to the United Nations. The reason why I cannot go so far as that is because the inference would inevitably and reasonably be drawn from such a policy that our relations with the United States and the U.S.S.R. should be on the same level of interest and responsibility; indeed, that there was nothing to choose, so far as Canadian defence policy was concerned, between our two powerful neighbours.
I know that there are faults, and some dangers, in U.S. policy, but I think also that there is a
Supply-National Defence basic difference between the principles that underlie its policy and those which determine that of the communist imperialist system of the Soviet union. Recognizing, as I do, that difference, I cannot believe that abandonment of our present policies for complete neutrality would be a constructive step in the interest of peace. I think that we should continue to associate ourselves as closely as possible with the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other North Atlantic countries but that we should direct all of our activities and policy inside this association to the maintenance and strengthening of peace and the ending of the cold war in a way which would make the present system of defence through huge armaments unnecessary.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe as much as I have ever believed in collective action, especially in world collective action through the United Nations. I believe more than ever, in orienting our defence policy more than ever in the direction of having ready, trained and equipped forces for United Nations service; yet I feel that genuine collective action in these matters-and I am thinking more particularly of NATO-is more difficult now than it was 10 years ago when NATO was born, born in fear and apprehension.
Furthermore, I am sure the minister knows we have to so organize our collective forces now that they will take the shock of the all important first days, or even the first hours, of any nuclear war. In world war III, if we are mad enough to allow it to begin, as contrasted with world wars I and II there will be no time to learn from experience; our survival will depend on what we have planned, on what we have organized and what we have done up to that moment, not likely on anything we may do subsequently. And what we have done up to that moment will be our only hope for survival if we lose the only real defence which now exists, which is defence by the maintenance of peace.
I suggest we should not forget, as we are now being subjected to some reassuring statements from certain quarters-I wish they could be realistic; I wish that they impressed me as being realistic-about the possibility of living through a nuclear war, because it has a bearing on this kind of thing; that one single bomb today can harbour a destructive force greater than all the energy ever used in any form to fight all the wars in history before 1939. But also, and this is a corollary to that horrible idea, let us not in our defence or our foreign policy become the prisoners of the forces that this awful situation may provoke.
It is on that basis, on those principles-I would like to call them that-that I have tried to work out my own views as to what our defence policy should be at this time. I admit at once that it is not easy to do that, and it has taken two or three years of what

Supply-National Defence has been referred in another context as agonizing reappraisal before one could put views forward, so far as I am concerned; and I do not put them forward as anything final and fixed that could not be changed. They may even have to be changed, if we knew all the information that the minister has at his disposal as opposed to the information I have at my disposal.
But these are my views. Indeed most of them were also put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Trinity. So far as continental defence is concerned-I start with that first-I repeat what my hon. friend said. In my view we should get out of the whole SAGE-Bomarc operation, and we should not spend any more money on radar gap fillers. Our objection to the Bomarc is not only that we do not think it is an effective weapon. I admit that its tests lately have been certainly far more successful than the previous tests. Perhaps for certain purposes it may become an effective weapon, I do not know; but that is not our major objection to it. Our objection is to the kind of defence strategy it represents and which we do not think will be effective however effective the weapon may be. If the United States wishes to continue that kind of protection, let the United States do so. Let us withdraw from that direct form of continental defence.
After all, this kind of defence is primarily a United States responsibility. It is the defence of the deterrent. We know how important that is; but it is a deterrent which is under the sole control of the United States of America. It is not a defence, and in the nature of things I submit cannot be a defence, of our territory in the traditional sense of the word, and it will soon be no defence of anything. As the minister himself has indicated, in a few years missile attack will make this kind of defence of very minimal importance indeed, once missiles supersede airborne bombers, and that will not be long from now.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that our experience in the last three years has shown that in attempting to participate in continental defence in the way we have, we are becoming, nothing more than just the last two knots on the Bomarc tail of the defence kite. I believe that in getting out of this position, which I consider to be an ineffective one for Canada, we would be rejecting the use by us of any form of nuclear weapons for what is mistakenly called the defence of our territory. I believe, however, that we should continue the part we are now playing in early warning operations, though they will be of diminishing importance as new methods of missile attack are developed.


To meet these new methods of attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles, the United States has very far-reaching, very expensive plans for ballistic missile early warning systems. I believe that we in Canada should accept no responsibility for the construction or operation of new warning systems against intercontinental missiles. I think this is out of our league and we should not become involved in it. I am not suggesting we are; I do not think we are at the moment, but I suggest we should keep out of it.
This brings up the whole question of what should be our defence relationship with the United States; what should be our attitude toward United States requests for Canada's co-operation in carrying out certain defence policies which are primarily in the interest of the United States, perhaps in the protection of the deterrent but in that sense these, of course, are in the general interest because anything that is in the interest of the United States as far as protection is concerned naturally is in the interest of every member of the coalition. If the United States goes, the coalition as we know it falls.
The hon. member for Trinity also dealt with this matter in terms of the role that in our view should be played by our Canadian air defence squadrons. We think, I repeat, that role should be limited to one of recognition and identification, with new planes which will be effective for that purpose and which will, if this role is accepted, result in a reduction in our squadrons, we think, by about one half, because not more than four or five squadrons would be required for this new role. The hon. member pointed out yesterday that it would also, we hope, make possible the exchange of these new planes purchased from the United States for the CL-44 made in Canada, an arrangement which the government is attempting at the moment, I understand, to bring about. This change in our continental defence policy would, as I say, permit us to reduce the number of existing air defence CF-100 squadrons perhaps by one half; in any event the CF-lOO's would not be effective even in this role of recognition and identification, because they would not be able to fly high enough or fast enough.
In certain other aspects of our continental relationship with the United States-and it is unfortunate that they are all outside NATO-I believe we are tied to a greater extent than ever before in our history to United States plans, to United States control and to United States strategy. I think we should begin the process of reversing this position, as we do in the proposals which we make in this debate, and that we should do our best to ensure that close co-operation,

which is essential, does not mean being swallowed up by the Pentagon, which is not.
I do not want that to be interpreted to mean that we should repudiate the obligation of our membership in the western alliance. It does not mean either, of course, that we can ignore the compulsions of geography or the requirements of collective security in a dangerous, cold war world. We must co-operate with the United States, but there is no reason why we should not reexamine the nature of our co-operation, the basis of that co-operation, and divert that co-operation into ways which we believe to be sensible for us without being too sensitive or touchy about our own separate rights and sovereignty and all that kind of thing.
If, for instance, the United States needs, and if it can satisfy us that the need is justified, certain facilities on Canadian soil, and if we cannot or do not desire for reasons which seem good to us to ourselves provide these facilities and the services that go with them, then I do not think we should refuse to make the necessary political agreement with our neighbour, as has been done in the United Kingdom. But they should be in clear terms which will always recognize our own sovereign right of ultimate control.
If such an agreement were to extend to the use of air bases in Canada, as is the case in the United Kingdom, although the agreement there is under reconsideration at the present time, I suggest that any such agreement for the use of Canadian bases, and I think this is important, should only be on the condition that we have complete information about every United States flight from every such Canadian base, and that we have a veto over every such flight off that base if we consider it necessary on policy grounds.
I will say only a word about the army side of our defence policy, but it is a word which I think underlines something of importance, and I have no doubt that the minister will agree with me in principle. We should make a brigade in Canada air transportable and trained and equipped for the United Nations and other international peace and police force purposes. On this subject may I say that I know arrangements have been made, I think as effectively in this country as in any other country that is a member of the United Nations, so that forces can be made available for the kind of United Nations police activity which is now going on in the Congo. But surely the experience of the Suez and now the experience of the Congo have shown that what seem to be required most from us for these purposes are not combatant but technical, administrative and staff troops. While I understand that we
Supply-National Defence have a battalion trained and ready now and equipped with transport for this kind of duty, it is not our battalion which has been called on twice but rather specialized troops, signallers, administrative troops and so on. I think it would be wise for us to extend the commitments we have undertaken to the training and equipping of other Canadian troops than a battalion for this kind of service, and that we should have men trained and ready for this kind of work and equipped with the planes to transport them wherever they may be needed. No nuclear weapons are needed for this kind of important and constructive peace operation.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word about the necessity of modernizing the equipment of our forces for the jobs they have to do, what they have to do at present and what they may have to do in the future. My colleague the hon. member for Trinity had a good deal to say about this. I think the evidence shows that we are not in a very good situation with regard to equipment. The CF-100 is only one example. The CF-100's are kept now merely because the government has not yet been able to make up its mind what to do with them and how to replace them, though they are admittedly obsolete for the kind of interception work which would be required of them if war broke out. How are we going to re-equip our forces with modern equipment from existing appropriations so they can do the kind of job we may want them to do, and in view of the commitments for fixed expenditures with respect to other things than equipment? A well informed Canadian commentator on defence policy, Wing Commander Gellner, writing in Saturday Night on February 20 quoted the minister as saying:
I960 is perhaps the year in which we could pause in our defence spending for armaments.
If the minister was reported correctly I suppose he meant equipment, modernization and that kind of thing. I do not think the minister would agree, in view of what he said yesterday, that there is much likelihood of a pause in that regard in the immediate future. Perhaps he was not accurately quoted, although that is the sentence that appears in the article. In any event, whether or not we are pausing, and I do not believe we are pausing in that field, how is the minister going to find the resources for this essential work of re-equipment when so much of the present appropriation goes toward personnel costs, operations and maintenance, so much indeed that comparatively little is now left over for the new equipment which is essential?
7608	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
If one looks at the estimates for last year, one sees that under category 1, personnel, there is a figure of $561,491,000. Under category 2, operation and maintenance, the figure is $631,935,000; and under category 3, equipment, the figure is $360,237,000. The first two categories, personnel and operation and maintenance, are up over any year since 1953-54, and the last category, equipment, is down from any year during that period. There is a reduction of $54,000 from last year and a reduction of $405,000 from 1953-54.
It is going to be difficult-perhaps the minister may say it is impossible-to reduce the amounts to be spent on the first two categories. Indeed, under recent conditions, with pay increases and all that kind of thing, they are going up. So with the same budget the amount available for equipment goes down at a time when so much new equipment is essential if we are to continue our present policy and discharge our obligations under it.
Indeed, the present trend, with the first two categories going up and the third category going down, means, if you project that trend, that by 1964-65 we shall be spending almost $700 million on personnel costs and $800 million on operation and maintenance, which would leave practically nothing for equipment. In an editorial in Saturday Night of February 20, the date on which the article appeared to which I have referred, there is the following comment:
II we are going to out down our defence spending and apportion the money as we have been doing for the past six years, by 1965 we shall have the best fed, best housed, best paid defence force in the world, with not one modern weapon, plane or ship for them to use.
Perhaps that is a little exaggerated.


George Randolph Pearkes: Who said that?


Norman Platt Lambert: What is the answer? Let us hear it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am trying to give an answer by suggesting that we should make a drastic re-examination of present defence policies. Perhaps there will be ways in which money can be saved or, if not, perhaps a reapportionment of the existing appropriations can be brought about in some way. That is the responsibility of the government, which has all the information at its disposal.
I will make one positive suggestion to the minister in regard to a reorganization of the forces which might save some money. I suggest that the present circumstances of defence require a new look, not so much a new look but some action to ensure that our defence forces operate as an integral machine. This is a matter which was very
rMr. Pearson.]

dear to the heart of the minister when he was on this side, and it should be proceeded with now for the sake of both efficiency and economy. I suggest that the present set-up is out of date, each service with a large overhead and operating independently, with a chiefs of staff committee presided over by a chairman. This is no reflection on the personnel of our present organization or the way it has been conducted because the minister knows, as I know, how efficiently that has been done by the chiefs of staff and by the chairman whose services-I am thinking of General Foulkes-have been invaluable over the years in the operation of this particular piece of defence organization.
I suggest to the minister that the time has come to change this organization for one chief of staff whose authority would extend to the three services, army, navy and air force, and perhaps defence research. He would have the chief responsibility for the planning and implementing of defence policy submitted to him by the government. In that kind of set-up the present chief of staff would be replaced by commanders for each of the services who would not be responsible for policy recommendations but for carrying out the policies and plans referred to them by, if I may call him that, the supreme chief of staff.
I think there should be also a complete integration of the administration of the three services along the lines the minister used to put forward. I suggest to the minister also that he should appoint a committee of three representative retired service officers for each of the services, perhaps ex-chiefs of staff, to make recommendations on how this integration of the three services could most speedily and effectively be brought about.
There is only one other aspect of defence about which I want to talk at this time, Mr. Chairman, and that is our position in NATO, the Canadian forces in NATO, a matter of importance and, I know, of difficulty and complexity. In my view, the situation here is not any more satisfactory than it is in respect of this continent. We are told that a re-examination is now going on of the role of NATO in the years ahead. I agree, as one who has had some experience with these things and knows something about this kind of examination, that it would not be wise to make any final determination at this time- by "final determination" I mean a final determination of our views on this side of Canada's place in NATO defence policy-until that examination is complete and we know the result of it. Pending such an examination, which I hope will be completed soon, it seems to me quite obvious that the time

has come for NATO to insist on genuine collective defence arrangements, all-out and all-embracing, in which the European members will play their full part.
When I say that, I recall to the committee the words-which I must say shocked me at the time-of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that only two members of NATO were fulfilling their commitments, Canada and the United States. I think the minister was questioned about that in the defence committee, but he did not express any particular opinion one way or the other. If this is the case, and that is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, then surely the time has come when all members of NATO should fulfil the commitments they have undertaken, and that NATO should become a genuine collective security organization with balanced collective forces, toward the maintenance of which each member should make its appropriate contribution. If that is not done, then NATO is not likely to survive and we know that could be a major tragedy.
I believe in particular, and this matter has been referred to, that NATO must now become strong enough to provide a non-nuclear deterrent. In the operation of that nonnuclear deterrent-deterrent by conventional weapons-I myself do not shrink from the necessity of examining the specific implications of that in considering some form of disengagement. This is something that a lot of highly qualified and highly respectable people have been considering over the years, including Sir Anthony Eden. It is almost 11 years now, I think that NATO was formed. The shield forces and their organization were developed on the assumption that the "sword" was the nuclear retaliatory force, under non-NATO control, and that it was all-powerful, which it was at that time.
This situation changed radically and finally when the Soviet union developed the capability for nuclear retaliation. In some respects at least, perhaps in missile capability, the capacity of the Soviet union is possibly greater than that of the United States. So we have these two giants facing each other with a retaliatory capacity that can destroy them both, and destroy the world in the process. That is what we call the nuclear deterrent. I am not suggesting we dispose of it because, in the present circumstances, it is certainly a foundation for that kind of uneasy peace which we have. If it did not exist we would be in a far worse condition than we are today.
However, that development, the development of Soviet nuclear retaliatory forces, must have had or certainly should have had a fundamental effect on NATO strategy. It is
Supply-National Defence on the basis of this development that I believe that the strategical shield should be brought under NATO; or if that is not possible-the minister does not need to tell me how difficult that would be to bring about in Washington, because I know-then should NATO not try to free itself to the maximum possible extent from reliance on that nuclear retaliatory force which is outside its control? The best solution would be a combination of both of those. I hope, therefore, that in-


Mr. Jones:: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could amplify that last remark* that NATO should free itself from the retaliatory force.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. I was just going to try to do that, though I do not want to spend too much time on it because I have already taken more time than I should have and the committee has been generous. I hope NATO will do what it can to free itself from reliance to such a great extent on these retaliatory forces of the United States by building up its own NATO deterrent forces which will mean, as I see it, not so much reliance on tactical nuclear weapons as on the development of those conventional forces, which the NATO experts certainly had in mind when they set the goals at Lisbon some years back. I am not suggesting that the NATO European countries will be able to meet those goals now. I suspect they cannot, but they can do a good deal more in that direction than they have done.
However, they are not likely to do this if their reliance is mainly on two things, the United States deterrent retaliatory force, which is outside their control but which is the effective deterrent at the moment, or if they rely too much on tactical nuclear weapons inside NATO forces, which may seem to be a fairly easy way out for them and relieve them from some of the responsibility of building up conventional forces.


Henry Frank Jones: Are you suggesting that NATO should develop this type of deterrent, or any nuclear deterrent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I am not suggesting that NATO should develop anything in the nature of a strategic retaliatory force. I am suggesting that NATO-and of course I am not alone in this suggestion; every commentator on NATO military tactics and strategy is talking about it now-should develop a conventional force deterrent, which would do two things. It would cause any possible aggressor to hesitate before starting what he thought might be a local war. It might almost be a temptation to start a local aggression, if he hoped he could get away with it because the only retaliation against it might be the use of the strategic deterrent, and the President of

Supply-National Defence the United States in Washington is going to be very careful before he puts that into operation, because it means world war.
If NATO had a stronger conventional force it might serve as a very useful deterrent in that sense, I also hope that this emphasis- if that is the right word-on NATO tactical nuclear weapons will not be at the expense of building up the NATO conventional force. I am encouraged in that view by the fact that it is becomingly increasingly clear from what I read, including the most recent book by a great military expert, Captain Liddell Hart, that there is no security in these nuclear weapons-I am talking of tactical nuclear weapons-which would compensate for the danger and the possible general devastation which is inherent in their use.
I mean by that, and the minister himself has expressed this view, that if small tactical nuclear weapons are used there is the inescapable probability-some people would call it the inescapable certainty-of a deadly progression, a chain reaction from a nuclear bullet right through to a hydrogen bomb, which would destroy us all.
The minister quoted something I said in July, 1959, as to the use of these tactical nuclear weapons in NATO. I confess to him that I have changed my mind since I made that statement. I have changed my mind for three reasons. One is that I am impressed by the fact that tactical nuclear weapons will not give us the amount of tactical security which I thought might be possible then; also because I am afraid the concentration of tactical nuclear weapons under United States control-they may be given to Germany at the same time and be in German hands, but under United States control-may mean the European states will be less likely to build up defence forces which those European countries should perhaps have. Also, I am impressed by the fact that the use of these tactical nuclear weapons, even on the smallest scale, might result in radio fall-out, which would be disastrous. I have had no definite final advice on that, but I come to that conclusion in the light of the information I have been able to gather.
I confess that my views have changed since last July on the use of tactical weapons by NATO.


Henry Frank Jones: If I understand your suggestion correctly, this would involve increased manpower and, I suppose, Canadian manpower?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it would not, so far as Canada is concerned. In my view I am not sure that a very great increase in manpower would be involved, but I will come to that later. I say in any event that Canada should


categorically reject the proposition that her NATO forces should be equipped with nuclear weapons of any kind indeed; not only Canadian NATO forces, but all NATO forces should reject this proposition that there should be nuclear weapons of any kind under exclusive national control, whether it is the control of the country using them-which might be France, which has them now or will have them-or the control of another country supplying them. No NATO forces should be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons at all in those circumstances. I have not come out finally and unconditionally against such prohibition, because this re-examination is going on. But if NATO forces are to be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons at all, until some international agreement is reached outlawing these weapons completely, I suggest that this should be done only as the result of a collective NATO decision taken on the highest political level of the council, a decision which would also provide for collective NATO control and use. I can appreciate the minister's position at once by saying that I also know how difficult that will be. Has there been any such decision? Apparently not, because the minister would only say, when asked about this in the committee-and I am not criticizing him; perhaps he was not in a position to give any further information-and I quote from page 314:
I think, in general principle, the possible use of atomic weapons, in the event of attack, has been recognized by the NATO council.
That is a very careful statement, which indicates that no final decision has yet been made. Until such a final decision has been made by NATO on the highest political level, in my view Canada should not even consider equipping her European NATO forces with any kind of nuclear weapon.
If the NATO council does not take any decision on this matter, or if it takes a decision which we would consider unsatisfactory, then the big decision would have to be made by Canada whether her NATO forces could play a useful and appropriate role with conventional arms alone, or whether they should not be given some other defence assignment which would be more effective in the collective and international effort to safeguard and promote security.
Whatever that decision may ultimately be, I agree 100 per cent with what the hon. member for Trinity said yesterday, that we should not have our air division in Europe equipped with aircraft, the CF-104, carrying, not under collective control but under United States control, what has been referred to as a baby nuclear bomb in a strike attack role.
Mr. Chairman, whatever the ultimate decision by NATO about nuclear weapons, and

whatever the Canadian response to that decision-and I know that political as well as military considerations are involved in that response-I think, and I repeat, that we should not have our forces in Europe equipped with nuclear weapons until it is made.
May I say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that it will be clear from what I have already said that I am advocating a new approach in the field of defence policy, a new orientation, a change of direction. I am advocating not a weakening, as I see it, but a strengthening of Canada's defence policy and of its participation in the search for an enduring peace which, after all, is the only defence policy that really means anything in the long run. If we lose the peace and slide into nuclear war-because we are more likely to slide into nuclear war than to get into it in any other way-then no other form of defence is going to save us, essential though those forms may be at the present time.
I think this change of direction which I have mentioned should always have in mind the desirability of preparing our forces on land, on sea and in the air for international service, preferably under the United Nations, and getting out of nuclear armament completely, without getting out of our collective commitments. I think that is the best role for a middle power like Canada. I think it can be carried out without falling into any false illusions or neutralism or anything like that, and without defaulting on our commitments. I think that role will assist Canada in discharging an independent and constructive foreign policy, which the government talks a good deal about these days.
The minister accused us last night of suggesting nothing but scrap. Scrap, scrap, scrap; that was all, he said. I suggest to the minister that the government would be well advised to scrap its present defence policy for something better along the lines we have proposed, or along better lines if the minister can find better lines. If the government does scrap its present policy, or lack of policy, if it does disappear I suggest that it will disappear unwept, unhonoured and unsung.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, we have
listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and may I say that I found his remarks in the nature of an anticlimax. Some days ago we heard with great fanfare-I do not know how this newspaper got hold of the idea-that the Liberal party was going to give birth to a brave new policy in the field of national defence, and there the items were spelled out. Then yesterday the hon. member for
Supply-National Defence Trinity was the victim of one of those unfortunate incidents where a great deal of fireworks were set up and somebody set the match to them long before they should have gone off, so that all the hon. member had left was a sort of repetition of dampened squibs.
Today we have heard what I would like to call a reasoned speech by the Leader of the Opposition, but I think my first impressions of the Liberal national defence policy still remain the same; that it has unfortunately become a passenger on the roller coaster of inconsistency. The Leader of the Opposition said that while the country approves of the commitments-although not entirely; I will consider what the hon. member for Vancouver East said a little later in my remarks-the press and other commentators are critical of the government defence policy.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to hon. members that criticism to be valid must be based on sound information, not on glosses upon glosses as we so often see in the daily press, where editorials are based on newspaper reports which are completely contrary to the information, not intentionally but because of the failure of the human being to be able to take and interpret facts as they stand and as they are presented.
We also see cartoons in the press. Let me put it this way. I am not trying to be arrogant, but each of us remembers that as a young boy we were wont to play general on the living room floor with lead soldiers. I think unfortunately all of us still have an innate urge to be the general. You can go any place, whether it be around a barbecue, in a Legion or in a militia mess, and you will get solid sounding ideas on national defence and how it should be run.
Those opinions may be all right providing they are based upon sound information, and this does not mean that the government has a monopoly on sound judgment. On the other hand, it has the better opportunity to come to the right conclusion, because after all the opinions of the government with respect to national defence policy are based on the advice of service personnel. The Leader of the Opposition was quite correct when he said that he did not wish to criticize the service personnel when he was criticizing national defence policy; but that criticism is implicit, because otherwise he must say that defence policy is entirely divorced from the advice of service personnel.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the government always take that advice?

Supply-National Defence


Norman Platt Lambert: No, it does not; but on the other hand, to roundly criticize this government's policy is to roundly criticize those who advise.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The judgment of the government on the basis of the advice they do not take.


Norman Platt Lambert: You are on the horns of that dilemma. As a general comment on the Liberal policy I would say it seems to me that the fewer facts they have, the further out on a limb they go, and that applies generally to a lot of other defence critics.
Now with respect to some comments which the Leader of the Opposition made about the defence committee. I defy him to show where policy was refused discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have read the excerpts.


Norman Platt Lambert: They are isolated from the context, and if the hon. member for Trinity had wished he could have pursued his questioning. The type of information you elicit depends on the type of questioning conducted. Because the answers do not come out as the questioner wishes is no reason to say he is prevented from getting information. I say quite readily that in too many cases questions were predicated with flat statements of criticism prejudging the issue.
How, then, can you judge whether the questions were valid or invalid? How, then, can you say whether you were denied information? The fact that a thing was not discussed does not mean that it was prevented from being discussed. After all, because a man feels that his question is valid, it does not mean that is necessarily so; and for someone simply to take a question out of thin air and throw it out does not mean that it is a valid question. Other people form a judgment about that, too, and the questioner has not a monopoly of judgment as to the validity of his question.


Mr. Carter:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Norman Platt Lambert: Would you mind? I have only 30 minutes. So far as the expert witnesses are concerned, there is a good deal of opinion on both sides. Some people feel you can bring in any witness. I ask, whom? Are you going to bring in former chiefs of staff? Are you going to bring in this or that person? When the suggestion is made about the numbers, I ask how far you would go. I am sure the hon. member for Trinity, when he made the suggestion in committee, did so without the mature reflection that he would have given the question later. But the suggestion that the number of witnesses called should be based upon the strength of


the political parties on that committee was greeted by all save the members of the hon. gentleman's party with the scorn it deserved. Also, the name of one witness which had been bandied about-perhaps I should say, rather, the name of one gentleman who had been suggested as a witness-was that of a retired member of the armed services who is critical not only of the defence policy of this administration but of the defence policy of the previous administration, and when the defence committee decided not to call witnesses there appears to have been a lot of hullabaloo in the press. I should like to read a letter which was written by that gentleman-


Mr. Winch:: In the light of the fact that this person was not called, would the hon. member not say the committee was denied the right to call witnesses?


Norman Platt Lambert: But the letter indicates that the committee was right in its judgment.


Harold Edward Winch: Have you read the letter which the same man wrote two days later?


Norman Platt Lambert: I did not see any other letter.


Harold Edward Winch: If we were not allowed to call witnesses, why should the hon. member now be raising the question of why we were not allowed to do so? The decision was that we were not allowed to call witnesses.


Norman Platt Lambert: I will merely paraphrase this. I do not want to read the whole of the letter, but this letter which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on July 20, which I will put on the record if anyone wishes, indicated that the committee was right in its judgment in not inviting witnesses to come before it. I will not go into all the reasoning behind this letter, but here is one who was primarily suggested as a witness indicating that he thought it was wrong. I can only go by what he writes.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member will agree that if he enters into details, this discussion may have to be prolonged, and we may have to consider why we were denied the right to call witnesses.


Norman Platt Lambert: There was no denial of any right to call witnesses. The committee in its judgment simply decided that witnesses should not be called.


Harold Edward Winch: The opposition was denied the right to call any witnesses.


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, here is the attitude of the opposition on this committee and on other

committees; unless the game is played according to their rules they feel it should not be played at all and that everyone should go home.


Harold Edward Winch: Did I agree with that?


Norman Platt Lambert: No, I did not mention the hon. member's name. I am speaking about the official opposition and their attitude. The hon. member for Vancouver East did not criticize the conduct of the committee and its members. I am referring to the speech which was made this morning.
In so far as the other remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are concerned I think I will leave them, for the most part, to others. But briefly I maintain that the hon. gentleman is being inconsistent in his references to continental defence when he tells us we should get out of SAGE and Bomarc and that we must not build any more radar gap fillers, that we must buy some other type of United States interceptor aircraft, and so on. How does the hon. gentleman suggest that these aircraft and the ones which we now have could be used? Are we to have flight commanders go out in front and wig-wag with flags so as to lead these people? There is no modern aircraft of an efficient type for these purposes which can be used without a ground environment system or, if subsequent developments are sufficiently advanced, without its own radar equipment.
Again, with regard to this question of the deterrent it strikes me that both the Liberal party and the C.C.F. have fallen into illogical ways of thought-


Harold Edward Winch: Are you talking about defence or deterrence?


Norman Platt Lambert: [DOT]-in advocating that there should be no defence here in Canada; no air defence, no Bomarc. It is the same as saying that two boxers each possessing a lethal right hand should stand facing each other without assuming a defensive position. Part of the deterrent when two men are fighting is not only the lethal right hand but the fact that one man, after launching his blow, might not be able to land it because of the defence, when the blow would be returned. The U.S.S.R. and the United States each stands, in a manner of speaking, with a lethal right hand. Part of the deterrent is that an attack may not get through.


Harold Edward Winch: So this is a deterrent, not a defence.


Norman Platt Lambert: The defence is part of the deterrent. The two form an integral whole. You cannot get away from it; you must protect yourself, otherwise you are wide open.


Harold Edward Winch: How does Canada do that?
Supply-National Defence


Norman Platt Lambert: We have heard a lot of talk about buffer zones. The trouble is, what exactly nowadays is a buffer zone? Is it 40 miles, or 500 miles, or a whole continent? Moreover, in the light of the capability of ICBM missiles is there such a thing as a buffer zone?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes; Canada.


Norman Platt Lambert: In the case of long range strategic bombers that are refuelled in the air, can such things as buffer zones any longer exist?


Harold Edward Winch: As a deterrent, yes.


Norman Platt Lambert: If you want to talk about Canada as a buffer zone in that it has no offensive weapon

and that is what exists today-there are no offensive weapons to be launched from Canada; therefore, in so far as a program of offence is concerned, Canada is a buffer zone.


Harold Edward Winch: Then the hon. member agrees with me.


Norman Platt Lambert: But why suggest that there should be a change? Hon. members opposite are suggesting a change. They are suggesting that there should be a buffer zone on a defensive basis; they would take out the Bomarc, although the Bomarc is not an offensive weapon but a defensive weapon right here in North America.


Harold Edward Winch: Against what?


Norman Platt Lambert: Against forces taking the
offensive over this continent.


Harold Edward Winch: How do you know?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Norman Platt Lambert: I will continue, now, to deal with what the hon. gentleman had to say yesterday. I am referring, now, to the hon. member for Vancouver East. He said there was no defence against nuclear missiles such as the ICBM. But surely that is based on an entirely false premise. Today there is no defence, but who knows what may be produced next year, or the year after? One has only to go back into history to make that clear. What about the invention of gunpowder, the rifle, the machine gun, the tank, the submarine? What about the development of the long distance aircraft? It is all relative to the time in which one lives. It is the development of science which has provided the necessary defences to these new military weapons as they arise. But now there seems to be an underlying premise that somebody has erected a great wall in front of defence and that the wall has been knocked down with respect to offence. Just go back in history and you will find this interchange.
7614	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
Let us consider an example. I shall not have to go back very far into history to find one. If at the beginning of world war II in 1939 the hon. gentleman had contemplated bombing attacks of the strength and power of those of the spring of 1945, or late 1944, the kind that I saw and heard, he would have run if he had followed the same philosophy that he is advocating today, because the two were so different in their intensity, the one of the horse and buggy age and the other of the atomic energy age; yet in the space of five years the defence was able to catch up with it. The defence caught up with the V-l; yet if we had contemplated the V-l in 1939, what would we have done? I ask the hon. member. He remembers the 1930's and all the talk about gas warfare. The Sunday supplements, the magazines, the commentators, everybody said that land armies were finished; navies were finished, and you would let the wind do it. Gas shells would be used. Not one gas shell was used during world war II. We developed defensive measures against gas in order to cope with it.


Harold Edward Winch: Is that a question?


Norman Platt Lambert: Just a moment. This is not a two-way discussion.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor did not indicate that he would accept the question.


Harold Edward Winch: He does not dare.


Norman Platt Lambert: I would say that the underlying principle of the policy advocated by the hon. member is unfortunately a trap of fear, fear of the nuclear weapon, the inevitability of using the nuclear weapon. The hon. gentleman will remember the 1930's with respect to gas. He will recall what was said about gas during the 1930's and it is only a translation into today. I will not minimize that today's weapons are more terrible and more terrifying. The weapons of today are much more terrifying than those of the past, but the position is relative. I will say that in the situation in which we are today we may be in a stalemate of nuclear horror, and if that stalemate will remain then we can be thankful, in the same way that in the 1930's the stalemate respecting gas prevented its use during 1939 to 1945.
The C.C.F. says that logic insists that the basic aim of our national defence policy must be to prevent war. My only quarrel is that this does not go far enough. The basic aim of the whole government policy is to prevent war and preserve peace. The policy of national defence is not only to prevent war; that is the whole government policy. War cannot be


limited to defence policy. It is only the question of degree that I am criticizing here. I am not in basic disagreement but only in the matter of degree.
I seem to feel, Mr. Chairman, that in the context of my remarks here I may be unfair to the hon. member. My reaction is that the C.C.F. seems to feel that it has or should have a monopoly on the desire for peace.


Harold Edward Winch: That is unfair.


Norman Platt Lambert: Well-


Harold Edward Winch: We all want peace.


Norman Platt Lambert: As I say, perhaps I am unfair to the hon. member, but I get that impression outside from many members of the C.C.F. party, and frankly I think it is entirely wrong. I think the hon. member for Vancouver East will admit that the government, the Conservatives, are just as sincere as anyone else in the desire for peace.


Harold Edward Winch: I made that very clear, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to the approach to policy. In so far as the desire is concerned we are all in agreement; I said that three times.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Norman Platt Lambert: In so far as NATO reliance on heavy weapons and on nuclear weapons on the continent of Europe is concerned, as indicated by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the Leader of the Opposition this morning, they admitted there was a superiority of Soviet forces-we will call them eastern forces-on the continent of Europe, and that we should get out of the business of relying on nuclear weapons or, as the Leader of the Opposition said, put more emphasis on a nonnuclear deterrent. If you are going to even up the forces in Europe it must mean that you are going to develop your conventional arms to a greater extent and you must have more manpower. If Canada is to do its share in NATO, does this then mean that Canada must increase its manpower commitments in Europe? Does Canada have to increase its manpower commitments to NATO? If so, is not that the consequence? Yet, in paragraph No. 8 at page 7577 of Hansard the hon. member for Vancouver East would have us believe that the C.C.F. says we should cut down our manpower, and I would say that includes our NATO commitments.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the hon. member read the entire paragraph?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Norman Platt Lambert: It says the armed forces should be reduced.


Charles Edward Rea: We cannot have two members speaking at the same time.


Harold Edward Winch: He made the statement; I asked whether he would read the entire paragraph.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member can make his speech when he is recognized by the Chair.


Norman Platt Lambert: The paragraph reads in part:
Our armed forces should be reduced to those required for the radar warning line, for training and administering our NATO forces-


Harold Edward Winch: Go on.


Norman Platt Lambert: I continue:
-for basic civil defence military requirements in the event of thermonuclear attack, and for United Nations world police requirements.
These are different things. What I am asking about is this. If there is to be a balancing of the forces in Europe by having greater emphasis put on the use by NATO of nonnuclear deterrents, does this not imply an increase in manpower? We are using nuclear deterrents at the present time in order to effect savings in manpower so as to equate the balance between the vastly superior numbers of the eastern forces and the western forces. The only other way of increasing the conventional forces is through manpower and conventional weapons. There is an inconsistency there.
The hon. member said we should get out of NORAD because NORAD would not deal with all the attackers coming through. I ask him whether that would have been a reason for abolishing the fighter command in Great Britain in 1939 and 1940 because some of the attacking planes got through. Of course not.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you asking me that
question?


Norman Platt Lambert: I would think that NORAD is a part of the deterrent. We went through that before but NORAD is an integral part of the deterrent. Therefore I submit that the reasoning of the hon. member with respect to his proposition that we should get out of NORAD falls to the ground.
There is one point I should like to make with regard to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He agrees with the commitments that the armed forces have, but says that here in Canada we should have a whole brigade completely airborne and available for use by the United Nations. No one has suggested the cost of doing this. No one has suggested the cost of making provision for 5,000 men to be simultaneously airborne, not airlifted over a period of time but simultaneously airborne. Yesterday the hon. member for Trinity seemed to imply that this
Supply-National Defence force would be used regularly. What was he hoping for? That we would have flare-ups in all parts of the world every six months or every year so that we could utilize these forces and all this equipment? That was the implication of his remarks.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Chesley William Carter: I think we would like the hon. member to continue his address.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Platt Lambert: The Leader of the Opposition indicated that our forces should be armed with modern weapons, but there was no suggestion as to the cost or to what extent this should be done. If it is assumed that we are going to keep the defence budget at the same level, I suggest there are two ways of buying more weapons. Either there will have to be a reduction of personnel or a saving of money in pay and allowances. After all, in the past year it took approximately $700 million to cover pay and allowances. In fact, pay and allowances and operations and maintenance represent 70 per cent of the defence budget at the present time, and that proportion is increasing yearly. As I said, there will either have to be a reduction of personnel or a reduction in pay and allowances, what I call the housekeeping costs of national defence.
So far as new equipment is concerned, have members of the opposition stopped for one moment to figure out just what the cost would be of all the equipment they have advocated should be obtained? The Minister of National Defence would be a most happy man to be able to obtain every necessary piece of new, efficient equipment, but are the Canadian taxpayers prepared to assume that burden, having in mind the cost of maintaining our forces? We can speak pretty glibly about this whole matter, but the conclusions are there. If you are going to have all these weapons, if you are going to have our forces fulfil so many roles, and people are pretty glib about that, then the Canadian people are going to have to pay for it. There is no other conclusion. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about an integration of the forces under one chief of staff, and suggested that the administrative staffs should be combined. However, he did not indicate whether this would effect a reduction in manpower, which is the only way you are going to save money.
7616	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
There are a lot of other remarks I should have liked to make, but I feel that some of my colleagues and certainly the minister will desire an opportunity to answer the other points that have arisen.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the previous speaker. I do not know how long the discussion of item 217, the first item, will continue. I think it is understood that as the salary of the Minister of National Defence is statutory the only possibility of discussing policy comes under this vote.
I should like to make my position very clear. As I explained yesterday, I do not agree with the principle of the Bomarc expenditures. I do not agree with the principle of continuing the NORAD alliance. I do not believe our defence policy is such as to indicate an understanding of the difference between wars of the past and our present situation, in which we face the possibility of a thermonuclear conflict. I put forward my belief last night that we require a defence force in Canada, and that expenditures are necessary under the Department of National Defence. However, I do not agree with the present policies. You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that I am in a difficult position, in that I believe that a member of the House of Commons should have the courage of his convictions, as I hope I always will have. It is almost impossible to put forward a separate motion to make my position clear that I want to maintain the army, navy and air force under certain policies and that at the same time I object to present government policy as it is generally applied and with particular reference to the Bomarc project and NORAD.
I am going to take what I think is the only proper course I can take in order to make it absolutely clear, as I tried to do last night, that I feel that Canadian armed forces can make a major contribution to NATO and to the United Nations as a police force and also, God help us, in the eventuality of a thermonuclear attack on Canada. I believe I made my position quite clear in the special committee, and what I have done in that committee I certainly will follow up in the house today. I only ask that members of the house will understand and that the press will also understand, because they report the proceedings of the house to the people of Canada. I cannot see any other way of expressing my support for certain requirements of the Canadian armed forces and Canadian defence, but I must object somehow, very definitely, to what I think is wrong in the government's defence policy. I refer to my objection to Bomarc and my


objection to NORAD. I find, after much study, that the only way we can express an objection to policy is under the administration item, vote 217.
I am therefore going to move, as a policy position and to express my objection to Bomarc and NORAD-I know the minister will understand what I am saying and why I put it this way-and to show that I have the courage of my convictions:
That vote 217, departmental administration, be reduced from $3,212,477 to the sum of $1.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the vote for administration, which covers all the activities of national defence hearquarters and the administration of the forces, were to be reduced to $1, there would be complete chaos in the administration of the department. Surely if the hon. gentleman wishes to move for a reduction in the spending on Bomarc he should do so under the vote dealing with the Royal Canadian Air Force, vote 225 for the construction or acquisition of buildings and major equipment. This vote provides the funds for the acquisition of the Bomarc sites and the construction of the Bomarc installations. If this amendment were to carry it would remove all the machinery for providing what the hon. member himself says is required in connection with our contributions to the United Nations effort.


Harold Edward Winch: I am most sorry that the Minister of National Defence spoke on the amendment in this way. I thought I made it very clear what my position was. I have known the minister for so many years and have the highest regard for him. I shall never forget those terrible days when he was the G.O.C., western command, and I was leader of the opposition in British Columbia. We, I think, came to respect each other. Why the minister now completely misinterprets what I said, I cannot understand. I thought, Mr. Chairman, I made it very clear, but apparently I have to repeat what I said.


Mr. Chambers:: Did you expect him to accept the motion?


Harold Edward Winch: No, but I did expect a distinguished soldier with whom I had worked for so many years to know my sincerity in connection with these matters. I said, and I want to repeat that only under the administration item can you register your opposition to defence policy. Defence policy includes the Bomarc. I am fully aware of the fact that there is an item relating to the Bomarc, and in the special committee on defence expenditure I moved the reduction of that amount. That motion was defeated by 4 to 3 or 5 to 4, I cannot remember which. The minister knows that in that committee I

wanted to move to wipe out NORAD, and it was the minister himself who pointed out that there was no special part of the defence estimates under which that could be done.
As I said, I thought I made myself completely clear. I must say I am almost heartbroken after hearing the minister say what he did, because in moving this amendment I did not want to wipe out what I think is the responsibility of the defence department toward the army, navy and air force of Canada. Last night I made it clear that I believe there is a definite responsibility, and I dealt with it, point by point, under 11 headings.
I have said that I want to move to reduce this administration item to $1 to register my objection to the policy of the government, to Bomarc and to NORAD. Am I asking too much, Mr. Chairman, to have the Minister of National Defence accept the manner in which I am trying to present my objection and understand the basis upon which it is made, as well as the fact that I recognized last night the position and responsibility of Canada in so far as the armed forces are concerned? Please, sir, do not misunderstand this amendment; it is a policy amendment.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to assure the hon. member that in no way do I question his sincerity in connection with this particular amendment. While there has always been a lot of leeway under the first item for discussion in committee, when it comes to a question of how the money which is in this vote is allotted, you have only to turn to page 290 where the details of this vote are given to see the personnel employed under this particular vote and to realize that this amendment would mean the complete disruption of the whole of national defence headquarters. It would be impossible for the department to carry on if this vote were reduced to $1. If the hon. gentleman wishes to deal with Bomarc particularly-


Harold Edward Winch: And NORAD.


George Randolph Pearkes: -the correct place to do that is under vote 225 which, as I pointed out, is related to the construction and acquisition of buildings and works.


Harold Edward Winch: What about NORAD?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is quite impossible for us to accept this amendment, and we shall oppose it.


Harold Edward Winch: Where, under the minister's estimates would one vote against the principle of NORAD? I asked that of you, sir, in committee and you said there was no place
Supply-National Defence where one could vote against NORAD because it is spread over so many things, so the only way I can do it is under the administration item. [DOT]


Mr. Maclnnis:: I wonder if the hon. member would move such an amendment if there were any chance of it being accepted.


Harold Edward Winch: I have been asked a question, and I will tell the hon. member this. I moved this identical amendment in the committee on defence expenditures. I am not concerned with whether it goes through or is defeated. I am concerned with a conviction on principle, and any time I do not stand up for a principle, then I should no longer be a member of this house.


Donald MacInnis: The question I put to the hon. member has not been answered.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; the Chair cannot make any member answer a question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As the hon. member for Vancouver East has stated, this identical amendment was moved in the committee on defence expenditures. We did not support it at that time for reasons similar to those we have now. It is true that we in this party do not have any confidence in the policies being followed in respect of defence matters by the present government. We have made that very clear during the session, and particularly yesterday and today. We think there should be a complete re-examination and reorientation of Canada's defence strategy. We think we should cease following the present policy of building a defence against thermonuclear war, when those limited defences will be completely and utterly useless once that war has started. We should concentrate on the type of defence effort which is more realistic, toward preventing an all-out war breaking out.
We have made these suggestions to the minister; we have told him what our views are. We hope he will examine them when this debate is over, in retrospect, and find that they commend themselves to him, in order to put into effect a new look on defence administration in the very near future. The minister of course will continue to need the assistance of those advisers he has at present, who are paid for out of this vote.
In addition to that, the hon. member for Vancouver East has said this is not only a motion of want of confidence in the government's defence policy, but it is also a repudiation of the NORAD agreement. We said in our statements yesterday, and again today, that we are not prepared to do this under present circumstances, unless it could be
7618	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence clearly shown that there would be no diminution whatsoever in the liaison between our forces and those of the United States in that case, and this has not been demonstrated up to the present time.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we would not be able to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Fast.
Amendment (Mr. Winch) negatived: Yeas, 4; nays, 39.


The Chairman:: I declare the amendment lost.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have given the minister another chance.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to unduly take up the time of this committee, but this afternoon we have heard the Leader of the Opposition and some others make reference to the need for Canadian technical personnel for situation such as the one we have today in the Congo. Without detracting in any way from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to say that for some time now I have been giving considerable thought to the creation of a unit which, for want of a better name, might be called either a Canadian task force for peace or a Canadian rescue force.
I would now like to elaborate on my suggestion. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to place my suggestion before this committee last night, but as the Associate Minister of National Defence spoke at that time I have had to wait until this opportunity. There are a number of reasons for my suggestion. The first is that Canada has one army battalion earmarked for service with the United Nations. We are advised by the minister that there are sufficient aircraft to airlift this battalion, and that it is ready for instantaneous action.
The second reason is that Canadian soldiers have amassed extensive experience serving under the auspices of the United Nations, and our soldiers are generally accepted because they are not regarded as belonging to a major power.
The third reason, Mr. Chairman-and I think this is the most important reason-is that all emergencies do not necessarily call for military intervention. I have in mind examples like earthquakes, floods, epidemics and forest fires. I would therefore suggest that the minister consider the advisability of creating or earmarking another battalion which would be able to meet emergencies such as I have enumerated. If the minister feels that the earmarking or the creation of such a unit from the existing army establishments would strain our resources, then I suggest that the government create a volunteer


civilian force on a stand-by basis. We now have a large number of civilians trained in rescue operations, and if we were to ask for volunteers we might get a favourable response.
I think we should send out a questionnaire to doctors, engineers, teachers, technicians and other skilled personnel and find out if we have in our midst the skilled personnel who would be willing to serve with such a Canadian group. This questionnaire would give us the names of persons whom we could contact quickly in an emergency. We need not have a large unit; but if the reaction were favourable we could bring these people together at the civil defence college at Arn-prior, where they could be trained to serve as a unit. A shake-down period is not only valuable but necessary.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a proven need for such a unit, which might also include elements of the navy and air force. As an example of that need, we can recall that in one of the two recent major earthquake disasters Canada made a generous contribution of food and supplied other services. Without detracting in any way from the generosity of the gift from the Canadian government, I wonder if our contribution might not have been better remembered if we had sent a unit which was capable of conducting rescue operations. Speaking for myself, if the members of my family were buried under the debris of an earthquake I would forever remember those who worked shoulder to shoulder with me in trying to rescue my family. At such a time trained rescue workers backed by the necessary equipment would be of great assistance instead of a supply of clothing and food, however important those items may be at a later stage of the rescue operations.
Our army personnel and certain selected civilians are now receiving excellent training in survival and rescue operations. I can speak from experience in this regard, because I believe I am the only member of parliament who has undertaken the army rescue course at the civil defence college at Arnprior. I suggest that such personnel who are trained and disciplined, but not carrying arms of any kind, would be able to demonstrate, particularly to those countries which are still in the process of development and which by coincidence happen to lie in zones subject to earthquakes and floods, that Canada is equally concerned with extending aid to those less fortunate and that our armed forces are capable of exercising themselves for a peaceful purpose.
As a matter of fact, I see that the Canadian army in its recruiting advertisements published in the newspapers claims that the

Canadian soldier is a soldier who works for peace. Another example of the useful role in which our armed forces can be used in peacetime was demonstrated recently when the minister authorized the use of R.C.A.F. aircraft to assist in fighting forest fires in British Columbia. I am sure hon. members will agree that some of the forest fires which we have had can properly be classed as national disasters, in terms of financial loss if not in terms of loss of life. It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that there will always be a need to meet not only military emergencies but other major disasters springing from natural causes.
In recent years we have Seen more and more nations apply for membership in the United Nations. Some of these nations are the very ones which require the services of a United Nations security force, but the United Nations has not yet been able to create a permanent United Nations security force. Some nations oppose the creation of this permanent security force because they fear that their sovereignty will be infringed upon if the security force is sent into their country by the United Nations. On the other hand, if the Canadian government were to offer to the United Nations a Canadian task force clearly earmarked to meet national emergencies and disasters of other than a military nature, and if this task force were given the opportunity to demonstrate its usefulness, it may very well be that in time a military security force could be formed; because those nations which now have reservations about the creation of a security force would have had demonstrated to them that the United Nations can, in its wisdom, dispatch forces which are not purely of military substance or purpose.
It might be said that there is no need for the creation of such a task force to meet national and international disasters because we have organizations like the international Red Cross. My answer would be that only governments can implement the kind of suggestion I have put forward. Only governments can move quickly in time of great emergency; only nations belong to the United Nations and these nations speak through their elected representatives. The international Red Cross, comprehensive though this organization might be, does not have facilities comparable to those which are available to governments, and that is why I suggest that the Canadian government take my suggestion under consideration.
There is a need to build up, particularly in the newly independent nations, a feeling of trust and confidence in the United Nations. So far the major military powers have dominated the United Nations security council because military situations have taken most
79951-0-481
Supply-National Defence of the attention of the council. Canada is not a major military power, and we are held in high regard not only because we are not a major military power but also because of our history as a country with a record of nonexploitation.
I suggest that since Canada enjoys such an excellent reputation, this country is in a very good position to make such a Canadian task force for peace available to the United Nations and thus indicate to the United Nations that there is yet another responsibility which it can assume.
The creation of such a task force under the aegis of the United Nations, non-military in nature and capable of moving quickly when national disaster strikes, could prove to the communist leaders and indeed to the whole world that the United Nations is humanitarian and that Canada particularly is one of those humanitarian nations belonging to the United Nations. I sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that the role of a humanitarian nation is one which is and has been worthy of Canada and all Canadians.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, when the minister introduced his estimates the day before yesterday he repeated a statement he made before the special committee on defence expenditures on June 1. Wednesday's statement is recorded at page 7522 of Hansard, and the earlier statement is reported on page 196 of the committee report. After outlining to the committee a number of Soviet cold war objectives the minister went on to say:
The threat to our national security, and indeed the security of the entire free world, is not only military. It is also political, economic and psychological, and to cope successfully with this total threat, Canada must have a total strategy within which all elements, the military, the political, the economic and the psychological are closely co-ordinated and in proper balance.
It will be noted that ideological training, strategy and planning were not included among the integral parts of total strategy as stated by the minister. Mr. Khrushchev has told us on several occasions in the plainest possible language that he regards his ideology as the principal means of victory over the west. For example, in June, 1957 Mr. Khrushchev said:
The communists will destroy capitalism not with nuclear weapons but through the spread of our ideology. We are as sure of this as we are that the sun will rise tomorrow. All we have to do is grease our ideology with butter.
And again in Budapest on December I, 1959 Mr. Khrushchev said:
We shall never forgo our ideological principles. We are waging and shall wage an implacable struggle for the Marxist-Leninist ideology, for the triumph of the ideals of communism.
When Mr. Khrushchev declares that manned bombers are obsolete, we believe
7620	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence him; we take him at his own word, and we adjust our defence policies accordingly. Should we not, then, do the same when he tells us in such candid and unequivocal terms about his plans to conquer us with his ideology? When we can actually see those plans being implemented day by day throughout our nation, surely it is not only dangerous but sheer madness to ignore what is happening and refuse to take it seriously. My colleague the hon. member for Trinity has already made reference to the need for Canada to accept this challenge and to take ideological initiative. I now propose to elaborate a little further on this subject, because I am absolutely convinced that this is a matter which demands the highest priority.
The question of national defence encompasses the most vital issues confronting Canada and this parliament today. Ours is an awesome responsibility. If we fail to provide our nation with adequate defence we will bear the responsibility for the betrayal of our sons and daughters and all future generations of Canadians.
We all recognize that developments in the realm of defence have changed radically and fundamentally since the last war. I believe it is true to say that virtually every single one of us has had to do some serious rethinking about what our defence commitments are and should be in the light of the realities of the atomic age. For my own part I have pondered these questions in their fullest implication with the utmost sincerity and have reached a basic conclusion only after a great deal of heart searching.
Mr. Chairman, I can do no better than quote Air Vice Marshal Thomas C. Traill of Britain, former central Atlantic NATO air commander who, in speaking to officers and staff at NATO headquarters in March, 1958 said:
The war of arms, if it comes, is an extension of the ideological war. At the higher levels military and ideological strategy are one. Together they form the strategy of this world conflict. If we wish to survive it is madness to consider one in isolation from the other. The enemy is very clear on this. He is equally prepared to take an ideological or a military initiative, to use an ideological or a military weapon. You in this headquarters and the forces you control are here to prevent the enemy attempting to take a short cut to his ideological objective, to prevent him from trying to force his idea on his neighbours with bayonets. The armed forces hold the ring while the war of ideas is fought out. It is essential for our existence that you should hold the ring. But you cannot keep an idea the other side of a frontier with bayonets. You can only do that by taking the offensive with a better and stronger idea. Admiral Radford put it in a nutshell while he was chairman of the United States chiefs of staff. He said, "The military power of the United States and her allies can only buy time".


Canada is under serious, vicious and incessant attack from forces that covet our land and our natural resources and have a determined will to destroy our way of life and freedom. It is therefore obvious that the ideological offensive which Canada must now take and the ideological defences which Canada must now prepare cannot be confined alone to the padre's hour and current events classes, nor to what is vaguely referred to as psychological warfare.
General Stehlin, deputy chief of the French defence staff, said in October, 1959:
We will have a real defence of freedom when we unite the ideological and military factors. This is total defence. It will introduce a new weapon -the weapon of a moral ideology. It is not enough just to have nuclear weapons. If the free world is not to be outmanoeuvred by this new and powerful weapon, we must meet the enemy on his own ground and with the same weapons. It is with the weapon of a moral ideology that we will secure the peace and be able to build a new world.
General Edmond Jouhaud, then chief of staff of the French air force, in a front page article in the official military journal La Vie Militaire in November, 1959 wrote:
It is possible that we may never have an atomic war. Perhaps we shall never have a conventional war. But we are in danger of living in a continuing subversive war.
I have in my hand a booklet entitled Revue Militaire Generate which is an informal publication for senior military leaders of NATO forces to express their views on military matters. It was founded by General Carpen-tier when he retired as commander in chief of allied forces in central Europe. In the December, 1959 issue General Carpentier himself wrote an article reminding the NATO leaders of three things:
1.	If they are to survive, the western nations need an ideology superior to that of communism.
2.	Defence at the present time requires military resources, but it also requires moral resources.
3.	The ideological factor and the military factor must be combined for a real defence.
So strongly does General Carpentier feel about this that in the issue of April, 1960, on his own responsibility, he published an article by Colonel General Hans Ulrich von Erlach. The first paragraph of that article reads as follows:
Today we live in an ideological age. An army without an ideology is beaten before the fighting starts. A nation without an ideology is already enslaved before any enemy has crossed its borders. A man without an ideology is a man who tomorrow will be without a country. Such are the realities of the ideological age which we have unwittingly entered. We have tried to ignore them. Today, on penalty of committing suicide, we must face those realities.
Now, what are the implications of this for Canada, as we study and decide our defence

appropriations for this fiscal year and plan for the future? On June 24, in the special committee on defence expenditures, I raised this question. I raise it again now because there is no more vital issue confronting Canada today.
The fact is that our nation is already at war. Canada today is a battleground on a national scale in the ideological conflict. This is not a time to let issues about our own military posture divide us or obscure the fundamental realities. The difficult and serious problem that faces the Minister of National Defence is fully appreciated.
We all recognize that the Minister of National Defence in any democratic government in a country like Canada faces a new challenge in determining what defence measures the nation can afford in the face of the realities of modern weapons, technology and cost. Canada cannot afford to equip herself as a major nuclear power, but there is a further challenge facing modern ministries of defence. It is a more fundamental challenge; for if we fail to equip our armed forces and nations with ideological training and strategy, which are basic to defence planning, we could stand in grave peril of losing our country without a shot being fired.
I state this strongly and categorically because I feel too many of us in this country do not realize the nature of the warfare that is being conducted against us today. We are living in an ideological age. If this were a political issue there would be little to fear, but the danger lies much deeper; it lies in the ideological aggression to which we are subjected; unremitting, relentless aggression which too often is aided by political naivete and economic cupidity. Of course the communist nations maintain the strongest possible military machinery, as I feel this country must, but let us never forget that the most significant communist advances in the postwar years have been won in the ideological field. When we consider that 14 countries have already disappeared behind the iron curtain, most of them without a shot being fired, it is easy to understand Mr. Krushchev's confidence that he will win by means of his ideology.
If the military authorities I have quoted earlier are correct in their analysis of the interdependence of the military and ideological factors of total defence, then I would like to ask the members of this house to consider how they would evaluate the rebuff the United States President received when he was unable to go to Japan. It is an interesting story, how this was brought about, and is an example of ideological strategy as a determining factor in international affairs.
79951-0-481i
Supply-National Defence Not a shot was fired, but there was no question but that a major victory was won.
In April of this year the members of the Asian section of the Comintern met in Peking. They drew up a program of which three immediate points were 1. to block President Eisenhower's visit to Japan; 2. to nullify the Japanese-American security treaty; 3. to overthrow Premier Kishi and his government. The group who met included not only the top echelon of party members but representatives of North Vietnam, North Korea and, amongst others from Japan, representatives of the left wing trade union group, Sohyo.
It was members of Sohyo and of the left wing student organization, Zengakuren, who formed the main body of the mob which rioted in Tokyo. Funds totalling 200 million yen were made available to raise mobs in an attempt to bring about the communist program agreed on in Peking. The rioters were paid 1,000 yen per day.
Where did that 200 million yen come from? There were two principal sources for this money. Japanese industrial leaders visiting red China had negotiated a deal for a large quantity of lacquer for which they paid a great sum in cash. This money was kept in Japan, in a Chinese reserve fund and was a major source of funds for the demonstration. The second source of money was from the Leningrad ballet playing to turn-away crowds at fabulous prices in Tokyo. Here are two perfect illustrations of what Lenin meant when he said:
When the west starts trading with us, they will finance their own destruction.
What are the lessons of this for us in Canada? One year ago Mr. Tim Buck, leader of the communist party in Canada, made a significant statement which has been too little heeded. He said in Vancouver:
We are not gaining many new members but we are advancing because of the nation-wide acceptance of communist-inspired issues.
That statement bears repetition; we, that is the communists, are advancing because of nation-wide acceptance of communist inspired issues. If we in this house were charged with the responsibility of carrying out the Kremlin's policy for Canada, what issues would we urge upon the Canadian people? Unless we understand this conception of warfare we cannot adequately plan for the defence of this nation. To be plain and direct, the issues the Kremlin is urging on Canada through those who for their own reasons are collaborators, and through others who for lack of reason or lack of understanding are dupes, are these:
1.	To spread anti-Americanism and thus help to isolate the U.S.A.

Supply-National Defence
2.	To encourage trade, cultural exchange and every other means of close contact with iron curtain countries, thus opening Canada's door to the ideological missionaries of world communism. Incidentally, two days ago press reports informed us that the Peking opera company had already arrived in Canada and plans to tour our major cities. One cannot help wondering where the Canadian money laid out by good Canadian citizens for this cultural exchange will be spent, and on what.
3.	To propagate neutralism and pacifism and thus break down the will to resist.
4.	Specifically, to urge Canadian withdrawal from NATO and NORAD and thus to undermine the military as well as the ideological aspect of our nation's defence.
There are others, but these are the most blatant issues. The fact is that through skilfully playing on every kind of motive and human emotion, idealism, love of peace, sentimentality, naivete; sensation loving, vanity and mammon, the Kremlin spokesmen in Canada have been able to seduce thousands of otherwise loyal Canadians and use them for their own purposes.
An interesting example of ideological strategy within our own borders developed from the publication of an editorial in the Vancouver Sun on March 17, 1960. Headed "Self-Satisfied and Dead", the editorial read as follows:
Communism has an ideology, put succinctly in one line of the Red Flag, the communist anthem: "The universal soviet shall be the human race". And it has a purpose, put even more succinctly by Nikita Khrushchev: "We shall bury you".
Has the western world's free society an equally emphatic ideology, an equally clear purpose with which to answer?
That is the question posed by a slim booklec entitled "Ideology and Co-Existence" distributed by Moral Re-Armament to every household in Canada.
The question is not abstract. Call the present state of the world cold war, call it competitive co-existence. The fact remains that it is a struggle. A new kind of struggle-not through armies for territory but through men's minds for world domination.
And in battles of the mind, just as much as in battles of military conquest, victory goes to the strong, the sure and the determined.
Among the booklet's many quotations from world leaders is this, from Chancellor Adenauer of West Germany: "A nation without an ideology is selfsatisfied and dead". Could that be us?
Within the pages of the same Vancouver Sun shortly thereafter appeared a signed column by one of its writers- Using the Hitlerian technique of the big lie he blasted Moral Re-Armament. Within days his article was reproduced in mimeograph form and distributed by the mine, mill and smelter workers union to their members in Trail,

British Columbia, which is in the riding of the member for Kootenay West. Barely four weeks ago a letter from the president of what the member for Kootenay West called "a Trail smelter workers' union" was quoted as evidence for an attack on Moral Re-Armament in this very house. The member failed to mention that this so-called smelter workers' union is in fact the same international union of mine, mill and smelter workers which was kicked out of the Canadian Labour Congress for being communist dominated, and is widely known as being run on its national level by Moscow-trained men.
It is little wonder that another source drawn on in the same speech in this house was that well known pacifist, Rev. Donald Soper, who bluntly announced over the C.B.C. television network a few weeks ago "Khrushchev is our man". This is also the same C.B.C. whose officials a short while ago denied in writing the opportunity for time to be made available, or even paid for, so that Canadians might hear of a moral ideology and an effective answer to the Khrushchev whom Dr. Soper so ardently admires. This is a striking instance of the extent to which the subversive strategy to thwart freedom of speech has already advanced on an issue of vital national importance. It is an example of the ideological war already being waged inside our own borders. The fact is that any force which exposes subversive strategy and tactics and clarifies the true moral basis for democracy in terms of a superior ideology is bound to come under attack. It has been a source of great hope and encouragement for those who see the subversive strategy in Canada today to know there is a forceful and effective positive strategy at work.
The handbook "Ideology and Co-Existence" was distributed to each of the 4,340,000 homes in Canada in early March. The response was nation-wide, and revealed the extent of understanding and sense of need for positive ideological initiative in this country. One in four of all the daily newspapers in Canada wrote forthright editorials welcoming the distribution. Literally hundreds of Canadians wrote letters of thanks for the booklet and asked for further information. "Ideology and Co-Existence" impacted every field of national life, politics, labour, industry, church, women's work, education and farm organizations. I quote from a feature article in the Hamilton Spectator of April 14:
The battle line is being drawn in Canada. Canadians are being faced with the basic issues in the war of ideas more sharply than ever before.
This article reports fully on the background of Moral Re-Armament, how and why it

has been attacked by fascists and communists alike. It tells of the sacrificial financial contributions of hundreds of people, and continues:
"Moral Re-Armament Is an Ideology for all men everywhere. It enhances a man's primary loyalties. It means cleaning up the nation, putting right what is wrong, beginning with yourself."
The Edmonton Journal, in an editorial on March 7, called the distribution of "Ideology and Co-Existence" a major contribution to the democratic cause in the cold war's ideological struggle. The Regina Leader-Post wrote:
This is a tremendous, timely and creative project. It is one that must be and will be welcomed by every free man and woman who knows the measure and purpose of the communist threat- and, in the same breath, is uncomfortably aware of that western lack of purpose and focus that is presently of major concern to alert western leaders.
The Brandon Daily Sun wrote of the handbook that it-
-clarifies the basic issues facing the free nations of the world and shows how they can take initiative in the east-west ideological war. The aim of the booklet is to strengthen the backbone of freedom and instil the will to fight for what is right.
The Windsor Star wrote:
Military strength is necessary but it is dangerous to rely on it entirely. If the struggle against the communist ideology is to be won, it must be won in the hearts and minds of men.
Finally let me quote from the Granby, Quebec, Voix de VEst, which wrote:
The manifesto "Ideology and Co-Existence" which will be sent out to every Canadian home expresses in clear terms the true ideology of the free world and offers an answer to communism.
These are but a few of the editorials published on this subject. They and the hundreds of letters have revealed that there is a great body of support in this country for clear ideological initiative and action. I should like here and now, Mr. Chairman, to pay tribute to a great friend of Canada, to a man whom a British diplomat has evaluated in the following words:
He saw the significance of this underlying ideological struggle years ahead of most other public figures, and his published speeches over the past 20 and 25 years prove it. But he did not stop there. He did a second thing.
He faced the consquences of this ideological struggle and began to think out what democracy's answering, positive ideology was. And then he did a third thing. He built a world force of people, ideologically equipped and living out the answer in their own lives.
I refer to Dr. Frank N. D. Buchman, Pennsylvania-born initiator of the program of Moral Re-Armament. Dr. Buchman came to this country in 1932. He was a friend of the then prime minister, the late R. B. Bennett. Mr. Bennett told Dr. Buchman at that time:
Supply-National Defence
Speaking as a statesman I am convinced that the influences which you so powerfully represent are the only ones which can save the world today.
Because of his challenge to all men to change, Dr. Buchman has been vilified by fascists and communists alike. Of course he has never admired, been associated with or ever met men like Hitler or Khrushchev. I say this from first-hand, authoritative knowledge. The best proof of this is that the post-war governments of both France and Germany have decorated Dr. Buchman. These governments would hardly honour and decorate a friend and admirer of Hitler and Khrushchev. Dr. Buchman has never stooped to take issue with the malicious and irresponsible men who have sought to smear him with whatever lie would be most acceptable in any given country at any given time. But Dr. Buchman now, as always, offers to all men the challenge and opportunity to lay down their lives to make their countries great, to do everything possible so that Canada and every nation may achieve its destiny under God.
I repeat that the ideological initiative which Canada must now take and the ideological defence that Canada must now prepare cannot be confined alone to the padre's hour and current events classes for soldiers, nor to what is vaguely referred to as psychological warfare. This issue of national purpose is fundamental in relation to the question of national defence. More and more is being written on this subject. Few who write have had the insight and courage to give this term meaning for the individual citizen. National purpose must mean that we as a nation know what we are living for. To have a strong national purpose a nation's citizens must be able to answer in positive terms the simple question, "What am I living for?" A collective national will must be the collected individual wills of Canadians, the will to know what they stand for, to love what they know and to be ready to fight for what they love. I believe there is a general area of agreement on both sides of this house as to the necessity of a moral foundation for our democracy, and in the light of the urgent need for a total defence policy I have three recommendations to make to the Minister of National Defence.
1.	That the defence department set aside funds immediately to set up an ideological strategy board to consider, study and make intelligent recommendations for ideological training and action in military and other pertinent areas of national life.
2.	That contact be made at once on the various service levels with such other ideological strategy boards as may exist in America and/or Great Britain in the army,
7624	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence navy and air force, with a view to developing common defensive and offensive strategy, to plan not only to defeat the forces of communism operating within our borders but to recommend courses of action to deal with the causes of communism, to unite Canada with her own allies in the free world on the basis of a moral ideology, and to formulate realistic and intelligent means of penetrating the iron, bamboo and sugar cane curtains with the ideology of freedom and democracy.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Chesley William Carter: I will only be one minute more.


Jacques Flynn: Has the hon. member leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Chesley William Carter: 3. As a specific and immediate step, that the department issue to every man and every officer in Canada's armed services a copy of the handbook "Ideology and Co-Existence" as a basic manual to aid in understanding the nature of the ideological aggression and of the strategy which is effectively answering it.
Ideology is the essential foundation for total defence. This is an area in which Canada can exercise creative leadership. For what would be relatively a very small financial outlay this nation could equip herself in an essential manner, and also could provide an example for her allies in the free world, especially in the newly emerging nations of Asia and Africa. This, moreover, is the one field in which we can take forthright action of such a nature as to offer those enslaved behind the iron curtain real hope that freedom is on the offensive and will in our lifetime triumph.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I just have three questions to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) in connection with the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean.
In the first place, I should like to know what is the percentage of French speaking Canadians, in relation to English speaking Canadians, registered at the college militaire de Saint-Jean?
Second, are the courses at the college given in both languages?
Third, are plans being made for enlarging the college, and for providing third and fourth year courses?
I should appreciate it if the minister gave me an immediate answer to those questions, if at all possible.


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note the great interest shown by the hon.


member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm in the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean.
Before replying to the hon. member's questions, may I say how we in Quebec, and all of us in national defence, are proud of that institution, the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, which has done so much for the young people of our province and of Canada generally, and which truly sets an example to all institutions of learning throughout the province and the country.
As I understand the first question of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, it had to do with the ratio of Frenchspeaking students to English speaking students at the Saint-Jean college.
The percentage is maintained at a 60-40 level, that is to say 60 per cent of the students are French speaking, and 40 per cent English speaking. Of course it is difficult to maintain that exact proportion from year to year. However, I am pleased to inform the committee that in 1959-60, that proportion was very well maintained, the number of French speaking students being 105, as against 70 English speaking students.
In reply to the second question of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I am pleased to inform the committee that the tuition is given in both languages. A rather ingenious method is used which gives students at that college an opportunity to learn both languages. The method is as follows: for a certain period of time, say two or three weeks, all courses are given in English, and English conversation is the rule; then in the next period it is the opposite, and all conversations in the college must be carried on in French, so that by the time they leave the college, on completion of their courses, the students are fully bilingual, which, of course is a decided asset to them, and one which is looked for by so many Canadian employers.
With regard to the third question of the hon. member I must say that constant efforts are being made to improve conditions at our military colleges, whether it be R.M.C. in Kingston, the Royal Roads College or the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean. A committee has been formed mainly to supervise all activities in those colleges and to find ways of improving not only their curriculum, but their general teaching procedures, their facilities and so on.

At this time we are considering the possibility of extending by two years the course given at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, which would qualify the cadets for entrance to a university.
There are of course, in that respect, some points which deserve consideration. For instance, we know that, if we want to add two years to the present course of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, a charter will have to be obtained from provincial authorities, allowing this course to lead to university training.
Moreover, the matter of the necessary accommodation must be provided for. If the course at the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean is extended by two years, it would require substantial enlargement of existing facilities; we would have to put up additional buildings, get laboratory equipment, provide reading rooms and dormitories; in short it would mean erecting additional buildings to house students who would want to avail themselves of the enlarged facilities and of the two further years of study.
As I say, the matter is now under consideration, and you may be assured, Mr. Chairman, that nothing is left to chance, for the Department of National Defence has assumed the task of giving our young people the best possible education and of improving whenever possible the course itself and the whole system of education at the College Royal Militaire de Saint-Jean.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the associate minister of defence and thank him for the magnificent work he is accomplishing.


Mr. Boulanger:: There is another question I should like to direct to the associate minister of defence (Mr. Sevigny): what is the proportion of French speaking students to English speaking students at the Kingston military college?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) is taking me a bit unawares; with his permission, I will inquire and reply to his question at the first opportunity.


Samuel Boulanger: Are the courses at Kingston given in French and English?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, at Kingston, tuition is given in English, and the advantage of the College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean lies precisely in the fact that French speaking Canadians who are taking
Supply-National Defence their preliminary training there, under the system I described a moment ago, whereby they are required to speak English during a few weeks, and then their mother tongue, that is French, during a few weeks, are perfectly bilingual when they go up to Kingston for their senior studies.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can we take from the minister's reply an inference that he did have notice of the question by the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret that I did not quite understand the nature of the hon. gentleman's question. Would he mind repeating it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will put it later.


Mr. Forgie:: I just have a few words to say on this matter. The minister has rightly said that foreign policy and defence policy must be co-ordinated by the government, and that defence policy should be designed to secure national security and the preservation of world peace. With that statement, of course, no one can quarrel. There is no sign of any lessening of international tension, and it is no doubt very difficult, if not impossible, to design a defence posture that can be assured of any permanency at the present time. I submit that a good defence policy, however, should prescribe the conditions under which our armed forces should be used to further the nation's security. This is a matter for determination by Canadians and by Canadians only.
The question of United States influence on our defence policy was thoroughly canvassed in the defence committee, and was commented upon adversely. A sound defence policy should make provision for supplying the military forces adequate to assure the military aspects of national security in peace and war. But I do not believe this can be accomplished by Canada alone. In so far as our security on this continent is concerned, it seems to me that there must be the closest co-operation with United States forces. No other arrangement can be effective. A good defence policy must provide forces most appropriate to the country's national characteristics, and provide them with the minimum detrimental effect on the internal economy of the country. As I said, we cannot defend this country alone. Our best defence is the prevention of war, and with that I am sure the minister agrees.
Our neighbour to the north being the U.S.S.R., our topography, our geographical location and our low population density are obvious handicaps to a successful defence

Supply-National Defence against such a potential assailant. The government says there is a limit to the amount we can spend on defence. If reports appearing in the press are correct, then we can expect not only a substantial reduction in defence expenditures but a cut in the armed forces as well. I should like to refer to a Canadian Press dispatch published a week or so ago, which reads:
The defence department is studying as a 1961 prospect the withdrawal of part or all of the Canadian infantry brigade group in West Germany, informants say.
The next paragraph I should like to quote reads as follows:
"Does this necesarily forecast the inevitable withdrawal of the brigade?" the minister was asked.
"I cannot answer that," Mr. Pearkes replied.
Since then, it has been disclosed that the defence department is looking into the possibility of manpower cuts in the armed forces to provide more funds for new weapons and equipment.
Mr. Pearkes has said major manpower cuts won't be possible without a reduction in commitments of the armed forces.
Now, having read that, it is only fair that I should read this paragraph from Votes and Proceedings, which contains the report of the committee on defence expenditures. Paragraph 9 reads:
Your committee noted the minister's conclusions that the present strength of the armed forces of Canada must be maintained if they are to fulfil the commitments assigned to them, and concurs in this view. It also encourages the continuing efforts to reduce civilian and administrative personnel to the most economic and efficient level, and notes the reduction from the 1956-57 figure of 54,371 to a current figure of 49,637.
The reason I am bringing up this question at the present time, Mr. Chairman, is this. I should like the minister, when he replies, to tell us which of these reports the armed forces are to believe expresses the policy of this government. The armed forces are very much disturbed, that is the armed forces about which I know anything, over these contradictory reports, and would welcome a statement from the minister.
There has been no increase in the pay of the armed forces since the increase granted by the Liberal administration in 1957. The other day I heard a group of soldiers discussing this matter of pay increases. While
I	welcome the increase in pay for civil servants, I should like to say something on behalf of the armed forces because, as one officer said the other day, perhaps it would be to the monetary advantage of the forces to discard their uniforms and join the civil service.
Personnel of the army who retired on pension prior to and subsequent to world war
II	complain bitterly of the inadequacy of the pensions being received. It seems to me that their pensions should be tied to the cost


of living and I submit that suggestion to the minister for serious consideration of the government. I believe he will be sympathetic to this request.
Our military contribution to NATO or any other collective security arrangement is a drop in the bucket compared to the expenditures by the larger powers but, Mr. Chairman, I do say that Canadian influence in international affairs transcends our military strength and our military contribution. And to a very large extent the credit for this happy situation can be attributed to the ability, personality and skill of the present Leader of the Opposition during his tenure of office as minister of external affairs.
I am not going to regale the house with figures as to our military contribution in Europe. I do, however, wish to refer to the remarks made by General Gunther in 1956 when he spoke to the members of both houses in the railway committee room. He told us that the Canadian brigade was the best trained unit in Germany. He also remarked that our air force compared favourably with that of others in Europe. I have no reason to believe that our Canadian forces in Europe have in any way deteriorated since 1956, except that their equipment has not been kept up to date. I refer particularly to the lack of such basic necessities as effective medium machine guns and a modern fighter plane that can give protection and direct support to troops in battle.
Whether or not the western powers come to an agreement with Russia to ban nuclear weapons, would it not be good policy for Canada to pursue a role where we can best serve the cause of peace? It has been argued that our forces should be given that mobility which would enable them to better serve on request, under the United Nations.
Canada as a middle power has, in my opinion, the following characteristics: a relatively disinterested reputation. By that I mean efforts of her representatives stationed in foreign countries-at the United Nations and NATO, Kashmir, the Middle East, and other trouble areas-who have conducted themselves so impartially that Canada has indeed earned and won the respect and confidence of those countries where Canadians have been posted.
Our Canadian forces, all volunteers, command universal respect. There are many historical precedents where smaller nations provided specialized military forces for police duty, a role Canada could readily assume as a member of United Nations. The latest of course is the call by United Nations to assist in policing the Congo, to which Canada immediately responded.

Basing our future policy and future actions on the prevention of war, Canada can offer a well trained and well equipped military police force to the United Nations to be employed as a peace force wherever required. Our international commitments should be reorganized to enable Canada to carry out this role.
The minister for whom I have the highest regard and respect, said at one of our committee meetings, "We have nothing to hide". During our discussions at these committee meetings we asked that experts be called before the committee to express their views regarding defence and defence policy and to make whatever recommendations to the government they deemed advisable.
To our way of thinking this government order "no witnesses"-and a government order it undoubtedly was and not the order of the minister-constituted a grave error of judgment on the part of the government. The only conclusion we can reach is that the government fearful of having its defence policy exposed to a vigorous and searching examination, squelched all efforts on the part of the Liberal members of the committee to call such witnesses.
Defence problems are not easy to solve. It is not encouraging to see the government refuse the benefit of the experience, research and careful thought of men who have in many cases devoted their lives to the study of these problems and possible solutions to them. Why if the government values the lay opinion expressed by members of the defence expenditures committee from both sides of the house, would it not prize more highly the views of competent experts who could and should have been called to give evidence to this committee. Why was this abortive order "no witnesses" given by the Prime Minister? We on this side of the house are satisfied that had the decision in this matter of calling witnesses been left entirely to the minister he would have consented to their being called.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, when I look over at the hon. and gallant gentlemen sitting comfortably in manly repose, when I look upon the house, the placid atmosphere that now prevails, the quiescence on my right and left, I am reminded of having tea on the terrace at Westminster in 1906. One would not realize that we were discussing the estimates of the Department of National Defence. I suppose it is fair to say-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is a form of hypocrisy. Five minutes ago there was not one C.C.F. member in the chamber to listen to the debate.
79951-0-482
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: I am right here.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not one. Just don't get too sanctimonious.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have apparently riled the member for Trinity. Let me tell him that there is a larger percentage of members of the C.C.F. party normally in this house throughout the session than of any other party in the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Sometimes they are conspicuous by their absence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think, on that question, that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. We in this group have no part-time members who go home on Thursdays and come back on Tuesdays. The hon. gentleman has some in his party.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some of yours go away for a week.


An hon. Member:: Some of them go away forever.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must remind hon. members that they must address the Chair, and we are on the national defence estimates.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In spite of what I have said, I am afraid that I have done something to change the atmosphere. The member for Trinity is in a snappy mood this afternoon:	he has been irritated by
somebody, or something.
However, Mr. Chairman, having jumped that very low hurdle I want to make it quite clear that we in the C.C.F. consider that the new Liberal defence policy represents a major shift away from the futility of the Liberal defence policy of yesterday and the futility of the government policy of today.
I want to make it quite clear, regardless of the unkindness of the member for Trinity, that we are glad the Liberals now agree with us that air defence against an all-out thermonuclear attack is impossible and that NATO's nuclear strategy is suicidal. I am glad that we have had that assurance from the member for Trinity. Also, we are glad to note that the Liberals wish to scrap the destroyer-escorts that are now being built, possibly because they agree with us that there is no defence against nuclear missile firing submarines. We also rejoice in the fact that the Liberals wish to devote a far higher proportion of the defence budget to preparations for conventional operations under United Nations auspices. We are glad that the Liberals have learned the lesson of Suez, in contrast to the Conservatives who appear to have learned nothing from the Congo situation.
7628	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the Liberals have not carried things to their logical conclusion-almost, but not quite. If continental air defence is impossible, what is the sense of the North American air defence command? That is what we in this group want to know. If thermonuclear war would be suicidal or virtually so, surely we must do everything possible to keep the United States strategic air command as far away as we can from the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet long range air force as far away as we can from the United States of America. In other words, we must do everything possible to reduce the necessity for each side thinking in terms of a preemptive attack on the other.
That is the approach of this group as mentioned yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who outlined in detail our policy. I am dealing with a few odds and ends this afternoon.
It is because the C.C.F. group does follow new ideas through to their logical conclusion that we call for Canada's immediate withdrawal from NORAD and the making of Canada into a true buffer by the internationalization of the D.E.W. line. And when we use the word "buffer" we use it in the dictionary sense as explained by the hon. member for Vancouver East yesterday.
We think this latter step would point the way to the beginning of controlled disarmament through the internationalization of all radar warning lines, including those against intercontinental ballistic missiles. On the other hand I must point out that the Liberal decision to remain in NORAD, while admitting air defence is impossible, will have the effect of turning over even more completely all our air space to the United States air force.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are turning it over to Khrushchev.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a nasty thing to say.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I served this country in war and have been wounded in battle five places. Has the hon. gentleman had that experience?
The Liberals, because of their lack of courage and their fear of seizing the bull by the horns, are in effect advocating, from our point of view-and we are giving our point of view fairly, just as hon. members on the government side are-that Canada become even more a satellite of the United States than she has so far become under the present and former governments.
I must deal for a few moments with the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I have every respect for him. As I


said before, there are many sincere people belonging to this organization known as Moral Re-Armament. I had some remarks to say about this organization in a previous debate, and strangely enough although there was some applause from both sides of the house for the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo when he replied. Later very well known members of both the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties expressed to me their complete support for my opposition to this organization.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think I have the right to reply, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman did what he thought was correct and I think he is wrong, and I have the right to reply briefly. But I might say that since making those remarks which represented the views of this government and of large sections of the trade union movement in this country and of many people, I have received many letters expressing support for the views I expressed. I have also received a few expressing opposition to what I had to say but that is only natural.
However, I want to bring this to the hon. gentleman's attention in view of this question of the absolutes of M.R.A. I am not going to take up much time with this because there are other matters and we all want to get the estimates through in as reasonable a time as possible, after allowing everyone who wishes to speak to do so. I have had letters from editorial writers, and I would like to bring to the hon. member's attention an editorial which was published in the Free Press which indicates a certain degree of dishonesty on the part of this movement.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wish the hon. gentleman would explain to me what Moral Re-Armament has to do with the Department of National Defence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I will. The hon. member urged that we go in for ideological training in the army and that the troops be circularized with a pamphlet known as "co-existence". At the same time he inferred that those who opposed this movement are communists. That is an old story and no one can properly call me a communist because no one thinks more of democratic principles than I do. But I am just referring to an advertisement by M.R.A. and I want to use it as an illustration of dishonesty. If hon. members read the editorial in the Free Press they will find it for themselves. In fact, I went upstairs to get my file on the matter but I could not find it. Owing to the rush of these days my office is like a barn yard at the present time.

The editorial dealt with the fact that there are large advertisements placed in national newspapers which indicated that this is what the Times said, or what the newspapers in the United States said or the newspapers in India in their news columns. Actually it was nothing of the sort. Moral Re-Armament published a paid advertisement in some small newspapers in these countries and then copied their own advertisement and said "This is what the newspapers have said".
We can all get the facts because this editorial is of recent date; it is in my office and I can show it to anybody. I have had numerous other letters and I have come to the conclusion that M.R.A. is not all it is supposed to be. Dr. Soper, a prominent preacher of the Methodist church in England, has said what he thinks about it. I have heard from Anglican clergymen and clergymen of other faiths and these gentlemen all opposed it on the same ground, as being not what it is supposed to be. I opposed it receiving exemption from income tax because it was not a charitable organization, but as the hon. member has indicated this afternoon, it is a political organization.


Chesley William Carter: On a point of order, I said no such thing. Mr. Chairman, I understand that when an hon. member makes an incorrect statement the rules permit a person to deny it on the spot, and that is what I am doing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I certainly understood from the hon. member's remarks that he wanted the pamphlet circulated with a view to creating certain political impressions. Therefore, I would say the organization had a political character.


Chesley William Carter: I said no such thing, Mr. Chairman. What I said was that if the issues were purely political or psychological we would have nothing to fear.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay West must of course accept the statement of the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have, but I wanted to explain on what basis I made my statement. Now we are getting along beautifully.
If the government understood the facts of life in the nuclear age we would not hear such nonsense from the minister as his description-at the top of page 7526 of Hansard -of the third role given the army, namely: -to maintain a force capable of taking action against any possible commando-type raid in the Arctic or elsewhere in Canada.
I know that this particular type of madness was first dreamt up by the Liberals back in 1946 so that a role could be found for the army brigade of those days. The idea that the 79951-0-4821
Supply-National Defence Russians would risk an almost certain thermonuclear response from SAC for the sake of effecting a small lodgement on the North American continent is nothing short of preposterous. What we have here is an attempt to fashion a potential aggressor's action to our own capabilities instead of doing the only sensible thing which is to calculate what a potential aggressor is likely to do and then figure out what we can do about it.
Our aim must be to prevent war for a thermonuclear war would be suicide. If the government really understood this we would not have had before us in recent days the spectacle of the government buying four Caribou aircraft so we could carry out our United Nations commitment in the Congo. I should like to ask the minister to reply on this point at the appropriate time.
Our armed forces, despite their impressive strength of 122,000 all ranks, are totally inadequate to carry out operations under the United Nations, yet it is precisely for such operations that the bulk of our armed forces should be organized. I say this because it is the efficient and prompt carrying out of United Nations operations that will prevent small wars and incidents from developing into a thermonuclear catastrophe.
We say that what we need are the complete unification of our armed forces and the development of all-arms teams capable of rapid transportation anywhere in the world for operation under the United Nations, ranging from a convention war on the Korean model to actions similar to those on the borders of Israel and in the Congo. For this purpose and for the purpose of deterring thermonuclear attack on Canada we do not need submarines, which the government seems to be advocating, nor do we need inter-cepters in Canada which the Liberals advocate and toward the provision of which the government appears to be moving, nor do we need the new destroyer-escorts which the government is building.
Further proof, if proof were needed, of the government's inability to understand the difference between defence and the deterrent is to be found at page 7556 of Hansard for August 4. Talking about nuclear warheads for Bomarcs the minister had this to say:
To declare in advance that we would never use such weapons would weaken immeasurably their deterrent effect. Do not let us overlook the importance of the deterrent. I emphasized that many times during the course of this speech. Thus, if we announce that we are not going to use them we would be decreasing our ability to prevent war, which is the main object of all our defence preparations. Such a declaration would give a would-be aggressor great comfort and would facilitate the preparations of his plans, as he would know the limitations of our defence.

Supply-National Defence
That is what the hon. gentleman said, and I have read his remarks over very carefully. What the government fails to understand, from our point of view, is this: Deterrence lies in the power to attack, to retaliate. It does not lie in the power to defend, since it is not possible to develop a defence against weapons having the power of 20 million tons of T.N.T.
That is the major thesis that I wish to put forward in connection with this defence problem on behalf of the members of this group. I wish to bring to the attention of the government the changing attitude of the people of this country toward these matters and I am sure that the change in the attitude of the Liberal party has come about as a result of a recognition of a change in the climate of opinion in Canada during the last 12 months with respect to defence. I give them credit for responding to this change in public opinion and for announcing a policy 12 months after the C.C.F. had taken precisely that same stand in the House of Commons.
But I must stop proceeding along those lines, because I see the hon. member for Trinity glaring at me again. It does not look pretty when he glares. He has a happy nature on most occasions and it is not in character for him to glare. I suppose he is annoyed at something, and I presume something the minister has said has caused his annoyance.
I have received a good deal of correspondence in connection with this subject, as no doubt, have most other hon. members of this house, much of which illustrates my contention that public opinion with respect to nuclear warfare is changing. I have in my hand a letter from some faculty members of McMaster University which indicates that they have given serious study to this question. It is an open letter which was sent to the Canadian government, and no doubt the minister as well as other hon. members have received copies. I do not intend to read it. They deal fully with the reasons for composing the letter, and then emphasize six points with respect to the general disarmament negotiations. Point No. 5 reads as follows:
Canada should not acquire nuclear weapons under any system of control and should oppose the arming of NATO with such weapons.
Then they say in Point No. 6:
Canada should seek the adoption by NATO of a policy of neutralization of central Europe-
That, as hon. members will recognize, is the policy of the C.C.F. party.
-and should support any step in that direction.
We are not concerned with emphasizing that that is C.C.F. policy. We are only too glad to see increasing numbers of persons

and responsible groups in Canada expressing the same opinions that have been expressed by members of this group.
I come, now, to a short article which appeared in the Torch, a magazine published for ex-service men and women. The Torch is a magazine of a well-known veterans' organization in this country, and in the issue of November, 1959 appeared an article on defence entitled "The Past, the Present, the Future" by Mr. E. V. (Gene) Heesaker, the Ontario provincial president of the Canadian Corps Association. I am sure hon. gentlemen facing me are not going to question this man's loyalty to Canada or suggest he belongs to a subversive group. This man has a war record of which he can be proud. Here is what he had to say on page 15 of this magazine:
The questions now to be decided are: shall we continue to pour money into weapons that will not protect us? Or shall we divert that money to building and healing, which humanity desperately needs? Shall we join the nuclear arms race-a race to the death? Or shall we declare ourselves out of it? I believe Canada should stop buying weapons that can't give us security in this nuclear age. We should cut our so-called defence spending sharply and put that money to better use for human well-being.
Economically, Canada can contribute to the fight against communism and reap 20 times the value for every dollar now spent on weapons, provided we get out of an arms race which we cannot afford. This would not mean lower taxes and more pleasure spending, but that we would divert the money from bombers into food and technical assistance for the hungry millions of Asia and Africa. Our most shattering defeat would be the collapse of Nehru's India and its swing to communism along with China. In my way of thinking, the greatest bulwark against world communism would be India's success in emerging from colonialism into democracy and becoming an example for Asia and Africa.
This change of direction is not going to be easy for us. It will require dynamiting of our mental log jam on the whole problem of the communist threat to our western democracy.
I suggest that if we take that veteran's views and the views of others which have been presented in similar terms we would get much further along on the road to peace than we shall by circulating the pamphlet "Co-existence" to the armed forces and conducting courses in ideological warfare. I have a letter here from Mrs. Josephine Davis of the central committee of the Voice of Women expressing similar views. She says:
At a large representative inaugural meeting Voice of Women unanimously declared itself opposed to nuclear war. Therefore we support any proposal which will keep Canada free from nuclear armament, thereby strengthening Canada's leadership among non-nuclear powers.
I might mention that these ladies visited the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of this group, and all the leaders of the parties in this house

wished them well with their crusade. The Prime Minister is reported as having said: Carry on, ladies; you are doing good work; we recognize your sincerity, and so on. And the Prime Minister was quite correct in saying that.
I want to finish up by saying that we fully appreciate the task which the Minister of National Defence has before him. We are living under changing conditions and I do not underestimate the problems which are bound to face any minister of defence in these days. If I might supplement the views put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver East, we believe our forces should be provided with aircraft capable of transporting them to any part of the world where the United Nations might need their assistance, such as the Congo where an emergency exists at the present time. We are glad that parliament endorsed the action which the government took with regard to the Congo situation, and we have been proved correct in our point of view about that situation. We said just a few days ago that the United Nations should take action and go into Katanga and that is the course which is apparently being followed. But to take action of that kind requires, of course, the necessary forces. Once again the C.C.F. approach to the question has been proved correct in less than a week by the march of events.
I am nearly finished but I do not know what time I have left since I have been interrupted by the hon. member for Trinity.
This matter has been a source of concern to the Belgian socialists. I have here a copy of a statement made by Mr. Victor Larock, M.P., executive member of the Belgian socialist party and former foreign minister of Belgium. What does he say? I mention this to indicate the need for our being ready and armed and having forces to support the United Nations activity. This statement was made on June 20:
History will record that in the hour of withdrawal the administration, big business and its press in the Congo have at least maintained one tenacious sentiment: anti-socialism.
However, when the fate of 13 million human beings is at the mercy of improvised decisions, the most legitimate of political grievances must be silent.
Two dangers are threatening the Congo: that of tribal struggles which can from one day to the next become murderous again, and that of the separatisms which would inevitably lead to the disintegration of the country.
"What do we care? They wanted to be free; their fate no longer concerns us!" There is cowardice in such language. It is the language of the investor which has rid himself of his stocks and shares. Belgium did not grant independence to the most beautiful and richest of territories in Africa in order to surrender it to civil war, dismemberment and the greed of foreigners.
Supply-National Defence
Then, he goes on to advocate strong action by the United Nations. I mention this to illustrate the need for a United Nations force which is ready to go into action. We are proud that Canada is participating in that force at the present time. From our point of view we urge that we should be ready to participate at any time and our forces should be trained on that basis.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this group, I wish to say that we recognize the devotion to duty of all ranks and all that is being done by the various sections of the Canadian armed forces, the navy the army and the air force. Hon. members will be surprised at how interested our men in the armed forces are in defence policy and in international affairs. I judge that from the correspondence we get from them. You know, Mr. Chairman, I have boys who write me from the Arctic and ask me to ask the minister this or that question. That is all to the good; that is democracy and it shows that our armed forces are interested in this problem.
I do urge that the minister and the government give consideration to these proposals which are the result of study and thought by members of this group who place them before the committee in all sincerity, believing they are to the best advantage of this Canada which we all love.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kootenay West and my breakfast partner has been particularly provocative this afternoon, which is not his usual attitude, I must say. As he indicated to the committee, he served his country in world war I with distinction and for that we honour him.


Harold Edward Winch: Since that, too.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Unfortunately, as he said, he was wounded a number of times in battle and this reminds me of a story which he has told me at breakfast at least two or three times. I would not be presumptuous enough to mention it if he himself did not say it about himself, namely that on returning home his father, referring to what had happened to him, said that he was aware that this was indeed unfortunate but that it had affected the judgment of the hon. gentleman and that he has not been exactly the same since.


Harold Edward Winch: That was a reference to the Liberal party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My father was somewhat prejudiced, Mr. Chairman.
7632	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If there is any correction I should be glad to yield so that the hon. gentleman may put it on the record.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My father was a very fine old gentleman, but he had all the prejudices that the Liberals have on political occasions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: However, Mr. Chairman, for the next few minutes I think what I am going to say will be approved of by the hon. member for Kootenay West, and I hope it will commend itself to the Minister of National Defence. I should like to deal specifically for a few minutes, if I may, with the matter of North American air defence. I mentioned this in my statement yesterday and the minister mentioned it in his rebuttal both before and after I had spoken.
I say that the government's policy on air defence is inconsistent and unrealistic. The recommendations of the special select committee on defence expenditures indicated that the bomber threat is diminishing. This view is subscribed to by the government and, indeed, was put on the record by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence both at the time the Avro Arrow interceptor was cancelled. Now on the basis of the information available, and on the basis of a study of the minister's statements we have come to the conclusion that the bomber threat will be of real significance in proportion to the total threat against the North American continent for a very short period of time, perhaps another two or three years.
From that time on, Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming threat will be from missiles, particularly the intercontinental ballistic missiles. Once that has happened, unless there is some scientific breakthrough, as yet not contemplated by western scientists, there will be no effective air defence of the North American continent. Yet the minister in his statement kept referring to the deterrent. He returned to this a number of times and spoke about Canada's contribution to the deterrent. The presumption was that at least the installation of the SAGE-Bomarc system was a contribution to the western, and more particularly the United States, deterrent.
That is what the North American air defence was set up for. We used to be completely honest and admit that the air defence of the North American continent was designed to protect the retaliatory capacity of the strategic air command; it was never really intended to do anything else. When the proposal for the Bomarc sites first arrived there was no discussion of the defence of Canada per se, but only a consideration in terms of defence of the retaliatory capacity of the west and of the strategic air command. Only in


the last year or two has there been creeping into statements on this subject some reference to the possible defence of Canadian cities and civilian population as a result of this defensive arrangement. Now, however, time has overtaken the Bomarc-SAGE system.
I should like to put on the record some supporting evidence in this respect. I should like to quote first of all from an article by Brigadier General Thomas R. Phillips, United States army, retired, as quoted in evidence in hearings before the subcommittee of the committee on appropriations of the United States senate. General Phillips had this to say in reference to the Bomarc:
Time has overtaken it. The idea was broached in 1948. First study contracts were let in 1950 to Boeing Airplane Company and the University of Michigan for research and design studies.
It was designed to cope with the subsonic aircraft anticipated to be in service in 1954 or 1955.
Our objection to the Bomarc from the standpoint of defence in that period from the mid-60's forward has been on the basis that it is a fixed installation. We put clearly on the record that it was not its failures which alarmed us, although this was an additional matter of concern, but the fact that time had overtaken the whole SAGE-Bomarc system and that fixed installations in the time period for which it will be in operation will render it too vulnerable to be effective.
I should like to quote a few witnesses in respect of the matter of fixed installations or fixed bases. The first one I should like to quote is the United States secretary of defence, Mr. Gates. In evidence before the subcommittee of the committee on appropriations of the house of representatives, referring to the SAGE-Bomarc system he said:
-I mean In the course of fiscal year 1961, that we have another re-appraisal. Such a re-appraisal might change the emphasis on certain factors, in which case there might be a change in the air defence plan. I know there have been some further studies on the air defence problem, not along the lines of the F-108 but along the line of reconsidering the continued use, in numbers, of aircraft interceptors. One of the reasons for this is that the Bomarc sites themselves are vulnerable, as fixed sites, to good, accurate missiles.
No one has denied that the soviet imperialists have good, accurate missiles. Then, the Right Hon. Harold Watkinson indicated at the time of the cancellation of the Blue Streak that the primary reason for the cancellation of that weapons system was because it would be fired from fixed bases and as such would be too vulnerable on the ground to enemy missilry. Assuming that the Russians would in the case of an all-out war strike first, any fixed installation, offensive or defensive, is vulnerable to attack by missile.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the hon. member for Trinity aware that the minister of national defence of Great Britain explained quite clearly during his recent visit to Canada that although the so-called fixed sites which would have been used for the Blue Streak missile in England could be vulnerable Canada was far enough away so that the same dangers do not apply here as applied in Great Britain?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I had a very pleasant chat with the right hon. gentleman, thanks to the good offices of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence, and there was no doubt from talking to him that as a matter of principle he believes that fixed installations in the years that lie ahead are too vulnerable to missilry. However, I am sure he would be diplomatic enough not to comment on those specific matters coming within the competence of the Canadian government. This view was supported by his chief scientific adviser, Sir Solly Zucterman, who was of exactly the same opinion that fixed bases, either offensive or defensive, from the mid-60's on were so vulnerable as to make their use virtually untenable.
Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery has taken the same position and has spoken very strongly against any future plans for the installation of fixed bases, again on the basis of their vulnerability. General Phillips, again referring specifically to the Bomarc, said this:
Bomarc suffers from three main difficulties that have overtaken it with time: (1) It has proved impossible to make it effective against supersonic targets; (2) it has been so long in development the bombers can now fly as fast as the interceptor; and (3) it is a sitting duck on its large bases, with 60 missiles on each, for attack by enemy ballistic missiles.
Then, General White, chief of staff of the United States air force, had this to say in evidence before the senate subcommittee:
I will say this: If we developed the Skyboat to conclusion and if the soviets do a similar one with a thousand mile range, obviously the Bomarc is not going to be an adequate defence against that type of weapon.
He goes on to say that this would not be true in the immediate future, presumably referring to the next two or three years. Again, General White in giving evidence before the same senate committee was asked a question by Senator Symington, who was referring to General Phillips' article, and I read the following passage:
Senator Symington: General Phillips' third point is that: "It (Bomarc) is a sitting duck on its large bases, with 60 missiles on each, for attack by enemy ballistic missiles." How about that?
General White: I think that is true. It is vulnerable, yes, sir.
Supply-National Defence


Egan Chambers: Read on.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, there are only two supporters of Bomarc, the Canadian government and NORAD, not the people of Canada. We can understand the government's dilemma. It is one of its own making. In our opinion it might just as well get out of that dilemma now before congress embarrasses it again. I am convinced that congress would not have reinstated-


Norman Platt Lambert: Are they going to have another election next year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the hon. member implying that the reason for the reinstatement of the Bomarc program this year is that they are having a presidential election?


Norman Platt Lambert: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was the inference I took from his statement.


Norman Platt Lambert: Cuts were made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, the hon. member has been in politics long enough to know that you do not cut a work-making program just in advance of a general election. I think that is what the hon. member had in mind, before he had time to reflect on it.


Norman Platt Lambert: Just the contrary.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am convinced that congress would not have reinstated the Bomarc except for Mr. Khrushchev and his boorish behaviour at the summit conference and the pressure of their feeling for the Canadian government. They may, of course, have a change of heart again in the future. They certainly will if they take a cold look at the whole situation.
With respect to NORAD, I had the privilege of visiting NORAD headquarters this year and I was considerably disturbed by what I saw there. NORAD is living in a dream world four to five years behind the times. From here on in they are going to suffer from one of the seemingly inevitable laws of both military and government service, Parkinson's law. They are going to have to keep busy whether or not their function remains as useful as it has been in the past. By the mid-60's the effectiveness of NORAD to protect the deterrent will be reduced to something inconsequential. They cannot possibly stop intercontinental ballistic missiles, and under questioning they will admit this but only reluctantly. It is a difficult thing to accept that there is not at the present time and there is no prospect in the immediate future of an adequate defence against the intercontinental ballistic missile.


Harold Edward Winch: Why did you vote against my motion?

Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yet they have the responsibility for so-called air defence of the North American continent. Their position is natural but their evidence must be considered on the basis of the bias and self-interest it inevitably contains. An indication of the United States defence department's appraisal of the future of NORAD is contained in the fact that there were some plans to harden the NORAD headquarters. A hole was being cut out of the Colorado mountains for this purpose. This project was cancelled. If the United States defence department had rated NORAD's future functions as indispensable, the project would not have been cancelled. NORAD headquarters is soft and vulnerable. By the mid-1960's its continuing effective function will be primarily the detection and identification roles.
If there were an all-out war, if missiles were used at the outset as would likely be the case, in that time period NORAD headquarters itself would likely be an early target. This, of course, would be proof positive that an all-out offensive had commenced. Unfortunately it would be a little late if there were no warning before that.
This brings up the whole question of timing. When will the whole SAGE-Bomarc system be in operation? What does United States Secretary Gates say about it?


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to know what you say about it. You have changed your mind in the last two hours.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not changed my stand. If you check the record you will find out. Secretary Gates, before the house committee on appropriations, had this to say in reply to a question from Mr. Minshall:


Mr. Minshall:: When will the program be completely finished?
Secretary Gates: Completely in being?


James Alexander Marshall: Completely in being.
Secretary Gates: By the end of fiscal year 1963.
Well, Mr. Chairman, 1963 is too late. The Canadian government is spending the taxpayers' money on a system which will be too late to be useful enough to justify the expenditure.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question? What does he mean by "too late"? Is he referring to NORAD?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am referring to the SAGE-Bomarc system. After that, the only continuing useful role, as I said, will be detection and identification to prevent bombers sneaking in and being well on their way before the ICBM's are fired. Our suggestion that we have a few interceptors for the identification role seems to us to make sense. It gives us some element of sovereignty over Canadian air space and provides a useful

service to the United States deterrent. The government's present Bomarc program will be useless to prevent war and equally useless in case an all-out war should break out.
The minister in this respect, has been inconsistent. He told us in the committee on defence expenditures that the Bomarc is not a substitute for the manned interceptor, that it is complementary to it. However, a decision has been made by the government to go ahead and build a SAGE-Bomarc system which will not be, according to what Secretary Gates says, completely in operation until 1963, and yet at the same time, to be inconsistent, has not made a decision to replace the Canadian air defence squadrons. If the minister really believes that there is any such thing as air defence after the mid-1960's, he should have made a decision in respect of the air defence squadrons long ago.
Actually I suppose I should not point the finger too much in the direction of the Minister of National Defence because I think he has at least a view in connection with this matter. I believe this particular egg is in the Prime Minister's nest at the present time, and he is waiting to see what will be hatched from it. The minister has told us that the matter is under continuing consideration. He also told us that no quick decision should be made. Surely, you could not accuse the minister of making a quick decision on a matter which has been under consideration for at least a year and a half. If that is what this government calls quick, I should like to see what they call mature consideration. They call this continuing consideration, and that applies to most of the projects on which they have to make a decision.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to tell this committee if, in his opinion, after the mid-1960's the contribution to the deterrent of the two Bomarc squadrons will be of any real significance. Will he answer me as to those objections that have been raised in respect of their vulnerability and uselessness in this time period? This is a serious thing. It is difficult, I know, for the minister to realize that by the time he gets this system into operation it will be obsolete and out of date. I should like his assurance that he has considered the matter fully, and I should like him to tell the committee if, in his considered judgment, he is satisfied that its usefulness, from the mid-1960's on, will be sufficient to justify the expenditure of one cent of the Canadian taxpayers' money.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not intend to speak more than one minute. I just have to express my admiration for the absolute consistency of the inconsistency of the hon. member for

Trinity. It was only about two hours ago that he had an opportunity of showing whether he thought the expenditure on NORAD should be continued, and he said yes. During the last five minutes he has been giving every reason he possibly could as to why NORAD is useless, inefficient and hopeless. I say I admire the consistency of his inconsistency. I am very proud of the fact that at least we have the courage of our convictions at all times.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall have to answer that short interjection which was put on the record.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course, the inspiration
always comes from this group.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. gentleman seems to be incapable of differentiation. If he had listened to this speech of mine yesterday, which he said he had read before it was delivered-


Harold Edward Winch: And heard it, too.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -he would have determined that whereas we take the position the SAGE-Bomarc program is not worth continuing because by the time it is installed it will be too late, we do say there is a continuing requirement for detection and identification. This requirement will continue to be essential for a number of years so the strategic air command, or whatever the unit in charge of the retaliatory power of the western world is called can be informed if there should be Russian bombers over Canadian air territory. You have to have some equipment to do that. We have also said that under the present agreement there are certain advantages in liaison which reduces the reaction time, and so on.
For that reason we have said that we could not go back on the agreement unless it could be proved that those functions could be carried out just as effectively outside; that has not been proved to our satisfaction. Surely the hon. gentleman can see the difference between those two points of view.


Harold Edward Winch: May I just add one word? I feel it is now time that this house came to a close, out of consideration for the C.C.F., because if it continues much longer the Liberals will have stolen many more of our policies.


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, as you know I had the privilege of serving on the special committee on defence expenditures. Surely that was not on account of my competency in the field of defence; it was only because I was also privileged last year and this year
Supply-National Defence to serve on the Canada-United States parliamentary group and to serve on the special subcommittee on defence and disarmament of that group.
I was very sorry that I had to miss some of the meetings of the committee, because of some personal unavoidable circumstances, but when I was absent I was very ably replaced, I am sure, by my hon. colleague from Rich elieu-V er cher es.
I just want to make a few brief remarks with respect to this first item. I do not want to go back on what was said by my leader and by my friend from Trinity as to how this committee was formed, as to when it was formed or as to how it functioned. The remarks I want to make relate especially to the army. It is my opinion that as it is now the army has not enough mobility. You know, Mr. Chairman, that in world war I it was a war almost of immobility. In world war II it became a mobile war after the German army moved very quickly through all the lands of Europe.
In the years to come there is no doubt that the army has to be, as I would say, super-mobile, and every device should be considered to make it mobile to the fullest extent. I think the army should be capable of being airlifted through its own airlift operations if possible; if not, through close coordination with the R.C.A.F. Also, troopships should be available at all times. If this is not possible on account of financial limitations, pre-arrangements should be made with commercial boat lines so that in the event of war on the continent of Europe reinforcements could be provided very quickly to our brigade group over there.
The next thing I want to speak of is national survival. That has to do, especially in Canada, with the army. Perhaps I may read the statement of the Minister of National Defence which was given to the special committee on defence expenditures. I am reading from the pamphlet that was distributed, which is entitled, "Information for the special committee on defence expenditures 1960". This pamphlet is dated May, 1960 and paragraph 15 reads:
15.	Duties and responsibilities assigned to the army in survival operations became effective on September 1, 1959, On that date the national survival attack warning system commenced operations on a permanent 24-hour a day basis. Orders have already been placed for light rescue equipment and radiac instruments for the mobile units and sufficient quantities for training have now been delivered. By the end of 1960 most radiac and rescue items will be available to meet both training and operational requirements.
The next paragraph, No. 16, says:
16.	The militia has been issued with sufficient equipment to start training in survival operations.

Supply-National Defence Additional rescue equipment will be provided this year in order that the reserve units can perform their full survival role.
It has been said that the strength of the regular army as of May of this year was 47,185, and the strength of the militia was 40,010. The role of national survival, of course, is specially related to the public in general. I read this in the Journal of the Stanford Research Institute, fourth quarter, 1959, volume 3, in an article by Mr. Rogers Cannell. I cite from page 182 at the top of the page:
People have been led to believe that one nuclear weapon could destroy an entire city, so they conclude that no type of protection can be effective. Preoccupation with this notion has obscured the truth: protective actions can be quite effective not only at distances from a target city but also within it.
Starting from that statement I think that in the United States as well as in Canada people do not appreciate the danger that may lie from an all-out nuclear attack. We all hope, of course, that there will be no such attack in our time or for very many years to come. But if it should come, people should know what to do.
We have also been told that one part of the task of the regular army is its operation with regard to national survival. I have read from the record that the regular army will be fully equipped this year. That does not mean that the regular army will be fully trained. I hope, and I suppose that the government's policy in this regard is that by early next year the regular army will be completely trained for that kind of operation. But the regular army has no direct and regular dealing with the majority of the people of this country. On that I think we should rest our case.
In my home town there is a militia unit of engineers. I know that they have started to train for survival operations. I also know that they are not fully equipped. I hope and urge the government to see that this reserve unit, like all other units in Canada, is fully equipped as soon as possible, and also that the militia will be fully trained in that regard.
It is my thinking that the regular army should be in constant touch with the militia and that experts in that field should be attached to militia units, to train them for survival operations. In turn, the public at large should, I think, be invited, when the militia is fully trained, to attend those training exercises so that the people will know what to do and what to expect in case of emergency.
More than that, the people of this country should be urged and asked to take part in those rescue operations and to take part in that training so that if it happens that there is an emergency, there will be no panic or


anything of that sort among the people of this country. In that way the civilians of the country will co-operate fully with the militia in their own vicinity, and with the regular army.
In finishing, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go further because, as I said before, I do not want to go too far. But I do think that every trooper in the militia should be fully trained in signalization and communications in order to establish prompt and constant communication with the general public in the event of an emergency. With this in view the Canadian people will know what to do.
I have one question I would like to put to the minister dealing entirely with another matter, and it is with regard to the Congo situation. I would like to learn from the minister later on if there is a French speaking unit which is to be dispatched to the Congo, because in that part, as we know, most of the people speak in French.


Mr. Fairfield:: Mr. Chairman, during the course of this discussion both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Trinity complained quite often that the members of the special committee had little opportunity to ask or were prevented from asking any question relating to government policy in the defence of Canada.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members of the House of Commons that they were certainly given every opportunity to examine our defence program. A good deal of latitude, far more than in previous defence committees, was given to the members of the committee in asking questions. Anyone who doubts this need only read the committee reports.
There were 26 meetings of the committee and the minister was given adequate time to explain our defence policy and the steps we were taking to carry out defence commitments, and all the members without exception, except when irresponsible statements were made and sometimes foolish questions asked, were given every opportunity to carry on their interrogation of the minister.
I would just like to give a rundown of some of the comments by the minister in answer to the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition. On June 1 the minister made a statement to the committee regarding the general defence policy and also in relation to the United Nations. On June 3 the minister made a statement regarding our participation in NATO; and on June 8, our participation in NORAD.
On June 10 the minister made some detailed remarks concerning national survival, and then the chairman allowed questions on all of these matters. Certainly they were not

debates, but I must say that a great many of these questions were prefaced by some very long statements. All these statements made by the minister were incorporated into a booklet of 37 pages entitled "Canadian defence policy", and this booklet is available to all members of the House of Commons. Perhaps they will now peruse this book and I hope the Leader of the Opposition looks at it as well and takes some cognizance of some of the statements made by the minister in answers to questions.
In order to substantiate these remarks I would like to cite a few of the questions asked by opposition members to show how much latitude they were given in asking questions about policy and how much information the minister gave in return. At page 372 of the committee report the hon. member for Trinity asked this question:
I would like the minister to explain, again, in greater detail why, when the Bomarc is supposed to be an area defence, following the long-range manned interceptors, it has not been the announced policy of the Canadian government to follow that plan.
In answer to this question the minister said:
I do not know that you can define the Bomarc and the interceptors as being a first line and a second line of defence. There are two elements in the defence of the North American continent against the bomber attack, interceptors and the ground-to-air missile; and those are integrated across the continent. Some of those elements are provided by Canada, and some of those elements are provided by the United States.
Perhaps this did not satisfy the hon. member for Trinity because on page 374 he asked this question:
-why did not the minister recommend that the funds of both the United States and Canada, which are to be, he hopes assigned to the Bomarc system, be allocated rather to a strengthening of the offensive and to the making of a more mobile offensive force?
In answer to that the minister said:
Because there has to be a proper balance kept between the two. We have strived to reach that at a reasonable balance, and, as you know, the United States are placing a higher proportion of their available funds into the development of the retaliatory forces.
Then the hon. member for Trinity asked this question:
Does NORAD have plans for weapons which would be of some effect against missiles launched from submarines?
The minister replied:
I have said several times that there is no weapon at present which is capable of destroying a missile which is launched either from a ground launcher, a submarine or an aircraft. The power of defence against those is the fear of retaliation, and retaliation would take place as soon as the missile is launched, whether it is launched from a ground launcher, an aeroplane or a submarine.
Supply-National Defence Then further on page 376 the hon. member for Trinity asked:
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated the main purpose of North American air defence is to defend the deterrent. I wonder if the minister would explain not only what is meant by that but also the mechanics by which it would operate, and what you might anticipate would happen in case of attack?
The chairman did not interfere and the minister did not hesitate at all in his reply. He said:
If there was an attack by bombers, or with the few missiles which the Russians may now have, I would imagine that the main attack, in the first instance, would be directly against the SAC bases, be they bomber bases or missile bases. As soon as the warning was given, I imagine many of the SAC bombers would leave the ground and possibly proceed in the direction of the targets to which they had been assigned. They can always be called back, as you know, once they have started. The defence would come into action against the bombers, hoping to destroy as large a proportion of the bombers as they could. In the meantime, if the Russian bombers continued and started using nuclear weapons, I imagine all the retaliatory forces, wherever they may be, would go into operation against targets in Russia.
These are quite clear statements of policy so far as NORAD and this government are concerned, and I do not know what more the hon. member for Trinity desires. On page 359 of the committee report the hon. member asked:
The suggestion has been put forward by the leader of the Liberal party that NORAD should become an integral part of NATO. What is the minister's feeling in respect of that suggestion?
The minister replied:
NORAD is part of the NATO concept in that it is looking after and providing the defence of the Canadian-United States region of NATO. This is so far removed, at the present time, from the European activities of NATO that I do not think the European members of NATO would have the time to be able to take an intimate interest in the Canadian-United States region. The activities in the development of defences of the Canadian-United States region are explained at the various NATO meetings. There never has been any indication from our European partners that would have any desire to take a part in the defences of this Canadian-United States region. They mainly are interested in the exchange of warning information. NORAD also is interested in obtaining the early warning from the warning systems in Europe. So the main point of contact is the early warning that can be given either to Europe by the Canadian-United States region or to the North American continent by the European system.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked this question as reported on page 374:
Assuming that hostilities broke out between Russia and the United States and that intercontinental missiles were used on both sides, would it not be necessary to have a follow-up by land troops to consolidate victory? I mean, would it be necessary for each side to follow up with land troops?

Supply-National Defence
To which the minister replied:
Not necessarily. One side or the other might gain such a decisive victory that the government of the other side would feel it desirable to sue for peace. I can foresee such devastating destruction delivered to Russia, if Russia had made the first strike, that the government would collapse and that there would be no necessity to have land armies to occupy Russia. It would be a question of rehabilitating those parts of the world which had been destroyed. That is the second phase of the war. It is pretty hard to predict the actual nature of that, but I certainly do not think that land invasion, as we used to know it, with long military operations, is inevitable.
I was interested this morning when the Leader of the Opposition was making his prolonged speech to note the inconsistencies between what he said and what was said by the official spokesman for the party on defence matters. In the well-publicized speech by the hon. member for Trinity he criticized the purchase of F-104 aircraft for our air force in Europe and argued that we should get an aircraft of a different type which would be of greater use as a low altitude tactical weapon. On the other hand, this morning the Leader of the Opposition said we should not go into this sort of business but we should have high altitude supersonic interceptors.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Leader of the Opposition endorses the policy I put forward in that respect.


George Clark Fairfield: Then I think you should get together in reading each other's speeches or at least have somebody writing those speeches to combine them to some extent so that they might be at least consistent. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning he thought it was very important that our troops should be trained to be airborne so that they could be flown for service anywhere in the world where they might be needed. That is quite different from what was said by the hon. member for Trinity who advised we should have naval craft to carry our troops in assault landing craft instead of aircraft.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They should be able to get anywhere they are going.


George Clark Fairfield: There is a little difference in time involved. I should think it would be impossible to have these men trained to be airborne in addition to receiving training in connection with assault craft landings.
Again, this morning the Leader of the Opposition said no time whatever was given to this question of psychological warfare. As a matter of fact I think this subject came up a number of times in the committee. It was brought up by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, and he brought in a book by one of the leaders of Moral Re-Armament and tried to stuff it down the throats of the committee.
[Mr. Fairfield.l
This was the psychological weapon of the Liberal party. I agree it is possibly the strongest weapon in Moral Re-Armament. But at least, after deliberating and hearing some of these arguments on Moral Re-Armament the committee decided that although it might be a consistent policy it was not suitable for discussion.
So that all in all I think this government has been very consistent in its defence policy. Certainly the committee had every opportunity to discuss policy, and used that opportunity, and I think the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Trinity have been less than honest in stating that there was no time given to the members of the opposition to discuss questions of policy or to ask questions about policy.


Chesley William Carter: I wish to correct one of the statements made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I did not produce any book put out by Moral Re-Armament in the committee. It was a NATO handbook published by General Carpentier retired commander of allied forces in central Europe.


George Clark Fairfield: And leader of Moral ReArmament too?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Before this item carries I should like to make a few comments on the speech we heard from the hon. member for Trinity, with the refusal of members of the Liberal party to consider in its proper aspect the Bomarc weapon and the reason for the existence of this weapon. I should also like to comment on what the hon. member said concerning NORAD. I heard the hon. member for Trinity mention that according to his information in the second half of the sixties such weapons as the Bomarc would become completely useless.
The hon. member was no doubt basing this statement on the fact that in his opinion missile development would then have reached such a stage that the main threat would be from intercontinental ballistic missiles rather than from any other form of weapon. I should like to remind the hon. member that though there may be a certain validity in this, though in the second half of the sixties the threat of a missile attack will be intensified, the fact still remains that there will be a gap of five years during which we could expect an attack by manned bombers, and I should like to remind the hon. member of the fact that the Bomarc surface to air missile as well as the interceptor are weapons which are meant to defend our country against the possibility of such an attack by manned bombers.
Surely the hon. member for Trinity, who obviously has given a great deal of study

to defence matters, would not suggest to this committee or to the people of Canada that we should be left completely defenceless during those five years. Surely the hon. member must know that the Bomarc program is an integrated program which has been put together by the best military brains of both the United States and Canada. The purpose of this program is to protect our main centres and especially our strategic air command bases against the possibility of an attack by manned bombers. It is a program which is conducted on a co-operative basis, not a program which is conducted on a purely Canadian basis. In other words we have not decided here in Canada to have just two stations which will perform in solitary splendour. The function of this weapon is to protect two regions in Quebec and Ontario. Other stations are meant to protect the maritime regions and other densely populated sectors in the eastern area.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is rather futile to call useless a program on which so much money has been spent and into which so much effort has been put. I should like once again to remind the committee that a sum well in excess of $2,300 million has been spent in order to render effective this Bomarc weapon, and truly,-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister permit a question?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister say that the amount of money which has been sunk in a program is any criterion of its future usefulness?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If you consider the well
known competence of our southern neighbours it will become quite obvious that if they had considered this program was of no use at all they most certainly would have stopped the spending of those enormous sums of money well before spending the fabulous sum of $2,300 million. The very fact that they decided to carry on this program is indicated by the repeated successes which we have witnessed quite recently at the Bomarc B trials. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if the Bomarc B effort is some measure of defence against the possibility of a manned bomber attack, if those Bomarc B's succeeded in destroying some of the attacking bombers, surely the installation of these Bomarc B stations are worth the sum of money which we in Canada are asked to spend on this particular weapon.
I repeat, the sum of money which we shall be called upon to spend on the installation of the Bomarc B stations is only $12 million which in relation to the sum of money which
Supply-National Defence our powerful neighbours will spend is truly not too much. Furthermore, I must bring to your attention a very serious contradiction which we have noticed in the hon. member's so-called bold program for national defence. On the one hand he advocates the complete elimination of the Bomarc stations, and he also advocates that we dispense with the development of the installation called SAGE. In other words, he would like to scrap everything and yet another part of this bold program is to replace the CF-100 by another interceptor. I certainly will not go against this suggestion which I think has its merits, and which is being studied; but I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that these new interceptors, which the hon. member in his new bold program would like to see in Canada, could hardly be effective and operational without the existence of this installation called SAGE. How can he on the one hand ask for the scrapping of the SAGE installations, and on the other hand ask that we purchase or use interceptors which can hardly be operational unless we have these very SAGE installations?
I should also like to comment on what I heard the hon. member say about NORAD. I do not know who the great military advisers of the hon. member can be who advise this policy of scrapping our ships, scrapping Bomarc, scrapping this and scrapping that at the same time as we increase or keep at the same level the national budget. But surely those advisers cannot be as clever or as competent as those men who are actually at the present time protecting us at NORAD. The officials and senior officers of NORAD are the most experienced officers of the United States and the Canadian services, and they are trying to provide for this country, for this continent in fact, the very best defence that can be devised. I for one, and I feel that the majority of the members of the committee will join me in this, have far more confidence in the military valour and the military knowledge of those men who are guiding the destinies of NORAD than I have in the military advisers of the hon. member for Trinity or, if he has no advisers, in his own strategic and tactical competence in service matters. I do not believe that the hon. member for Trinity, nor the colleagues of the hon. member who sit in the official opposition ranks, are really serving the interests of Canada by deliberately belittling the efforts of those who at NORAD are contributing so much to the defence of this continent.
Before I resume my seat I should like to say I am shocked, as most members of the committee and as most sane thinking Canadians must be at the present time, at the

Supply-National Defence realization that this so-called glamorous and bold defence policy which has been dinned into our ears since we started this session and for quite a while before resolves itself into the suggestion that we scrap everything, that we build nothing and that we completely eliminate all defences, thus leaving the North American continent and this nation exposed to a vicious and violent attack from our potential enemy.
If the hon. member for Trinity, his advisers, his colleagues and the Leader of the Opposition had come forth today with constructive suggestions, which would possibly give us a chance to improve our defences, the defences of this country, and our policies for the protection of our citizens, I can assure them that we on this side of the house would have been the first to accept those suggestions, because we fully realize that the problem of defence is away beyond and above political controversy; but it is truly almost shameful to think that hon. members of the opposition have deliberately deceived the Canadian people by making them believe-


Harold Edward Winch: Be careful, now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, not only has the minister just presented the house with a bald, unadulterated lie in his interpretation of what we have put forward in this debate, but he has imputed motives in saying that we deliberately deceived-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think that the minister went beyond the rules of the house in saying that the members of the opposition had deliberately deceived the people of Canada but I think that the hon. member for Trinity was equally guilty in using the words he used. Therefore I think the two hon. members should correct their remarks.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the minister will relate all the positive programs we put forward in our policy, I will withdraw what I said.


Jacques Flynn: I did not put any condition on my demand, and I am sure that both hon. members will correct their statements unconditionally.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I admit that possibly the expression I used went a bit too far and was not quite parliamentary. I therefore withdraw the words "deliberately deceived", but I do not think that even the well known susceptibility of the hon. member for Trinity, which has been tried so frequently during the last two days, will be offended if I say instead that they were
[Mr. Sevigny.l

possibly inadvertently deluded into the belief that they had a policy. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order. As far as the point of order is concerned, as the minister has withdrawn the expression he used, which was objectionable, I think we should give the hon. member for Trinity a chance to do the same.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on the basis that the minister has withdrawn his imputation with respect to motives I will withdraw what I said except in respect of the minister inadvertently having left out of his appreciation of the policy we put forward all of the positive alternatives we have placed before the house and the country for consideration as opposed to the present policies of the government of Canada.


Egan Chambers: It was you who left them out.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I accept the withdrawal of the hon. member for Trinity. I appreciate the fact that he also accepted my withdrawal, and I shall continue. As I was saying, it seems that hon. members opposite were inadvertently deluded into the belief that they had a constructive policy, and they actually raised a great hue and cry over this great policy that they were going to offer. I confess that I for one was quite anxious to hear what this great policy was going to be. I must say that I read with interest yesterday what appeared in the Citizen and which the hon. member repeated afterwards in the house most eloquently.
But I was shocked to see that this so-called bold, illuminating defence policy which was being offered to the committee contained almost nothing except some suggestions that we possibly could carry on with a course that we had already explained to the house we were trying to follow. It seems to me, that to criticize when actually it is almost admitted that there is not much to criticize, to put before the country the view that everything is wrong, that everything is just going to pot, that we are defenceless, that we have nothing-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You said it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -that the leaders of the government and the service chiefs and so on do not know anything; to say that they and their advisers know it all and will eventually come forward with a great Liberal policy and then to produce nothing is, I must frankly say, a shameful waste of the time of the committee and is certainly not the way to serve the Canadian people who must have confidence in those who are entrusted with



I960

[Stage Direction]
the responsibility for defence and who certainly deserve better than the rather inane and inept suggestions we have heard in this defence policy.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, closing my remarks in French, may I recall an old saying to the effect that when one has nothing to say and nothing to suggest, it is better not to say anything. In other words, one should not waste the time of the House of Commons of the Canadian parliament, and it is certainly better, on such an important subject as national defence, to keep a respectful silence with regard to the able and efficient work done by those who are responsible for protecting the Canadian nation, rather than to waste the time of so many people with inept statements such as those we heard in the speeches made by the members of the official opposition since we began consideration of the Department of National Defence estimates.
(Text):
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this debate seems to have accomplished a great deal so far by introducing a positive, constructive alternative to the government's waffling and lack of policy in defence matters. We have at least provoked a debate on the subject of national defence and 1 think that in itself is very worth while. Not only that, we have brought out of the closet the Associate Minister of National Defence and this we welcome. This is a development of some importance.
The minister, who until now has been in relative obscurity, has come forward at last, stood on his feet and said something about national defence. For a long while we heard nothing at all from him. The special committee on defence expenditures met for 27 days, but where was the Associate Minister of National Defence during all that time? Why was he not at the side of the Minister of National Defence during those meetings? Where was he? Was he closeted somewhere? What was he doing? Why was he not there to answer questions and to listen to and take part in the discussion so that he would be as familiar with these matters as other hon. members are? We could never figure out what had happened to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
On the second last day of the committee's meetings the Minister of National Defence could not be there and a very able departmental official answered questions for us. But the Associate Minister of National Defence could have been there to substitute for the minister on that occasion and we regret that he was not able to take the time to do so. Up to now all we had heard about
Supply-National Defence him was that he had gone to the city of Toronto and had taken a prepared speech with him about the Avro Arrow which he read to a Progressive Conservative businessmen's group. What did he say? He started off by saying that he had prepared the speech. The same speech had been made a few days before to the defence expenditures committee by the Minister of National Defence who also said that he had prepared the speech. One of them had had a lapse of memory. I do not know which one it was but obviously they both could not have prepared the same speech.


Mr. Aiken:: Maybe they both agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The speech he has made today was not the same. It was longer but at least it was not the same. We welcome this emergence of the butterfly from the cocoon. Now the Associate Minister of National Defence has come forward in the house and has begun to make himself heard. This is a worth-while development and we hope we will hear a great deal more from him in the days and weeks that lie ahead. However, he still has not learned about some of the fine points. I appreciate the difficulty he has but this is really no excuse. With reference to NORAD, for instance, he has said that the military officers of NORAD are pre-eminent. They are excellent officers who do their jobs in a most efficient fashion.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is high time you said so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are first-class officers, but I feel sorry for them in the environment in which they are working. They have not been given a chance either by the Canadian or the United States governments. The future that faces them, in view of the lack of effective defence against intercontinental ballistic missiles, is a bleak one and puts them under the difficulties which that situation creates. The Minister of National Defence has said that we should listen to their advice. He and his government did not listen to their advice. They advised the Canadian government to go ahead with the Avro Arrow.


George Randolph Pearkes: How do you know that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They said we should have defence interceptor squadrons. They came to Ottawa to try to persuade the Canadian government to go ahead with the production in Canada of long range interceptors. What did the Canadian government do about it? They did absolutely nothing. Why then, if you value this advice so much, do you not take it, or do you not believe it? Do you feel your judgment is better than theirs? If you do, why do you question anyone else who differs with them?

Supply-National Dejence
Even within military circles there is no unanimity. This is inevitable when you reach a state of change in military atfairs such as we presently have before us. You are not going to get complete agreement amongst all people. How would you expect to do that? There is even disagreement amongst the United States forces themselves. The air force in the Pentagon does not agree completely with the NORAD commander in chief. If the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to read the evidence presented before the house and senate committees of the United States he would know that. NORAD has asked for all sorts of things, and the chief of the air force said, we cannot give it to you; we do not feel it is a justifiable expenditure of the public funds of the United States under these circumstances. Surely the hon. gentleman recognizes, then, that it is not unreasonable for someone else to stand up and question any other recommendations made by the same command in respect of the expenditure of the public funds of Canada.
This is especially true, after this program was knocked out by congress, in its wisdom. Congress had no confidence in it. They listened not only to General White, the chief of the air force, but they listened to General Kuter. They were so interested in what General White has said about the Bomarc-SAGE system, and that created so many questions in their minds, that they wanted to call General Kuter in order to get his personal views. They got General Kuter to come to Washington and present his case, present the problems of his command and put forward his requests. They listened to those views, but they did not accept them. General Kuter did not get anything like what he asked for before the house and senatorial committees. The associate minister should at least know that. So, obviously the senate, congress, the air force, the joint chiefs of staff in the United States and the president disagreed with what the NORAD chief had requested. They all thought that under the existing circumstances and the available amount of public funds there were uses to which the money could be put which would be more in the public interest than fulfilling the total requirements of that command. Yet the minister has the audacity to come in here this afternoon and suggest that anyone who differs with a military commander is out of order.
This is a strange policy and a strange suggestion now on the part of the associate minister. Then, Mr. Chairman, the piece de resistance, is that the associate minister says that for five years at least the threat of the bomber is the great thing.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Can you deny it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are going to hear something about the great unanimity on the other side of the house now. This is not what the Minister of National Defence said in this committee last year on July 2, 1959 when defence estimates were being considered. As reported at page 5350 of Hansard for that date, the minister said:
In the early 1960's it is expected that the ballistic missiles will have reached a stage of reliability whereby such missiles will replace the bombers as the primary means of delivering nuclear weapons on North America.
In the early 1960's the minister said that missiles would replace the bombers as the primary means of delivering nuclear weapons on North America.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: That does not mean there is no threat from bombers.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I continue the quotation:
However, if an attack on this continent is made in the early 1960's it is considered quite probable that a variety of weapons would be used in an effort to saturate the defences and thus deliver a devastating attack.
This kind of attack would include ballistic missiles, both long and short range, land based or from submarines, as well as other nuclear weapons delivered by aircraft. As most of the major strategic targets are situated in the United States it is more than likely that certain targets in Canada would be attacked by bombers, although the primary threat would be from the ICBM's.
This is the Minister of National Defence saying that in the early 1960's the primary threat will shift from the manned bomber to the intercontinental ballistic missiles and other missiles. Does the associate minister disagree with the view expressed by the Minister of National Defence on that occasion?


Egan Chambers: There is no difference in what he said.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does he deny that two or three years hence this will be much more so, that the total capacity at that time of intercontinental ballistic missiles will be three, four -I do not know how many times-what it is at present? Does the minister deny this? Does he deny that under those circumstances, in the event of an all-out war in which Russia chooses to attack, first, that all the major targets on the North American continent-yes, even all the major cities and all the Bomarc sites could be obliterated with the first blow. Does he deny that? If he does, let him rise in his place and say so.


Donald MacInnis: You denied it yourself yesterday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If he does not deny it, then why does he say a couple of Bomarc squadrons will make any difference by the mid-1960's and beyond?
Furthermore, he said the interceptors we had recommended for the identification role would not be effective without the SAGE system. Can the minister tell us if the SAGE system is presently in operation, and if this is necessary for the CF-lOO's? If it is, why has the minister these nine squadrons in existence at the present time? Does the minister deny that aircraft can carry its own radar? Does the minister deny that an aircraft can work independently of SAGE under any circumstances? Even if he should deny that, what possible use, under some circumstances at least with an all-out attack, which is what we are considering, would the SAGE system be when it is soft, when it has a whole mass of electronic equipment on top of the ground which could be knocked out with one grenade or one missile.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It would have to be a big
grenade.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, it would, but it would not take much of a grenade to knock out an electronic computer of that complexity, and the minister knows it.


Jacques Flynn: Order; it being five o'clock, the committee will interrupt its proceedings to consider private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence pursuant to standing order 15.


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder if it would be agreeable to the house to resume the consideration of the estimates, as has been done on several occasions recently.


Mr. Chevrier:: So far as we are concerned, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Howard:: Because of the failure of other agreements, Mr. Speaker, we reluctantly agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed that the house will waive the hour for consideration of private and public bills and revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Supply-National Defence



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the eloquent expose of the hon. member for Trinity. I should like to explain very briefly a few personal things in answer to what he said. It is quite true that I have not risen too frequently in this house, but there is a reason for this. I do not believe I should rise in my place unless I have something specific to say. I would suggest to the hon. member for Trinity that if he observed this principle that there is strength and beauty in silence he would not have exposed this committee to the gentle, but always inept, nonsense we have heard from him since this session started. It is really rather amusing in a way, Mr. Chairman, but also rather boring in another, to think that so much time of this house has been wasted by the hon. member for Trinity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Why do you not talk about the issues?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: But eventually at one time he decided to come out with this nonsense that we heard yesterday in this lengthy speech of his. Speaking of speeches, the hon. member referred to a speech which I made in Toronto a few months ago. He claims that I took this speech with me and that I went to Toronto and made such a speech. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you this-and the hon. member for Trinity can ask all those people from Toronto who heard me-that I went there and spoke without notes. I did not read my speech; I delivered my remarks, and those remarks were actually prepared by myself and said by myself; they were not prepared by anyone else or said by someone else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I noticed this yesterday,
though, because I was following the hon. member's text, which he had been gentlemanly enough to provide to us, in a way which is well known now, and I followed him closely for 42 pages. He did not depart one single word from what was written in that particular text.
The hon. member also referred to the fact that I was absent from the sittings of the committee. The hon. member should know one thing. The reason why the position of Associate Minister of National Defence was formed by a previous government was because it was considered that there were possibly too many functions in that particular department for one man and that it was advisable to have an associate minister who would divide the work load with the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member must

Supply-National Defence be aware of this because, unless I am mistaken, I believe he occupied the position of associate minister of national defence. But it may be that it was for so short a time that possibly he did not have time to acquaint himself with the various functions.
I well remember that his tenure of office was something like three weeks, when in a very unexpected fashion for the hon. members opposite something happened on June 10, 1957, which prevented the associate minister of national defence at the time from carrying on with his illuminating knowledge of defence and the illuminating suggestions which he no doubt would have given to the officials.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mine has improved since; that is the difference between us.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I think we have now said enough things to each other for the present. May I quite frankly tell you that this is all said without malice of any kind, because I do have a great deal of respect for the many qualities of the hon. member for Trinity, although I find his ideas on defence somewhat diffused, confused and, let us say, nonsensical, saying that in a gentlemanly way.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will appreciate it in a year or so, when you catch up with it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member can resume his remarks later. He blamed me for stating that there was a threat from manned bombers during the next five years. It is quite true that the main threat certainly lies in the fact that some missile may come from nowhere and destroy some of our cities.
It may be-I do not know, quite frankly -that the primary threat is from these intercontinental ballistic missiles and that this threat will increase. It is also quite true that there is not at present too good a defence, if any defence at all, against such missiles. But the fact remains that there is also a threat against which there is a defence, and that is the threat of the manned bomber. To fight manned bombers we need to have Bomarc B surface to air missiles and various types of interceptors. This at present is the only way that we can give to the Canadian nation, to the North American continent, a suitable defence, and because we believe that it is our duty to give to this continent and this nation the very best form of defence against such a threat while the threat exists, we do not hesitate to carry on with this program of air defence which we have at present and which is advocated by NORAD.
A short while ago the hon. member referred to the fact that he had a great deal of respect for the service chiefs who operate at NORAD, and he referred to General Kuter.

At the time when the hon. members opposite were trying by every means at their disposal to decry the Bomarc A and the Bomarc B program, when they were trying to ridicule those who are trying to give this country the very best defence, this very man whom the hon. member for Trinity saluted a while back as one! of the leading military figures of America was the one who was saying to the United States congress and senate that the Bomarc B was a useful weapon. He was asking them to review their decision. This decision was reviewed and the estimates were reinstated and increased by the sum of $75 million.
Surely everybody cannot be crazy in the United States congress and the United States senate, at NORAD and in this parliament. I think it is high time for hon. members opposite to stop this absolute nonsense of asking that this nation be left unprotected for the next five years just because they refuse to admit the common sense of our well organized and well planned present defence policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not happen to have the position of associate minister of national defence; but after listening to that hon. gentleman for the last five minutes I want to say that I have never heard a greater disservice given the people of Canada than he has been expressing in that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: He gets up, with all his great eloquence, and I presume he thinks he is speaking with authority when speaking about the need for the defence of Canada, and speaks about a manned bomber attack, and then he tells us what he has just told us about the Bomarc. That is, I think, the most stupid statement ever made in this House of Commons at any time on any national defence policy.


Donald MacInnis: He is speaking from experience also.


Harold Edward Winch: You only have to go back to speech after speech after speech of the Prime Minister, speech after speech after speech of the Minister of National Defence telling us that the potential attack is the intercontinental ballistic missile. Go back to this very parliament and you will find it in Hansard, you will find it in the minutes of the committee, and you will find it in public statements half the time.
Then there was a little bit of a change. Yes, there was still the threat of the manned bomber. All right, there is still the threat of the manned bomber. We listened to the

Associate Minister of National Defence when he spoke of his interest in the defence of Canada against the manned bomber. There are the Bomarc sites. The Bomarc, as yet completely untested and unproven-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: How can you say that?


Harold Edward Winch: Eleven tests, and two hit the target. However, suppose they do work it up so it will hit the target every time; we will have two Bomarc stations in Canada, one in Ontario and one in Quebec. I do not know whether it is supposed to be security or classified, but I think that each one has 23 launching pads. I say that because I read it in a magazine; I did not get it from the Minister of National Defence. Sometimes these magazines seem to know a damned sight more about what goes on, and where locations are on defence, then what the government confides in the members of this house. My definite knowledge is of two Bomarc sites. If I am right, they have 23 launching pads on each, and even if they reach the ultimate acme of success the range is 400 miles.
I do not know whether the associate minister knows but Canada is 4,200 miles across. Ottawa is important, North Bay is important and Montreal is important, or wherever the closest Bomarc site is. But we also have to have protection for Winnipeg, Vancouver, Regina-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What about Calgary?


Harold Edward Winch: No, I will not forget Calgary, nor Edmonton which is further north. We understand that outside of North Bay and this place in Quebec we are now protected by Bomarc sites south of the Canadian border. If they have the Bomarc A its range is 224 miles. If they have the Bomarc B and it is successful, it is 400 miles. How about Victoria? How about Nanaimo? How about 600 miles north to Prince Rupert? How about Edmonton, Regina, and the rest of Canada?
The hon. minister got up and appeared to be overcome with the verbosity of his own eloquence a few months ago about Bomarc sites in the defence of Canada. Maybe I am vehement too, but there is some sense in what I say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: It is the Bomarc against the manned bomber. If the Bomarc is the defence of Canada against the manned bomber you had better have it all over Canada, because it goes from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I think it will be obsolete before we ever get it, as is the CF-105 and the $500 million involved.
Supply-National Defence


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: What do you suggest as a replacement?


Harold Edward Winch: Let us have a little bit of common sense in this matter.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: That is what we are waiting for; let us have it.


Harold Edward Winch: It should come from the Associate Minister of National Defence. If what is said about Bomarc is correct, why only two in Canada? What about the rest of Canada? Also, once a Bomarc missile has left its launching pad it can never be reclaimed. So with 46 Bomarc missiles we have shot our bolt. Do you think anyone who would make an attack on Canada is only going to have 46 missiles or bombers? Of course the rest will come in great numbers and they will get through. Let us not kid ourselves; if anyone makes war on the United States and Canada, it will be all-out. If they get through it will be thermonuclear war, and if thermonuclear war comes, there will be mutual suicide and annihilation, as I said last night.
If we are going to spend millions of dollars, let us do it on a sensible basis. I say with all respect let us not do what is a betrayal of the people of Canada, for an Associate Minister of National Defence to try to leave the impression that two Bomarc sites is going to defend Canada against an aggressor.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I rather object to the reference to my remarks as a betrayal of Canadian citizens. I believe that when the time came to serve my country I served it with some sacrifice. I frankly object to being referred to as one who would betray the interests of these Canadians whom I tried to serve when the time came for such duty.
I also rather object to the reference of the hon. member for Vancouver East that what I said was complete stupidity. What I am going to call stupidity is what he has just said, and what I am going to call stupidity is the obvious ignorance of the hon. member who, in spite of the fact that he sat through 26 sittings of the committee on defence expenditures, comes in front of this committee to show that he has learned nothing, is willing to learn nothing and knows nothing. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should have enough sense after 26 sittings to learn a little more and to know a little more about the system of North American defence than what he has indicated; and surely he has had many occasions to attain knowledge about the operations of the Bomarc missile, the Bomarc stations and the protection of our country

Supply-National Defence and should have inquired elsewhere than from some magazine where he picked up some doubtful information.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if anything is stupid it is what we have just heard from the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I for one would like him to withdraw the insinuation that I would at any time betray my country.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty. I did attend 26 meetings of the special committee on defence expenditures, but I do not know why I should come under condemnation because I learned nothing, when the associate minister did not attend one meeting of that committee. I at least was there for 26 meetings. I never missed one meeting and I never saw him stick his face inside once. I at least was there. That is perhaps one of my disillusionments, that after 26 meetings we could not learn a great deal.
My hon. friend does not like my word when I said I thought his attitude was a betrayal of the Canadian people. Perhaps in parliament we are getting a bit touchy at this late time and I withdraw the word betrayal. I say that his statement is a disillusioning presentation to the people of Canada.
I only have one more word to say, and this I say with all respect but with a great deal of regret. I honour, and everyone in this group honours, every member of parliament honours, and every citizen of Canada honours those who have served and have suffered in wars on behalf of Canada. No one would detract nor derogate in any way from the service of the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence, his service or his wound. But I do want to say that it is the last defence of a man who has no conclusive, reasonable or logical argument, to try to present his case before this House of Commons or on the election platform by winding himself in the flag and telling of his service and his wound. I regret this very much, because we honour those who served, those who suffered, and particularly those who died. But in the House of Commons we are discussing matters of today and of the future. Surely we can do that on the basis of reason, of argument, and of love.
(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with close attention to one of the first speeches of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny). He says he is just a beginner at it. Well, his beginning reminds me of the beginning of the Bomarc:


it is off the mark. He will need seven or eight more trials before he hits the target. It must not be forgotten that, for several years now, they have been waiting for this famous Bomarc in Mont Laurier, but it has not shown up yet.
I assume that, probably in view of a byelection, there will be works done in that area to give the member for Labelle, who now rests in the Senate, an opportunity to tell the people of Labelle that he has fulfilled his promises. Indeed he is surely aware that already contractors, labourers, workers, even buses have been mustered, because hundreds of people in Mont Laurier and vicinity had been promised jobs on the construction and installation of a Bomarc launching base.
I am therefore rather amazed that the Associate Minister of National Defence cannot accept specific suggestions from the opposition, such as have been forthcoming steadily from the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). Of course, we are unlikely to marvel at the millions of dollars poured into national defence, when we realize that we have no ships to transport our troups and no planes for our airmen.
The Minister of National Defence has pointed to the recent sending of 200 persons to the Congo as an illustration of the efficiency of the Department of National Defence. I consider this as a rather lame argument. Just two days ago, I think, in a T.V. interview, Major General Macklin pointed out that the money spent on national defence has brought extremely poor returns judging by the degree of protection we enjoy in Canada.
I have here a clipping from Montreal's La Presse. I shall read it out in full because it is highly topical. It is an editorial from La Presse, of August 5, this Friday, and it is entitled:
Out of tune violins.
The Associate Minister of National Defence will be able to judge, when reading this, whether the opposition has a right to criticize national defence estimates, or whether opposition members criticize just for the fun of it, for the pleasure of belittling, whereas the opposite is true.
In fact, the Minister of National De-ence should just read and reread the speech of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), because, as he said, it was printed word for word in yesterday's papers.
The title of the editorial is:
Out of tune violins.

General Pearkes maintains that critics of the government are wrong when they speak of confusion in national defence. In proof of this he refers to how fast his department was able to send 200 Canadian troops to the Congo. That rather childish way of saving face reminds us of a scene where, in his famous film "The Dictator", Charlie Chaplin felt he was able to support the earth because he could toy effortlessly with an inflated rubber globe-


Norman Platt Lambert: Who wrote this? Who is that expert?


Azellus Denis: This is an editorial in a great French language paper called La Presse.


Norman Platt Lambert: Who is the expert?


Mr. Bruchesi:: Who signed it?


Azellus Denis: Between the despatching of 200 men to Africa and the homogeneity of a general national defence policy, there is as much correlation as between a toy kite and a Bomarc-
No confusion? Let us go back a bit over recent developments.
On June 30, Mr. Pearkes spoke of an exchange of diplomatic notes between Canada and the United States with regard to warheads for Bomarc missiles. The minister of External Affairs, Mr. Green, had just denied that there had been such exchange, and when the opposition wanted to confront the two ministers in the committee of national defence, the proposal was rejected.
On July 15, Mr. Diefenbaker answered "No", when asked by Mr. Pearson whether the government was considering the possibility of reducing the strength of our armed forces.
On July 20, Mr. Pearkes "confirmed", in the committee on defence, that his department was considering the possibility of reducing our military strength so as to be able to spend more for the acquisition of scientific armament.
On July 21-
(Text):


Egan Chambers: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I do not believe it is in order to read an editorial commenting on a question that is before the committee and I should like to refer you to citation No. 157, paragraph 5 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, it is quite clear it is the privilege of any hon. member to do what the hon. member for St. Denis is doing within the language of citation No. 157, and the section which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George quoted does not apply to what is being done because the editorial does not refer to or comment upon or deny anything said by a member. That really is the gist of the citation read by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. On the other hand, citation 157 (1) says:
Supply-National Defence
The practice of reading extracts from newspapers to support an argument in debate has been followed in the British house since 1840 when Speaker Peel, with the acquiescence of the house, allowed a member to proceed to read passages from a newspaper. In 1856, when a member was called to order for reading an extract from a newspaper, the Speaker stated that on former occasions when he had attempted to enforce this rule he had been over-ruled by the house. A similar statement was made by the chairman in committee on the 9th March, 1857.
I could go on to refer to paragraph 2 of the citation, but I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that on numerous occasions it has been allowed by the Speaker in this house to read editorials or parts of editorials to support the argument being made. It has not been the practice, nor is it the practice to do that on the orders of the day when questions are being put, but this is another occasion altogether and I submit with deference that the first part of this citation aplies.


Egan Chambers: I should like to offer one further citation. In citation 157 (6) it is stated:
On the 17th March, 1933, a member quoting a newspaper in debate was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker who said: "The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others.. . Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order.
This is clearly what the hon. member has been doing. He has been reading an editorial, not a news item.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, a point of order has been raised concerning some statements I quoted. I must say right away that I fully endorse those statements to the effect that the ministers brought forward very poor arguments indeed to prove that we have here in Canada a really effective weapon for our defence, and that moneys spent on defence are well spent, especially when we are given as proof the fact that it was possible to send 200 Canadian soldiers to the Congo. Attempts are made to establish that the sums appropriated for national defence are adequate.
I also endorse other statements included in that editorial. Those are facts that took place in this house or elsewhere. Those are contradictions which were revealed previous to this debate and which are summarized in that editorial.
7648	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
As a matter of fact, instead of reading that article I would only have to put the following question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Is it not true that:
On July 15, Mr. Diefenbaker replied "No" when Mr. Pearson asked him whether the government was considering the possibility of reducing the strength of our armed forces.
I could also ask the following question to the minister: Is it not true that:
On July 23, the Canadian Press, basing itself on the words of "a government spokesman" said that the new weapons would require an increase and not a decrease in the number of the armed forces?
At all events, the Minister of National Defence stated in the house, on August 3, that he could not see how Canada could reduce its armed forces. That statement is recorded in Hansard; I have not got the exact page here, but hon. members will remember, no doubt, the minister's statement. Furthermore, they may look up the record, as I do, and they will certainly find the page. In any case, if that statement I am quoting from the editorial is inaccurate, they only have to contradict it.
One day the armed forces are being reduced and the next day they are being increased, according to whether the statement comes from the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or, lastly, the Prime Minister. Today, we have a fourth one in the person of the Associate Minister of National Defence, who is trying his wings. I hope he will continue to practise, and that he will be more successful than the Bomarc which he is trying to protect.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, when we are deciding to change weapons, I believe it is elementary that we should seek to replace them by more efficient ones, which have proven their worth in previous tests.
Mr. Chairman, as the previous speaker said, it seems that the ministers are satisfied that the Bomarc made good because two of the 11 tries were successful. I know that the Associate Minister of National Defence has attended school, and he surely knows that a pupil who gets only two marks out of 11 has failed in his examination.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the money spent by the Department of National Defence is simply wasted. The security measures of our country should be more wide spread and, as the previous speaker pointed out, our defence system should not consist only in protecting one or two provinces, but all ten at the same time.


Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Minister of National Defence, as well as the associate minister, would profit from reading and rereading the authoritative speech of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The second edition.


Azellus Denis: He made specific proposals and counter proposals in order to give the country an efficient defence system to protect the Canadian people, instead of leaving them in uncertainty, knowing that they are protected only by weapons which, up to now, have been failures.


Norman Platt Lambert: Who wrote that?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I am asked who wrote that article. All these sentences were uttered by the minister.


Norman Platt Lambert: Who wrote that? Certainly not you.
(Text):


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, before we pass this item I should like to answer some of the questions which have been raised during this two-day debate. First of all, I should like to express my appreciation to all those who have taken part in discussing this very vital subject of national defence. I am quite certain that all who have spoken have done so in a sincere and determined effort to try to present their views-the ones that they held for some considerable time-before this committee so that in trying to solve these extremely difficult problems that the Department of National Defence is faced with we might have the benefit of the considered opinions that have been held, or that are held, by the various parties and groups in this house and by the various individuals themselves.
I think it is quite evident from what has been said so far during this debate that all members are deeply concerned about the future, and what the future may hold, should conditions in the world become so grave that war would break out again. I want to assure all members of this committee that the government is exerting its utmost endeavours to secure a lasting peace. Nobody has been more sincere or more persistent in his efforts to further the international discussions which are going on, and have been going on during this summer, in order to try to solve what seems to be the almost insoluble problem of how to settle international differences, than has the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has had the support of all members of

this government. I am certain that all hon. members hope that our endeavours will meet with success.
It has been quite clear during the debate that the terrible consequences of another world war are obvious to all members, and it is because of the importance and the complexity of the problem that sincere points of view have been expressed, and at times during the discussions some heat has been generated.
We face an international situation which has deteriorated in the last two months. Everyone had high hopes a short time ago that some definite progress would have been made during the summit conference. We have been proponents in furthering the ideas of disarmament at the conference in Geneva. But we have to be realistic. While there is sabre rattling on the other side of the iron curtain, while threats are being made as to what may happen in the next few months in Berlin and in other parts of Europe, while the soviets, we are told, are making great progress with the development of modern weapons and their army, air force and navy are equipped with such weapons as have never been seen before, as Mr. Khrushchev stated not very many months ago, we cannot let down our guard entirely. We are not aggressors. We know not when a war may be started by a very powerful and ruthless government which gives indications of being ready to start aggression at almost any time.
That faces defence planners with a problem, the magnitude of which can hardly be realized. Are we to plan today for the possibility of a war breaking out later this year or next year or can we say that the indications are such that we may set aside the defences of the moment, that we may set aside the steps which are being taken to prevent war now and make preparations solely for a war which might take place ten years hence?
It seems to me that while we all agree that every effort must be made to prevent war there is a difference of opinion as to the best steps to be taken to prevent that war. Some members have expressed the opinion that war is so unlikely at the present time that it is not necessary for us to protect ourselves against the possibility of a bomber attack. Others have indicated that they feel that if war did break out in the near future bombers would be used. In giving evidence before the committee I made this statement as my considered opinion:
As far as ICBM's are concerned, the Russians have, undoubtedly, some such missiles operational and within the next few years they will probably have several hundred available. As their missile capability increases, less and less reliance will be placed on their bombers.
Supply-National Defence
I think that is really a fair and accurate statement. They do have a limited number of operational missiles today. They do have a large fleet of bombers of different vintages numbering well over 1,000 which would be capable today of being used against targets on the North American continent. We know that those bombers are in service in the Russian air force today. On the other hand, we have the statement of Mr. Khrushchev to the effect that the day of the bomber is over, that they are not going on to the production of any new bombers and that their air force will be based on the use of missiles and rockets in the future.
It seems to me that we have to try to assess the amount of the defence effort that we have to put against the possibility of a bomber attack. I think the hon. member for Trinity agreed with me that he did not think a planned attack within the next few years was likely, but he also agreed with me, and I made the statement earlier in this committee, that the possibility of an attack or a war breaking out as a result of some miscalculation or misadventure or, as he put it, on account of the actions of some madman, did exist.
So the question is, how much money are we justified in spending in making an effort to defend this country against the possibility of a bomber attack? We were faced with that decision a couple of years ago when, owing to the heavy expense involved in producing and completing the development of what would have been a superb interceptor, the CF-105, had the production been completed, we decided that the cost was too high and we did not feel we were then justified in spending that amount of money on this particular weapon to defend the country against the bomber. At that time we felt justified in deciding that we should spend a much smaller amount of money on joining in the chain of ground to air missile bases which the United States was developing for the protection of their SAC bomber bases and for the protection of the main centres of industry in the northeast portion of the United States and Canada. I refer to the Bomarc ground to air missile. I know that missile had difficulties in the early days of its development. They had the so-called Bomarc A which was fired with a liquid fuel and which required some considerable time before it could be launched from its launcher after the warning had been received. Its range was limited. We never considered adopting that particular version of the Bomarc.
However, at that time research and early development was being undertaken by the
7650	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence United States in order to develop a Bomarc B which had double the range of the Bomarc A and which could be fired with a solid fuel. It was making promising progress at that time. After one or two initial failures this weapon has been proven to be a success. It can fire the full range that it was designed to fire at a height of over 60,000 feet, which it reaches in a matter of seconds. After reaching the predestined height it then turns horizontal and is guided to its target from controls on the ground. Recent tests have proven that it can hit and destroy a supersonic target. We have confidence in this weapon.
The United States is spending some $333 million on Bomarc production this year. The amount of money which the United States government is spending on continental air defence is $3,900 million. This gives the committee some idea of the importance that our allies place upon continental air defence against the bomber; that is not money spent on defence against the missile. A great deal of money is being put by our allies in research to find a means of destroying or diverting the intercontinental ballistic missile. We propose spending a very small sum of money on the construction of these two Bomarc sites. It is insignificant in comparison with the huge sum that I have just mentioned of $3.9 billion.
We expect to spend on the construction of these two sites, spread over two years, some $12 million. These two sites will link up a chain of Bomarc stations which will be covering the great industrial area and the SAC bomber bases located in the northeast. The two Canadian Bomarc stations are placed so that they are north of the main centres of population, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, North Bay, and as I have said the approximate range of these missiles is some 400 nautical miles. Is this comparatively small expenditure of $12 million so outrageous that it is really not worth while to provide some protection to the cities of Canada, and provide protection against a bomber attack, not against a missile attack. It is extremely difficult to estimate-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister permit a question at that point?


George Randolph Pearkes: I would rather finish, and you can ask it later.
It is rather difficult, almost impossible, to estimate the time period when there will still be a threat from Russian bombers. The primary threat today is the bomber. Within another year or two the primary threat will be the missile. How long the Russians will keep their bombers active is known only to the Russians themselves. Some people estimate it will only be for five years, and other


people make a guess that it will be for at least 10 years. I do not feel, therefore, that we are justified in spending vast sums of money on defence against the bomber. But I do feel that we are justified in spending the comparatively small sum that we have in the estimates for Bomarc installations this year.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing the air defence of the North American continent and in particular the amount of the appropriation which has been allocated to these operations. I had pointed out that while there might not be any immediate threat of a planned war, still there was a possibility of war coming by accident or misadventure, and if war did come within the next few years it was inevitable that the Russians would employ their bombers against targets on this continent. It is realized that the percentage of the threat as compared with bomber to missile is increasing in favour of the missile. But still there exists a bomber threat. Therefore the problem which faces the government is to decide how much effort should be placed into the defence against the bomber should it occur in the next few years.
The government's position is that while the primary threat will gradually be swinging towards the missile, there is still a threat from the many hundred bombers in the Russian air force. Therefore we should take some precautions in order to help protect the SAC bomber bases of the retaliatory force located in the United States, and the major industrial cities. To do this we had decided to join with the United States in providing two Bomarc sites, one at North Bay and one at La Macaza, and to have these equipped with the Bomarc B, with a limited number of missiles, at a cost to Canada for the construction of those bases of some $12 million.
The Liberals, in presenting their program, while they realized that there was a danger of war occurring by misadventure, and realized that if that did occur within the next few years bombers would be used against targets in North America, prefer to use interceptors rather than to rely mainly on the Bomarcs as far as the Canadian contribution was concerned. The C.C.F. proposal was that we should discontinue the Bomarc and not replace it with interceptors, but rely entirely on the retaliatory forces of the United States and, I presume, the interceptor squadrons also

based in the United States. The government cannot accept that recommendation of the C.C.F. party, because we do believe that there is a possibility of bomber war, and because we are in a partnership with the United States and should play our fair share.
Regarding the Liberal proposal, I think their recommendation was based on two main facts. First of all, they dislike the use of nuclear weapons and they feel that the Bomarc will be fired from a fixed site and therefore will present a vulnerable target to hostile missile attack. I should like to discuss those two problems for just a minute. They recommended doing away with the Bomarc, cancelling the construction which is now going on at the two sites.
Regarding the first factor which influenced them, namely the use of nuclear warheads, the Bomarc cannot obtain its full effectiveness unless it is equipped with a nuclear warhead. Nor would interceptors be able to carry out their full effectiveness unless they also were equipped with nuclear weapons. And if pilots of the R.C.A.F. were flying interceptors which were not armed with nuclear weapons, they would be inferiorly armed in relation to the United States air force squadrons which would also be flying in Canadian air space if bombers were attacking this North American continent. Those interceptors of the United States air force would be equipped with nuclear weapons.
As far as the question of fixed bases is concerned, of course the Bomarcs are at a fixed site. Their launchers would be stationary. But I do suggest that as the Bomarc is only a weapon to be used against bombers, it is unlikely that the Russians during that period when it may be expected they would use bombers against us, when their number of missiles would be comparatively limited, could devote some of those missiles against a target which was designed purely to defeat the bomber.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to advise the hon. minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry, but there are a number of questions which I do feel I should answer, and also reply to some of the statements which have been made.
The fixed bases of the Bomarc are so small that I think it will be most unlikely that a missile fired from 3,000 to 4,000 miles away would be able to obtain a hit or would 79951-0-483
Supply-National Defence have those sites selected as a target. Of course, one must remember that the jet aircraft must take off from air fields with a comparatively long runway, and I am not at all sure that the air fields capable of supporting jet interceptors would not be just as vulnerable a target as the Bomarc sites. So I really do not see that there is a great deal of argument on that score. We must remember that these two sites are located north of the great industrial cities of eastern Canada and while their primary purpose may be the protection of the SAC bomber bases, they will still offer a considerable degree of protection to the cities in eastern Canada.
Then there is one other point I would like to make in connection with the proposal of the Liberal party in this respect, and that is that it is very much more expensive of course to maintain interceptor squadrons than it is to maintain the Bomarc sites. As I pointed out, Bomarc sites would cost $12 million to $15 million. The number of missiles we may assume to be approximately 30 on each site. As a basis of calculation which has been accepted in the United States, one interceptor would cost the equivalent of three missiles. That would mean that if we were going to replace the missiles with interceptors we should require 180 interceptors to replace the 60 Bomarc missiles. Each of those interceptors might possibly cost about $2 million apiece.
So you see, Mr. Chairman, you would be running up an expense of some $360 million as opposed to the $12 million which the government proposes to spend on the Bomarc missile. Then of course maintenance of the interceptor squadrons is far greater than the maintenance of the Bomarc sites and the number of personnel which are required to man the interceptor squadrons is much greater. The Leader of the Opposition did say that it might not be necessary to employ as many interceptors as there are now being employed in the nine squadrons, so perhaps he does not anticipate using that full number of 180. Actually, today we have considerably more CF-lOO's in our squadrons and reserves than the 180.
Another factor comes up here, and that is that I am very doubtful whether there are available in the United States this number of interceptors which could be obtained readily. Again, it may be-and this was not clear in the remarks which were made-that perhaps they are considering primarily that these interceptors would be used merely for identification and recognition purposes. As I have indicated the government has under consideration the possibility of replacing
7652	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence some of the CF-lOO's with a limited number of interceptors which could be used for recognition purposes.
Now regarding SAGE, which the Liberals recommended should also be discontinued, SAGE is required. If any interceptors or reconnaissance aircraft, be they for identification or recognition, are flying at supersonic speeds, all United States air force interceptors are equipped with radar which will operate with the SAGE environment. SAGE is being installed from the Atlantic to the Pacific and if we discontinued the one SAGE installation which we are putting in in Canada there will be no opportunity of controlling and guiding the United States interceptors which might in the absence of our own interceptors, or joining with our own interceptors if we had them, do battle in Canadian skies. So I do suggest that it is imperative whether we go ahead with the Bomarc or not that the SAGE environment should be continued and I could not accept the recommendation of the Liberal party that the SAGE environment be discontinued.
The Leader of the Opposition asked questions regarding the negotiations going on in connection with the acquisition of nuclear warheads. We have had a lot of discussion about that and I should have though that the position of the government was clear. We are entering into and have been carrying on discussions at various levels, the official level and between Canadian ministers and United States ministers, as to the sort of arrangement which could be made when nuclear warheads are made available which, as the Prime Minister said, will be so if and when they are required. We recognize, and 1 am sure the Leader of the Opposition does also, that by United States law these nuclear warheads whenever they leave the United States must still remain the property of the United States. So whether these warheads are placed in Canada or in the leased bases in Canada or in the United Kingdom, the United States still retain possession of them until such time as the President of the United States releases them for use to the authorities of the country concerned.
In the United Kingdom where these nuclear weapons are now stored a form of joint control is exercised whereby a United States officer has a key to the receptacle where they are stored and also a British officer has a key, and the door cannot be opened unless both keys are used. So you have a form of joint control not dissimilar to the method which is used by anybody having a safety deposit box in the bank where the banker has one key and the lessee of the box has the other.


There would seem to be no difficulties in the way of reaching some sort of similar agreement regarding the storage of those nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Then when the situation becomes such that these weapons are to be used, the sole authority to authorize the use of those weapons in Canada would be the Prime Minister of Canada who, having had them released by the President of the United States, would then give directions as to when and how they should be actually used.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question on that point? Could the minister tell us how much warning we would have of an international intercontinental ballistic missile during which this joint control would have to operate?


George Randolph Pearkes: The immediate amount of warning would be approximately 30 minutes but there might be several days of warning. It does not necessarily follow that the first missile would be fired against the Canadian target. It is quite likely or it is quite possible, shall I say, that the first missiles might fall in the United States, thereby giving us, perhaps, hours of warning. It is inconceivable in the present stage of the development of missilry that all the Russian missiles could be fired off simultaneously. So when I say the minimum amount of warning would be 30 minutes, there might be considerably more warning than that.
That, I hope, explains the present position. There are these discussions going on. We have not got the launchers yet. We do not expect the launchers until some time next year, and I am quite certain that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be able to complete the negotiations by that date so that as the Prime Minister has said these weapons will be available if and when required. But, as the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, there are negotiations; at least there are vigorous demands being made by numerous countries to ban the use of nuclear weapons altogether. If these are successful, and if it is generally agreed that nuclear weapons shall not be used, then, thank God, we shall not have to have them. I hope that answers your question. I think that is all I had on continental defence.
Now we come to the question of mobile forces of conventional arms. Great stress was made by the Liberal spokesmen on the importance of having a mobile force capable of being transported by air to practically any part of the world where it might be necessary for Canadian forces to operate in support of some United Nations project. I heartily agree,

and I said very definitely in my opening remarks that we attach importance to the provision of additional air transport for that very purpose. As a matter of fact, there is part of the total of $170 million included in this year's estimates for the purpose of acquiring additional air transport. I have already mentioned the types of air transport there are- the CC-106, the CC-109 and the 130-B. The most recent order we have placed is for the Caribou to operate in the Congo. Thus I do feel we have during the last three years built up the air transport command, and certainly before the end of this financial year the majority of these aircraft will have been delivered and we shall be in a position to move three or four times the number of troops, together with their equipment. The aircraft known as 130-B move a very great quantity of equipment, much heavier equipment than it has ever been possible for us to move before, and with this combination of air transport in air transport command we shall be by the end of this fiscal year in a very strong position to move troops as required.
I have repeatedly mentioned the stand-by battalion. Yes, there is a battalion composed of approximately 1,000 men ready to move at any time. It is not the fault of Canada that in the particular situation arising in the Congo a different type of troops were required, emphasis being laid on staff officers, signal communication troops and what is usually referred to as logistic troops, supply personnel and so on. Some of these troops were already immunized and could have been moved into the Congo earlier than they actually were, but the difficulty was for the Congo United Nations force to decide exactly what type of personnel were required.
Canada supplied the first staff officers to the Congo force. We have ten trained staff officers in the Congo now providing a very essential element to the commander, including his chief of staff. Less than half an hour ago I signed an order for six more officers to join that force. Canada is ready to meet the modest requests that have been made to her.
It is suggested we should have a brigade instead of a battalion. That is just a question of emphasis. I doubt whether it will be practical for us to have and maintain an air transport force capable of moving a full brigade in a very short time. I am doubtful whether a situation would arise whereby the United Nations would call upon Canada to make such a large contribution, and if they did we have three brigades here in Canada of trained, regular soldiers who in a short time could be made available for any further United Nations operations.
79951-0-483J
Supply-National Defence
The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Trinity that we should have a troopcarrying supply ship to go to distant places where air transport could not take troops. I find it rather difficult to visualize such territory where it would be more expeditious to put a large number of troops into a ship to move quickly to some point, where you could not reach that point, or near that point, with air transport. I cannot help feeling that it would be preferable to continue what we are doing and to maintain a strong transport command. Therefore, I feel in principle we are not widely distant; it is just a question of degree in that respect.
The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Trinity both emphasized the importance of increasing the mobility of the brigade in Europe. As hon. members know, we have a brigade group there. Last year we entirely motorized that brigade. We provided enough motor vehicles, adding 41 motor vehicles to each battalion, so the whole force could be moved in motor vehicles. I know that these are not amphibian vehicles but there is not a brigade in Europe, unless perhaps some of the United States brigades so equipped, and I do not know that they are equipped with carriers. We have been in the forefront of the development of an armoured amphibian motor vehicle for the carrying of personnel. That vehicle is in its final stages of testing. Actually the last information that I received indicates that the final complete tests will be finished next month, and when we get these final tests, if the vehicle comes up to expectation, it is the intention to go into production of that vehicle so that it will to a very large extent meet the requirements which were suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and others.
He did suggest helicopters. Yes, helicopters would be useful, but helicopters are not generally detailed down to brigade formation. While we have some helicopters with the air division in Europe which, if necessity arose, could be allocated to the brigade group, and I believe have taken part in some of the exercises which have been conducted by that brigade group, we have not yet seen our way clear to providing the helicopters which are necessary. To be quite frank with the committee, we have been investigating the very knotty problem as to what type of helicopter should be used. We would like to have one type of helicopter which could be used by all the three forces, the navy, the army and the air force. It does not seem quite practical that we can do that. If we could get all the forces to accept one type of helicopter and could have enough orders to justify that helicopter being manufactured in Canada that would be the ideal situation.

Supply-National Defence Failing that we may have to purchase helicopters from the United States. There is a small air element attached to the brigade for artillery reconnaissance and for intercommunication between the various units of the brigade for commanders, and so forth.
Now, I must absolutely refute the suggestion that the brigade is equipped with obsolescent weapons and that it is not well equipped. I do not believe that there is one weapon in the brigade which an infantry brigade of the Canadian forces used during world war II. They have all been replaced by more modern and more up to date types. The primary weapon, the rifle, has been completely changed. They have the C-l, the C-2 the FN rifle. There are new mortars, new wireless equipment and so forth. My parliamentary secretary put on the record last night a list of the new equipment that is being used, and I would emphasize the fact that the centurion tanks which they now have are being fitted up with armour-protected gasoline tanks, and their armament is being increased with a heavier and more up-to-date gun. Therefore, I feel that it is not fair, it is not a just criticism and not fair to the troops to say that they are not equipped with up to date weapons.
A question was asked yesterday regarding research. We have been able to spend only a limited amount of money on research, but our research programs have been as extensive as the staff of scientists of the defence research board could cope with. As one hon. member said yesterday, one of the big troubles has been the pay of the scientists in the government service.
There has been a tremendous demand for scientists in industry, and unless they are dedicated men, many have found it much more profitable to take positions in industry. But I think hon. members know-at least those who were on the committee do know -that there was an increase in the salaries of scientists in the defence research board authorized last June. Previously the minimum wage for scientists was $5,000; that has been increased to $5,240. The maximum was $14,500; that has been increased to $16,500. We hope that this will go some way toward stabilizing in their positions the scientists that we now have. There is a slight increase in the vote for research and I hope it will be possible to expend the full amount.
A question was asked about navigational aids and infra-red equipment which would enable tanks and vehicles to operate at night. The defence research board and the army have been working together on what are known as the navigational aid and infra-red projects. The navigational aids are under unit test now and have been lent to the

United States and to the United Kingdom. We have recommended to the NATO organization that these weapons be included in the likely projects which all countries of NATO were asked to submit in the expectation that they would be accepted by all the nations. Therefore I feel that in that respect we are making progress and I hope this information will be of interest to the hon. member who asked the question.
A question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, regarding the use of nuclear weapons by NATO. He asked whether it was the policy of NATO to use nuclear weapons in what would be mainly a land war in Europe. While, as the hon. member knows full well, it is not possible to disclose all details regarding the use of equipment by NATO forces because the information is classified by NATO, I have a quotation from a speech made by General Norstad, the supreme allied commander, at the University of Southern California on December 6 in which he said:
The forces which are assigned to the NATO mission are after all largely organized around nuclear weapons; the defence of Europe against a serious attack depends on these weapons.
The suggestion has been made that we should not use nuclear weapons in Europe if enemy forces start an invasion of western Europe and that we should rely on conventional arms to repulse such an invasion. It is my opinion that NATO does not have sufficient strength in personnel and conventional arms to be able to resist an attack by Russian forces which would be supported by their conventional arms and, as we know, the Russian army is equipped with tactical nuclear weapons. If our soldiers are to have a fighting chance should they be attacked I feel it is imperative that they should have the use of nuclear weapons in the same way that the soldiers of the other allied countries will have nuclear weapons released to them through the NATO commander.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister would permit two questions before he leaves that particular subject. It was the reading of General Norstad's statement that inspired my question to the minister, and I was wondering whether the NATO council had ever confirmed his statement that nuclear weapons would be used. If the minister does not feel it is appropriate to answer my second question I will understand, but I should like to know whether all the other members of NATO have agreed to accept tactical nuclear weapons for their defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think I would be justified in saying that the principle of the employment of nuclear weapons has been accepted by the

NATO council. I would not feel justified in saying whether all have accepted it but the principle has been accepted and these nuclear weapons, as a matter of fact, are placed in Europe now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In some countries.


George Randolph Pearkes: Some of them, and they would still have to be released by the President of the United States to the supreme allied commander before he would have the authority to use them. I do not say necessarily a few minutes before. There may be conditions set under which he may use them that I would not know, but they would have to be released by the President of the United States.
A question was asked whether our 104 squadrons would use nuclear weapons. All I can say there is that they would have the capability of using these weapons. Whether they would be allowed to operate with them from French bases I do not know. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware of all the discussion there has been about that matter. That would have to be arranged by the NATO supreme allied commander with the French government and, in any event, we have air bases in Germany as well as in France. That is a problem which will have to be faced when the new aircraft become available.
I cannot accept the suggestions made by the hon. member for Trinity about the unsuitability of the 104. As I said the day before yesterday, the 104 has been chosen by other NATO countries for this dual role, and after the most careful investigation we decided it was the most suitable aircraft. I know that for various reasons the hon. member for Trinity does not like that particular aircraft, but we had to make a decision and we have decided that it is a good aircraft. Only minor modifications are being made to it. Nothing like new development is being done, as the hon. member suggested. It is not a wholly new project. Only minor alterations are being made. It is a proved type and, as I said before, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Italy have all accepted that aircraft and I believe other countries are also accepting it.
One hon. member raised a question about manpower cuts. I think I made it quite clear that as long as Canada has commitments for her armed forces, which we have accepted, there can be no substantial reduction in the number of the forces. I have said that over and over again. While it was mentioned today that I had said we were looking into the question of reducing the numbers, I stressed the point that in my previous statements I have said there would be no substantial cuts. We are always looking for ways whereby we can economize, particularly in manpower and
Supply-National Defence particularly in the administrative branch, be it military or civilian personnel. I am fully aware of the fact that for general economic reasons we cannot expect any large increase in the defence budget, and we find costs of operation, costs of maintenance, costs of personnel, always going up, as well as the costs of acquiring new equipment. It is difficult to adjust these. We do, therefore, regularly examine all our establishments to see if there can be any reductions there.
One other question was asked and that was connected with survival operations. The hon. member asked if the militia were receiving training equipment for survival operations. As I mentioned yesterday, the militia is doing admirable work in these survival operations. I do attach a great deal of importance both to the training of the regular and militia units. While it is not possible to obtain much of the equipment, because it is not procurable at the present time and there is not sufficient money to get all the equipment which the troops could use, we are getting enough training equipment and a good deal of operational equipment as well, both for the regular forces and the militia.
I think I have covered most of the points which were raised. If I have left out any, perhaps hon. members would ask the questions when we are considering the other votes and I have the officials here to fill in the details.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Navy-
220.	Operation and maintenance, $197,041,557.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a couple of questions to ask of the minister in connection with this item. I have a letter here from local 230 of the I.B.E.W., Victoria, British Columbia, dated July 21, 1960, in which they mention that approximately 150 employees of Her Majesty's dockyard, Esquimau, are interested in the credit union and co-operative health plan and have expressed their desire to continue in this plan. However, the government has taken the stand that they have no objection to these employees retaining their present health plan, but have made the point that any arrangements for doing so must be carried through on an individual basis. They go on to mention that this privilege for deductions being made from the payroll has been extended to employees in other areas, and they have been asking that the department grant them the same consideration.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have heard some discussion about this. The officials are on their way down and when the representative of the navy is here I will give the hon. member an answer.

Supply-National Defence


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Might I ask the minister a second question while they are en route. I have a couple of letters from people at Robert's Creek claiming that buildings have been damaged and windows broken as a result of concussion consequent upon firing practice by the navy. Has the minister received any complaints in that respect, and what is the usual procedure to make certain people's property is not damaged and that they do not suffer any unnecessary inconvenience?


George Randolph Pearkes: When firing practice is to take place, the hour and area in which the practice is going to take place is always published in the local newspapers. People are advised to leave their windows open so as to avoid the effect of concussion. If, however, damage is done to property, then the owner of the property may submit a claim. The claim would be dealt with in the regular way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Have there been any claims paid in connection with damage caused by concussion from gunfire?


George Randolph Pearkes: Oh, yes, over the years I am sure there have been. I cannot tell the hon. member the exact amount, but I know there have been claims.
I wonder if the hon. member would be kind enough to repeat his first question so that he may get an answer to it?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly, I think it would be just as well if I sent the letter over to the minister. I do not want to take the time of the committee to read it. It is a letter from local 230 of the I.B.E.W. on account of certain employees in the dockyard who want certain deductions from their payroll recognized by the department for the credit union and co-operative health plan. They claim that other departments permit these deductions, and the department extends this privilege to those enrolled in the government medical and surgical plan, but it is still denied to the membership in the credit union and co-operative health plan.


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand that employees who have been in the habit of making their contributions prior to July 1 are permitted to continue, but after July 1 new applicants cannot be received.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
221.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land' and major equipment, $74,259,000.
Mr. McFarlane:: I should like to make a few remarks in connection with this item and bring a couple of matters to the attention of the minister. First, I should like to offer my congratulations to the minister and also to his department. I should like to make

specific mention of Dr. Bryce for his untiring efforts and the tremendous job he has done in organizing the civil defence program across Canada.
During the progress of our committee meetings in connection with the estimates of national health and welfare it was brought to my attention that the militia in parts of Canada will take over-


Charles Edward Rea: Order, order. I
think perhaps the hon. member should discuss this matter under vote 222, the Canadian army. We are still dealing with the Royal Canadian Navy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian army-
222.	Operation and maintenance, $350,887,000.
Murray Lincoln McFarlane: I will start where I left off. It was brought up, I believe, in the estimates committee of the Department of National Health and Welfare that the milita would take over and assist the civil defence program in time of emergency. For the last three years our militia unit in Kimberley has been having great difficulty, especially with their accommodation. I received a letter from the Kimberley organization a little while ago which I would like to quote:
As for us in Kimberley, we continue to struggle along trying to rim a unit of approximately 100 men in the rented lower half of the Oddfellows hall. We continue to hire half of a civilian garage to house our vehicles, and rent rooms in the adjoining public school for training space on parade nights. The total bill to the public for all this is, I know, much more than would be the case in a more efficient plant. We do our best, but the training suffers and the administrative headaches are too numerous to mention.
That was brought to my attention at that time and I wrote to the minister about it, at which time I also presented our case. I received a very nice letter from the minister stating that the question of construction of armouries across Canada was receiving special consideration, and also that the question of an armoury at Kimberley would receive most careful consideration. But at that time he could not justify its construction. I hope now, in view of the fact that I have heard just recently that they were going to construct an armoury in Vancouver that we might divert at least a portion of the funds to constructing an armoury in Kimberley.
In Kimberley we have a wonderful unit. They are a good group of men and they are working very hard to make a success of the militia department in that area. They are using old equipment and their headquarters are now situated in Cranbrook. That means travelling to and fro 20 miles each way on each meeting night which, especially during

the winter months, has created a certain amount of confusion. I am sure that if the armouries were located in Kimberley the unit there would expand and we would have a very wonderful militia organization in that area.
Due to the geographical location of East Kootenay-I believe I brought this up at the estimates committee at the time-we only have one unit in Kootenay East operating at the present time. The suggestion was made that in the case of emergency units would come from Trail or Revelstoke. I would like to bring to the minister's attention that owing to our location it would be practically impossible to get there in time to be of any assistance. I should say that the Kimberley group is using inadequate facilities now at Cranbrook.
Only yesterday I received a wire from the small centre of Creston of about 3,000 people, in which they say they are very anxious to form a militia unit in that area and the request has now been forwarded. They say:
Before leaving Ottawa please inquire as to formation of militia unit here with lease or purchase of buildings and property of Creston Can-ners. Premises have been inspected by department official and understand approved-
I understand that they will be very adequate for a militia unit in the Creston area.
I would like to ask the minister if he would give some consideration to the forming of a unit in Kimberley or the forming of a unit in Creston, and also the construction of adequate headquarters in Kimberley. I feel this has been going along now for a number of years and with the prospect of an excellent unit in Creston and also in Kimberley I believe this support would certainly be of great benefit to the Kootenay East area.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to thank the hon. member for his interest in the militia units in the area. I know the engineering company at Kimberley and I have seen the reports, which confirm what the hon. member has said regarding the efficiency of that unit. I know that the accommodation is hardly adequate. Unfortunately there are no funds in this year's estimates for an armoury in that area, nor were there any funds for an armoury in Vancouver, so I cannot transfer money from Vancouver to Kimberley. But if the hon. member can suggest any better accommodation which might be rented we would be very pleased to look into it. As for a new unit at Creston, we will be very pleased to look into that when the application arrives.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as the headquarters of the artillery battery which the hon. member for Kootenay East spoke of,
Supply-National Defence which is Cranbrook, are in Trail I would like to take this opportunity to briefly bring to the minister's attention the devotion of those who carried on in Trail and Nelson with respect to the artillery unit and the engineer company throughout the years. I would also like to bring to his attention that the armoury at Nelson can still do with some improvements. I want to ask the minister if he could briefly inform the house as to what is the situation now with respect to the militia and civil defence? Actually what part is the militia playing in the civil defence organization at this time?


George Randolph Pearkes: The part played by the militia in civil defence is similar to that which is assigned to the regular army, as far as reentry operations are concerned, and that is why they are being trained in the duties of rescue work and re-entry operations into areas which may have been destroyed either by enemy action or by some catastrophe.
The militia units are organized into a number of support columns-I think approximately 44 support columns-across the country, where they are organized into various types of units, engineers, medical, signals personnel and reconnaissance companies. They are available to move to any area which is either affected by bombs or by fall-out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the minister whether there has been an agreement to sell the armouries on University avenue in Toronto to the administration of metropolitan Toronto and, if so, what is the nature of that agreement?


George Randolph Pearkes: An agreement was reached about two years ago, on a request from the metropolitan area of Toronto, which required the site of the University avenue armouries in connection with the construction of a new courthouse and so forth adjacent to the parliament buildings in the area-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Osgoode Hall.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Osgoode Hall.


George Randolph Pearkes: -adjacent to Osgoode Hall, where there is a large municipal development nearby. We agreed to the sale of that armoury for a sum, I think, of $2 million and arrangements are being made to locate the units which have been in that University avenue armoury in the outlying districts of Toronto, because we feel that conditions are such, in so far as militia recruiting and the activities of the militia are concerned, that it would be better for the militia if they were moved to the suburbs of Toronto. So we have one armoury I think actually under construction at the present time in the eastern part of Toronto. One will be constructed in the north and one in the west.
7658	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask whether it is a fact that the original agreement between the federal government and the city of Toronto for the construction of this armoury, I think in 1897, a year which I remember well because I was born in that year, contained a clause under which the federal government must return to the city of Toronto free of encumbrance the site and title of the University avenue armouries in Toronto at such time as they are no longer required by the Department of National Defence? If that is the case, as it has been reported in the Toronto newspapers, how could the department then sell those armouries to metropolitan Toronto which is a different government?


George Randolph Pearkes: When that report was received I had the legal officers of the department look into the original agreement and they do not substantiate the claim.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So the minister is quite satisfied on the advice he has received that there is no legal difficulty in the way of this agreement which he has mentioned?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have so been informed by the legal officers of the department.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask a supplementary question on that. I have noticed even within the last few days that there has been a letter in the Toronto press which indicated that the commanding officers of some of the units still using University avenue armouries as their mess were wondering whether they might continue on. Incidentally I am one who did some training there some years ago.


George Randolph Pearkes: Tradition dies very hard in the army, as the hon. member knows, and there have been some officers in some of the old units who have disliked the prospect of giving up their old messes which are located in the University avenue armouries and having to move elsewhere. Some of them have thought that there may be greater difficulties with recruiting, but all these factors were very carefully examined and the advice of the militia commanders at the time and the advice of the general officer commanding Toronto was taken into consideration, and as a result of that we found that it would be to the benefit of the militia and would certainly be of great convenience to the ultimate development of the project in the metropolitan area of Toronto.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Like the hon. member for Greenwood I had great sentimental regret at this transtaction, because one afternoon in the early days of the first war, disgusted with my inability to translate a Latin text, I walked down from the university library to University avenue and enlisted in the
[Mr. Pearkes.!

armouries, and I am sorry it is going to disappear. But may I ask another question of the minister. Has there been a proposal made for a provost corps training centre at Elliot Lake, and can the minister give me some information as to what was done about that proposal.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. When the situation in Elliot Lake developed and the economy of the city was disrupted the department was asked to see if it was possible to locate any unit there. At that time we were considering the possibility of establishing the provost corps school elsewhere than at Shilo because the accommodation in Shilo was required for other things. A reconnaissance party of officers went down and looked over the place. They were shown the greatest courtesy by the mining company there and in Toronto where Mr. Winters went to a good deal of trouble to show the type of accommodation that there was. Unfortunately the accommodation was not centralized in any one place but centred at various points and could not be readily made available, so ultimately it was decided in agreement with the mining company and I believe the city authorities that it would not be practicable to establish a school at Elliot Lake.


Gabriel Roberge: I did not notice tonight whether the minister answered my question about personnel going to the Congo. I wanted to know what was the number of personnel speaking the French language that was designated to go to the Congo.


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot give the actual number of French speaking officers and men who are going, but I did give instructions that wherever possible French speaking officers and men were to be included in the contingent. I understand a number of men from the Royal 22nd regiment have been selected for that duty, they having been trained as signallers. There are French speaking personnel of the royal Canadian corps of signals. I would hazard a guess that at least 50 per cent of the personnel going there are fluent in the French language and that many others have a basic knowledge of the French language.


Gabriel Roberge: Could the minister indicate how many of the officers can speak the French language or what proportion can do so?


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot give a definite answer, but I would say that approximately 20 out of the 30 are able to speak the French language sufficiently well to be able to discuss their problems with the Belgium authorities or the United Nations authorities who are in the Congo now. I should like a pay a word of tribute to the way in which the officers

of French speaking Canada have responded to this call and have, without exception, expressed their keenness to serve their country-in this way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this item carries I want to bring to the attention of the minister a question that has arisen particularly during the last couple of years. I refer to the difficulty which is sometimes experienced by men leaving the service who find it difficult to obtain employment with the result that in some cases they are unemployed for a number of months although not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. I understand that at one time this matter was considered by the responsible people in the Department of National Defence, and for administrative reasons they recommended against providing some form of unemployment insurance in such cases. Personally, I think it is most unfair, particularly when men happen to be discharged during a period of recession-that is the polite term we use at the present time-and are unable to find employment for some months. I would ask the minister if he has had this matter drawn to his attention. It has been brought to my attention lately both by men who are in the service anticipating their discharge and by others who have been unemployed for some time. Is some consideration being given by the Department of National Defence to recommending to the other departments of government arrangements for the inclusion of servicemen under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Mr. Brunsden:: The hon. member speaks of a period of recession. Would he explain that and tell us what he means by it?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: By recession I mean that while the Progressive Conservative government is in power there are close to half a million men unemployed in Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think the number of men who are employed or unemployed comes within the scope of this particular vote. However, regarding the payment of unemployment insurance, personnel in the services are not eligible for these benefits, but it should be remembered that when a man's time has expired a certain amount of leave is granted to him according to the length of his service-leave which is accompanied by pay-and again, when he comes out with an honourable discharge at the completion of his service he receives a gratuity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to direct a question either to the minister or to the associate minister. Can the minister confirm or deny that a letter was sent to camp commanders 79951-0-484
Supply-National Defence telling them that all chemicals were henceforth to be bought from a specific firm in Vancouver?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have no knowledge of this. It seems to me that all chemicals are bought through the Department of Defence Production. I do not know why there would be any chemicals bought through other channels unless the quantity involved was very small and had to be obtained locally.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister deny that this matter was brought to his attention and that a second letter was sent out with instructions to ignore the first one?


George Randolph Pearkes: I cannot deny or confirm that. I have no recollection of it, and I cannot say whether such a letter was sent out. You have probably got a copy of it.


Chesley William Carter: I want to thank the minister, first of all, for the answers he gave to my questions about the infra-red equipment and the navigational aids for tanks. I am pleased to note that development is proceeding along those lines and that this kind of equipment has now reached the testing stage.
The minister also told us that one of the roles of the brigade groups in Canada would be to deal with commando raids. Enemy commando raids are usually made either to secure information or to knock out installations. We have many installations, communications and radar systems or warning systems which are in very isolated places in the Arctic or in coastal areas which are not easily reached by aircraft. The minister intends to provide our troops with Bobcats, but these would possibly not give the kind of mobility which he would need in a situation of that kind.
We have heard a great deal about these hovercraft which travel on a cushion of air, and it would seem that a vehicle of this kind would be ideal for recovering troops which might have to be parachuted into isolated areas to deal with any commando raids that might take place. Would the minister tell us if any consideration is being given to the acquisition of vehicles of this kind for our armed forces?


George Randolph Pearkes: The vehicle to which the hon. gentleman refers has not yet been fully developed. Naturally the department is watching the progress of that development with great interest. I think it will be a couple of years yet before this particular type of vehicle becomes operational. If I recall correctly, money has been voted for the development; some $2.5 million has been contributed by the government toward the development of this Avro car project.

Supply-National Defence
At the present time we are relying upon helicopters. We also have the Otter aircraft, and we also have the Cansos which are now being replaced by the Albatross which will be an infinitely better aircraft and capable of landing on water in those areas.
Reference was made to the commando type of operation, and I did not reply to that. It is possible that commando type operations in conjunction with air attacks on this continent might be undertaken, and in order to be prepared for any eventuality we do have troops trained for operations in the Arctic.
While I am on my feet, I should like to thank the hon. member for the discourse he gave this afternoon on psychological training. We shall be pleased to study that carefully and look fully into his recommendations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could say if the army has adopted the United States radiac meter CDV-710 model 5 and if it has yet obtained delivery?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think we have had supplies in quantity as yet.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is this not the basic equipment necessary for testing drinking water and food for radioactive contamination?


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe that is one of the uses which the equipment is designed to serve.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could say if the army has ordered the IM-108? Can the hon. gentleman say if the army has bought this piece of equipment, whether the contract is let to a United States firm, whether the contract is still in force or whether it has been cancelled?


George Randolph Pearkes: The contract for that type of equipment is let through the Department of Defence Production. I would not be able to inform the hon. member whether it has actually been let.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister say if the army has any of this basic equipment necessary for civil defence and survival operations sufficient to issue to its units concerned?


George Randolph Pearkes: At the request of the hon. gentleman I placed before the committee on defence expenditures a full list of the equipment which was being obtained.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman because of the lack of the necessary equipment in that list I was really wondering whether the minister had managed to obtain enough in the meantime, or whether we are still, you might say, defenceless in respect of this basic equipment for civil defence?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, we certainly are not defenceless as far as civil defence equipment is concerned. We have a large quantity on order and as funds become available and as the equipment becomes available we are obtaining some.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
223.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $70,410,000.
Hubert Badanai: For two years the Department of National Defence has been developing an amphibious vehicle known as the Bobcat in conjunction with the Canadian Car Company of Fort William. On several occasions I have asked the minister about the progress being made in the development of the vehicle, and whether a decision has been reached to adopt this vehicle for the Canadian army. I am particularly interested in this program because the Canadian Car Company would in all likelihood be the successful contractor by reason of the fact that this vehicle was designed in their shops. Therefore I was very much interested to hear the minister say in his opening remarks yesterday that the Bobcat is still under active consideration. If the final report shows that the vehicle comes up to expectations it will then be possible for the government to order production. Assuming that the department responsible for the recommendation makes a favourable report can the minister inform the committee as to the number of vehicles that would be produced?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I said a few minutes ago, the vehicle is in the final stages of its development. When that development has been completed, if the decision is taken by the government to acquire this vehicle, as I certainly hope it will be if it comes up to expectations, then we shall go into production. At the present time it is too early to say exactly how many we should require, but it would be in the order of the magnitude of a couple of hundred or more.


Hubert Badanai: Is the minister in a position to say something about the challenge and the practicability of the development of the Canadian armed forces of air cushion vehicles of the sort which are proving themselves in the United States and in the United Kingdom? If supported in doing so I am sure there are several Canadian companies capable even yet of developing such a vehicle. I should like to hear from the minister whether the Department of National Defence has given any particular consideration to this air cushion vehicle?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes; that is precisely the question I answered about five minutes ago. I explained that we are watching with interest the development of the so called Avro car. The development which is going on in the United Kingdom, on the isle of Wight, is known as the hovercraft. I inspected that personally last year. Of course, they are still in the very early stages of development and none of them is proven as yet.


Hubert Badanai: One more question; some time ago I asked about the government's intention as to the purchase of 1,000 prefabricated homes to be used by army personnel. Can the minister now indicate whether there has been a major decision in the matter as yet?


George Randolph Pearkes: No decision has been made in that matter. It is not clear what the requirement will be.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, with reference to item 223, concerning construction and acquisition of buildings, some time ago I presented to the Minister of National Defence a brief concerning the proposed construction at Kitchener, Ontario, of a north Waterloo defence building. Such a structure would accommodate the following garrisons now located in various buildings where facilities are inadequate: 54th L.A.A. regiment, Scots Fusiliers of Canada; the 48th field squadron, Royal Canadian Engineers; 137th company Royal Canadian Army Service Corps; 12th medical company Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps; Kitchener detachment 18th militia group headquarters; R.C.N. Kitchener to H.M.C.S. Star; army recruiting office, regular forces; navy recruiting office, regular forces; headquarters Ontario region No. 3 civil defence; Waterloo county headquarters No. 3 civil defence. Existing accommodation in these cases, as mentioned in the brief, are not too satisfactory. As an honorary member of both of these units, I understand some of these problems.
Advantages of the proposed national defence building are many and are outlined in various items in the brief presented. If these garrisons were housed in one building they would be better equipped to co-operate in peace as well as during an emergency, and would contribute to the efficiency, cooperation and good morale of all military forces.
Such a building would bring to the public a proper perspective of the role of our military and civil defence forces in the preservation of our way of life. It would create pride in service and pride of unit for the serving militiamen and a feeling of recognition for civil defence forces. The building would enhance the efforts of service information 79951-0-iSii
Supply-National Defence branches to attract the right type of man into the permanent forces and would induce the general public to take an interest in civil defence and to attend lectures to study survival, rescue and first aid techniques.
The substantial economy possible by the erection of such a building compared with the present facilities is well known to the department. These garrisons, under their commanding officers, are doing a splendid work. I hope the minister will give this matter his very serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
224.	Operation and maintenance, $536,737,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can give me some information about the equipment situation about the CF-100? I fancy the CF-100 is a plane which is not being manufactured now. It is still in use both in Europe and in Canada. What is the reserve situation? How long can we go on like this without manufacturing the CF-100 to keep the CF-100 squadrons in operation?


George Randolph Pearkes: The situation regarding the CF-100 is that there are quite a large number of these aircraft in reserve, and they have been rotated between the active squadrons and the reserve. It has not yet been necessary to cannibalize any of them; that is taking parts of one to put in another. We have sufficient spare parts for the time being and I think sufficient parts to carry on during the life of the aircraft. We expect the aircraft to be phased out in 1962.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With respect to the figure of $170 million which he referred to earlier as being expended for military air transport, can the minister say to which year he was referring, 1959-60 or 1960-61?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the total amount for the acquiring of the aircraft to which I referred. Did I say it was included in this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: That was incorrect. It is the total amount to complete the purchase of the aircraft to which I referred.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister estimate how many additional transport aircraft he could obtain if the Canadian government divested itself of the responsibility for the SAGE-Bomarc program and the $120 million was used alternatively for the purchase of transport aircraft?

Supply-National Defence


George Randolph Pearkes: There are 12, 106's, 10, 109's, 4, 130's, 10, Albatross, 4 of the new Caribou and 25 Otters.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the minister misunderstood my question. Can he estimate how many aircraft of the standard type of air transport he could obtain for the additional $120 million if the government should divest itself of the responsibility for the SAGE-Bomarc program or spent that same amount of money obtained from elsewhere?


George Randolph Pearkes: The average price of a larger transport would be about $4 million. I wish to emphasize again that the SAGE project is not restricted to the use of the Bomarc. If the Bomarc is not proceeded with we would still go ahead with SAGE so that interceptors could operate effectively over Canadian air space. Whether they were United States interceptors or our own Canadian interceptors they would require the SAGE environment system.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If it was only being used by United States interceptors presumably there is no reason why, if they needed it, they should not pay for it. Can the minister tell us whether lists of R.C.A.F. personnel have been supplied to any private commercial firms for commercial purposes? I have a letter here and I think the minister has a similar letter or a copy of the same letter from someone in Edmonton alleging that a list of R.C.A.F. personnel had been given to a private moving company in Edmonton.


George Randolph Pearkes: Not that I know of. The situation regarding personnel moving from one station to another is that each station receives from the industry the names of reliable companies which are recommended for the movement of the household effects of personnel. The serviceman is then informed that from this list of well known companies which have proved to be reliable he may select any one firm that he likes. If, on the other hand, he decides to ignore the list and to use a form of transportation the costs of which are in excess of those that are normal for the movement he is then expected to pay the difference.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I recognize that old and continuing policy, but there is an allegation in this letter that lists have been supplied to a moving company which in turn wrote to airmen in the Edmonton district. If I give this letter to the minister at some future time will he look into the matter?


George Randolph Pearkes: I will be very pleased to do so.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister indicate
the policy with respect to Trans-Canada Air

Lines pilots being allowed to participate in auxiliary squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force? Is there a limitation on the percentage of T.C.A. pilots who can participate in any squadron and, if so, why?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, there is a limitation on the number of pilots for the obvious reason that we would not wish to have too many pilots from these important commercial companies serving with the auxiliary squadrons.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has the percentage allowed been reduced recently and, if so, did the minister consider the previous allotment excessive?


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not think the actual percentage has been reduced yet but there has been an indication that there will be a lower percentage in the future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is there any intention that they should be excluded altogether from the auxiliary squadrons? I would hope that is not the case and I should like to have the minister's assurance.


George Randolph Pearkes: As long as the auxiliary squadrons are in operation and are included in the establishment of the air force reserve, the pilots to whom the hon. member has referred will not be excluded entirely.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the minister's very careful statement which he gave tonight in closing the debate on the administration item, for which we thank him, he mentioned a figure of three interceptors in lieu of each Bomarc missile. Would the minister elaborate on that? I remember that at the time of the controversy in the United States General Kuter said that in the event the Bomarc squadrons were cancelled he would want one interceptor to replace each missile and there was some question whether that might not be excessive because interceptors can fly more than one sortie.


George Randolph Pearkes: It was three to one in capital cost and in operation and maintenance expenses.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In giving the ratio of three to one the minister referred to cost rather than aircraft?


George Randolph Pearkes: That is correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That would be on the basis, no doubt, of the cost remaining to be paid after the preliminary development costs had been written off.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
225.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $228,192,000.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I attended some 26 meetings of the special committee on defence expenditure. I have listened very intently to everything that has been said by the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence, and thus far I have not heard any convincing arguments as to any benefit that can accrue to Canada from the installation of the Bomarc. I am not going to take up the time of the committee in repeating the arguments that I put forward in the special committee on defence expenditures. I am not going to repeat the arguments I used last night or this afternoon because they are well known to the house. I am just going to say that in my opinion this is a bad policy, a waste of public money, and will in no way prove of benefit in the defence of Canada. Because I believe in having the courage of my convictions, I move, therefore:
That vote 225 of the national defence estimates be reduced by $8 million, the approximate amount allocated for Bomarc installation expenditures for the fiscal year 1960-61.


George Randolph Pearkes: For the reasons I have already given, we cannot accept this amendment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this, in effect, is the same amendment that this party moved earlier in the session when we were considering interim supply. For that reason, sir, you may wish to consider whether or not it is in order, a decision having been taken at that time. If you decide it is in order, for the sake of consistency and in view of the statements we have made that we believe this program does not involve the best possible use of the Canadian taxpayers' money in the defence field, we would have to support the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member did not raise formally a point of order? Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Winch) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 35.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Earlier tonight the minister said that the Bomarc sites were so small he felt it would not be likely they would be vulnerable to a missile launched three or four thousand miles away. I wonder if he would elaborate on that a little bit, especially in view of the information he gave to the select committee which would indicate an intercontinental ballistic missile launched even six or eight thousand miles away and carrying a five-megaton warhead would knock
Supply-National Defence out a Bomarc station even if it missed by its maximum rate of error of a full two miles.


George Randolph Pearkes: The area of the site is not extensive. It would only be a few acres which would cover the actual positions of the launchers. I think it would be extremely difficult for a missile which was launched, shall we say, from Russia, to have the accuracy necessary to hit one of these sites. Now, it is not impossible. Nothing is impossible. Perhaps as missilry development continues it may be possible that they could be hit, but at the present time I think it would be very unlikely.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not wish to labour this, and I am also sure the minister would not wish inadvertently to create any wrong impression. Surely he is not arguing that an intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a five-megaton warhead, and which came within a mile and a half or two miles of a Bomarc site, would not put that site out of operation, when the sites are soft and do not have hardening.


George Randolph Pearkes: There will be a certain amount of hardening around these sites. I question whether a missile landing at the distance the hon. member suggests would necessarily disrupt the launching pads.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not wish to quarrel with the minister, but the chart he showed us in the special committee indicated that there would be total destruction for a radius far beyond that, and certainly the personnel on the site would be killed.


George Randolph Pearkes: As I said, there is a certain amount of hardening being done around these sites, that is to some of the installations which will be below ground.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Defence research and development-
Defence research board-
226.	Operation and maintenance, $23,952,119.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have some correspondence from some people in Edmonton. I am not going to read it because I can paraphrase it. They are concerned about the activities of the Suffield laboratory, which were dealt with by the minister in answer to a question I asked last session. The minister suggested that the experiments were of a purely defensive nature. They ask, would it not be proper for the station to be under civilian and not military control. They say there is a very close guard kept all around the station and that the personnel working there are required to sign declarations not to divulge the type of research being conducted. A number

Supply-National Defence of people are of the opinion that this work is of an offensive, anti-social, anti-humanitarian character. I would ask the minister if he would just inform the committee if the research at Suffield is purely of a defensive nature and not concerned with the manufacture of those insects and other things which cause great damage to life and which one United States military expert said were much cheaper than nuclear weapons. Does the minister think it would be advisable to bring this establishment under civilian control in order to allay these fears as to the type of research being conducted?


Edwin William Brunsden: Do the hon. member's correspondents suggest that there is a member in this house for the constituency of Medicine Hat, in which this station is located, and that he might have some knowledge of what is going on there?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We admit it, but he does not say anything about it.


George Randolph Pearkes: The head of the Suffield experimental station is a civilian, Mr. Penny. This whole project comes under the defence research board, which is composed of civilians. There are perhaps some military personnel employed there in connection with administrative and guard duties. The organization and running of that station is under Mr. Penny, a civilian, and I believe the staff of scientists is composed of civilians.
Now, in so far as the other parts of the question are concerned, I may say I visited Suffield last fall. I can assure the hon. gentleman from personal inspection that all the experiments which are carried out there are of a purely defensive nature. If they are connected with chemical or bacteriological work, it is to see how the livestock, our crops and our people can be protected against that type of warfare. There is no manufacturing of chemical gases or anything of that nature carried out at that station, other than very small quantities which may be required for tests. But as some of the chemicals used are of a very dangerous nature, if people who are not protected came near those areas it is necessary for the guards to prevent them from moving through the area. The vital parts of the area are all wired off by security fences.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have this clear and detailed explanation from the minister and I shall inform my correspondents of his answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National defence general-
230. To authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to

allotment by the treasury board, total commitments of $2,950,656,748 for the purposes of the foregoing votes relating to national defence, regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,420,466,950 will come due for payment in future years), $1.
Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question which I think should perhaps more properly have been asked on item 221 but I wonder if the minister would accept my question under the heading of "national defence general"?
My question has to do with destroyer-escorts, and I was wondering whether the minister would consider answering whether construction of the escorts has been started yet, whether any have been completed, and at what shipyards has the construction taken place?


George Randolph Pearkes: The construction of the six repeat Restigouche has started on all six ships. You asked for the location. The construction of the MacKenzie was commenced in October, 1958 by Canadian Vickers Limited of Montreal. That was the pilot vessel of this type. The Saskatchewan is being constructed at the Victoria Machinery Depot and that contract is being split between the Victoria Machinery Depot and Yarrows Limited, both of Victoria, British Columbia. Construction commenced in August, 1959.
With regard to the Yukon, construction commenced in October, 1959, at the Burrard Drydock Company Limited of North Vancouver. Regarding the Qu'Appelle, construction started in January, 1960 at the Davie Shipbuilding Limited yard at Lauzon, Quebec. Regarding the Annapolis, construction was started by the Halifax Shipyard, Halifax, Nova Scotia, in April, 1960. In regard to the Nipigon, construction was started in July, 1960 by Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: When does the minister expect that these ships will be in operation?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it takes about four years to complete the construction and the tests, and it would be approximately that length of time before they came into operation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This item is the one which enables the government to make advance commitments with respect to the equipment it is buying and I would like to very briefly at this time again caution the government and raise the question which I have raised before in the committee.
Tonight we are being asked to authorize expenditures of $1.6 billion for the armed forces of Canada, but in addition to that we are being asked to commit the government

and the people of Canada to a further expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for future equipment.
We were very appreciative of the minister's statement earlier this evening. It contained more information by far than his earlier statement, when we would have expected it. He made a reasoned attempt to deal with some of the problems that we have raised, and as a matter of fact his answer underlined in stark detail the uneasiness which we have in respect to some of the policies of the present government. I do not wish to recapitulate at the present time all the points which have been dealt with. I made notes of some of them; but I have just made a resolution not to rehash them all again tonight.
But I would like to take this opportunity to say that what we have proposed is not a negative policy. It is not a policy of merely disengaging from the use of nuclear arms for Canadian forces on Canadian soil, and from the use of atomic offensive weapons with the air division overseas. It is not just being dissatisfied with certain pieces of equipment that the present government intends to secure for the armed forces of Canada. It is a change of direction and a change of emphasis. It is a warning to the government to consider at this point, before it spends any further and before it becomes involved in greater detail and in greater capacity in new projects, the rejection of spending on defensive weapons for use in an all-out nuclear war which would be useless under those conditions and which would not in fact provide a defence under those circumstances.
I am sure that the minister will agree that he has a real problem. He himself told us, I think this afternoon-if I remember correctly-that it would not be too long before the Russians would have several hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles. Once that condition is reached the possibility of widespread construction is very great indeed.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman -as we have tried to point out during this debate-conventional defensive weapons, if that is what you want to call them, even with atomic warheads as presently in existence, or as presently contemplated, are ineffective. They just will not do the defensive job which should be done.
Under these circumstances we feel the change of direction that we have suggested is one which will take this money, which we feel would otherwise be wasted, and direct it into equipment and into those aspects of defence which would contribute to peace through the mechanics of stopping brush
Supply-National Defence fires or limited situations before they develop into an all-out thermonuclear war- because this is our only hope as far as defence is concerned.
If any of these situations get out of hand and thermonuclear war does develop, then the limited amount we have spent on defence and the limited defences we have will be, if not useless, virtually useless to us. Therefore, it is for this reason that I would ask the government to pause in its course to take a look at the direction in which it is going; a direction which some of us feel is not too different a direction from that of national defence policy of three years ago, at which time the first sputnik had not been put into orbit and the threat of massive attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles seemed still to be very far in the future.
We ask the government to ponder on these things and to consider if now is not the time to change the course of Canadian defence policy so as not to waste further funds on inadequate weapons which will not provide real defence, even though they may be represented as providing some defence; but rather to put our limited resources into those things which will be helpful, which will supply the flexibility and the opportunity for coping with situations which if they got out of hand might break the peace and bring on a thermonuclear holocaust.


George Randolph Pearkes: I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence and their advisers, military and civil, are very conscious of the responsibility which has been placed on their shoulders and they will do their best to ensure that the money which is made available to them for national defence is used to the very best advantage, and we shall take cognizance of and consider the recommendations which have been made by the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a question under this item. I am not sure if I am quite in order, but I am so seldom out of order that I trust the committee will not criticize me. It has been brought to my attention that owing to the numbers of members of the armed forces in Halifax there is quite a lot of competition between civilians and military personnel in housing and the cost of housing is unusually high in that city. I was asked at the request of a member who is unfortunately not with us tonight to ask the minister if he has had any complaints concerning this situation and if the department would consider, if they are going to continue their present naval program, the undertaking of a housing project for the naval forces in order to relieve this situation.
7666	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, we are fully aware of the shortage of housing for service personnel in the Halifax area. We have under consideration at the present time the erection of a considerable number of additional houses for married quarters. It is unfortunate that in a city like Halifax where there is a large congregation of service personnel there is no adequate civilian accommodation to enable the servicemen to live out in rented quarters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: That completes the estimates of the Department of National Defence.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
390. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,630,716.


Jacques Flynn: Department of Trade and Commerce, item No. 390. This item will be found on page 71 of the blue book, the details on page 486.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I propose dealing with some aspects of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I shall not make any attempt to cover all the points in such a wide ranging department, but as we reach various items in the estimates questions may be asked and answers given at those points.
I would direct hon. members to the annual report of the department which for the second year in succession has been issued in somewhat new form and gives in part I a review of economic and trade developments with regard to this country. Part II deals with the work of the department in detail.
The remarks which I have to make tonight are divided into four main sections. I will speak about certain organizational changes which have been taking place in the department. I will deal with trade promotion activities of the department, and with general trade policy, and conclude with a review of our present trade position and the outlook for the balance of the year 1960.
As new programs develop and as the emphasis in our operation changes to meet new situations it has been found essential to modify the organizational establishment of the department and over the past year a number of important organizational changes have occurred. Some of these were initiated by a highly respected member of the civil service of Canada, the late John English, who was deputy minister of the department a year ago and after a lengthy illness passed away on January 1 of this year. He had spent 33 years with the Department of Trade
[Mr. Herridge.l

and Commerce. Mr. English's devotion to duty and his professional skill were appreciated by all of us who knew him.
I owe a great deal to the experience and advice of the late John English. I found him a most devoted public servant and a man who had great capabilities and a love for his work, and he had a friendly disposition toward all those with whom he came in contact. His death at the age of 58 was a tragic loss to his associates and to the business community of Canada.
Early last year reorganization of the department was undertaken for greater efficiency and to provide the maximum of assistance to Canadian businessmen. In June, 1959 the area divisions of the trade commissioner service and the international trade relations branch were integrated. As a result a number of trade commissioners are now receiving experience in trade policy matters and the trade relations branch has been brought into export development as well as trade policy work. This move, coming at a time when trade policy negotiations have assumed a role of crucial importance with respect to our export trade, has been well received in the department and by businessmen.
In May of this year arrangments were made to recruit two new assistant deputy ministers to assume responsibility for the department's activities with respect to domestic commerce and commodity services. Interdepartmental competitions have been held and the new officials will take office shortly. The department is placing increased emphasis on its promotional activities in Canada. Every effort will be made to uncover new opportunities for industrial development and to create a climate in which these opportunities can be translated into action.
When the present organization changes are fully effective the Department of Trade and Commerce will comprise four major areas of responsibility. Each of these will be assigned to an officer of assistant deputy minister rank reporting to the deputy minister. These areas are as follows.
1.	External trade promotion, which has under it the trade commissioner service, the Canadian government exhibition branch and the trade publicity branch.
2.	Trade policy, which has under it the economics branch, the international trade relations branch and the foreign aid services branch.
3.	Commodities and industry, having under it the commodities branch and the agricultural and fisheries branch.

4.	Domestic commerce, which comprises the industrial development branch, the standards branch and the small business branch.
The dominion bureau of statistics, through the dominion statistician continues to report directly to me.
This new organization will improve administrative efficiency and will offer businessmen and exporters a more logical and convenient structure to deal with. We expect that it will also permit the deputy minister and his assistants to devote more time to planning and policy matters.
Now I turn to trade promotion. The promotion of Canada's foreign trade is the purpose for which the department was originally established in 1887. The branches which contribute to this work devote their entire time and energy to serving Canadian businessmen. In this day to day work they employ a full range of techniques for developing foreign trade. They select from the available variety of methods those techniques best suited to any one market at any one time. The department keeps all techniques under review and is constantly alert to adapt them as changing circumstances require.
One technique that has been consistently used to advantage is participation in foreign trade fairs. The department, with the active support of industry, participates in trade fairs in order to sell Canadian goods and services. It has demonstrated that this is an effective means of trade promotion.
The department extends assistance to private industry by ensuring that up-to-date answers on trade fair questions are available; by organizing collective exhibits and bearing part of the costs; and by providing the experienced co-operation of the trade commissioner on the spot, who will do all he can to ensure a successful participation. Results may be direct, as evidenced by immediate contracts completed at the exhibit, or indirect, in terms of transactions conceived at the exhibit but completed long afterward. The firm prepared to recognize trade fair participation as an important though not isolated step in the market development campaign will likely be successful. The 1960-61 program involves some 16 participations. Each individual trade fair participation has been carefully selected for its trade promotion potential and will be carefully exploited.
One example of the varied approaches being developed by the department is in trade fair work in the engineering field. This specific endeavour has been directed to the competitive U.S. market. The first time the department participated in a specialized industrial show was in September 1958. The results were so encouraging that in 1959 we
Supply-Trade and Commerce participated in three additional shows, and this year we are again participating in four shows. It is difficult to estimate the actual dollar value of orders received which are directly attributable to participation in these shows. However, impressive sales in such a variety of equipment as hydraulic attachments for metal working machines, multicavity moulds, vulcanizing equipment, electronic devices, and hydraulic landing gear for aircraft can be credited to such participation. This effort has resulted in increased prestige for the Canadian companies concerned; it has increased the confidence of these firms in their products; and it has proved that there is a significant market in the United States for Canadian manufactured products.
Another effective technique in trade promotion is the trade mission. The department has in the past made occasional use of this technique with success. We believe that the time is particularly advantageous now for this type of promotion to be used in several areas to facilitate greater effort on the part of Canadian business. These conclusions are reinforced by the increased competition in international markets. We have, therefore, embarked on a vigorous new program of trade missions. The department appreciates that to ensure their success the trade missions should be specialized in their objectives. These missions should consist of a small group of enterprising businessmen who will be accompanied by a senior official of the department. Their itineraries will be carefully prepared and co-ordinated through the trade commissioners in the areas concerned.
The department now is developing plans for a number of missions for specific purposes in selective markets. The liberalisation of the British import market has made it possible for exporters of foodstuffs to look again to that market as the substantial outlet they found there before the war. The department therefore proposes to send a mission representative of the Canadian processed food industry to the United Kingdom at the time of the British food fair in London in September. The mission will visit other main centres and have many interviews with the trade.
As a result of the experience gained at previous exhibits where Canadian timber and timber products were features we feel that a trade mission consisting of representative Canadian timber and plywood exporters can do an effective follow-up job to revive interest in Canadian lumber in the United Kingdom. We anticipate that this mission will commence its activities by attending the Manchester building trades exhibition in October.
As part of our program to maintain and develop our trade in the European economic community we are proposing to send

Supply-Trade and Commerce a strong mission representing chemical, metal and mineral, and pulp industries to those six countries in October.
Opportunities for the export of a wide range of technological services to many parts of the world have grown remarkably in recent years. The great fund of experience which we possess in this field as a result of our own rapid economic development opens new and promising avenues to explore abroad. Canadian consulting engineering firms have already secured large contracts and earned excellent reputations in several continents. Attractive opportunities are developing in South America. Up to the present few Canadian firms have acquired first hand knowledge or experience of operations in this area. To meet this need the department is planning a mission of Canadian consulting engineers which will visit selected South American countries in September.
Yet another aspect of trade promotion involves facilitating visits to Canada by businessmen from abroad. The success that can be achieved by encouraging the importers of other countries to come here was demonstrated earlier this year by the visit of a delegation of Rumanians headed by the Rumanian vice minister of agriculture. While in this country they purchased a substantial quantity of livestock and other agricultural products. Included in their purchases of livestock were 110 head of pure bred Holstein-Friesian cows and three bulls, 20 head of Aberdeen Angus cattle, over 1,100 head of Hereford cattle, 200 head of Landrace hogs, and a few sheep. They also purchased a substantial quantity of hybrid seed corn and some soybean seed. It is felt that the purchases will result in further business with Rumania. Departmental officers assisted in arranging the visit of this delegation and also provided assistance while the group was in Canada.
These trade missions represent an important aspect of our new program through which we hope to give still further assistance and encouragement to Canadian exporters in their efforts to maintain and expand markets abroad.
No part of the department has been a greater proponent of the usefulness and value of personal visits to overseas markets than the trade commissioner service, the overseas arm of the department. This field force is continuously at the service of Canadian businessmen engaged in, or interested in engaging in international trade. By September of this year the trade commissioner service will have a total of 63 posts staffed by 114 career officers. In 1939 there were 35 posts and 61 officers. Twenty years ago Canada was represented by trade commissioners in 27

countries; by September of this year our representatives will be in 49 countries.
Three new offices have been established this calendar year, in Glasgow, Canberra and Moscow. A fourth is being opened in the fall at Lagos, Nigeria. The department continues alert to the need for yet further officers and certain other possible new posts are under study.
On the subject of trade policy, although I dealt at some length with this in the debate we had in the house in March, I felt it wise to review the situation again. There has been a good deal of debate both within and outside the house regarding the implications of recent developments particularly in Europe so far as Canada's trade policy is concerned.
There has been a good deal of debate regarding the implications of recent developments, particularly in Europe, for Canada's trade policy. As I indicated to the house last March, our trade policy has been directed to the achievement of a trading system in which Canadian exports have access to markets'- throughout the world on a basis of equality with all other suppliers.
While the trade rules embodied in the general agreement on tariffs and trade are not without imperfections, the principles of most favoured nation treatment and non-discrimination on which this agreement is based provide the kind of trading arrangements best suited to safeguard Canada's diverse and broad trading interests.
The achievement of this multilateral system and the realization of the advantages which would reasonably be expected from it was, for many years, frustrated by the prevalence of severe foreign exchange difficulties in many parts of the world. More recently, with the improvement in world economic and financial conditions, the import controls which have been maintained by many other countries against our goods have been rapidly disappearing. As a result Canadian exporters are for the first time since the war in a position to compete on equal terms in most markets with other most favoured nation suppliers.
While we have come a long way toward the realization of the goal which Canada has been pursuing in the post-war period, more remains to be done. With the progress in the removal of balance of payments restrictions on trade the restrictive effect of widespread agricultural protectionism has become increasingly apparent. The degree of restrictions maintained against imports of agricultural products by other countries seriously affects Canada's trade and disturbs the balance of advantage between the agricultural exporting countries and their trading partners.
While it would be unrealistic to expect that national measures to support agriculture

could be eliminated, there is scope for a significant downward adjustment in the level of agricultural supports and the degree of protection afforded by tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in agricultural products. I am speaking here of our trading partners abroad. A special examination of this subject has been undertaken in the GATT with a view to finding ways and means of ensuring more reasonable access to world markets for the products of Canada and other agricultural exporting countries.
Our trade policy objectives must, of course, be considered in the light of the emergence of new trading arrangements, particularly in Europe. The six countries of the European economic community

Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Luxembourg -are proceeding with the setting up of a common market among themselves, looking to economic integration and close political association. These arrangements will eventually involve the elimination of tariffs and quantitative restrictions on trade within the area and the development of a single tariff against imports from outside countries. The first steps in the implementation of these arrangements have already been taken.
In addition, the common market countries are in the process of working out a common agricultural policy. The United Kingdom and the other European countries not members of this common market are establishing an industrial free trade area among themeslves. In the implementation of their E.F.T.A. the United Kingdom and other countries concerned have taken the first step in the elimination of tariff barriers to trade within the area. As a result of these developments two regional groupings are evolving in Europe. Politically Canada has been sympathetic to the broad objectives of European economic integration. We have, however, been conscious that the emergence of two regional groups in Europe could lead to a serious trade split and adversely affect the close trade and economic co-operation which has been established between the European countries and between them and their outside trading partners, including, of course, Canada and the United States.
Canada's direct trade interest in relation to the European economic community is to obtain fair and reasonable access to the common market for Canadian exports. The level of the common market tariff is of critical importance in this respect. Further, some 40 per cent of Canada's exports to the common market countries are agricultural products and the kind of agricultural policy which
Supply-Trade and Commerce is developed by the European economic community will have major significance for the future of Canada's trade and commercial relations with this area.
As far as the free trade area of the seven is concerned, the immediate impact on Canada is the effect on our preferential position in the United Kingdom market. The free trade area arrangements will eventually give the United Kingdom's partners in E.F.T.A. generally the same tariff access Canada now receives in the United Kingdom market. This means that Canada which had previously been accorded preferential treatment in competition with the Scandinavian countries and with Austria, Switzerland and Portugal, will in the future face the prospect of competing with these countries on broadly equal terms in the United Kingdom.
The general agreement on tariffs and trade has been and continues to be the major international instrument for the protection of Canadian interests against possible adverse effects of these regional developments in Europe. Its provisions establish certain criteria and safeguards which must be observed in setting up customs unions of free trade areas. These provisions are useful not only in setting the framework for GATT examination of proposed arrangements but also as the basis for bilateral representations to the countries concerned.
Amongst other important safeguards the GATT requires that in the formation of customs unions or free trade areas participating countries must not raise new barriers to the trade of outside countries. Against these criteria the provisions of the treaty of Rome have been under continuous examination by Canada and the other contracting parties. We have also been active in direct representations and discussions with the six and the European commission.
An important example of our initiative in this regard was the recent consultations with the European economic community concerning the prospective agricultural arrangements of the common market. In these consultations Canada was joined with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the Argentine. The consultations provided Canada with a further opportunity to remind the European countries of the importance which we attach to the trade in agricultural products and to urge them in the interests of maintaining and developing our mutually advantageous trade to evolve agricultural arrangements which will ensure that Canada has a reasonable opportunity to compete in the European market for agricultural products and to participate in the growth in that market.
7G70

Supply-Trade and Commerce
At the recent GATT session the contracting parties had a first opportunity to examine the convention providing for the European free trade association of the seven. These arrangements are to be subject to further GATT examination. Outside the region of Europe there is also the Montevideo treaty signed by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay for the establishment of the Latin American free trade association. The terms of this association have also been brought under review in Geneva and will be examined further at the next GATT session this fall.
The forthcoming multilateral tariff conference which opens in Geneva in September will provide an opportunity, in the first phase, for Canada to address itself in negotiations with the E.E.C. countries to the level of the common market tariff. In this respect, the fact that most of Canada's exports to the common market are protected by bound tariff concessions which have been negotiated with the common market countries provides an important safeguard for ensuring continued reasonable terms of tariff access to the European market. To implement the common external tariff member countries of the common market will inevitably be making adjustments in the tariff concessions which they previously negotiated individually. But there is a collective obligation to maintain the general level of reciprocity through entering, as a unit, into new contractual obligations which ensure no less favourable access for outside countries than previously existed. The Canadian government will participate actively in these renegotiations with the common market countries and in the general negotiations to follow.
The tariff conference, in the second phase, will, of course, also provide an opportunity for Canada to negotiate for improved tariff access to other markets throughout the world, including that of the United States.
One further aspect of this tariff conference that is worth emphasizing is that through tariff negotiations between the European seven and common market six the emerging trade split in Europe can be eased. The benefits of all tariff reductions negotiated throughout each phase of the conference will, of course, be extended to Canada and other countries on the basis of the most favoured nation provisions of GATT, including the benefits of the important negotiations between the six and the United States.
Canada is also actively participating in the economic discussions which have been taking place in Paris since the ministerial meetings held there in mid-January last which the Minister of Finance and I attended. At these meetings the 18 European


members of the organization for European economic co-operation and their two associates, the United States and Canada, agreed to proceed with the reconstitution of the O.E.E.C. and established two bodies to deal, in the interim, with certain trade and aid matters, namely the committee on trade problems and the development assistance group.
Canada has been closely engaged in all three endeavours, the first two of which are of special significance in so far as our trade interests are concerned. As the house was informed recently by the Minister of Finance, plans were drawn up at the ministerial meeting in Paris on July 22 and 23 for the establishment of a new organization for economic co-operation and development in which it is envisaged that the European countries, together with Canada and the United States, will participate. The O.E.C.D., as it will be known, is designed to facilitate and promote economic growth and contribute to the development of the world economy and world trade on a multilateral non-discriminatory basis.
With a view to the protection and furtherance of Canada's export interests we are following these matters with the closest attention. The existence of the common market in Europe and of European free trade association are facts of life which must be taken into account. These groupings can develop in ways which will promise larger markets for Canadian goods or, if they take a restrictive turn, our interests could be prejudiced. Our efforts are being directed to ensuring, so far as possible, that outward looking policies will be pursued which will allow us to continue the mutually advantageous trade relationships which have been developed up to this time. The house may be assured that the government is fully aware of the need to keep our trade policy under continuous review in the changing circumstances of today and that our approach to the challenges and new problems of the sixties will be flexible and constructive, bearing in mind our vital trade interests and the need for balance and mutual advantage in the relations with our many trading partners throughout the world.


Henry Frank Jones: Order I must interrupt the minister to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Henry Frank Jones: It is
agreed that the minister carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much. I propose now to deal with a review of Canada's trade and the outlook for the next few months. During the past year economic activity in Canada has moved upward in line with expansionary conditions in the world at large. Canada's gross national product is running appreciably above the level of a year ago. Most of this increase reflects a higher volume of physical production; prices have remained fairly stable.
Industrial production is up by 5 per cent in the first five months of this year compared with last. Industries which have contributed to this increase include pulp and paper, base metals, particularly aluminum, nickel and copper, petroleum and natural gas, electric power, asbestos, primary iron and steel, food and beverages, chemicals and a number of the major equipment industries. Despite a further rise in imports of European cars, Canada's output of motor vehicles so far this year has remained a little above the 1959 level.
The over-all growth in business activity has been accompanied by a continuing increase in both wages and profits and in personal incomes generally. More production has in turn created more jobs. Total employment in June and in the first six months of the current year was approximately 2 per cent above the corresponding period of 1959.
Consumer purchasing, though up moderately from a year ago, has not fully kept pace with personal incomes. For several lines of merchandise the disappointing volume of spring sales was attributed, in trade circles, to unfavourable weather. In any event the continuing firm trend of personal income provides underlying strength to the consumer market and indicates that weakness in this sector is apt to be shortlived.
The early year decline in housing starts was the result, in large part, of a general stringency of mortgage funds. However, the level of housing starts was already moving upward by mid-year and this trend will now be reinforced by the broadening of the terms applicable to mortgage loans under the National Housing Act.
In the circumstances described, neither consumer buying nor housing are apt to be a source of further weakening in total demand. On the contrary, both of these market sectors are likely to provide new demand stimulus as the year draws on.
Further encouraging information on economic prospects for the balance of the year has come from the mid-year survey of investment intentions for 1960, the results of which were recently made available in the
Supply-Trade and Commerce report, "Private and public investment in Canada, outlook 1960-mid-year review". The survey indicates that total capital outlays, both private and public, will amount to $8.7 billion in 1960. This figure is little changed from the estimate made early in the year and involves an increase of 4 per cent over actual outlays of $8.4 billion in 1959. The $8.7 billion figure includes a downward revision in the earlier estimate of housing outlays to take account of the relatively low volume of starts in the first half of the year. On the other hand, the mid-year survey indicated an upward revision in the capital spending plans of the business community compared with intentions reported at the beginning of the year. As a result business capital outlays are now expected to be 8 per cent higher in 1960 than in the preceding year. The realization of this program will involve a further increase in activity in construction and related trades and in equipment producing industries in the latter part of the current year.
Apart from its immediate stimulative effects, the continuing high level of plant expansion under way in Canada is a reflection of the confidence with which Canadian business looks to the future. These indications of sustained strength within the domestic economy are reinforced by the continuation of a generally favourable international economic climate. Trade figures for 1960 to date reflect Canada's strong position in foreign markets.
In 1959 the value of Canada's merchandise exports surpassed the $5 billion mark for the first time. In 1960 to date exports are 8 per cent higher than in the same period last year and are running at an annual rate in the neighbourhood of $5.5 billion. This upward movement in exports is taking place in all principal market areas and is widely distributed through most of the major commodity groups.
The expansion in economic activity in the United States over the past year has been accompanied by a further rise in purchases from Canada. Although the business tempo in the United States has moderated somewhat in recent months, there is widespread expectation that the present high level of general activity will be maintained in the period ahead. On this basis Canadian sales to the United States for 1960 as a whole should remain above the previous year's level.
Meanwhile shipments to overseas markets have responded vigorously to the rising level of business activity in most of these countries. In 1960 to date exports to the United Kingdom are up by 20 per cent, to other commonwealth markets by 16 per cent, and to all other countries by 17 per cent.
7672	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
A major portion of this growth in exports has consisted of industrial materials. Items such as newsprint, wood pulp, aluminum, nickel, copper and industrial chemicals have been purchased in greater quantities in response to higher business activity in virtually all industrial countries. Despite a reduced volume of housebuilding in the United States, lumber sales in that market have been maintained so far this year and are moving in larger quantities to the United Kingdom and other overseas markets. With Canadian oil now able to move across the border free of restrictions, the export of this commodity, though still below the previous record, is running well above last year's level. A large amount of iron ore is anticipated for the current season. The trend evident in these major items is broadly indicative of the export position of the mineral and forest products groups which together account for nearly two thirds of Canada's exports.
A notable feature of Canada's export position is the expansion under way in sales of manufactured products. Despite a decline in exports of farm implements to the United States, sales abroad of all highly manufactured products taken as a whole have increased by 10 to 15 per cent in 1960 to date. At the same time sales of agricultural products considered as a group have held close to the high level achieved last year.
Just as exports have been expanding to meet the growth in foreign countries, Canadian purchases from abroad have been increasing in response to rising demands in Canada. However, imports have been increasing at a slower rate than exports and in the first five months of the year are up by 4 per cent from the same period of 1959. Shipments from Canadian factories have shown a comparable increase indicating that Canadian manufactured products have been holding their own in the domestic market in over-all terms. Nevertheless, in some lines, producers have encountered severe pressure from import competition. Meanwhile the decline in the external value of the Canadian dollar occurring earlier this year has improved the competitive position of the domestic producers in both home and foreign markets.
The much sharper rise in exports than in imports so far this year has reduced Canada's merchandise trade deficit from $356 million in the January to May, 1959 period to $177 million in the same months of the current year. Indications are that this reduction in the merchandise trade deficit has more than offset the continuing increase in the invisible deficit. This means that the total current deficit on international account is presently


well below the level of a year ago, $318 million in the first quarter of 1960 compared with $415 million in the same period of last year.
A prominent development this year has been the sharp growth in Canada's overseas trade. Exports to and imports from the United Kingdom and the commonwealth as a whole have increased substantially. Exports to other overseas countries taken together have increased markedly whereas imports from this area are a little lower. Canada's trade balance with these countries is therefore increasing, reversing the trend of the previous year.
The substantial growth this year in overseas sales has meant that Canada's exports in the United States, though higher in absolute terms, make up a smaller share of Canada's total exports. Meanwhile the relative importance of the United States as a source of imports has been diminishing for some time. Purchases from the United States are now appreciably lower, in absolute terms, than in 1957 and as a proportion of total imports have declined from 74 per cent in early 1957 to 67 per cent so far in the current year. During this same period Canada's merchandise trade deficit with the United States has been reduced by nearly one half. Even with the growing imbalance on nonmerchandise transactions, Canada's total deficit on current transactions with the United States is $132 million less in the first quarter of 1960 than in the same period three years ago.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to emphasize two points. First, Canada's economic conditions and trade relations are under constant and expert scrutiny. We are increasing the number of senior officers and consolidating the department into an even more efficient and streamlined operation. This will better enable us not only to meet the challenges of today but also to anticipate and minimize the problems of the future.
Second, I cannot stress too much the degree to which a wide range of Canadian products and technical competence are competitive abroad. I offer congratulations to those Canadian businessmen who have ventured so successfully into foreign markets. I hope that their successes will encourage more Canadian firms to look abroad for new sales opportunities. The department stands ready to do all it can to help them.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I should like at the very outset of my remarks to associate myself with the minister in the acknowledgment of the fine public service of his former deputy, the late John English. The remarks that the minister made concerning that

Business of the House
splendid public servant were most appropriate, and I want to express my appreciation to the minister for having made them in his place as minister. The record of public servants like that is something that I think is not always sufficiently appreciated by the people of the country generally and knowing of the splendid work of this former civil servant I want to associate myself with all the words uttered by the minister about him.
Now as to the minister's glowing and enthusiastic picture of the trade situation in Canada, I am afraid I have to take sharp issue with him. I wish it were not so. I wish that the trade picture was as glowing as he indicated. My hope is that some of the hopes he has expressed for it throughout the rest of the year are realized. I do hope that is the case, as I think all hon. members do.
Surely the minister, in presenting a review to the House of Commons of the trade picture of this country, even if it is late at night on the 142nd day of the sitting that this is being done, should not compare the figures on foreign trade representatives in 1960 with those in 1939, because he ought to remember that the country in 1960 about which we are talking has a population of about 18 million persons, and the country of 1939 had a population of about 11 million persons. To compare representation abroad in two such years does not give a very accurate picture.


Harold Edward Winch: How about calling it eleven o'clock?


Lionel Chevrier: We would be willing to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Some hon. members have called it eleven o'clock. Shall I rise, report certain resolutions and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: I wonder if the house would give me leave to revert to presenting reports by standing and special committees?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not give consent.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Then we have left in the way of estimates those of the Department of Finance and of the Privy Council, with a few supplementary estimates. The only other business facing the house then is the report of the committee on procedure and the appropriation bill after we have passed all the supply estimates.
There is also that small item, of course, in the report of the civil service commission affecting the House of Commons staff. The house, in its careful examination of the estimates, may want to proceed over to next week, but we will just have to work from day to day as we forecast the business.
However, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask if the house would consent to a change of hours on Monday. In view of the fact that members of the house will be attending the funeral of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and as that funeral takes place at about eleven o'clock, I think, it will be very difficult for the house to assemble at that time. If the house would indicate at this time that it would be willing, if the house has to come back next week, to reassemble at 3 p.m. on Monday, I think everybody would have sufficient notice.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary to come back on Monday, we think the suggestion is a reasonable one and we would consent to it. I would like to inquire of the minister what the few supplementary estimates are.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The supplementary estimates are already listed on the sheet of paper which is available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it with the unanimous consent of the house that on Monday the house will convene at three o'clock in the afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes past eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
217.	Departmental administration, $3,212,477. Inspection services-
218.	Operation and maintenance, $6,523,300.
219.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $431,100.
Royal Canadian Navy-
220.	Operation and maintenance, $197,041,557.
221.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $74,259,000.
Canadian army-
222.	Operation and maintenance, $350,887,000.
223.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $70,410,000.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
224.	Operation and maintenance, $536,737,000.
225.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $228,192,000.
Defence research and development-
Defence research board-
226.	Operation and maintenance, $23,952,119.
227.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $6,528,245.
228.	Development, $14,216,000.
Mutual aid-
229.	Contributions to infrastructure and military costs of the North Atlantic treaty organization and the transfer of defence equipment and supplies and the provision of services and facilities for defence purposes in accordance with section 3 of The Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, not exceeding a total of $54,800,000 including the present value of defence equipment or supplies or the cost of services made available by the Canadian forces estimated in the amount of $40,000,000 and provided by appropriations for those forces in the current and former years in respect of which, notwithstanding subsection (3) of section 3 of the said act, no amount shall be charged to this appropriation or paid into a special account; provided by this vote, $14,800,000.
National defence general-
230.	To authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, total commitments of $2,950,656,748 for the purposes of the foregoing votes relating to national defence, regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,420,466,950 will come due for payment in future years), $1.
General services-
231.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others as detailed in the estimates, $223,795.
232.	Grants to the town of Oromocto, subject to the approval of treasury board, for municipal services including the maintenance and operation of schools and to promote the development of the town, $1,600,000.
233.	Grants to provinces and municipalities for civil defence and related purposes (formerly provided under Department of National Health and Welfare-comparable amount in 1959-60, $2,000,000), $4,000,000.
234.	Grants to assist in the construction of the soldiers' memorial hospital at Middleton, N.S., in a total amount of $135,588 subject to such terms and conditions as are approved by treasury board; amount required for 1960-61, $65,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
235.	Civil pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,457.
236.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations, $3,840. Defence Services Pension Act-
237.	Government's contribution to the permanent services pension account, $53,279,356.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, August 6. 1960