1960-08-04

MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Twenty-first and twenty-second reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the house, and I hope leave will be granted, I should like to bring up the question of what date might be set aside for discussion of the question of capital punishment. There were two bills before the house, one introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough and the other by the hon. member for Vancouver East. After we had discussed the matter for a couple of days the question arose whether or not a further opportunity would be given to the house to discuss this very important measure, and also the problem in general of the infliction of capital punishment. On a number of occasions since questions have been asked as to when that date would be, I made it perfectly clear that we on this side of the house would be most anxious to have the fullest possible discussion of this question which is of such paramount importance.
My recollection is that the last occasion on which the matter was mentioned was July 18. There may have been later occasions but at the moment they do not come to mind. At that time the Leader of the Opposition asked this question, as found on page 6410 of Hansard:
Has the government any plans for the resumption of the discussion of capital punishment?
To which my reply was:
As the hon. gentleman knows, plans were made some weeks ago and were made known to the house. As soon as the legislative program and the estimates have achieved that degree of completion which I believe is necessary, then with the co-operation to which the hon. member for Laurier referred, I am sure that a day will be set aside for that purpose.
The Leader of the Opposition then added these words:
What degree of completion does the Prime Minister consider necessary so that we may resume the discussion?
To which I replied:
The order paper is a pretty good indication, together with the estimates still outstanding.
The hon. member for Assiniboia then added some comments in this regard but more particularly directed to the question of consideration of extending the vote to those 18 years old. I wish to give hon. members the opportunity to express themselves with regard to resumption of the debate on capital punishment. Any day that would suit hon. members would be acceptable to the government.
We have now arrived at that point where, if hon. members in various parts of the house desire to debate this subject, it will be done. To that end I ask not only for the views of the Leader of the Opposition but also for those of the two hon. members to whom I have already alluded, whom I feel sure the house would want to hear, as they have taken a particular interest in this matter and have respectively introduced bills in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister has suggested that the house give leave to permit a more extended discussion than would be in order without a motion before the house under routine proceedings. Is it the pleasure of the house to permit the discussion proposed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: My contribution will be short, Mr. Speaker. I think it is quite appropriate that the Prime Minister should have brought this matter up at this time. My own view is that we should complete the legislation that is on the order paper, and then certainly complete the consideration of the defence estimates. When that is done, perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to tell the house the views of the government and the supporters of the government on this matter. Naturally, we in the opposition will do our best to accommodate ourselves to those views. Perhaps on consideration, the Prime Minister might think a week from today would be a satisfactory day, but whatever position the Prime Minister and the government may take we will do our best to meet it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the words of the Prime Minister are of the utmost importance, and I appreciate very much the fact that he has

Business of the House
taken the opportunity of raising this subject at this time before the orders of the day are called. I do not have to tell you, sir, or the house, of my 25 years' interest in this matter of the abolition of capital punishment. There was in the early days of the session a two-day debate, and the understanding was given by the Prime Minister that a third day would be made available. This matter is of such importance that I feel a third day of debate on a private member's bill, which I seconded, should not be held in the dying days of this session.
I believe, sir, that we had a very good discussion for two days. If my information is correct I believe that, at the conclusion of the second day of debate, there were in the neighbourhood of 37 members who still wanted to speak on this issue. I do not know quite how to put what I have in mind, but having debated the subject for two days and it now being near the end of this session, in view of my 28-year fight in parliament both in British Columbia and here against capital punishment, I would hate to see a hasty decision made in this house. It is not so much a matter of seeing whether the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, which I seconded, would be defeated, but it is a matter which requires a quiescent, sensible and reasonable decision.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, much as it may break my heart, because I want to see my objective reached I am afraid, sir, it would not be reached if a decision were taken by the House of Commons to sit an extra day at this point in the session.
Therefore, because I believe in the objective and not in expediency, I hope the mover and seconder of this motion will agree with me that perhaps greater progress will be made toward our objective by agreeing now that a further day be not taken this session, because I believe from what I heard from the Prime Minister that consideration is being given by the government to the entire question of capital punishment and no objections have been raised to the matter being reinitiated at the next session of this House of Commons.
So, sir, on that basis I believe those of us who believe in the abolition of capital punishment might have our objective set back if at this time there were a further debate. Therefore, sir-and I am only speaking personally-I say I will accept the idea that there shall not be a further debate on capital punishment at this session. But it will be raised at the next session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to withhold my remarks if somebody wishes to make some contribution from the ranks of the official opposition, but barring that I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the members of the house, to the government and to those who co-operated in making an unprecedented two days available for the debate on the bill which I had the privilege of introducing.
The hon. member for Vancouver East and others who have already made their contribution to this debate are in a curious position. I am more concerned with the people who expressed a desire to speak, who were next in line and further down the list, than in those who have already spoken. However, I would be less than honest if I did not say to the house that most of the members- I am speaking purely from memory here-[DOT] who indicated a desire to speak in addition to those who have already spoken have shown an increasing reluctance to resume the debate and to insist on accepting the undertaking given to the house by the Prime Minister earlier.
If I were to interpret the wish of the house in this respect, I would judge the feeling of this chamber to be that the debate be not continued this session but that we reinitiate it at the beginning of the next session of parliament.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, as one who participated in the second day's debate on capital punishment some months ago, I feel there is such a thing as consistency. I also feel that the Canadian public will be very critical of any decision made by this house to break its own word. The public generally anticipate this additional day of debate. They anticipate a decision by this house. It has been indicated in a number of ways that this has become one of the foremost questions in Canada. My own personal feeling and my own stand on this question is that we should take the additional day now.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Vicforia-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, like many others I participated in this debate on the second day. It is not because I have said what I wanted to say that I would like to see the debate cut off now, but at this late period in the session I do not believe it is a subject which will hold a lot of members here.
I feel that there are many members who may wish to express views on this bill, either for or against the retention of capital punishment. I think it would be much better to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and not

have that debate this session but have the matter brought up again next session.
I cannot agree with the hon. member across the aisle who says that he feels the public expects us to make a decision on this matter now. Mr. Speaker, I am telling you and hon. members here that there are strong opinions both ways, and I believe it is a matter which could very easily be laid over and members could get the feeling of their constituents during the recess. It might cause some to change their minds, but at least it can be kept a live subject.
I would be against continuing the debate this session.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by a member of the government that he thought I said I had spent 28 years fighting against abolition. I cannot understand my saying that, so may I say right now that I have spent 28 years in a fight to abolish capital punishment.


Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who would like to participate in a third day of debate on this question. However, at this point of the session I think the issue simply revolves around two points.
One is that at this point in the session there are many members who are unavoidably absent who would like to participate in a third day of debate, and therefore it would not be fair to them to hold a third day's debate at this time. The second point is that if we are going to have a third day of debate, perhaps the house would then want the issue to come to a vote. There again, with many members unavoidably absent, a vote taken on the question at this time in the session would not, to my mind, have any great significance.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the third day adjourned and the debate reconvened at the next session.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, something has been going on this whole session which I think is relevant to this particular point here, and it is the right of private members to introduce and speak on bills in this house. We have had a cynical demonstration of the ignoring of such rights of private members by a certain group in this house; the filibuster on divorce bills, to be specific.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not speaking to the specific question.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The specific question, sir, is whether or not we stay and finish the debate on capital punishment. May I say that the hon. member for Vancouver East is not the
79951-0-478
Business of the House
only one interested in the abolition of capital punishment. This bill was introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough some time ago. A good many of us have not spoken on this subject yet. I feel that our time as private members has been cynically abused. I should like to speak on this bill myself, and I find it may be impossible for me to be here. This is also true of some hon. members of the group in question.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say I will be here until the house closes.


An hon. Member:: Who cares?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would have been able to give an indication as to his views. I have no criticism in what I am about to say, but in view of the viewpoint expressed by him I could do nothing other than bring this matter before the house, having undertaken to do so. If I were now to say that regardless of the final decision in this regard on his part we were not going to proceed, then I would be in an equivocal position that I do not desire to be in. Therefore I presume that unless there is a decision on the part of the official opposition to the effect that it is willing and desirous of having this extra day devoted to the discussion of the subject, as promised, we will have no other course open to us than to proceed accordingly.
I want to add that the undertaking given will be carried out unless the house with reasonable unanimity, and particularly with the support of the opposition, relieves me of the responsibility which I accepted and which I am prepared to carry out.
In saying that I wish to tell the hon. member for Vancouver East that if this matter is not proceeded with at this session I would not want to be held responsible for the implication in his words that the government intends to take direct action at the next session. I am not going to be bound in any way by that. I simply point out that there is no reason at all for not going ahead. The fact that some hon. members are unavoidably absent is not an excuse for not proceeding. We are not looking for any excuse not to proceed. That is why I put it up to the house. I hoped that the opposition might have indicated one way or the other a final decision in this regard.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not indicate that perhaps definite action would be taken at the next session. I hope it will be, but I did not say it would. I hope that the question of capital punishment will be reopened next session. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister I want to say on behalf of this

Business of the House
group that if there is not unanimous consent concerning not proceeding with this discussion for the third day, we will be here for that day when the discussion is resumed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that the responsibility for the decision in this matter-and this is a strange statement to me-rests on the opposition, perhaps it would clear matters up if I were to read from Hansard of June 14, as reported at page 4878, what the Prime Minister said in connection with this matter when it was brought up. This may make possible a decision. The Prime Minister said:
The interpretation given to the words I used in the house in connection with this matter was that a further day would be allowed or provided for. That being so, while there is much yet to be done, I feel the proper course to follow would be this. Consultation having taken place among the leader of the house, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia,-
I have no knowledge that that consultation has taken place. I continue:
-if a motion made later on in the session to provide a private members' day were accepted by the house, then an opportunity would be provided to deal with this and other matters that are appropriate to a private members' day. In other words, the undertaking given is being carried out. The house will have an opportunity on a private members' day later in the session, when we have removed from the order paper many of the things which require to be done, to discuss the bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
I have told the Prime Minister now that if the Prime Minister and the supporters of the government wish to make a proposal to this house modifying in any way what has previously been said, we will do our best to accommodate ourselves to the view of the majority of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the very point I want to make clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not placing the responsibility elsewhere. I gave an undertaking and the house can relieve me from that undertaking. That is why I asked the Leader of the Opposition, occupying as he does the highest position as leader of the official opposition, whether or not he desired that the understanding shall be carried out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what he had in mind when he said:
-if a motion made later on in the session to provide a private members' day were accepted by the house-
Has such a motion been made?


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the statement the Prime Minister has made about the commitment, we agree that the day should be forgone now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the Prime Minister is what interpretation he gives to the statement he made on June 14, when he said:
-if a motion made later on in the session to provide a private members' day were accepted by the house, then an opportunity would be provided to deal with this-


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of any motion or further discussion is there any further business under motions?


Mr. Benidickson:: Who is running the
country?


Mr. Robichaud:: Government without responsibility.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, as the minister responsible for reporting to the house on radio and television. I notified him yesterday of my desire for certain information. In view of the fact that all members of the House of Commons from the lower mainland of British Columbia are being swamped with complaints that Victoria station CHEK-TV is blanking out reception on other channels, is the minister in a position to advise us what action is being taken in this matter?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is an important matter to hon. members not only from Vancouver but from Vancouver island and various parts of British Columbia generally. Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East gave me notice of this question. On that same day my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke to me about this matter, as did the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. The hon. member for Vancouver South and other hon. members from the island of Vancouver, the city of Vancouver and other parts of that province have also spoken to me with respect to this question during the last few days. It is a technical problem, Mr. Speaker, and one which falls strictly within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport officials who, of course, advise the board of broadcast governors on technical matters.
I am told that the officers are fully cognizant of this and that they are giving the problem careful study. Examinations are being made now, and I think the matter is also being taken up with the board of broadcast governors. Every step will be taken by

the responsible officials concerned to see that the interest of the listening public is safeguarded.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, based upon the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago in reference to myself. I have looked up Hansard regarding the statement made on June 14 by the Prime Minister about consultations that might take place among the leader of the house, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia.
The Leader of the Opposition said he had no knowledge of any such consultation having taken place. I am not responsible for reports to the Leader of the Opposition from members of his party, but I should like to point out that on Monday of this week a committee consisting of two representatives of the Liberal party, two from this party and two from the C.C.F. party met at nine o'clock in the office of the whip and discussed business of the house, including this question of whether there should be another day allotted for the purpose of discussing capital punishment. The answer given on that occasion was similar to the answer given today by representatives of the two parties on the other side of the house.
The implication in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that consultation had not taken place is the matter that I deal with as a matter of privilege. It is not the first occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition has attempted to imply that consultations had not been arranged, as mentioned in the house; and the fact that he has no knowledge of what has taken place is not my responsibility whatsoever.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government will not be able to get out of its responsibilities by these observations. On June 14 the Prime Minister made the statement which I put on the record this morning. The minister says the matter was brought up at a meeting on Monday of this week-


Harold Edward Winch: May I say one word on this very important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of
privilege has been disposed of, and we are now waiting to call orders of the day.
79951-0-476i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: rise on a question of privilege, in view of the statements made by the house leader and by the Leader of the Opposition. My question of privilege is, if there is a committee representing all parties, trying to work out the business of this house, why is a matter which is discussed in the committee in trying to arrange a decision denied-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not raising a question of privilege. We have concluded the discussion which the house permitted.



NATIONAL 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 Transport. Has the minister anything to add to the statement he allegedly gave to the press indicating support by his department of an order restricting civil aviation from 2 a.m. to 8 a.m. on September 10 in order to facilitate a general NORAD alert.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of National Defence indicate the extent to which Canadian air squadrons and facilities are being involved in this alert?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is a NORAD exercise being carried out by the North American air defence command. Canadian squadrons may be called upon to take part in that exercise, as they are part of the North American air defence command. The extent to which the various squadrons will take part, of course, depends upon the general course of the exercise.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production, arising out of the great contribution made by the Polymer Corporation over the years and the large profit paid into the national treasury along with the lower consumer prices for rubber goods of all kinds. My question is, can the minister now give us a report from the cabinet committee that the Polymer Corporation will remain the property of the people of Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minisler of Defence Production):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say when the study may be completed and when this urgent question of the future of the Polymer Corporation may be decided?


Mr. O'Hurley:: When a decision is reached by the government it will be announced.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that French is the language currently spoken in the Congo, can the minister inform the house whether Colonel A. Mendelsohn, senior Canadian army officer in charge of our troops in the Congo, Major Bindoff, who will command the signal force, and Lieutenant Colonel Webb, the senior army administrative officer, are bilingual; and by "bilingual" I mean do they speak French fluently as well as English?


Hon.  G. R. Paarlres@Minisier of National Defence: To the best of my knowledge all those officers are bilingual.


Mr. Ricard:: Why did he not ask his question in French?


Mr. Graffley:: Liberal divide and rule all over again.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any complaints from organizations or individuals bringing to his attention the fact that a number of persons have been drowned recently while wearing life preservers stamped "Canada approved", and that the drown-ings occurred because the life preservers brought about an imbalance in the body, causing the head to be immersed?


George Harris Hees: No such complaints have been drawn to my attention, but I will make inquiries in the department to find out whether any complaints have been received by the department, and get all the information I can for the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that in Toronto some 25,000 immigrants employed in the building industry have walked out on strike because they felt they were being discriminated against? Can the minister give-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question seems to me not to relate to the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The fact that a strike is taking place is not the responsibility of that minister, and the fact that they are immigrants who are on strike makes no difference.


Leon David Crestohl: In this instance it did; therefore I thought the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration might be interested. Because they are recent immigrants to Canada, perhaps the Minister of Labour may be able to deal with the question and explain to the house what was the discrimination and why the 25,000 immigrants left their employment.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Will the hon. member repeat the whole question?


Leon David Crestohl: Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that in Toronto some 25,000 immigrants, employed in the building industry, have walked out on strike because they were being discriminated against? Can the minister give the house any information as to the nature of the discrimination, and why they walked out?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I read about this incident in one of the Toronto papers, but I must point out to the hon. member that I do not know what the nature of the discrimination was or the reason for the walkout, because this trade comes completely under provincial jurisdiction.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I have received, and I think all Vancouver members and members of the government have also received, a telegram to the effect that the plywood industry of British Columbia is oh the verge

of collapse and asking the government to take action to try to -revive it. I know this is a difficult matter, but can the minister tell us whether any consideration is being given by his department to helping the plywood industry of this country?


Michael Starr: A matter of this nature does not come within the ambit of the Department of Labour. Any action that might be taken would of necessity be government action. In this regard this matter has not been considered, nor has it been brought to our attention in the same light as the hon. member has put his question.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I believe that the original telegram was sent to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from British Columbia with respect to additional lay-offs in the plywood industry of that province and asking for federal government assistance to maintain the industry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, obviously it would be impossible for me to answer that question without looking at the record. I shall do so and answer tomorrow.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that British Columbia is an exporting province and that the timber industry, the major industry in its economy, is now in difficulty, can the Prime Minister inform us whether or not it is possible for an examination of the situation to be made by the government with a view to assisting the forest economy of British Columbia?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of the forest economy naturally is of preeminent importance. That was why we asked parliament to set up a department of forestry. Every industry of importance in this country is at all times receiving the fullest consideration. It is interesting to hear this expression of viewpoint, because it is only a few days ago, as I recollect, that the premier of that province spoke in the most euloglistic terms of the progress being made there.


Harold Edward Winch: He is facing an election, so we can expect that.



ACREAGE PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position now to
Inquiries of the Ministry announce the policy of the government in respect of the request made by the western liaison committee of grain producers for acreage payments?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Durham.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister be able to announce the policy in this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already recognized the hon. member for Durham. I will come back to the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister give the house some information as to how arrangements are coming along for the proposed meeting with the western liaison committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been communication with the liaison committee, and the committee has been advised that when a date has been fixed a meeting will take place. In the meantime may I point out that the fullest representations with regard to this important matter have been made by the many members from western Canada supporting the government. They have made most clear the desires and wishes of their people and are able to speak for them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his very interesting statement as to the government's policy with reference to western farm income. Can the Prime Minister say whether even one of the members around him has recommended the payment of deficiency payments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now getting beyond the proper scope of questions on orders of the day.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Percy Vivian (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reported statement of the Prime Minister of South Africa that he would seek a referendum as to the views of his people with respect to a republic, should that become a fact what effect will it have on the readmission of South Africa as a member of the commonwealth? Would the Prime Minister care to comment?
7536	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of South Africa has announced that a referendum will take place in that country, I think on October 5, to determine whether South Africa desires to become a republic. That decision is a matter for the people of South Africa, as was made abundantly clear in the communique following the prime ministers' conference in London. In the communique then issued it was made clear that the decision whether or not South Africa would then be admitted to the commonwealth would be a question to be decided at that time.
When I answered a question respecting this matter some weeks ago I made it clear that no undertaking had been given by Canada as to what Canada's attitude would be, for to do so might well constitute an interference with the rights of the people of South Africa or with the course that might be followed by the people of South Africa when voting on the referendum. I am glad that Prime Minister Verwoerd has underlined the correctness of that stand.
Further than that I would not want to go, for to do so might well constitute an invasion of the rights of the people of that country or might have an effect on the voting on the referendum, which is their own decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to say that I think the attitude of the Prime Minister on this very important question is entirely correct.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State. On July 13 the house passed a motion for the production of papers and documents relating to the Columbia river, and on July 20 another motion for certain documents with respect to television in the Kootenays. Will the minister kindly make inquiries and find out whether my curiosity is going to be satisfied before the session ends?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Aciing Secretary of State):: I will be very pleased to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member.



HUMAN RIGHTS


John George Diefenbaker: the third reading of Bill No. C-79, for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai):
That Bill C-79 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 1 as follows:
"That the following paragraphs be added after present paragraph (b):
(c)	The right of the individual to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and against attacks upon his honour and reputation.
(d)	The right of the individual to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of Canada.
(e)	The right of the individual to leave the country and to return to the country.
(f)	The right of nationality and the right to change nationality.
(g)	The right of the family to protection by society and the state as the natural and fundamental group unit.
(h)	The right of the individual of equal access to public service.
(i)	The right of the individual to social security and his entitlement to realize the economic, social, and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
(j)	The right of the individual to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
and that the remaining paragraphs of clause 1 be relettered accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that in my view the amendment which has been moved goes far beyond what I would consider to be an appropriate amendment on third reading. Before definitely ruling, however, I would be pleased if hon. members would elaborate on the point that the amendment goes far beyond the scope of the bill which is now before the house.
The references in Beauchesne's fourth edition which bear most directly on the point are in citations 415 and 418. The first one, at the bottom of page 287, the last paragraph of citation 415, reads:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
Then citation 418, on the next page, the second sentence, reads:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.

Further down in the same citation I read:
This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision of the bill.
I have not had an opportunity, as the hon. member who moved this amendment appreciates, to study it carefully, but some of the matters I think might very well have been the proper subject of amendments. However, unless I can be persuaded to the contrary, I feel that the latter two clauses definitely go beyond the scope of a juridical bill which contains certain rights enforceable by the courts and go into the field of economic rights, which to my mind would depart from the principle approved on second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour has referred us to citation 415 which, I submit, does not preclude this amendment. I would suggest to Your Honour that consideration of the amendment will indicate that all the matters referred to in the amendment now before the house were voted on when this house considered the bill in committee yesterday. There were some amendments that were declared out of order yesterday, and which are not here included. There is no new principle being put into this bill. All we are seeking to put in is to add certain rights that are not contrary to the principle of the bill. Citation 415, to which we were referred, reads:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
It seems to me that is the qualifying phrase in that paragraph.
The motion for third reading is debatable under standing order 32. Or the bill may then be ordered to be reprinted or committed to a select committee.
(2) Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case the committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them. When material amendments are desirable, the order for the third reading may be discharged, and the bill recommitted to introduce the amendments in committee.
(3)	A bill may be recommitted, amended in committee, reported, considered on report and read a third time at the one sitting by simple order of the house.
It seems clear, I would submit with confidence, that the amendment I have proposed is within our rules. As I say, there is nothing proposed in this amendment that was not voted on yesterday. In other words, what was regarded in committee yesterday as being in order must be regarded as in order today. We are not seeking to change the principle of the bill. We are seeking to
Human Rights
strengthen the principle of the bill. For these reasons I submit that the amendment is in order.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Otiawa West):: I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word on that point. I have particular reference to paragraph 1 of citation 415, which says:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
It will be observed that the amendment moved is that the bill be referred back to the committee for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 1. Clause 1 of the bill is the clause containing the enumeration of rights, and it reads:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely-
Then follows an enumeration of the particular rights. The amendment is to the effect that when the matter is referred back to the committee it is for the purpose of considering and amending clause 1 as follows, and there is a change in the enumeration of the rights that are recognized and declared to have existed. In other words there is no change of principle in any respect, but there is a better elaboration and enumeration of the rights that have existed and shall continue to exist. The amendment offered deals with the enumeration of those rights, and does not in any way deal with the principle of clause 1. It is merely a better enumeration of those rights by the addition of certain subparagraphs. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that it comes clearly within the type of amendment that is proper on third reading of a bill.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say a few words on this proposed amendment. I was privileged to be on the special committee, and throughout the hearings the committee was very much in agreement on a good many matters, but there were two matters' of principle on which the committee disagreed and on which the whole basis of the bill was founded.
The main matter of principle was the question whether rights in this bill should be specialized and listed one by one, or whether they should be stated in general form. During the hearings of the committee, and yesterday in committee of the whole, the opposition attempted to raise various particular clauses and particular rights and freedoms which would have extended the principle beyond a

Human Rights
general statement of rights and freedoms into a bill of particulars. This, I think, was not a matter of detail but a matter of basic principle. As is clearly stated in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 415, the last subsection:
(4)	On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the enumeration of the rights and freedoms which have been included in this amendment would take it out of the main principle of the bill, which was to set out general rights and freedoms and not to particularize them. For that reason I would think the amendment proposed would be much beyond the original principle of the bill as adopted on second reading.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may just say one word. The argument of my hon. friend who has just spoken seems to be more on substance than on procedure. In effect he is saying that all the amendments which were moved yesterday, which are enumerated in this motion, were out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Leader of the Opposition contend that the same conditions apply on third reading, with respect to amendments, as in committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; I am contending-


Mr. Speaker:: If so, I would like to see some authority, because that is an important point. If these matters were relevant at one stage in committee and the considerations are the same on third reading, that is an important point to have established.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With respect, if the amendments had been ruled out of order yesterday they could not, of course, have been introduced today. They were accepted as amendments yesterday and they were accepted, I suggest, because they did deal with the principle of this bill, which is not a principle founded on political rights but a principle founded on human rights. There is no distinction, as I see it, in human rights as between political and economic rights.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, surely the question is not quite as stated by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me that the question must be decided on the basis of the rules and the citations. The one to which I believe you have already drawn our attention, the most important one, seems to be citation 418, which contains the following two passages:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the

third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained In the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the citation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The citation is 418 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 288. Further in that citation it is stated:
On the second reading of a bill, an amendment may be moved expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with Its introduction or prosecution, or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees or commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or the opinion of judges. This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision of the bill.


George James McIlraith: This is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely that passage which says, first, that a motion on third reading cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill, and further, that motions cannot be moved which are not directly connected with any provision of the bill, speak perfectly clearly. In applying them to this amendment I think one can see a number of matters in it which are not connected with the bill at all. I would say that the proposed subparagraph (f)-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a right.
Mr. Fulton -and proposed subparagraph (i) are definitely in the field of economic rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And proposed paragraph (j) is definitely in the field of economic rights.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is the difference? These are human rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there may be others, but those are the ones to which I refer particularly, on short notice. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that by virtue of citation 418 these amendments are clearly out of order. It is not, in my view, a sound argument to say that simply because they were permitted in committee, that necessarily establishes that they can be permitted now, because in committee we are dealing with the bill in detail.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are dealing with rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is frequently moved in committee that provisions of a bill be amended in ways which it would not be open to move on third reading. That, sir, is surely why we have a separate committee stage to deal with the bill.
To carry the argument of the Leader of the Opposition to its logical conclusion would be to say that every amendment that can be moved in committee can also be moved on third reading. This would bring us into direct

conflict with the citation to which I have referred, which clearly establishes that not all motions that can be moved at other stages can be moved on third reading, but that the motions which can be moved on third reading are definitely restricted, as set forth in that citation.


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker,
would you allow me to deal with the arguments that have been made by the Minister of Justice? He properly relies on citation 418, but surely the interpretation that he gives is not a valid one. That citation reads:
AH amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading-
So up to that point there is no difficulty.
-with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
The amendment before the house does not deal with any matter not already in the bill. What is the matter in the bill? The matter in the bill has to do with certain rights enumerated in subparagraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) of clause 1. The matters referred to in the amendment are likewise the same kind of matters; they too refer to rights. The fact that the hon. gentlemen do not agree that these rights should be included does not change in any way the character of the rights or the matter involved in the amendment, unless one is prepared to argue that these are not rights. That cannot be the case, because every one of the rights enumerated in the amendment is a right that is contained in the declaration of human rights of the United Nations, a declaration which Canada supported, along with other countries of the world.
What hon. gentlemen have got to do, then, in order to succeed in their argument is to establish that the matter involved in the amendment is not the kind of matter involved in the bill. That is the issue, and it seems to me that the matter ought to be clearly settled, because of that obvious fact.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka argued on the merits. We are not arguing on the merits now. There are differences on the merits, of course. The hon. member argued whether or not these words should be included. This is not the point. That will be the question in debate, if Your Honour accepts the submission I make. I would simply add that not only were these matters voted on in the committee of the house after second reading, but they were also voted on in the special committee set up by this house.
Human Rights
So my submission, Your Honour, is that the matter involved in the amendment is the same kind of matter involved in the clause of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with much interest to the hon. member who moves this motion in his expression of his view that the rights enumerated in the proposed amendment are of the same order as those in the bill, because to my mind that is the crux of the decision I have to make.
I think it is clear that on third reading there is a fair scope for amendment, but by that time the principle of the bill has been approved by the house on second reading and therefore we cannot go beyond that principle. Furthermore, the bill has been before the committee of the whole house, where latitude is given to make changes which expand it or contract it within the principle approved on second reading.
Now we come to third reading and we have the bill in specific terms. I think it is obvious that third reading is intended as a final protection for parliament, to give the bill final consideration before it becomes law, and that there is a final opportunity to reject it or to refer it back to the committee if the house feels that the committee has not done what it should have done.
With that in mind my conception of a proper amendment on third reading is that it should not depart in kind; it should not introduce new principles. Quite frankly, as the hon. member read his amendment I could see that subparagraphs (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) could be added to those principles in clause 1 of the bill which were declared as having existed and continuing to exist in Canada, and enumerated as the right of the individual to life, liberty etc., and the right of the individual to equality before the law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. These are all matters which could be brought before the court where an individual could claim the right of protection. They do not involve the expenditure of money. They do not involve anything other than protection of those rights by the law of the land.
When I came particularly to the last two clauses of the amendment, however, it seemed to me that there one departs into a new and different area of legislation. I am not sure that it would not involve the expenditure of money if it means what it says, and it would therefore have to be preceded by a resolution. But in any event I do distinguish in my mind these rights in subparagraphs (i) and (j) of the amendment as being different in character and in order from those enumerated in clause 1, of the

Human Rights
bill, particularly a right such as the right of the individual to social security.
If that right means anything at all it means social security in the commonly accepted sense of the term. It means the right to maintenance by the state under certain circumstances, either because of ill health or unemployment or whatever it may be. Social security involves not the protection of a right which exists but the granting or the providing of something by the state as of right.
Subparagraph (i) goes on "and his entitlement to realize the economic, social and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity", etc. Clause (j) refers to "just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented if necessary by other means of social protection." That surely involves the right to work at a fair wage.
If that sort of right is to be asserted in legislation, it is not something that arises simply by saying that it exists, and is therefore not of the order which can be protected by access to the courts. It involves, I think, not the protection of some personal right or right of property which an individual enjoys, but involves a right to have added something which he does not already have in the form of economic well-being.
I distinguish those two, and therefore feel that these clauses do go beyond the bill as it was originally drawn, as it was debated on second reading and as it appears now. Therefore I must, with great respect to the views expressed by the hon. member who proposed this amendment, find that it is not in order in its latter clauses and therefore not in order at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
may I thank you for the careful consideration you have given. Your Honour will not take offence if I say that our views have not altered in so far as subparagraphs (i) and (j) are concerned. But since Your Honour has taken that position, and as I would not seem to have any occasion or opportunity for testing the validity of that opinion, I have no other course open but to accept Your Honour's ruling.
Therefore, with your permission, I would ask that I be allowed to drop subparagraphs (i) and (j) so that my motion would cover (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) and (h), without of course in any way being put in the position of feeling that I was not justified on the merits with regard to (i) and (j). Therefore I ask your permission to drop (i) and (j) so that the motion will be considered with these two deletions.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to accept that amendment and to put it before the house in the new form now proposed by the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one thing. I am not quite sure how far a member can go in changing his amendment or in deleting particulars from his amendment without arriving at a position where he is really offering a new amendment altogether, which of course I think would be agreed is not allowed by our rules.
I make that observation by way of preface, because I still think that even if it should be ruled that the hon. member is permitted to drop those two subparagraphs and that the amendment did not then constitute a new amendment, I would nevertheless point out that the amendment still contains, for example, subparagraph (f), the right to nationality and the right to change nationality, which in my submission definitely imports something which is not in the bill at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, we had arguments as to whether indeed Canadian law could confer the right to change nationality, but I am not going to resurrect those arguments. May I simply say that it is something not in the bill at the present time, and it is not covered by the matters in the bill at the present time. I will not repeat the reference to the citations I made earlier, but I would add a further reference which I think clarifies the point upon which Your Honour originally ruled. That is the reference appearing at page 578 of May's sixteenth edition. Dealing with debate on third reading May says:
The procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to the second reading, but the debate is more restricted at the later stage, being limited to the matters contained in the bill.
If debate is restricted to the matters contained in the bill, obviously amendments must be restricted to matters contained in the bill. I think that quotation from May puts the matter more clearly and more succinctly than it was put even in citation 418 in Beau-chesne, to which I referred.
I suggest that the ordinary meaning of those words is that you cannot deal with matters not contained in the bill. You will note that the word "matters" is plural, not singular. This I emphasize as seeming to me to indicate that May means there that where you have a bill with several clauses, the debate on third reading is restricted to what is contained in those clauses. If the debate on third reading is thus restricted so also must be amendments. So I come back to the point that since this amendment still contains matters which are

not contained in the bill, it is out of order as an amendment on third reading.


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct Your Honour's attention to citation 203, subsection 12, Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which reads:
A member who has been given leave to withdraw an amendment may move it again at a later date.
When an amendment has been withdrawn, a portion of it, without any change in phraseology, cannot be moved.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been no withdrawal of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some sympathy with the point of view expressed by the Minister of Justice. I think I see a distinction between the two final clauses which I objected to and the earlier ones on which I propose to base my decision. It is clear that one should not go outside the scope of the bill in amendments on third reading, and I do not think these do go outside the scope, although I admit there is room for argument.
On the other point of the possibility of altering the amendment, as the house will recall the hon. member made his motion and then submitted it, but it was not placed before the house because I had doubts as to its admissibility as he read it. So it has never been placed before the house formally. I think it is quite in order to accept it in the attenuated form in which the hon. member now proposes it, and I will therefore put the amendment.
It is moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai):
That Bill No. C-79 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 1 as follows:
"That the following paragraphs be added after present paragraph (b):
(c)	the right of the individual to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, pr correspondence, and against attacks upon his honour and reputation.
(d)	the right of the individual to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of Canada.
(e)	the right of the individual to leave the country and to return to the country.
(f)	the right of nationality and the right to change nationality.
(g)	the right of the family to protection by society and the state as the natural and fundamental group unit.
(h)	the right of the individual of equal access to public service.
and that the remaining paragraphs of clause 1 be relettered accordingly."


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the house would desire any lengthy repetition of the arguments that were advanced
Human Rights
with respect to these amendments when they were moved in committee of the whole yesterday and the day before. They have been the subject of full discussion both there and in the special committee of the house. Generally speaking, they were rejected on such grounds as that they were not appropriate for inclusion in a bill of rights, that some of them were already covered in the wording of the bill of rights, and on similar grounds. These grounds of course are as applicable today as when the committee came to its conclusion that they should be rejected for those reasons.
I am pleased to find that our arguments have obviously carried weight with the opposition, at least to the extent that they have now moved on third reading to add only about one half the amendments they moved to add when we were in committee. Either one of two things must have happened. Either the hon. member for Essex East must have been convinced by our arguments that they were not suitable for inclusion or else he must have decided himself that his amendments previously suggested were, after all, of no value. Either one of those two things must have happened, I submit, for the opposition to have reduced the changes that it suggests from some 16 down to 8. Now by the further deletion on grounds of order they are reduced to 6.
I suggest to you sir, that what has happened is that the opposition has simply shown that lack of flexibility of which they accused us yesterday. In other words they have accepted our arguments that these things are not valid. They recognize that, but they refuse to give that argument its full application because they still stubbornly say, "Oh, all right; we will throw overboard half the amendments we moved, but we are not going to fully accede to the government's views and we will put forward the other half."
I do not know upon what basis of selection the hon. gentleman operated. Indeed, I was puzzled by this when hon. members opposite were making their attempts to insert seriatim many of the articles of the universal declaration. I was puzzled then about the reason they left out other articles which are equally desirable statements of objective, such as the article dealing with the health and welfare of mothers, widows and children. Does that mean that my hon. friend had no concern for the welfare of those groups of our society?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were ruled out of order.	:


George James McIlraith: It means no such thing.

Division


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that by inference that is the only conclusion one can draw, because they moved most of the articles of the universal declaration but there were certain significant omissions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me put them in now and we will support them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that having thus demonstrated the rather peculiar position in which hon. gentlemen opposite are placed by their own ineptitude, I can conclude the matter by saying that the same arguments that led to the rejection of these amendments previously still apply today; that proposed subclause (c) is covered by the wording of our bill of rights; that proposed subclause (d) is largely covered and in the areas in which it is not covered it is, of course, in the realm of provincial rights; that subclause (e) is not a sound one in any event for inclusion in a bill of rights because it contains reference to the right to return to the country, which right cannot arise in any practical sense until the individual is outside Canada and this is to be a bill of rights in Canada; that subclause (f) is not valid because it pretends that we can do something in Canadian law which we cannot do, and that is give a person the right to acquire another nationality which, of course, no Canadian law can do; that subclause (g) is in part a declaration of principle which is covered in the wording of the preamble where recognition has been specifically given to the position of the family in society; and that subclause (h) again is one for inclusion in some other kind of statute than the bill of rights and indeed in Canada is largely if not completely covered in the present Civil Service Act.
Therefore, without expanding these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the house that all the arguments which applied yesterday, the day before and prior to that, and which have been rehearsed exhaustively, still apply to these amendments on their merits. In addition, the position now taken by the opposition that half their amendments could be jettisoned without any danger whatsoever is, by logical extension, capable of application to prove, as I now maintain, that the rest of these amendments can and should be jettisoned without any danger or disadvantage whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it one o'clock?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite agreeable to us if the house decides to sit through.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without any further word, because our position in regard to the matter is well known, I would like to move an amendment which I think is in order because it deals with a principle already in a section of the bill and does not involve any of the considerations which caused you some hesitation in regard to the other amendment this morning. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten):
That Bill No. C-79 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 6 as follows:
"That subsection 5 of section 6 be deleted and that there be added the following section as section 6A:
6A (1) Subject to subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation made under the authority of this act, shall be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgement, or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian bill of rights.
(2)	No naturalized Canadian citizen may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act.
(3)	No Canadian citizen may be deported from Canada under this act.
(4)	No Canadian citizen or British subject may be detained under this act beyond a period of sixty days, unless the cause for his detention has been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal which has reported to the minister or authorities authorizing the detention.
(5)	Any order or regulation under this act conferring authority to order the detention of any person shall, forthwith after it is made, be laid
Human Rights
before parliament, or if parliament if not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
(6)	Where an order or regulation has been laid before parliament pursuant to subsection (5), a notice of motion in either house, signed by ten members thereof, and made in accordance with the rules of that house within ten days of the day the order or regulation was laid before parliament, praying that the order or regulation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in the house was made.
(7)	If either house of parliament resolve pursuant to a motion made under subsection (6) that the order or regulation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect, without prejudice, to the previous operation of the order or regulation, or anything duly done thereunder.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I be allowed to ask a question, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: If any hon. member wishes to say anything about the regularity of the amendment I would be glad to hear it now, so that it may be put before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I want to ask a question on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the proposed amendment, it imports into the War Measures Act certain new provisions which are not there now, in this bill. If no hon. member wishes to suggest that the proposed amendment to clause 6 of the bill is beyond the scope of the bill or is an irregular amendment on third reading, I shall be glad to place the matter before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I do not desire to speak completely on the purport of the amendment. I think on first reading it I understand the principle, but there is certain wording in this suggested amendment which I must admit has me entirely confused.
As everyone knows, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot understand at the moment why we have reference in this proposal to a Canadian citizen in one aspect, a British subject in another aspect and a naturalized British subject in still another. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will understand why as a layman I am confused as to what this means. Are we Canadian citizens or are we not? Is a British subject a Canadian citizen or is he not? And what is the status of a naturalized British subject?
On page 2 of the amendment reference is made to a naturalized Canadian citizen, in the third line to a naturalized British subject, then again further on to a Canadian citizen, and in the next paragraph there is reference to "No Canadian citizen or British subject". I find it most confusing and I hope I can have an explanation now, because

Human Rights
surely there is one term or another which is applicable under Canadian law to describe who is a citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that
1	might deal with this question.
The designations of naturalized Canadian citizen, Canadian citizen and British subject are all terms that are incorporated, and necessarily so, into the Canadian Citizenship Act. Section 26 of the Canadian Citizenship Act says that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. However, in Canada there are British subjects who are not Canadian citizens and that is, in accordance with their rights as provided for in the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Canadian citizens, then, are made up of three potential classes. There are those who were born in Canada and who become Canadian citizens by what is called jus soli, the law of the soil. Then there are British subjects, who may or may not become Canadian citizens, depending upon their wish. A naturalized Canadian citizen is one who has come from another country to live in Canada. That person may or may not wish to become a Canadian citizen. Let us say he comes from Czechoslovakia. He is allowed to stay here; he is not compelled to become a Canadian citizen, but if he becomes a Canadian citizen pursuant to the requirements of the Canadian Citizenship Act, then he is a naturalized Canadian citizen.


Harold Edward Winch: Then I have a question to raise, because I imagine that the bill of rights is a matter of principle. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, why in the principle which the hon. member has now enunciated on page
2	of the amendment a differentiation is made between rights according to whether they are Canadian citizens, British subjects or naturalized Canadian citizens? Does not the same principle of right apply to all? Why differentiate between the three categories? Is a bill of rights applicable to all or not? Incidentally, as I read this now it is breaking down the principles of the bill of rights by discrimination. I would like to get clarification of this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This differentiation is inevitable because of the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Mr. Speaker:: We are not in committee now, and hon. members are only permitted one intervention on third reading.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will simply ask you to rule on this question as to whether or not amendments to the citizenship act come within the provisions of the bill of

rights. In other words, the principle of this bill is now being torn asunder by a purported amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say to the Prime Minister that these amendments do not purport to be amendments to the Canadian. Citizenship Act. They incorporate terms from and are in accordance with the Canadian Citizenship Act, but they seek to provide amendments to the War Measures Act.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the amendment and as I put it before the house, it deals with the subject matter of the War Measures Act, which is dealt with in clause 6 of the bill now before the house for third reading. The amendment would appear to trespass into the territory of the act relating to citizenship and naturalization, but I do not think that in itself would make the amendment out of order if it is otherwise an appropriate amendment to the War Measures Act within the general tenor of the bill and of the purposes of the clause dealing with the War Measures Act.
I had some doubts about the propriety of the proposed amendment on the ground that it seems to go beyond the general character of the amendment to the War Measures Act which is in the bill, but as I put it before the house I would not like to recede from that position simply because the bill affects matters dealt with by other statutes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reiterate the arguments which were made yesterday in committee on this question. It is very obvious that these amendments are various types of particulars which might very well be considered in connection with the War Measures Act when it receives a complete going over next year and is reviewed, providing parliament so decides. This is simply a means whereby through a suggested amendment the opposition is endeavouring by piecemeal measures to amend the citizenship act and to amend as well the War Measures Act. I have said before that all of us are gratified to learn of the change in attitude in the passing years on the part of the opposition, but one finds it difficult to forget the wrongs that hon. gentlemen opposite committed in freedom's name but a few years ago. While up until recently they scoffed at a bill of rights, let me remind them of words which I may not quote correctly: "some who came to scoff remained to pray". That is the attitude of the opposition, for they have a guilty conscience which portrays and reveals itself in sundry ways.


William Moore Benidickson: 
John George Diefenbaker: We find this statement in the amendment:
No naturalized Canadian citizen may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act.
They who placed before parliament only a few years ago the legislation that makes this possible, now in the light of events which have brought about a transition of position have been impelled to endeavour to rectify the wrongs which they themselves committed. Turning again to the amendment we find these words:
No Canadian citizen may be deported from Canada under this act.
One does not want to go into the past, but the record of the previous administration with respect to the deportation of those whose only offence, as I said before, was confined to their colour is known to all. No matter how the hand of history writes, it cannot erase what was done. This amendment has that purpose, to lead the Canadian people to believe that those who did those things yesterday have changed and that the wrongs of yesterday are to be rectified today, although they took no measures to do that when they were in power following the war.
Turning again to the amendment we find these words:
No Canadian citizen or British subject may be detained under this act beyond a period of sixty days, unless the cause for his detention has been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal which has reported to the minister or authorities authorizing the detention.
We asked for that on a number of occasions. We asked why it was that men were held against whom there was no evidence but only suspicion. We understood the incarceration of those people was in the interest of the maintenance of the security of the state, but we asked that some measures be taken to enable those persons deprived of the ordinary rights of Canadian citizens to have the opportunity of establishing their innocence. In effect, what was asked for in those days is now being sought by a devious course, instead of by direct amendment, to be introduced into a bill of rights for the preservation of Canadian life.
All these questions are deserving of consideration. All of them will receive consideration in the committee to be set up to cover the whole ambit and field of the War Measures Act. And then, in the light of all the circumstances, with a full realization of the necessity of maintaining undiminished the security of the state, the War Measures Act may be rewritten and those terms removed that are unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Through the medium of an amendment in the nature of a subterfuge, hon. gentlemen
Human Rights
seek to lead the Canadian people to believe that those who wronged now wish to put the situation aright through the medium of legislation in which particular items should not be incorporated, and which consists of amendments to existing statutes.
We are in agreement with these matters in very considerable measure and possibly completely. Without close study of the matter I know that over the years these are some of the things I have believed. Next year, next session-and I do not think it will be too far removed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh?


John George Diefenbaker: -we will be able to set up a committee-


William Moore Benidickson: How about an election?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says "How about an election?"


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember very well that on January 17, 1958 they said the same thing, and very soon the results achieved did not justify the requests which they then made for the holding of an election.


William Moore Benidickson: In 1957 you did not think you would be elected, or you would not have made all the promises you did.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard bravado of that kind on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite before. I remember that day in January very well. Just when they got what they asked for, then the people gave them what they did not ask for.
I am not to be led away from this. I am simply saying that at the next session, which in the light of circumstances may not be too far removed, having regard to the intervening circumstances and events that may occur, but whether that session be close at hand or normally removed, if the house is in agreement the committee will be set up and each of these statutes containing the very tyrannical terms that have remained on the statute books over the years will receive the fullest and most complete consideration. At that time a reformation can be made not of particular sections but of the acts as a whole.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the purpose of the amendment is a good one and the amendment itself is a good one. The Prime Minister has given the official opposition a lecture about their past wrongs-


Gordon Minto Churchill: A well deserved one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Page the Minister of Justice.


Hazen Robert Argue: -an eloquent and well deserved lecture; but surely castigating the Liberal

Human Rights
party for past misdemeanours is scarcely a substitute for enacting a law that will make such wrongdoing impossible from here on. I suggest that at this time these provisions should be inserted in the bill of rights. The Prime Minister says we will do it next session, and that the session may come earlier than we would otherwise expect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is always "next session".


Hazen Robert Argue: I hope that is right, because there are many problems that need solving soon. I think of the many emergencies facing the Canadian people, and it occurs to me that next January is a long time away if that is to be the time the government will start solving these problems and stop procrastinating as it has been doing for a number of years.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member may be facing an emergency himself within the next few weeks.


Hazen Robert Argue: Some of us thrive on emergencies. The Prime Minister has had a lot of emergencies in the past. He may soon be facing his greatest emergency; and who knows, he may find that he will not be able to meet it.
This is a good amendment, in our opinion; it deserves the support of the house. The War Measures Act should be amended, and I think the placing of these provisions in a bill of rights is very appropriate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already intervened twice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. May I simply point out to you that the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question, and under the rules of debate the Leader of the Opposition is precluded from speaking-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is speaking on the point of order I have raised, namely the question of his right to speak, and he is endeavouring to satisfy me that he has the right to speak a third time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: He did not say anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You allowed the question to be put, Mr. Speaker, and you allowed a reply to be made. The hon. member put the question several times so that he would be heard. If I am not allowed to speak, the situation will be that those of us

who have been in the house, pursuing this matter, will be denied the opportunity of dealing with the remarks made by the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event, I say to you-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is following his usual course-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the Prime Minister on the point of order, but I have expressed a view, and the hon. member who wishes to speak has the right to point out what considerations arise before I confirm my ruling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that if it is your ruling that I cannot speak at this time, I accept your ruling. I would suggest that in a matter such as this involving a bill of rights which has been introduced by the Prime Minister and approved by the house, an opportunity should be given to Liberal spokesmen to speak.


John George Diefenbaker: Three times.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister wishes to speak on this point I will hear him, but I am satisfied that the hon. member did have the floor on two occasions to explain the amendment, as did the hon. member for Vancouver East, and if further debate were permitted we would be departing from the fixed rule which limits each member to one intervention on third reading. I am sorry; I must insist. Is the house ready for the question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's piety was very touching but not completely convincing. Today we see here a strange about-face.


An hon. Member:: We certainly do.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Here is the Prime Minister, here is the man, here is the right hon. gentleman who has argued so vehemently and so eloquently in the past against the War Measures Act; here is the right hon. gentleman who in days past has said that the War Measures Act should be abolished, should be removed from the statute books of Canada; here is the right hon. gentleman who says, "See the crimes which have been committed in the name of the War Measures Act"; and now, today, we see this strange and incomprehensible about-face. He suggests now that we are to have two bills of rights, the one before us today and another one, the War Measures Act.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot argue that human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the War Measures Act are as secure as they would be if they were included in the bill before us, inadequate as it is. Surely the Prime Minister is not trying to impress us with the fact that a future parliament, which might have some hesitation about amending and taking out of this bill rights which have been put in it, would have less hesitation in taking out of the War Measures Act rights which are guaranteed and which are included in this legislation. This is a strange development indeed.
Here is the right hon. gentleman who throughout the decades, throughout his service in this parliament, has been most vehement and most persuasive in opposition to the War Measures Act; yet when he has the opportunity in this house to remove from that act some of the opportunity for the circumvention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, he denies this parliament the right to act. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if this legislation has any meaning at all; if the Prime Minister is sincere in trying to put into a bill of rights those human rights and fundamental freedoms which he hopes no future parliament will dare abridge; surely if he is sincere in this he will want to put in this bill today those further guarantees and protections so they cannot in any circumstances be circumvented in the future by the back door route or the devious route he himself has described. Surely, in the Prime Minister's own words, this bill of rights will have perhaps some effect; it will have a retarding effect on future parliaments. Perhaps it will. Indeed, they should be reluctant to remove from the legislation any of those human rights and fundamental freedoms which are guaranteed by this bill, inadequate as it is. Surely it is not sound to put these human rights and basic freedoms in the War Measures Act which can be changed by parliament at any time.
Now, if the Prime Minister wishes to follow a straight course, if he wishes to be logical and consistent in this matter, he should rise in his place and say that throughout the debate he has taken the position that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be included in this legislation which he himself has introduced so that future parliaments would be reluctant to remove them, and that he would not leave to any future parliament, even one under his own leadership, the possibility of debasing or removing any of the rights which might under any circumstances be put into the War Measures Act.
Division


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: should like to add just one word. We have been around this course now so often that I would put in a plea in the words used once by a former leader of this party, which I have used in this house before; "Let us have some regard for the immortal grounds of common sense". Also I would like to quote the words of Omar Khayyam:
Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same door wherein I went.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of general remarks that I intend to make at this time. I need hardly express to this house my feelings at this moment. You will appreciate what it means to me to be approaching, having regard to the attitude of members in all parts of this house, the legislative enactment of a framework of ideas of some of the deepest convictions that can come to human beings who believe in freedom.
I want to begin by a reference to the kind of Canada that is represented in this House of Commons, made up of many races. To a varying degree, the committee itself was the embodiment of those things that indicate to us the changes that have taken place in our nation in a period of 46 years.
I say 46 years because it was that number of years ago today that world difficulty that has continued since had its inception in the beginning of the first world war.
At that time freedom was accepted as representative of a concept generally held in the world, and in the intervening years we have seen those vast changes that have taken place. In large areas of the earth freedom

has been swept away. Indeed, since the beginning of the first world war we have lived in continuous conflict, either active or quiescent. In other words, since the first world war ended on the 11th November, 1918, with the exception of the actual days of hostility in the second world war there has been a continuous armistice. Today we are in that position. As we look back to 1945 we realize that in the intervening years more than one third of mankind has come under the domination of a philosophy materialistic and godless, to use the words of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) on an earlier occasion.
When one looks back 46 years and remembers the sentiments that touched us then, it would have been indeed unusual if anyone had then been able to look forward to the day when men of so many races would be joined together in the Canadian House of Commons in their devotion to the maintenance and preservation of those things that are dearer than life itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember those days. I remember the years from 1903 to 1914, when the west was being opened up. Hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house are in that position. People came from other lands, and it was asked whether the day would ever come when those from foreign countries would be able to become part and parcel of a great Canadianism. Yes, we were in that position, after the first world war; that while those who served were Canadians during the days of war and had "Canada" proudly on their shoulder pieces, at the end of the war they returned once more to their paternal racial origin, and all were proud of that racial origin. Those of us representative of that ever-increasing number of Canadians who were not of British or French origin hoped for the day when we would have a Canadian citizenship. I think of my early days in the House of Commons when I advocated that which through the years represented to me the embodiment of a great Canadianism. I wondered whether the day would come when we would build that Canada out of a polyglot of racial origins.
Well, look at the committee, sir. The committee represented the trustees of freedom, entrusted by the members of this house to bring about a Canadian bill of rights, was representative of the original races but representative as well of those of-may I go down the list as I see it-'Italian, German, Chinese, Norwegian, Ukrainian, Polish, German, Icelandic and all other races; yes, all of them Canadians in a House of Commons that never before had the type of

representation that we have today, representative of so many origins.
* This group of members, following the authority given them by the house, brought about many recommendations and ideas which, translated into legislative form, now form the bill which will shortly, I hope, be passed by this house. No Canadian can give sanction to bigotry. That is the essence, one of the major portions of this bill of rights. We exiled it in the days of war. We today, by legislative enactment, ensure that the hallmark of freedom is the recognition of the sacred personality of the human being that denies discrimination in any form.
As the moving finger of history has written in the last 50 years, I am more than ever convinced of the rightness of one view that I have held throughout my life; that the existence of discrimination anywhere in Canada is a denial of that citizenship which we Canadians espouse and have a right to express. I believe, too, that the existence of discrimination anywhere in the world is a potential seed-plot for war. As we strive for peace our consecration to the maintenance of human rights is a fundamental requisite.
What does this bill achieve? I do not intend to reiterate any of the details now well known to the house, but I do believe that the essence of the bill of rights may be summed up under a number of categories. First, within the legislative and constitutional competence of parliament, this is the first integrated statement of the principal rights in the fields of political activity and matters of conscience, and in the relations of the individual to the courts, to the law and to the state.
It is true that we state that these rights have existed in the past. They have. I shall not repeat anything that will be partisan at this time. All of us have some responsibility for the fact that these rights and freedoms have not always been maintained. Where interfered with, the individual has too often been denied his right of recourse to the courts. Surely there is a vast difference between having these rights existing in many areas of our public and private law, between a diffused and unco-ordinated expression of these rights spread throughout many cases and statutes, customs and conventions, and this effort to boldly state them in understandable form.
Second, this bill of rights is a statement of values; values expressed in terms of law, values expressed in substance and in procedure. This is a statement not only of rights in a narrow sense but of values. Third, the specific contribution made by this bill to the law should not be underestimated. It makes the assumption, as I said a moment ago, that
Human Rights
these rights have existed. It is true that the language of the bill with respect to discrimination, the power of the press, due process of law and the forceful succession of clauses setting out the freedoms referred to, means to me something more together than if each individual item stood alone. Clause 1 is a major summary of substantive law as it affects our fundamental freedoms and rights, and no court henceforth can be indifferent to the effect of this statement when faced with the task of interpretation of past or future statutes.
As I look at this bill of rights and the declaration of the existence of these rights in the past, I can see a tremendous task resting upon the courts when it comes to the interpretation of statutes already existing. I know there were many who felt that the social rights and social freedoms should be included. They are of high value, and they are our goal under Canadian law. But this bill of rights is intended to be a document which I hope will influence the behaviour of the courts in dealing with the traditional problems of the relations between the individual and the state. It is because of that fact, restricted as this bill is to those things which come within the federal jurisdiction, that many of the social freedoms and rights which may be or are within provincial jurisdiction ought not to be stated in a national bill of rights unless that bill of rights is effective not only nationally but provincially as well.
Furthermore, these are rights which require a type of individual action in the courts. The whole range of social security and welfare matters are questions of policy and decision which rest upon broad administrative action. I can see the day, if perchance we are as close to national agreement in this regard as some state the fact to be, when after having secured the right to amend our constitution in Canada our major action will be to have restated in Canada's parliament, with the agreement of all the provinces, the abiding principles of freedom as well as those freedoms which were described in the days of war as freedom from fear and freedom from want.
There are many who still hide behind the Maginot line of their own failure to endeavour to understand the bill of rights, and who have not yet appreciated the fact that it will be very difficult in days ahead for any statute today existing to be interpreted in a way which will do violence to the letter and spirit of these provisions. It will be very difficult for any statute to be drafted and enacted by parliament from this day on which will in any way deny the provisions of subparagraphs (a) to (g) inclusive

Human Rights
in paragraph 2. The day of arbitrary detention, the day when an individual did not have to be informed of the reason for his detention, the day when the individual was denied the right to obtain and instruct counsel, the day when a habeas corpus was swept aside by order in council is, I hope, a day of the past in so far as days of peace are concerned.
And even in wartime, subject to those restrictions which will ensure that even in days of danger we must not unjustifiably imperil the rights of the individual, we must not interfere with the rights of the individual in a spirit of administrative lawlessness or caprice on the part of those who have the administrative responsibility to keep order.
The day, too, of arbitrary behaviour by any tribunal, commission or board in dealing with persons before them by depriving a person of a fair hearing is past. Every free man is entitled not necessarily to attain what he hopes for but to have his day and to give his answer to those who would limit his rights.
I think the clause which was added yesterday regarding the right of the individual to an interpreter, while not as significant as some of the other general declarations, is further evidence of our desire in this parliament, representing the conscience of the Canadian people, to ensure that Canadians everywhere, whatever may be their maternal language, shall not be denied the right and the privilege of full answer.
There is placed on the Minister of Justice a responsibility charging him with his own duties in regard to all legislation and special duties with regard to this legislation, so that in the examination of those things which come before him for legislative enactment any denial of these freedoms shall immediately receive his attention. This is an important responsibility.
Doubtless in the days ahead the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort William and other hon. members respecting a committee on human freedoms will receive the fullest and most sympathetic consideration of parliament. I believe, as I have said on many occasions, that we should have a committee similar in nature to the scrutiny committee in Great Britain, to the end that every step that would in any way derogate from the maintenance of our fundamental freedoms should be subject to the closest examination.
I would hope that some day uniformity may be achieved throughout this country, as I have said on more than one occasion, in those matters over which parliament does not have jurisdiction, either by some appropriate constitutional process arrived at

through consultation with the provinces or through the other means of the adoption by the provinces themselves of collateral provincial legislation to preserve the freedoms.
This bill recognizes the deep and sometimes, I fear, the deadly cleavage between the rights of peace and the duties of war. The amendment to the War Measures Act is something that will require to be considered, as well as the entire act, to the end that we shall bring about such changes as a committee may recommend that will have the effect of assuring that in days of war we shall not desert freedom in order to assure freedom.
I think there is a paradox in the position we sometimes take. We deny the freedoms in days of war. In the days of the last war freedom was the impelling motive that caused men to give their all. I sometimes wonder what the result would have been if it had not been for those who were our leaders then and who, whatever the fears and tribulations of the moment, were able to say as free men, "We shall not surrender". How different things would have been had they not taken that position. None of us would consider our lives when weighed against the awful consequences of the actions of those who would deny freedom.
This recognition that something must be done in order to assure a proper balance-[DOT] not a compromise but a proper balance-[DOT] between the needs of security and the maintenance of the wells of freedom in the hearts of a free people will be given in the setting up of this committee. This process of recognition commences in clause 6 of this bill. Provision is made in that clause that the powers-and the can be tyrannical-under the War Measures Act shall within 15 days after proclamation be brought before parliament. In doing so we put the responsibility for the continuance of the proclamation where it ought to be, namely in and on parliament.
I said at the beginning that it was difficult to express my feeliftgs at a time like this, and some will ridicule what I say as an emotional reaction. I have devoted-and I say it in all modesty-not an inconsiderable part of my life and interest to the problems of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Whatever the cynics may say they do not deny that feeling. Having been able to bring about a major change in respect of freedom in this country through the co-operation of hon. members in all parts of this house, gives to me a reaction of deep appreciation for the democratic process and for the fact that when the people realize that there is need of change, all the minds that are closed against change must ultimately give way.

I do not pretend that this bill by itself will create a free and responsible society. The plural elements that make up freedom we take for granted, but they are many and varied. The church, the press, the educational systems, the trade union movements, a free economy, a culture which is naturally disposed toward freedom and personal dignity; all these things make up the society which we call Canada where this kind of bill is possible and where it reflects them to a far greater degree than it can ever create them.
I think what we have done has been right. I think it has been for the good of Canada. I also think that our conviction that a belief in the guidance of God makes possible a realization that law, justice and morality can be combined in words and perpetuated in a statute and this has been shown in the experience of the days that have elapsed since the introduction of this bill on Dominion day to be justified.
All that is required now is for each of us, and for Canadians as a whole, to mobilize in their hearts the determination that we shall make freedom work to a greater extent than ever before. This bill as I see it, is a major step forward. It gives a warning, and I hope brings to a halt the relentless expansion of the wide powers of the state, exercised at the expense of the individual, which has been a characteristic of all freedom-loving countries in the past 46 years. This outgrowth of the days of war, during which we made shortcuts through democratics rights under the excuse of need and contributing to efficiency, must be brought to an end.
I think that this bill will do its part to halt the march which has become ever more general since the outbreak of the first great war. The concept of efficiency has in the experience of 46 years brought about changes in democratic thinking that too often denied the rights of the individual. This bill will do its part to prevent unnecessary and unjustifiable interference with the rights of the individual by the state. To the average Canadian it will constitute a solemn declaration that we the Canadian people have the right to have our rights preserved. We have the right not to have determined what is right for us by others who are placed above the courts. It will determine now and for the future, in other words, that the dignity of the human person shall be maintained in equality under law and always without discrimination.
The purpose of the bill will be to achieve order and more liberty under law. This bill of rights will, I hope, establish a principle for all Canada which political passions will
Human Rights
not dare to destroy. It will set up an altar of freedom that will ensure that the minority will not be unjustly treated by the majority. This is of the essence of freedom. It will place before Canadians a declaration in favour of a government of laws, not men. It will make individual Canadians strong in the knowledge that under law the state shall not interfere unjustly with the person.
The principles of freedom are never final. Freedom is not static. It cannot be fixed for all time. It either grows or it dies. It grows when the people of a country have it in their hearts and demand that it shall be preserved. I would be the last to contend that any document made by man, however impressive, can assure freedom; but I think that what we have done will provide an anchor for Canadian rights. The ultimate assurance of them must always be a vigilant people, vigilant to invasions of and intrusions on their freedom; for, sir, when the spirit of freedom dies in the hearts of men no statute can preserve it.
I am glad of this day. To all members in all parts of the house I say I hope that in the years ahead these days will be looked back upon and that those who follow us will say that whatever the disagreements in detail, there was a united parliament and that in that parliament, they builded better than they knew.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, in the serene calm of post debate and the calm which the Prime Minister's rather complete summation of a splendid piece of legislation, I should like to make one or two personal observations. Certainly, it is thrilling for me to realize that I live in a free country, in which there is a free parliament, and in which such a piece of legislation can be enacted. I came to Canada, as my colleagues in the house know, rather a young boy with my parents. It was through the freedoms which we were able to enjoy in this country, those which existed on our arrival and those which continued to be improved and enlarged upon, that it was possible for me to become a citizen of this country and a member of this free parliament. It was in virtue of the citizenship act, which was enacted by a wise government, and in virtue of all the rights and freedoms which subsequent parliaments and legislation gave, that not only I, but all new Canadians joyfully welcome this bill of rights, not only in its entirety but also the spirit and the means by which it was enacted.
When the bill was introduced, some of us thought that it could be improved upon. As the Prime Minister so eloquently described,

Human Rights
the composition of the committee was arranged in such a way that all shades of opinions could be brought forward. I feel that as a result of the services which the committee so devotedly performed, and I think the Prime Minister agreed with this and I think he has said it, a better bill came out of the committee than went into it.
Some of us thought that perhaps it should have been more complete. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) say during the course of the discussion that as time passes and as necessities arise, more freedoms and more rights, if they can be found, will be created. Some of us thought that not all were included that might have been, but if some were not included, I feel this was done with the best of intentions and the best of good will on all sides. One cannot always say with certainty that one is right. I had the thought, for example, that the right to Canadian citizenship is one of our basic human rights and I expressed some views on that during the course of the debate. I may not be right; I may be wrong. Perhaps those who advanced arguments against its incorporation in the bill were right, but it is quite possible that time will show that it is one of those human rights which Canadians should be privileged to have.
When I heard the Prime Minister invoke the Almighty I was touched, I was moved. I am rather pleased, yes, proud, that we have invoked the sacred name of God in the preamble, because to me it is a sanctification of the whole measure, and personally I am grateful to my leader who first suggested that a preamble should be incorporated in the bill. I also know that in the special committee the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and other members pressed for the inclusion of a preamble. When one reads even the first paragraph of the preamble he cannot help but be moved by the aura of sanctity which now surrounds this magnificent piece of legislation. Let me read the first paragraph of the preamble.
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
In invoking the sacred name of God, Mr. Speaker, we all acknowledge that He is the one and the same God from whom we all seek divine guidance and wisdom in our duties and responsibilities as servants of the people of a great country. It is God who is the fount of justice, righteousness, compassion and charity; it is God to whom we turn for solace and comfort in adversity and it is

God who guides the destinies of all of us, regardless of the place, means or language by which we beseech Him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time spent on this legislation, the serious consideration given to it on second reading, by a special committee of the house, by the committee of the whole house and now on third reading in the discussion of the principles of the bill and the numerous amendments moved by the opposition, I think there is little of value that I can add to the many excellent speeches that have been made on this subject. Suffice it for me to say on behalf of this group that while we welcome the passage of this legislation as a first step in the right direction we consider it as unfinished business and look forward to the incorporation of a bill of rights in our constitution.



PRIVILEGE


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privilege of all members of this house. In today's edition of the Ottawa Citizen there appears, under the byline of Mr. Charles Lynch, an article entitled, "Liberals' Defence Platform". It starts:
The Liberals, after three years of agonizing Indecision, Anally came out today with their own defence policy-one that would involve several breaks with present policies of Canada and the United States.
Question of Privilege
Paul Hellyer, Liberal defence critic, placed the new Liberal defence platform before the commons in a major policy speech.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arises out of the fact that these words are reported:
He advocated that the present level of defence spending be maintained and even expanded, but that the direction of that spending be altered.
The main points:
No nuclear weapons for use on Canadian soil or in Canadian airspace;-


An hon. Member:: He has not made that speech yet.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the question of
privilege relates to the describing of a speech in the house which has not yet been made?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It was never made.


Some hon. Members:: It was never read.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will be sorry; your chief may make you sit in here and listen to it.


Egan Chambers: In May's Parliamentary Practice, 16th edition, at page 55, it states:
The repeated orders made by the house forbidding the publication of the debates and proceedings of the house, or of any committee thereof, and of comments thereon, or on the conduct of members in the house, by newspapers, newsletters, or otherwise, and directing the punishment of offenders against such rules have long since fallen into disuse. Indeed, since 1909, the debates have been reported and issued by an official reporting staff-
When a wilful misrepresentation of the debate arises-


William Moore Benidickson: Are you making a motion?


Egan Chambers: It goes on:
-or if it may be necessary to enforce the restriction, the House censures or otherwise punishes the offender-
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that I have been in the house pretty well all day and I have not heard this speech. It seems to me that if a speech is to be made in the House of Commons today, as reported in this newspaper and also, I understand, in the Winnipeg Free Press, the house has a right to hear it before the Winnipeg Free Press.


An hon. Member:: The Ottawa Citizen.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that there is a question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to move a motion, he is at liberty to do so.


Egan Chambers: Perhaps the hon. member involved would agree to explain how this occurred.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I did not write the newspaper dispatch.
7554	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Some hon. Members:: Did you write the speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And seeing that this is what might be called bill of rights day in the House of Commons I think it would be a good idea to just drop the whole matter right now and, Mr. Speaker, we will deal with the accuracy or otherwise of the report when we get to the defence estimates, if and when we ever do.


An hon. Member:: You scrapped everything else; you might as well scrap your speech.



JUDGES ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-89, to amend the Judges Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister anything to say?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that everything which needs to be said on this matter was said when the resolution was before the committee. It is a simple proposal to provide a salary for a fourth judge in Prince Edward Island which has been requested by all interested authorities in that province. It is recommended to the house on the basis, amongst other things, that the province proposes to abolish the separate position of probate judge and transfer probate jurisdiction to the supreme court of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.
The Deputy Chairman:: Department of National Defence, item No. 217. This item will be found on page 44 of the blue book, the details on page 290.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, when I started to make my opening remarks yesterday I was referring to the three cardinal principles


which govern our defence policy, namely that of the deterrent, that of collective security and that of forces in readiness.
The first of these, the deterrent, is brought about by the consequences of a war involving the use of nuclear weapons which are so terrible that we must make every effort to prevent such an occurrence. Whether our commitment is to NATO, to the defence of this continent or to the United Nations, we have undertaken such commitments in every case on the basic assumption that they will all contribute to the deterrent to aggression.
The second principle which I referred to was the requirement for collective security. The complexity of modern warfare coupled with the high cost of new weapons has made it impossible for any one nation to maintain adequate unilateral defences. This knowledge has resulted in Canada joining with other like-minded nations in such collective defensive alliances as NATO and NORAD and with others who are contributing to peace preserving forces of the United Nations.
Since events in the Congo are of topical interest at the moment I outlined briefly how we were assisting the United Nations force which is being assembled in the Congo to restore order and to prevent the outspreading of destruction which might possibly lead to war.
The final point I made was that if a deterrent was to be successful, if the collective forces of the west were to be effective, forces in being are required. There will be no time for a general mobilization as we have known it in the past, such as that which followed the outbreak of the first world wax; and it is significant that today, August 4, is the anniversary of that first global war. There would be no time to regroup or reinforce the forces in the field. We must have regular forces well trained and well equipped to ensure that the deterrent philosphy will prevail.
When the committee rose last night I was discussing Canada's contribution to these deterrent forces of the west, and I was pointing out that no part of the NATO area has been absorbed by the soviet since 1949 and that this was not solely due to the threat of massive retaliation. The fact that substantial land forces with adequate technical support have been maintained in Europe has been responsible for the continued peace of that area.
Canada's contribution of one brigade group and the Canadian air division has not been large, but the fact that we are there in position well equipped and highly trained has had a psychological and moral effect on the alliance as a whole as adding to the over-all

effectiveness of the forces available. Certainly the retaliatory forces of the stragetic air command of the United States are a major part of the deterrent, but if that portion of the deterrent is to be successful it must have the capability of being able to reach stragetic targets in the Soviet union.
To facilitate that we have established four refuelling bases in Canada. From these refuelling bases tankers can supply, if necessary in the air, the bombers as they pass over, and hence extend their range.
An adequate warning must also be given to prevent the SAC bombers from being caught on the ground and sufficient protection must be available to safeguard their bases. In this regard Canada plays an important part. Canadian land space is essential in the maintenance of the required warning system. The radar lines which have been mentioned are effective against the manned bomber.
Here again it has been suggested that since an attack on this continent will now be by missile there is no further use for the radar lines. The fact is that at the present time and in the immediate future any attack on this continent would consist of a combination of both missiles and manned bombers. The Russians have a large number of manned bombers still in service in their air forces. To give up all defences against manned aircraft at the present time would be inviting disaster.
Production of the intercontinental ballistic missile by the Soviet union is not estimated to be in sufficient quantity at the present time to ensure a successful attack-that is successful from their point of view-against the military and industrial targets of this country.
Certainly if there were no defences against the manned bomber Russia has enough aircraft which, equipped with nuclear bombs, could create sufficient devastation to justify the opinion that an attack would be successful. The radar lines, interceptor aircraft and surface-to-air missiles are therefore necessary as long as there is a threat of a manned bomber attack and since Canadian territory and Canadian airspace are inexorably involved in the successful defence against such an attack, it is to Canada's advantage to continue to be a partner with the United States in the joint air defence command known as NORAD.
It has been made perfectly clear that at the present time there is no defence against the ICBM. An early warning system known as BNEWS, the ballistic missile early warning system, is being established to detect the actual firing of such missiles. Canada has made a substantial contribution toward this
79951-0-477
Supply-National Defence warning system by providing the communications between the warning centres and the centres of population. Extensive research work in which Canada participates is proceeding to devise a method to combat these ICBM's.
I should like to refer at this time to statements that I made in the committee concerning the activities of our research program. I said:
In the event of an attack most ICBM's are likely to arrive in North America from a northerly direction. A special problem exists here because of the presence of the aurora borealis which tends to play havoc with radio devices. Radar beams can be seriously disturbed when the aurora is prevalent. Defence research board had for some time been investigating radio communications in the north and was well equipped to undertake a research program involving the aurora. In recognition of this fact, the United States offered to cooperate and loan to Canada a very powerful radar now installed at the Prince Albert radar laboratory. The scientific program of this laboratory is agreed with the United States authorities but full operational control is in Canadian hands. Much useful data already has been obtained. Defence research board scientists have also worked out measuring techniques for radio reflections from various types of warhead.
Another defence research board program is designed to differentiate between a warhead and the other parts of an ICBM rocket wihch would be in space when such missiles have been fired. In particular, I might mention a program at the Canadian armament research and development establishment where projectiles are shot at high speed down indoor ranges in tubes in which a vacuum has been produced, thus simulating the conditions in the upper atmosphere. This program has been of great interest to our United States partners, and a number of agencies concerned with anti-ICBM problems have been awaiting the results of CARDE tests in order to use them in their own program.
Further along I said:
The D.R.B. and the R.C.A.F. now are actively engaged in a co-operative United States-Canada program with instrumented aircraft in the south Atlantic connected with missile firings from Cape Canaveral. These tests are designed to determine what an incoming ICBM looks like.
When an incoming ICBM has been detected and identified, a missile must be launched from the ground to intercept and destroy it. Time is of the essence and such a missile must be fired at a few moments' notice. Many missiles are now using liquid propellants which require considerable time for preparation before firing. A solid propellant capable of instant readiness is obviously the requirement of the future. D.R.B. scientists have been working for some time in the propellant held and, in particular, have been concerned with low temperature characteristics of such propellants. It is believed that these characteristics will be most important in an anti-missile missile. The work conducted looks very promising.
I could give many other examples of where Canadian scientists are spending their endeavours in defence research and are co-operating to a very successful extent with their United States colleagues.
In this year's estimates funds are provided for two items of equipment which on account of their capability have caused some
7556	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence comment. I refer to the Bomarc surface-to-air missile which is to be installed at sites near North Bay and La Macaza and the CF-104 aircraft which is to replace the F-86 Sabres of the eight squadrons in the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe.
The subject of the Bomarc consumed a considerable amount of time in this session of parliament. Due to the fact that it is a weapon being developed in the United States the comments that have been made here have been based on reports emanating from that country. Press and unofficial reports have been varied to say the least. The fact remains that after a number of trials in the testing of this weapon and discussions in the debates preceding the authorization of necessary United States funds for its continued development and procurement, the Bomarc has been accepted and now is considered an effective weapon capable of adding materially to the over-all deterrent and anti-aircraft defences of both Canada and the United States.
The units which are being established here and in the United States will provide coverage from Winnipeg to the Atlantic coast and are sufficiently dispersed and have sites so small in area as to obviate the likelihood of destruction from an intercontinental ballistic missile. From the trials that have been recently undertaken, the Bomarc with a designated range of over 400 nautical miles and with an effective guidance system, will add significantly to our defences.
Construction work is proceeding at the two Bomarc sites, the one at North Bay and the one at La Macaza. The cost of these two sites to Canada will be approximately $12 million. Construction will continue throughout the winter and will be completed by the time the Bomarc launchers are available.
I think the real point of contention with regard to both the Bomarc and the CF-104 is that both these weapons systems have the capability of being armed with a nuclear warhead. While there are no funds allocated in this year's estimates, it has also been announced that the Canadian army is to procure the Honest John launcher and associated surface-to-surface missile, the 762 mm. rocket. This weapon, too, has a nuclear capability.
The Prime Minister has on a number of occasions made Canada's position clear with regard to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Speaking in the House of Commons on July 4, 1960, as reported at page 5653 of Hansard of that date, and referring to remarks he had made on an earlier occasion, the Prime Minister said:
On February 20, 1959, as reported on page 1221 of Hansard, I set forth the views of the Canadian government with respect to this matter, and they remain unchanged. At that time I set forth, as I
[Mr. Pearkes.l

say, that the full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads, and that of course was referring to Bomarc and other defensive weapons.
Later on he said:
In these circumstances negotiations are proceeding with the United States in order that the necessary weapons can be made available for Canadian defence units if and when they are required.
I think it will thus be agreed that the weapon systems that are being procured require nuclear warheads to reach their full effectiveness. To refuse or to neglect to have these available when required would place an intolerable handicap on our defences. The defensive weapon can only be used when hostile bombers are in Canadian air space; but these Bomarc weapons and the interceptors which may be flying through Canadian air space are defensive weapons only to be used, and their nuclear warheads only to be used, when attack is imminent and hostile bombers are actually in Canadian air space over Canadian territory.
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.
When discussing this matter on July 2, 1959 the Leader of the Opposition made this point when referring to the use of nuclear weapons, as reported at page 5371 of Hansard:
Tactical nuclear weapons have now been reduced to a point where they can be used by small formations against purely military targets. They are conventional almost in the sense that they are ordinary weapons with nuclear ammunition, but used in almost the same way as if it were ordinary ammunition. Second, if these weapsons were not used, NATO forces in Europe would be facing armies which had them and would not hesitate to use them. Unless we can get international agreement on this matter, the resulting military disparity created might well be considered intolerable to NATO morale. If the Canadian forces were deprived of these weapons or were not permitted to use them-this is a consideration which no doubt the government has very much in mind-their morale could hardly be expected to remain very high if they were serving alongside NATO forces which had these tactical nuclear weapons.
This records very definitely the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, speaking for the Liberal party, as to his views on the use of nuclear weapons.
The Bomarc, the CF-104, the Honest John, will not be coming into service with the

Canadian forces until late in 1961. What we are undertaking and what has already been made perfectly clear is that we are discussing with the United States arrangements which will be acceptable to both countries as to conditions under which such weapons would be available to Canada if and when required. We are cognizant of the United States law on this matter. We are also firm in the conviction that the use of those weapons by Canadian forces should be at the discretion of the Canadian government. 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 the nuclear warheads depends on circumstances which might develop sometime in the future.
In the past year great progress has been made in another aspect of our defence policy. I am referring to the part the Department of National Defence plays in survival operations. Our defence philosophy is, as I have said before, based on the deterrent but the possibility of the deterrent failing to prevent an outbreak of war calls for steps to be taken to ensure the survival of our country under these distressing circumstances. It is admittedly an awful eventuality, but the fact that we are taking such precautions is, in effect, an added insurance for survival.
As hon. members know, last September an order in council was passed assigning to various government departments, including the Prime Minister's office, various duties relating to survival. The Canadian army has been designated as the co-ordinating body within the department to carry out such duties as were set out in that order. Excellent progress has been made in the training of both the regular and the militia forces in survival operations. A great deal of equipment has already been obtained and the procurement of additional rescue and survival equipment is included in this year's estimates. Communications have been broadened and emergency regional headquarters are being constructed. I dealt with this in some detail when speaking before the estimates committee, and I should like to refer to some of the statements that I made there, as they define clearly the responsibilities of and the progress which has been made by the defence department in this respect. When dealing with national survival I said:
It is essential for the preservation of Canada as a nation that there should be continuity of civilian government in order to provide guidance and leadership, especially in the event of a nuclear attack. Each provincial government must be closely connected with the central federal facilities for emergency government through a highly efficient communications system.
79951-0-477J
Supply-National Defence
The responsibility for establishing the system rests with the Canadian army. Progress has been made in this respect. I continue:
Regional centres are being established in each of the provinces. There will be some variation in their size and character, depending on a number of factors including the size of the population to be served, the likelihood of the provincial capital coming under direct attack, and particularly the emergency communications system and its technical requirements. The centres will be limited in size but will be sufficient to ensure the required operational capability.
Then I went on to describe in detail the responsibilities which the Department of National Defence had assumed in this respect.
Provision of technical facilities and the operation of a system to give warning to the public of the likelihood and imminence of an attack.
That communication and warning system has now been established. It is manned down to the provincial regional centres on a 24-hour a day basis and is being extended to every large municipality and centre throughout the country.
Determining the location of a nuclear explosion and the patterns of fall-out, and giving the necessary warning of fall-out to the public.
Once a warning of an impending attack has been given, should nuclear bombs fall on any part of Canada it is necessary to advise the population as to where the fallout is likely to come down on various areas. The pattern of the fall-out is not the same from one day to another and it is necessary to set up a grid across the country. Such a grid is being set up with some 2,000 or more detecting centres being established. These are known as radiation reporting centres and they are in communication with the provincial centres.
I do not intend to repeat all I said on national survival during the committee's meetings. It is all included in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee and in the pamphlet which I issued at the conclusion of those hearings. I do not want to repeat what I said at that time other than to say that the regular forces in Canada and the members of the Canadian militia are assuming these duties in a capable manner and with further training will provide a nucleus of men experienced in many ways with the various facets in which they will be involved in ensuring survival in the face of a nuclear attack.
I should like to say a special word about the militia and the other reserve formations, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the auxiliary squadrons of the R.C.A.F. Changes in the nature of the threat, new weapons and so on have dictated a change in the role of
7558	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence these bodies. As a result some have said that the need for these forces is reduced. That is not my view. The magnitude of the problem which would face this country in the event of a nuclear attack would require the largest possible body of trained and disciplined personnel. Those who give of their time and energy to ensure that we will be ready for whatever comes deserve the gratitude of all Canadians.
We are making good progress in supplying the militia with survival equipment. This summer many militia men attended training camps in which survival exercises were carried out in all commands across the country. From the reports I have received they have shown commendable enthusiasm and have made remarkable progress with their training.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I trust that what I have said with regard to our defence policy and the commitments we have undertaken to implement that policy have made clear our present position. We do have a very definite defence policy aimed, as it always should be, at preserving the security of our country, and the fact that our country continues to be secure indicates the success of that policy.
Critics outside this house can propound at length as to what is wrong with defence but unburdened by responsibilities their criticism is generally destructive, rarely constructive. In their lack of responsibility they have an advantage over the government. As Minister of National Defence, with the responsibilities that devolve on my position, I am required to make constructive decisions which will maintain the efficiency of our forces. I think that the steps we have taken in recent times with regard to the organization of our forces and in respect of new equipment either issued or on order have and will materially improve the contribution we are making to the overall deterrent and the peace preserving forces in many parts of the world. Our forces are well trained and of high calibre and wherever they serve they are making a vital and effective contribution to our collective defence efforts. We have every reason to be proud of their endeavours in this field.
Before I sit down, I should like to make reference to the reported speech of the hon. member for Trinity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The undelivered speech.


George Randolph Pearkes: The report indicates that it was delivered in the house. The report reads in part as follows:
The Liberals, after three years of agonizing indecision, finally came out today with their own defence policy-one that would involve several breaks with present policies of Canada and the United States.
IMr. Pearkes.]

Paul Hellyer, Liberal defence critic, placed the new Liberal defence platform before the commons in a major policy speech.
Then the article goes on to indicate what he advocates. If I believed the article was true I would offer my apologies for the hon. member for not being here when he delivered that speech. However, I wish to extend my sympathy to him because he has been the victim of an irresponsible and unscrupulous newspaper reporter who, in order to obtain a newspaper scoop, did not hesitate to publish in advance an article based on the copy of the speech which I presume the hon. member handed to him.
I should like to say a few words about the main points made in that speech. As found in the article, the first one is:
No nuclear weapons for use on Canadian soil or in Canadian air space.
I dealt with that a few minutes ago and if that is the Liberal policy, if they are prepared to sacrifice the efficiency of our deterrent and the means of destroying hostile aircraft when they are over Canadian cities and armed with nuclear weapons; if they wish to say that Canadian forces are not to have nuclear weapons for the very purpose of defending Canadians, I hope they will go throughout the whole country declaring that policy. It is quite obvious that that policy is diametrically opposed to the policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition which I referred to in the debate a few minutes ago. The next point is:
Scrap plans to build the CF-104 supersonic jet interceptor for the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe, a project now under way at a cost of $400 million.
As I explained last night, the supreme allied commander in Europe asked us if we would re-arm and re-equip the squadrons of the air division which are now armed with the F-86 Sabre. After exhaustive inquiry into many different kinds of aircraft we decided that the F-104 was the most suitable aircraft which could be chosen for the role which the supreme allied commander had asked our squadrons to carry out. Having made the decision that the F-104 was the most suitable, we were happy to find out that other NATO countries who had made similar investigations to what we had had also decided the F-104 weapon would be the most suitable to them.
I mentioned yesterday that Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy were all procuring this same type of weapon. This means that many of the NATO forces have a uniform type of aircraft. It may be of interest to know that the minister of national defence of the Netherlands had this to say

when he announced the selection of the F-104G for the Royal Netherlands air force:
The Netherlands government has decided to buy the F-104G to replace jet fighters now in use tor the air defence and tactical air forces. Prior to taking this decision both the Netherlands and Belgium air forces made a comparative study of the problems involved. Both air forces wanted a type which was capable of both offensive and defensive tasks in order to give a small air force the most efficient operational effect. The Netherlands sees in the F-104G, the best plane to meet the double role requirement. Since the German and Canadian governments have already purchased the same type of aircraft, the "Star Fighter" also offers the additional advantage of a high degree of standardization.
This explains why we cannot subscribe to the points suggested in this speech, one of which reads:
Scrap plans to build the CF-104 supersonic jet interceptor for the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe, a project now under way at a cost of $400 million.
Acquire from the United States a supersonic jet interceptor to replace the CF-100 in Canadian home defence squadrons.
I explained yesterday that this latter matter was being given the most careful consideration by the government. I explained the difficulties that there were in reaching a quick decision, and I informed this committee that we would very soon be able to make a definite decision.
The next recommendation in the report of this speech is:
Scrap the seven new destroyer-escorts now being built for the Royal Canadian Navy at a cost of $26 million apiece, and replace them by ships designed to act as combat troop carriers and supply vessels.
I do not know how combat troop carriers are going to protect the shores of this land against submarines. I should think that combat troop carriers might themselves be very vulnerable to attack by submarines. Then the article continues:
Scrap the Bomarc-SAGE program for anti-bomber defence of the North American continent.
We find here what is described as the bold proposals, representing the Liberal policy, and they turn out to be nothing but scrap, scrap; scrap the CF-104, scrap the seven destroyers, scrap the Bomarc-SAGE, scrap nuclear weapons. It is a policy of scrap, and there is nothing constructive about it at all. If those are the bold proposals which the hon. member has been hoping to have an opportunity of propounding this afternoon and which he was so anxious to get before the Canadian public that he issued this to the press gallery so that it might be out on the wires across the country, I suggest to him that now is the time to scrap that speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Randolph Pearkes: Finally, this newspaper report goes on to suggest this:
Supply-National Defence
Expand defence research and specialize in the development of atomic engines for use in transportation, and particularly aircraft.
This afternoon, before I had the opportunity of seeing these profound suggestions, I read to the committee what I said over a month ago as to what our defence research was doing in this direction. Additional money is being provided in these estimates for research. I know the hon. member is going to pick me up there and say, but not for development. There is additional money being provided for research. Yes, these are bold proposals. Then he goes on to say:
Mr. Hellyer's speech, embodying the beliefs of Opposition Leader Lester Pearson, said flatly that the Russians are not yet in a position to wage all-out war with any hope of success.
"During the next two or three years, the likelihood of a planned, calculated all-out attack is not great," he said. Therefore, the intervening period could be used to alter the direction of defence spending without peril to the national security.
I think the hon. member must have been recalling some words which I uttered when I was before the committee, because at the very first meeting I said this:
The Soviets would not, I believe-
That is a reference to me, not the hon. member for Trinity.
-and this belief is based on the best evidence I can possibly get-deliberately take any action at this time which in their opinion would involve a serious risk of provoking a general war.
Then I did go on to explain how a general war might suddenly come about by misadventure or by the outspread of some local disturbance or by the possibility of there being a technical breakthrough which might enable one country to discover how to destroy missiles over its airspace. Under those conditions, by misadventure, by the outspread of a local war, by a technological breakthrough, war might come and it might come at any time. We are not the aggressor. The enemy chooses the time when he will attack Canada. But I agree, and I said so here, that conditions generally do not look as though at the present time the Russians are in a position to do that. In other words, I said, the communist world recognizes that a nuclear war with the west would only end in mutual destruction. Therefore, a sudden and planned attack is unlikely at the present time.
That was the great deduction that was made as to how this was going to change everything. The profound statement made by the hon. member for Trinity is obviously based on what I said at that meeting, no doubt reinforced by other statements which have been made elsewhere, which I have read as well as he. I would like to express

Supply-National Defence my appreciation to the hon. member for having adopted the remarks that I have made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not impossible that we can come to the same conclusion on something.


George Randolph Pearkes: This article starts with these words, and this is apparently going to be his speech:
He advocated that the present level of defence spending be maintained and even expanded, but that the direction of that spending be altered.
As you read this program of scrap, scrap, scrap, he gives very little indication as to how he is going to spend the money he is going to save, other than buying supersonic interceptors from the United States-of which there are very few available, I can tell him -and buying these mysterious ships designed to act as combat troop carriers.
Again I repeat, and in all sincerity, that I am sorry the hon. gentleman in his enthusiasm to get this profound doctrine across the country beat the pistol and issued it in advance. But I sympathize with him for what I consider a scandalous abuse of the privilege of the press in publishing this speech before it was given in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has happened so often on the other side that your observations are ridiculous.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to what the minister has had to say, and to his statement, which has been a very lengthy one.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if before the hon. member starts his speech on these estimates we could get a copy of the speech so that we may follow it more accurately?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You had better address that to your own speeches and every other person's in the ministry.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We Liberals try to oblige, and I will be happy to send this over.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there no sportsmanship in this government? I do not think there is any sportsmanship or chivalry, in spite of the bill of rights.


An hon. Member:: I walk alone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Unfair.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister today, of course, in addition to giving us very little new information in his own statement because of the lack of any positive direction or policy on the part of the government, has fallen


into the mistake that some newspaper editorial writers sometimes make-


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -when they write editorials on the basis of newspaper speculation, and the minister would have been well advised to have held his comments, as I suggested to him that he should, until he had heard the whole statement, so that he would know the reasoning behind the proposals which we intend to put forward.
The minister has said that our whole program is a matter of scrap, scrap, scrap. Well, Mr. Chairman, a great deal of the equipment he has been buying, and which is at the present time on inventory, is just junk and scrapping is the only thing to do with it. This will become more obvious as my speech proceeds.
I am making these suggestions today, of course, without the benefit that the minister has of confidential and secret information, and without the advice of the military advisers whom he has at his disposal.


Mr. Bell (Sainl John-Alberi):: You were
the minister of defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Notwithstanding that, we
think it is worth while to put forward proposals and to enter into the type of discussion and debate which will assist, not only the gentlemen of this house but the people in the country at large to understand the many complex and difficult problems involved in this whole matter of national defence at the present time. It is a pleasure, in this sense, to give to the committee this statement. My leader will be speaking later in the debate and he will augment and amplify some of the ideas that will be put forward at this present time.
First, Mr. Chairman, Canada's defence policy, as has been stated by the minister, is -or at least should be-an instrument of our foreign policy. Our national objectives are to preserve the peace while at the same time guaranteeing those fundamental freedoms which we hold sacred, and these objectives are only possible, as the minister has again stated today, through collective arrangements.
This position is fundamental and, I am glad to say, bipartisan, because obviously a small country of the size of Canada is not in a position to defend itself against any possible aggressor. Peace is our only sure defence today, and the great objective of defence, as well as of foreign policy, must be to preserve it. If it is lost, and a general war breaks out-which, as the minister has said, would mean nuclear war-then there

is no defence that would ensure protection against universal destruction, and there is no defence of any kind through national effort alone. There is no sure defence and there is no possible victory. We can, however, as part of the defence coalition, dedicated to peace and freedom band together to prevent war by making it disastrous for any aggressor to break the peace.
The minister has repeatedly referred to deterrent as the solution in trying to avoid war, by making it disastrous for any potential aggressor to break the peace. Canada as a part of such a coalition can best achieve that measure of security that depends on defensive force, and within the measure of our resources we can give leadership in such a coalition. But only if we have a policy of our own. We can play an important part in appropriate collective arrangements. We can speak with a clear voice and we can take initiatives and promote ideas of far-reaching importance. We can generate enthusiasm and work diligently. All these things we can do with this independence which we claim as a free and sovereign nation. What we cannot do, however, is to pursue a policy inconsistent with the common goals.
If, as has been widely agreed, we depend for our survival as a free nation on mutual co-operation, then we must accept the reasonable conditions of that mutual co-operation. This does not imply subservience, but a true team spirit, comradeship and dedication to unity of purpose. Under these circumstances it is not possible to consider our defence posture in isolation, but only in the context of total western strength and policy.
There has been a great deal of talk about the possibility of disarmament. It is the goal which we must pursue with diligence and perseverance, but any agreement to disarm must contain satisfactory provisions for inspection and control. So far it has been impossible, Mr. Chairman, to achieve anything on this basis. We must pursue and search for agreement while at the same time maintaining our strength until disarmament has become a reality. In the meantime, the chances of success are far greater if the western world is negotiating from strength and not from weakness. Presently the balance of military power still remains with the west. I think the minister concurs in this view; he has stated so publicly on a number of occasions.
The capacity of the United States strategic air command is very great indeed. Last spring I had the pleasure, along with some other members of this House of Commons and of the other place, of visiting the headquarters of the strategic air command at Omaha, Nebraska. The briefing we received was very
Supply-National Defence thorough and very reassuring in regard to the efficiency of that organization. General Thomas S. Power, commander in chief of SAC, answered our questions frankly and fully, which I might say was a most refreshing change for some of us.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the strategic air command stands on guard for the western world and that without the deterrent which it in part provides soviet imperialism might not have been contained even to the extent that it has been contained during the past decade.
Not only does the strategic air command have an overwhelming retaliatory capacity, but unquestionably at this moment it would be able to get through the Russian defences and reach its targets. The organization and communications of this command are of an order of magnitude probably unprecedented in the military history of the world. As is well known a substantial percentage of its bombers are on a 15-minute alert at all hours of the day and night. In the case of an alert they are put into the air and headed in the direction of their targets in case an alert should develop under any circumstances into an all-out nuclear attack. At a certain predetermined point, however, as is well known, they automatically return to their bases unless given positive, incontrovertible instructions to proceed on the basis of an authorization from the President of the United States of America.
The strategic air command comprises the bulk of the western deterrent and retaliatory power. The remainder lies with the bombers of the Royal Air Force and with the atomic bomb carrying strike attack aircraft stationed in Europe under NATO command.
This western military superiority in the nuclear and thermonuclear field has been overwhelming until recently. Now the Russians are narrowing the gap. They appear to be concentrating their efforts in the missile field, and in this field they have achieved remarkable success.
There are three main components to an intercontinental ballistic missile; the propellant, the guidance mechanism and the nose cone. In two of these, the guidance mechanism and the nose cone, the achievements of Russia and of the United States are not too far apart. In the field of propellants, however, the Russians have a considerable advantage over their western competitors. Both sides have perfected this weapon to the point where it has intercontinental capability of amazing and frightening accuracy. This is all the more remarkable when we recall that it is only three years since the first sputnik was placed in orbit,
7562	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and not long before that military scientists were saying that they would not live to see the day when the intercontinental ballistic missile would be operational. This incredible change in military science in the short space of three years has altered many of the traditional concepts and put great strain on our capacity to understand their implications.
Because of the intercontinental ballistic missile and its capability of knocking out retaliatory power on the ground, it has been widely suggested that the strategic air command should put its bombers on a continuous airborne alert. The United States government has taken the position that it is not yet necessary to do so. Their stand is based on the belief that the Russians do not yet have enough ballistic missiles to knock out the major portion of United States retaliatory strength on the ground, and that view would seem to be confirmed by what the minister said today.
In other words, even with a surprise attack involving the use of all of Russia's existing missiles the United States would still have sufficient retaliatory capacity to survive such an attack and to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet empire. A sufficiently large number of United States bases would remain intact from which this retaliatory power could be launched.
At the present rate of production of Russian missiles, however, the situation is changing from month to month, and under these circumstances one would expect the United States strategic air command to commence something more than a token airborne alert within the next year or so. This will become, provided there is no disarmament agreement reached in the meantime, absolutely essential in order to ensure that sufficient retaliatory capacity is at all times available to inflict unacceptable damage on the Russians. Only in this event will the threat of massive retaliation remain effective.
In the meantime the United States will no doubt continue to develop new and mobile retaliatory capacity in anticipation of the day when its bombers will wear out. This capacity will be provided through a number of projects. For example, the Polaris missile will be carried by atomic submarines. These will be deployed at sea and will be relatively invulnerable to enemy attack. Missiles and bomb-carrying aircraft will be available for launching by ocean-going ships whose whereabouts and position will not be known to a potential enemy and will not therefore be vulnerable to enemy attack in the same way as fixed land installations would be vulnerable.

The United States is developing a new intercontinental ballistic missile which they call the Minuteman which may be installed on mobile carriers such as trains, barges, et cetera. By moving these about they will not be sitting ducks for Russian missiles as they would be if based on permanent installations.
There are many projects underway designed to increase the mobile retaliatory potential of the United States, but these illustrations will suffice to demonstrate the effort being made. They must provide sufficient deterrent power to make it inadvisable for any aggressor to commence a war in the knowledge that retaliation would be sure and devastating.
In the existing circumstances this capacity must be maintained as long as the Russians have the power to strike. It is, according to many military scientists, the first priority of defence preparedness. As the minister has stated on many occasions, however, it is not a field on which Canada has chosen to embark.
It is perfectly obvious, however, that within a few years-assuming no universal disarmament agreement in the meantime-that each side will have sufficient capacity to devastate all major enemy targets with power to spare. This extra capacity is referred to in Pentagon jargon as an over-kill capacity. In layman's language it just means that there is more than one missile or bomber available for each target. When each side has this tremendous destructive potential which cannot be nullified by a surprise attack, it would be unthinkable for either side to take the offensive. No rational person would take the responsibility for an attack which would bring complete and utter destruction on his country.
There would be in effect a sterilization of the offensive potential on each side, an uneasy stalemate with neither side daring to fall appreciably behind the capacity of the other. At this point I should like to assert that I agree with the minister in one respect, that the development and research into anti-missiles and other weapons must continue for the very reason he stated earlier and which I just repeated, that one side cannot under any circumstances allow itself to fall appreciably behind the capacity of the other.
It is necessary then to consider what might happen under these circumstances. First of all there is the virtual certainty of an acceleration in the ideological and economic offensive. Second, there is the real possibility of skirmishes or limited engagements where potential aggressors would commence at least by using conventional arms only. Third, there is always the possibility of an irrational

attack, the act of a mad man or the consequences of an accident or miscalculation. The latter possibility, miscalculation or accident, may constitute the greatest danger that threatens us.
Even a cursory examination of news dispatches indicates the extent to which the western world has fallen behind on the ideological and economic fronts. We have shown a great lack of imagination in taking advantage of available opportunities. We have underestimated or failed to accept the magnitude of the task, our effort being analogous to the moving of a mountain of sand with a teaspoon. The west will have to accept the challenge and not only accept it but take the initiative all along the front. Failure to do so will result in defeat notwithstanding any expenditures for military equipment.
The best thing that military preparedness can do is to buy time albeit at a very high price. The economic and ideological aspects of the cold war are integral parts of the problem we face. They must receive full attention and corresponding action. As this is a defence debate, however, I will put my emphasis on the defence aspects and leave discussion of the economic and ideological aspects for another occasion.
General Maxwell Taylor in his book "The Uncertain Trumpet" has raised a question in respect to the policy of reliance on massive retaliation. I might underline that this is really part and parcel of the great defence argument which now faces us not only in this country but in other countries of the western world. I found his book disappointing and contradictory.
The one central point he raised, however, was clear. That was that at the time when both sides have a tremendous nuclear and thermonuclear capacity, what happens if one side decides to commence a limited action without the use of these weapons? In other words, reliance on the threat of massive retaliation ceases to be valid at a time when a bluff is just a bluff, when neither side would dare to stake the annihilation of its peoples and territories on the winning of a minor political objective. Under these conditions a limited action anywhere in the world involving the use by the aggressor of conventional weapons only would require either sufficient conventional forces to stop the attack or the use by the defenders of atomic weapons.
General Taylor cited the example of Korea where, as a matter of national and United Nations policy, action was limited to conventional weapons even against the advice of the commanding general. He suggested a similar condition not only could but might easily arise again. He questioned whether 79951 0-478
Supply-National Defence the United States and its allies have sufficient conventional strength to meet such a possibility and suggested that it would be prudent to consider sufficient augmentation to give military commanders the capacity to fulfil their objectives in accordance with the policy laid down by their political employers. He argued that more ground troops are required along with greater mobility and conventional fire power. The argument is basically realistic and one which cannot be ignored.
Another possibility which cannot be ignored is the possibility of irrational attack. It is difficult to comprehend the frightening implications of such a development. Certainly, by the mid-1960's-when both sides will possess a tremendous offensive capacity -there will be in the normal conventional sense no such thing as adequate protection or defence. If the deterrent fails, if general nuclear war breaks out, defence is futile, just as victory is impossible. That is not to say, as the military men will argue, that every attacking plane or missile shot down might conceivably save the destruction of a military target or a town. This argument really resolves itself into a mathematical problem. If each side has two missiles or bombers designated for each target it would be of little comfort to shoot down one of them. Of course, if both missiles or bombers destined for any particular target were shot down, the target or the town might be spared.
The cost of providing even a minimal and at best partial defence, however, is so staggering as to almost exceed the comprehension. The cost is so staggering because of the problems involved. The problem is not just shooting down bombers but also missiles launched from bombers, ICBM's and missiles launched from submarines. At the present time, of course, there is no known defence against ballistic missiles so that it is not just a matter of cost but also of technical possibility. Even should a major scientific breakthrough occur, however, which might offer the possibility of an anti-missile, the cost of providing installations on the scale necessary for even a token defence is so great as to be impractical. Consequently, one is driven to consider the alternative of spending on other projects.
I come now to a consideration of Canada's present position. It is necessary to discuss Canada's part in the over-all strategy and to study the integration of Canadian effort as a part of the whole, unless we disengage from the whole, and I do not recommend that.
Once it was known that the Russians had developed the thermonuclear bomb and had

Supply-National Defence the means of carrying it to the North American continent a scramble began to make such preparations as would give warning of any impending attack and permit the destruction of as large as possible a proportion of the attackers. The radar warning lines were built and interceptor squadrons established. Canada continues to operate nine air defence squadrons equipped with the now obsolete CF-100 interceptors; interceptors so slow they could not overtake the latest passenger aircraft.
To supplement the interceptor squadrons the United States undertook the development of a number of ground to air missiles designed for use against the manned bombers. All of these concepts had their inauguration before the intercontinental ballistic missile became operational. Included amongst them is the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile intended to complement manned interceptors as a second line or area defence.
Soon after the present government took office it signed the NORAD agreement which placed all of the air defence of the North American continent under a single unified command. This agreement, in a sense, did not materially affect the situation except perhaps as to minor improvements in communications and reaction time, in addition to the other aspect of control. Using this agreement as an excuse, our government has stubbornly insisted on proceeding with the installation of the Bomarc missile, notwithstanding our objection that it is a fixed installation which will be extremely vulnerable to enemy mis-silry by the time the whole system becomes operational. Its decision to proceed with the construction of fixed missile bases is contrary to the advice of the best military scientists of the day and should be reversed.
The Canadian navy continues to be occupied primarily in the anti-submarine role. The government is still building destroyer escorts of the same type they built three years ago, notwithstanding the development, in the meantime, of new and swift atomic powered submarines.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give consent to the hon. member to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the committee for its indulgence. Canada's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in

Europe continues to be 12 interceptor squadrons and one army brigade group. The interceptor squadrons which were first line in 1956 have become increasingly obsolescent since. Last summer the present government announced its decision to replace eight of those squadrons with a version of the United States Starfighter interceptor, presumably designed to carry out a strike attack role. This is a development of considerable significance in that for the first time Canada has commenced on a policy of acquiring equipment capable of participating in the role of nuclear retaliation. The particular aircraft chosen for this job has been widely criticized and therefore it will ever remain a mystery why the Canadian government chose a high altitude air superiority fighter for conversion to a low altitude strike reconnaissance role. We in the Liberal opposition have maintained it was the wrong aircraft for the job. Superior aircraft were available and could have been in use sooner had the government so decided.
The remaining four squadrons of interceptors, according to the minister, are to continue in use for two more years, but after that what? The minister has given us no indication at all, neither in the committee nor again today, whether they will be replaced or withdrawn.
Our brigade group in Europe is inadequately equipped. This was made perfectly clear in the evidence given to the committee. The minister has indicated some minor acquisitions of new equipment, but at the same time he tells us the brigade troop is now trained to operate under nuclear conditions but without being equipped with nuclear weapons. At page 449 of the evidence of the special committee on defence expenditures, in reply to a question, the minister said:
Yes, definitely. All troops of the Canadian army are trained so that they can operate on a nuclear battlefield, as well as being trained for the other tasks which might confront them; that is, the prevention of the outspread of a local war, where it is not anticipated that nuclear weapons would be used; and they are trained to be able to fight not only on a conventional battlefield, but also on a nuclear battlefield.
In either case that implies that the forces should be completely mobile; that they should be equipped with short range aircraft with helicopters, with amphibious carriers and so forth. We are advised, however, that none of this equipment is in the hands of the brigade group at the present time and that no money is included in the current estimates for procurement of these arms.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is he advocating that nuclear weapons should be provided for the forces in Europe?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the minister will bide his time and be patient, Mr. Chairman, he will have the answer in due course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not find it in the printed part of the speech in the paper, that is all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are going to have to be patient and hear it out if you wish to know, or else wait until tomorrow's report.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Advanced reports tomorrow, too?


Egan Chambers: More accurate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is far better to have that kind of a report than to withhold secret reports.


Thomas Miller Bell: Martin is the one who held up the proceedings today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would you direct the hon. gentleman from Saint John-Albert that when he refers to an hon. member to do so in accordance with the rules of this house, which call for the recognition of the constituency. In any event if the hon. gentleman would confine his remarks to himself we would make greater progress in the house.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a question of privilege, I apologize; I should have said the hon. member for Essex East was the one who caused trouble this afternoon by making his long speech at noon and thus the deadline was not met.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are now
on the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, after this small break for station identification I shall continue with the discussion of these matters. These omissions are a terrible indictment, the omission of adequate equipment, of the present administration.
In the committee the minister told us, that there was at the present time no requirement for the Caribou aircraft, and yet within a matter of weeks what do we find the government doing? We find it going out and making another one of those ad hoc, hurry up decisions, to acquire a piece of equipment of which it should have anticipated the requirement in a more normal and considered approach.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he anticipate the Congo trouble?
79951-0-478J
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In reply to the minister, let me say that troops which are properly equipped and mobile would have the equipment to deal with any of those situations without a crisis arising and that is exactly our objection to the policies of this government. They make nothing but crises decisions.


An hon. Member:: What about Suez?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The government has left our brigade group ill equipped to do the job it might have to do, and the remedy is not in sight.


Mr. Lambert:: What about Suez?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have the Suez situation in mind when I make some of the suggestions included in this statement, and the hon. member should listen because he might learn something. I repeat, the government has left our brigade group ill equipped to do the job it might have to do and the remedy is not in sight. Yet the brigade group is still expected to do its job. It is little short of criminal negligence to permit the situation to continue.
Another new situation is the question of atomic arms. This has become a very urgent factor. Confused and conflicting statements on the part of various members of the government have left the situation completely up in the air. Announcements have been made that three items of equipment will be purchased, about which the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 1223 of Hansard oi February 20, 1959:
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
These include weapons for our NATO forces and for home defence. For NATO, our eight squadrons of new strike attack aircraft are to be equipped with atomic bombs. At the same time, as has been made perfectly clear from the evidence, no agreement has been reached with the French government in respect of stationing on French soil Canadian squadrons so equipped. Furthermore, according to the Minister of National Defence, no negotiations have yet taken place on the governmental level, although he states there have been preliminary discussions at the military level through the supreme allied commander in Europe. It seems difficult to believe that the government of Canada would go ahead and commit itself to the purchase of this equipment before arrangements were finalized for its use.
It is true that we do have two air bases in Germany and presumably F-104's could operate from them. In the day of missiles, however, it would seem sheer folly to station eight squadrons of atomic equipped planes on two

Supply-National Defence bases where they are vulnerable to sneak attack. We urge and demand that the government communicate to the house exactly what plans it has for the effective use of these machines.
The only other weapon on the government's present list which can utilize an atomic warhead is the Honest John ground to ground missile. This is a heavy and cumbersome piece of artillery but it is transportable by air if air transport is available.
With respect to North American defence, the government has committed itself to the use of the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile which even its staunchest supporters have never claimed to be effective without an atomic warhead. The government has committed the Canadian taxpayers to an expenditure of approximately $120 million for the SAGE-Bomarc system before it has made up its mind whether or not it will allow atomic warheads to be stored on Canadian soil. Without them the expenditure is useless but the decision has not yet been taken. It is a question of spending the money first and making the decision afterwards, a decision which might nullify the value of that expenditure.
The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that any atomic warheads stored in Canada would be under Canadian control. Obviously, however, this is not possible under United States law. The most that could be conceivably expected, would be so-called joint control. This is an arrangement under which Canada would have the discretion whether to use atomic warheads but only after they had been released to Canada by the President of the United States. It would be a question of whether to use uncle's car but only after uncle had decided it would be safe to turn over the key.
In summation, we allege that the present government has no defence policy. Its statements and actions with respect to air defence are confused and contradictory. It plans to re-equip our air division overseas with an aircraft which is virtually, I believe a re-design, notwithstanding government statements to the effect that we are no longer in the development business. It continues to build ships which may well be obsolete by the time they are launched. It organizes our brigade group for atomic war while at the same time denying it the necessary mobility and fire power. It involves us in the acquisition of weapons which only reach their full potential when armed with atomic warheads before any decision has been reached whether or not to so equip them. All in all, Mr. Chairman, the government's fumbling in defence matters is a sad and sorry mess. Our objection is not that they are spending too much
[Mr. Hellyer.l

or too little money but that what they do spend is not spent wisely or well. The objects of many of their expenditures are obsolete or pointless.
We asked for a special committee in order that a thorough study might take place. We asked the government to state a policy, a coherent, full and complete policy. Failing that, we felt we would be obliged, in keeping with our responsibility to the Canadian people, to indicate an alternative. The committee met but witnesses were not called. The minister failed to clear up the existing confusion. In opposition we do not have the advice of the chiefs of staff and we do not have access to classified data. Notwithstanding the limited information available to us, however, we feel obliged to live up to our undertaking and to indicate what we believe to be a sensible alternative to the government's confused lack of policy.
Based on all existing evidence, we believe that the Russians are not yet in a position to wage an all-out war with any hope of success. The minister re-emphasized that this afternoon and that is one point on which we agree. During the next two or three years the likelihood of a planned, calculated allout attack is not very great. In our suggestions, therefore, we have projected on this basis to the circumstances we expect several years hence at a time when the Soviet union will have a very large missile inventory which will neutralize and be neutralized by the striking capacity of the United States.
My first heading in this regard is continental air defence. By that time effective defence of the North American continent in the traditional sense will not be practical. Even if there should be a scientific breakthrough in the anti-missile field, it is not likely that the defence could overtake the tremendous lead presently enjoyed by the offence. Under these circumstances the main continuing function of what is presently continental air defence will be detection and identification. These are continuing requirements. Speaking to the NATO parliamentary group in Washington on November 18, 1959, General Kuter said:
We must first know what is present in our air space. Next, we must identify the object as friendly by one of several available methods. Failing in this, we classify the object as unknown, which necessitates an immediate scramble of an interceptor to visually examine the unknown.
As I stated earlier, it is likely that within the next year or so the strategic air command will find it necessary to commence a significant airborne alert. When it does, there will be hundreds of SAC bombers flying each way across Canada daily. These bombers will pass through our radar warning lines, the

D.E.W. line and the mid-Canada line. There is no problem in this as long as the communications systems remain intact but if they are disrupted problems arise. For example, if Russian trawlers were to cut trans-Atlantic telephone communications, as they have done, SAC bombers leaving European and African bases and coming to North America over the great northern route would have to rely on radio communications for the filing of flight plans. Radio communications though usually reliable are subject to wide fluctuations and at times are quite undependable. There is the possibility, therefore, of SAC bombers appearing on our radar screens as unidentified objects. Consequently, it is desirable that we have some equipment capable of undertaking a positive indentification. I might add that sometimes commercial aircraft fail to file flight plans. One case I remember well is when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport left for Winnipeg and wound up in Quebec city. This is just one other example of an occasion when it is better to send up an aircraft to take a look than to send up a Bomarc and say goodbye.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do you believe that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said goodbye to a lot of your friends who were once here.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Our present equipment allocated to this task of identification is the CF-100 interceptor. This plane is far too slow to overtake the fastest bombers in the Russian inventory. Obviously, therefore, if the identification role is to be carried out satisfactorily we must have a supersonic aircraft at least twice as fast as the one at present in service, one capable of a reserve of speed sufficient to allow early identification. The United States air force is very anxious that Canada should take such action, so anxious, indeed, that it has agreed to purchase from Canadair Limited of Montreal a number of CL-44 carriers if the Canadian government will at the same time buy a number of United States supersonic interceptors as replacements for the CF-100.
There has been considerable objection raised in the United States senate to the possibility of the United States air force buying Canadian planes. It was overcome, however, on the basis that the deal would be good for both countries. Because of the nature of the arrangement there would be no appreciable balance of payments problem and the employment created on one side of the border would approximately equal that enjoyed on the other side. The number of interceptors acquired would not be nearly as great as the number of CF-lOO's presently in our nine
Supply-National Defence squadrons. Perhaps the number which would be acquired under this arrangement would be sufficient for this role.
After consideration of all the factors involved we would recommend the acceptance of this proposal. I think the minister concurs with this suggestion, we hope he will, and that he will endorse it before the debate is concluded. The advantages to both countries are considerable. Canada would obtain a supersonic interceptor which would carry out the identification role and also, because it would be available immediately, it would provide some limited defensive capacity during the next two or three years. It would seem preferable that this role, which of necessity must be carried out over Canadian skies, should be done by the Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian airmen. From the commercial standpoint, Canadair would obtain an advantage in cost which would put it in a more competitive position in regard to future sales of the same aircraft to commercial carriers. This would be a most welcome boost to Canada's failing aircraft industry.
Because of our belief that from the midsixties on there will be no possibility of effective air defence of the North American continent we can see no reason for continuing with the installation of equipment designed exclusively for that purpose. It is our contention, therefore, that the government should discontinue at once its participation in the SAGE-Bomarc system, and not proceed with the installation of radar gap fillers. These are only useful against attack by manned bombers. We contend that the possibility of attack during the next two or three years is not very great, and this is the only period during which these installations would be worth while. Interestingly enough, this would be the period during which they would be still under construction, not yet operational. By the time they are in place they will be obsolete, because by that time an all-out offence would involve the overwhelming use of missiles against which there is no defence.
Elimination of the SAGE-Bomarc system in Canada would eliminate the necessity for Canada storing or using atomic warheads on Canadian territory. The supersonic interceptors, which we would be acquiring under this arrangement, could be armed with conventional guided missiles such as the sidewinder. There would then be no immediate question of extending control of atomic weapons to another power. I know that this is a matter of great concern, not only to us on this side of the house but to the government, the Prime Minister and to others.
Then, in respect of NORAD, may I say that the leader of the Liberal party has stated from time to time that we believe NORAD
7568	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence should be part of NATO. We are not satisfied, on the information given us, that this liaison requires Canadian membership in NORAD as an organization outside the NATO command structure. We think it is one which reflects the form more than the substance of partnership. On the basis, however, that our future contribution is confined to the detection and identification roles, we would not withdraw from NORAD unless it could be positively shown that the necessary liaison was possible outside of that organization.
I come now to NATO. At the time the NATO agreement was signed the objective was to build up in Europe a shield consisting of a substantial number of divisions armed with conventional weapons. Subsequently, however, at a time when the United States still had overwhelming superiority in atomic capability the NATO forces were reorganized along the lines dictated or at least rationalized by the theory of massive retaliation. More recently the European NATO shield has been described as a trip wire, a defensive force which would cause any attacker group to pause long enough that a rational decision must be taken before proceeding further with the attack, presumably in the knowledge that to proceed would bring about an all-out, unlimited war. This theory loses its validity, however, when the time comes that the threat of nuclear retaliation is merely a threat. When the offensive capability of each side is neutralized by the other the only way to stop a ground attack would be with those forces immediately available for that purpose. For this reason, we urge the NATO alliance to take cognizance of the future situation and to reorganize and rebuild its forces to the point required to stop a conventional attack by conventional means.
We believe that there should be a complete re-examination of the defence strategy of the NATO alliance to this end. Until that is completed and the Canadian role can be assessed in the light of its result the brigade group should remain in Europe in its present role. We deplore, in any event, its lack of more up to date equipment for its presently assigned task. We recommend that it be supplied with aircraft, helicopters and amphibious equipment necessary to give it the maximum flexibility. We would also recommend a policy of supplying it with up to date weapons with the maximum firepower.


Mr, Churchill:: Would the hon. member answer the question which he asked me to defer as to whether or not he would provide nuclear weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What was the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member said the brigade was inadequately armed, and I was


asking if the hon. member was advocating the supply of nuclear weapons to the brigade in Europe?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it is clear from what I have said that we are advocating a complete re-examination of defence strategy of the NATO alliance, and we would not want to prejudge the results of that examination.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock we were discussing the alternative policy being put forward by this party in respect to the re-equipment and redirection, in a sense, of our armed forces. We had just completed discussion in respect to the brigade group in Europe.
With respect to the air division, we regret the decision of the government to re-equip on the basis of the strike attack role. Canada has not, in the past, contributed to the offensive potential in any way, and especially any nuclear potential. We feel that it is unnecessary and unwise to change this basic policy. Re-equipping the air division in this way creates a number of problems. Included in these is the possibility of duplication of targets between NATO's tactical bomb-carrying aircraft and the bombers and missiles of the strategic air command. It creates a serious problem as to the bases from which these planes can be operated and, above all, it creates the problem of the use by Canadian forces in Europe of nuclear weapons under national and not under collective control. By "national" I mean United States control.
If such weapons, even tactical defensive ones, are to be used as part of NATO defence forces, this should only be as a result of a collective NATO decision and if they are brought under NATO's collective control. Furthermore, we have no confidence in the aircraft chosen. We have never been able to understand why the government would choose a high altitude air superiority fighter converted to a low altitude striker role. Indeed, the long period of time which has elapsed between the selection of this plane and the present, when we are informed that the prototype has not yet been completed, is indicative of the extent to which modifications were necessary. This amounts practically to the development of a new aircraft, at a time when the Prime Minister has told us that Canada is no longer in the aircraft development business.

We also note that even after continued efforts the major accident rate of those models of this aircraft presently in use remains approximately double that of other "Century class" interceptors. Under these circumstances we would recommend cancellation of the acquisition of the CF-104 and the abandonment of Canada's offensive role.


George Randolph Pearkes: Canada has no offensive role.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We suggest that the air division in Europe should be given a ground support role designed to give ground cover and tactical support to our brigade group. The aircraft chosen for this role, a new aircraft, would be one which could be utilized similarly in any trouble spot in the world where Canada's forces might be engaged.
Here again we would emphasize the international character of our defence policy and forces. This type of air support and air cover would be extremely valuable in circumstances of brush wars, limited engagements, et cetera, where perhaps United Nations action might be required, as well as in defence against conventional attack in Europe. The contribution it would make might be of significant importance, whereas in the event of an allout attack we cannot imagine that a few strike attack aircraft armed with small atomic bombs are going to alter significantly the outcome.
In respect to the Canadian navy, at the present time the Canadian navy is assigned almost exclusively to the role of anti-submarine warfare. Based on the belief that after the mid-19 60's real defence is impossible, the navy's anti-submarine role will be like any other form of defence, only partial and inadequate as far as the protection of the Canadian nation and all our peoples is concerned. Destroyer escorts presently being built are not as fast as contemporary submarines being built by the United States and Russia. They are also more vulnerable. Continuance of this program beyond the present strength seems to us quite unrealistic. In these circumstances the government should consider the possibility of replacing the six destroyer escorts in the current program with ships designed to act as combat troop carriers and supply ships, useful among other things for United Nations service. These could be used as bases for launching and supporting land operations in areas inaccessible to long range transport aircraft. These ships would increase the flexibility of Canada's mobile tactical forces and would add considerably to our capacity to react to United Nations requests involving international police action. Last night the minister spoke of mobility, transport mobility; but surely forces which
Supply-National Defence do not have sea support miss in one essential respect the all-round type of tactical transport and support which might, under some circumstances, be required.
The hon. member for Edmonton West stated this afternoon-at least, he reminded me to think back to the Suez situation. I am thinking back to when the Canadian aircraft carrier had to be stripped of its equipment in order to provide transport. It was not subsequently used, but the capacity was not at that time there which was considered essential and which might, under different circumstances, have been essential. Similarly, the minister told us in a statement-


Mr. Chown:: Could I ask a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As soon as I am finished you can ask all the question you want. The minister also mentioned that troops should have the capacity of meeting commando operations anywhere in Canada, and yet very large portions of this country, including a great part of our sea coast, are inaccessible by air. They are inaccessible in any way except by sea, and certainly the type of mobility we have in mind here would add something to the general flexibility and capacity of tactical forces.
With respect to air transportability the Liberal party once again urges that the government's present program in respect to air transportability be augmented. It recommends an increase in the number of long range transport aircraft, sufficient to permit the simultaneous airlift of one brigade. This capacity would be available to transport Canadian troops to trouble spots anywhere in the world, which would tremendously increase Canadian capacity to respond to United Nations requests for immediate assistance. This capacity would be available, not only for transporting troops but for evacuating refugees, transporting food and supplies, et cetera. This capacity to airlift the brigade would be true air transportability. Again, the events of the last two weeks have demonstrated the necessity for this.
In the Congo situation you had practically an exclusive airlift by the United States military air transport service. It could easily happen that a situation will arise where for one reason or another it was not advisable to use military transport of the United States. Under those circumstances a large capacity for a Canadian airlift would prove extemely valuable and could be of great assistance not only to those troops or personnel we might be supplying in that particular situation but also to other nations with whom we might be co-operating.
Now as to research. This party believes that one of Canada's greatest contributions
7570	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence to collective defence is in the field of defence research. We contend that we have the scientists and the capacity to undertake pure and applied research far in excess of the present level. We would recommend that expenditures in this field be augmented by annual increments until a level considerably higher than that of the present one is achieved. As a general policy we should undertake on behalf of the western world any research projects within our capacity referred to us. At the same time we would be able to put forward our own ideas and the method of selection would not be too different from that presently employed by the defence research board. We believe that many of these projects could be carried out at Canadian universities and by Canadian industry on behalf of the defence research board.
In the field of applied research we recommend the development of some equipment in fields where it is believed that Canada could become pre-eminent. We realize that there are a few limited projects which might come within this class or category at the present time, but very few. These areas of development would provide the technical and industrial know-how which would permit Canada to compete in world markets in respect of the commercial equivalents and derivatives of such development. This specialization would provide steady growth for the export of Canadian manufactured goods.
There is one major area of development which we feel would be a challenge to Canadian capacity, and particularly suited to Canadian needs. It is the development of atomic engines for use in transportation, particularly as applied to aircraft. This is a project with virtually unlimited civil and defence applications.
We are told that the Russians are developing atomic powered aircraft and that the west is falling behind in this race. It is also forecast that atomic powered aircraft will, to an extent at least, supersede the guided missile. It would be capable of flying for virtually unlimited periods at low altitudes at supersonic speed and will render existing radar equipment and allied paraphernalia obsolete. As a component of a deterrent force it will be mobile and virtually invulnerable, being at the same time capable of carrying and launching ballistic missiles with deadly accuracy. Commercial and other applications are virtually unlimited and test the imagination to conceive. This would not only be an unique and urgent contribution to the collective defence of the west but would also be of vital importance to Canada's industrial potential.
[Mr. Hellyer.I

Unquestionably the day will come when there will be a very large world-wide market for small and medium sized atomic reactors and engines. Canada as one of the world's leading uranium producers will be vitally interested in supplying fuel for this market. The market, however, will likely be available to those who are best equipped through experience and capacity to provide the complete package. For this reason future uranium sales would hinge to a large extent on Canada's ability to capture for itself a sizeable proportion of the world reactor market. Seldom has a country been faced with such a promising challenge of such great opportunity. This is not the first time I have put forward this suggestion. It is in fact a restatement of a proposal I made at the national Liberal convention in January, 1958. I believe, however, it is one worthy of implementation without further delay.
It has been stated that Canada cannot afford to undertake any major developmental projects. This view has been widely accepted and is held by the present government. Obviously, however, if there are 15 major developmental programs required to be done by the western world Canada should be able to afford and should undertake one of them. The United States with her great resources can well afford to do many, but at least we should do our proportionate share. The attitude of the present government reminds me of the parable of the talents. Discovering to its horror that Canada had only one talent, our government decided to bury it in the ground. This is a negative and passive approach to the use of our resources. There is, of course, always the risk of failure and failure is embarrassing. A government with courage, however, would not turn its back on the course it believed to be right, simply because of the element of risk involved.
All of these suggestions have been based, of course, on the premises stated. These, unfortunately, include no general disarmament agreement. This party has urgently stressed the importance of trying to arrive at an agreement which would reduce the likelihood of the possibility of an atomic war or indeed of any war. We still believe that all efforts should be bent in this direction. Any agreement, to be workable, however, must have effective provisions for inspection and control. Today's discussion is based on the conditions existing in the world today, that no such agreement has yet been reached and that the possibility of living through a long period under what might be called the era of thermonuclear terror is a

real possibility. If this is so, civil defence becomes a much more urgent problem.
In an extended period where each side in the cold war possesses the power of thermonuclear destruction there exist two possibilities of catastrophe. First, if one side thought it had an overwhelming military superiority which would enable it to launch a surprise attack and survive retaliation there could be the temptation of a calculated risk. Much more likely, however, would be the possibility of a war started by a madman or as the result of an accident or incident. Should this occur there is no real protection against disastrous destruction. There is the possibility, however, of saving a good proportion of our population by taking adequate steps to protect against radiation.
It is obvious from talking to Canadians in all walks of life and reading letters to editors that we have, as a people, been brainwashed. We have adopted the fatalistic attitude that in the event of an all-out war all is lost and there would be no survival. It would be the end of civilization, it is said, like "On the Beach". This fatalistic viewpoint is just not sound. "On the Beach", written by the late Nevil Shute, is science fiction and does not purport to be technically accurate. In the event of all-out war millions of people would be saved if fall-out shelters were available. From the standpoint of survival alone this is just about the most effective way in which we can spend money on defence against attack. Over a period of years, for a small proportion of our national budget we could provide survival for a large proportion of our people.
Furthermore, it has been asked "What is the sense of surviving if one takes into account the conditions of radiation which would exist in the post-attack environment?"
This case is very well stated by Rogers Cannell, manager of the industry and civil defence research, Stanford research institute in an article entitled "Civilization Can Recover" in which he states:
Many accept the idea that shelter can effectively reduce casualties but believe that survival in the post attack environment would be impossible. They fear the invisible and mysterious atomic radiation and believe that recovery from the loss of a major portion of the nation would be impossible.
A radioactive environment will take its toll. This fact must not be minimized. But it is also important to know that its toll is not worse than a setback of only a few decades in medical history. Our lives would be as long as our grandfathers' and the proportion of stillborn children and child deformities should be no worse than 30 years ago. In fact, the post-attack environment with our present state of medical knowledge would be somewhat safer than the one most of us entered at birth.
Supply-National Defence
The author goes on to draw examples from history including one from the thirty years* war. One or two of my newspaper friends have told me I should not refer to such an historical example so I will not. But if I were to mention it I would merely say-


George Randolph Pearkes: Go ahead.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -that history does offer additional evidence that a civilization can recover from a devastating war. In the words of Mr. Cannell:
Take, for example, the thirty years' war-an ideological conflict fought in central Europe in the first half of the 17th century. The loss of life due directly to the war has been placed by the lowest estimate at one third of the entire population of both Germany and Bohemia. Other estimates run as high as 80 per cent. The social effects were catastrophic-entire districts were turned into deserts, wolves ran in the streets of once populated cities, and cannibalism was widespread. Yet, in a generation or so these areas had recovered in most respects. After a nuclear attack, short in duration, and starting from a much higher base of knowledge, recovery would be far easier for us. War must be prevented at any cost-
I wish to underline this. The goal of all our policies and proposals on both sides of the house is equally dedicated to one important realization and that is the avoidance of war. If there is any difference between us it is merely on the means of achieving this end. Again in the words of the author:
War must be prevented at any cost-and protection and preparation for recovery are part of that cost. But war is not the end of civilization. We must take every step we can now to accelerate the recovery process.
Believing this proposal to be fundamentally sound we urge steps to accelerate rapidly a national capacity to survive a nuclear holocaust. Like any other insurance it will be expensive, but it is certainly far more urgent and necessary than many of the ways we presently spend our national income.
Before leaving the subject of civil defence I want to admit that I am a recent convert to this way of thinking. Until recently, at least, like many other people I wondered just what efforts could be taken that would be of any use, if indeed there were steps which could be taken, which would justify the expense and which would offer some reasonable insurance in case of all-out attack. After giving the matter considerable study, however, I have come to the conclusion that under these circumstances-under the circumstance of an uneasy period of years when both sides have the capacity of total thermonuclear annihilation-we have no alternative but to try and take such steps as we can to protect the largest possible proportion of our civilian population.

Supply-National Defence
I believe this to be urgent. I think the minister, to at least a certain extent, agrees with this. I hope that we will have a more realistic attitude toward this matter of civil survival which up until now has been more a matter of games, planning and the passing of papers than it has a real and vital program.
In summation then, the Liberal policy is designed to meet in the best way possible the following conditions:
1.	To spend those funds set aside for national defence effectively and wisely.
2.	To contribute to our collective alliances those components which continue to be useful.
3.	To build forces flexible enough to respond to virtually any United Nations request for assistance; forces in being, fully equipped, fully mobile and transportable by air or sea; forces capable of effectively participating in any brush fire or conventional encounter before it gets out of hand with the possibility of triggering a wider conflagration.
4.	To build forces which would be useful as part of a world police force in the event a disarmament agreement should be reached.
5.	To contribute to research to the end that the western world forge ahead in scientific development keeping in mind also the economic by-products which might accrue.
6.	To provide the maximum protection possible to the Canadian population in the event of irrational attack.
7.	To promote an even more effective Canadian contribution to the preservation of world peace.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the suggestions we have made will contribute materially to these objectives. Before resuming my seat I should like to deal briefly with one or two of the comments made by the minister at the conclusion of his remarks. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to examine his address in detail so I will deal with the other points later.
The minister tried to leave the impression that by a policy of not having Bomarcs and nuclear warheads for Bomarc the Canadian nation was being placed in jeopardy. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we believed for one moment that the Bomarcs provided any real protection with or without nuclear warheads we would concur in their use, but we do not believe so. On the contrary, we think they are nothing but an added liability. We think they would put in jeopardy the survival of people in the immediate area because they would in fact become one of the few priority targets in this country.
In our minds it is not a question of using a missile with an atomic warhead such as the Bomarc. It is our conclusion after serious consideration that in the time period in which


these missiles will be in operation they will provide no effective defence whatsoever and might just as well not be there. If anyone else thinks differently let him support the policy and let him pay the piper. We do not believe so. We particularly do not believe so when the atomic warheads would be under the control of the United States government.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is not correct. The hon. member knows that is not correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With respect to atomic weapons being used by NATO, as we have stated we urge a complete revaluation of the NATO policy to determine if it would not be possible to build up conventional forces. We have stated that we would not wish to anticipate the results of such reconsideration. If after this reconsideration it was felt that situations might arise when nuclear defensive weapons have to be used, then we would urge, provided it was a collective agreement, that these weapons be supplied and used or not used in respect to a collective NATO agreement.
There is nothing unreasonable about this. Our position has been logical and straightforward. We do not believe, however, that it is necessary for Canada to embark on a new role in Europe which it has never had, a role of strike attack with Canadian aircraft, carrying atomic bombs, which can penetrate enemy territory and be part of the retaliatory forces if so decided.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Coming and going at the same time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure that on reflection the minister will see the error of the early and hasty remarks he made, and we would be pleased to hear from him further in this regard as the debate continues. We will take another look at his statement, because our purpose is to try as best we can to contribute to a pool of ideas and the working out of solutions which are in the best interests of this country. I do not think any hon. member would deny this motive to anyone on any side of the house. We are not for one moment detracting from the sincerity of the government in what it is doing. All we are saying is that we disagree with the mechanics and with some of the specific proposals which the government has placed before this house.
In conclusion, in respect of the incident that happened today, I should just like to say that I had a few typewritten copies of my speech which I gave to a number of newspaper reporters who asked for them until all of the copies were gone. Each copy was marked "For release on delivery". I cannot believe that a newspaperman, or a newspaper, would deliberately violate the agreement under which advance copies of speeches are

made available to them. I am sure that from time to time accidents do happen. This is not the first time that speeches have been printed by mistake in advance of delivery. I do not believe it was done wilfully, but-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All hon. members will agree, that notwithstanding the possibility of some mechanical miscalculation which can happen even in the defence department, this time-honoured practice would not be wilfully violated by any member of the press gallery or of the Canadian Press.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Will the hon. member who has just taken his seat permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The speaker prefaced his remarks, as I recall it, by saying that he and his party did not have classified information at their disposal, nor did they have the advice of the chiefs of staff on which to base their ideas but their ideas were reasoned out logically. If that is the situation, on what basis does he, then, categorically state that it would not be possible by 1963 or 1965 for ships of the Royal Canadian Navy to deal effectively with Soviet submarines?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the basis of that information which does from time to time make itself available by means best known to the hon. gentleman, which I believe to be substantially accurate, and I do not think the hon. gentleman would deny that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question just for clarification? In the course of his remarks the hon. member attributed to the Prime Minister the statement that Canada is no longer in the aircraft development field. Will he give me the reference?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not have the exact reference, but it was made in the speech which was delivered in the house-on a Friday, I think it was-at the time the Avro Arrow was cancelled.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the speech in front of me and that statement is not there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will look it up for the hon.
gentleman.


Harold Edward Winch: On account of the importance of the item which is now before us and the fact that it does deal with a very complicated matter I intend to follow the procedure that was established by the Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Trinity and follow my notes very closely.


Norman Platt Lambert: They have not been
published?
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: They have not been printed yet.
I doubt whether there will be any question that we need common sense instead of nonsense in national defence. In trying to present what I think is a policy of common sense in national defence I am arranging what I have to say so as to make a number of references to NORAD, to Bomarc and to NATO. Then, I hope to enlarge upon these three matters from the C.C.F. point of view and to conclude my remarks with a definite statement of 11 points of C.C.F. policy as far as national defence is concerned.
The C.C.F. insists that there is no defence against thermonuclear weapons; therefore we maintain that NORAD is useless and that Canada should immediately withdraw from this alliance. The Bomarc, even if it were armed with a nuclear warhead, could never possibly shoot down enough bombers to prevent annihilation in a single attack. We feel that it is madness to think that any aggressor, if it were to attack North America, would do less than send all its available bombers in the first attack. If this is correct, and we think it is, then the Bomarc, just like the Arrow is a total waste of money from beginning to end.
The C.C.F. considers that NATO's heavy reliance on nuclear weapons is suicidal for this reliance leaves NATO only two choices for dealing with any aggressive soviet move in the NATO area, and that is either death or defeat. It means death in a thermonuclear holocaust, and that would be bound to result from the slightest use of nuclear weapons in Europe. Or it could mean defeat in a conventional war, because it is our understanding it is only the soviets who are fully equipped for conventional war. The C.C.F., therefore, insists that Canada must urge upon NATO a fundamental replacement of the present nuclear strategy; the C.C.F. also insists that Canada must urge that NATO honestly strive to work toward disengagement and disarmament in Europe.
We strongly feel that we must work toward the creation of a buffer zone in Europe at the same time as we make a buffer zone of Canada. When we use the term "buffer" we do so in the sense of the dictionary definition. The concise Oxford dictionary defines "buffer" as a neutral state lying between two larger ones serving to render less possible hostilities between them. Of course, in speaking of Canada as a small state, I am speaking in the military sense as compared with the major powers.
I think I am safe in saying that the basic trouble with our Canadian national defence policy is that those who are responsible for it
7574	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence cannot or will not understand one fundamental fact, namely that there is no defence against thermonuclear weapons and a war fought with such weapons would be suicidal. It therefore follows, in my opinion at least, that all defensive preparations for such a war are a waste of time, energy and money. Worse yet, such defensive preparations increase the ghastly possibilities of thermonuclear war by letting people think that defence is possible against thermonuclear war and that therefore a policy which could lead to thermonuclear war is not automatically idiotic. A national defence policy which includes the possibility of national suicide is a contradiction in terms.
It should be clear-we hope it is clear- that thermonuclear war would be national suicide since no amount of air defences, no amount of counterattacks, will prevent sufficient thermonuclear weapons getting through to destroy the nation. Therefore I insist and the C.C.F. insists that logic insists that the basic aim of our national defence policy must be to prevent war. This means that we must lend every support to any reasonable plan for total world disarmament. Neither the U.S.S.R. nor the United States will divest themselves of their nuclear weapons until all other means of making war have disappeared.
I should like at this time to divert from the basic principles I have been trying to outline in order to speak on certain aspects and I will return to the basic principles in a few minutes. I should like to spend a little time on what I might term the German question and Berlin. Some 15 years after the end of the second world war Germany is divided and no peace treaty has been signed. Very strong conventional Russian forces surround the city of Berlin, fully strong enough to blockade the city and prevent us doing anything about it unless we are prepared to engage in a thermonuclear war. Defeat or death appear to be the only two alternatives in Berlin if the Russians start something, so we say surely it is not impossible to work out an agreement that will reconcile the minimum aims of both sides.
I admit, of course, that we will have to make concessions but so too will the Russians. After all, they would like to see all of Berlin fully integrated into communist East Germany and, of course, we will not let them have this and I think the Russians realize that they are not going to be allowed to have it. So I believe that we have got to try to get some sense into both sides. I admit that in saying that I am perhaps in the field of foreign policy but I do so because I think that we have to remember constantly the inter-relationship between foreign and defence policies.


When we think of Berlin and the entire problem of Germany we have to consider Europe and when we consider Europe we have to consider NATO. I say that regardless of why massive soviet forces are in eastern Europe, as long as they are there then NATO must be powerfully supported by the western allies. However, I do feel that the present military situation in Europe is that the NATO forces are greatly outnumbered by the Russians in effective combat formations. The western policy appears to be to balance NATO's weakness in conventional forces by being ready to use so-called tactical nuclear weapons. This appears to be a carry-over from the early days of NATO when it had nuclear superiority. But the west has absolutely no grounds for assuming that NATO still has this superiority, and it has still less reason for thinking that a weak force armed with nuclear weapons is going to beat a large force armed with nuclear weapons. What is important is to be able to counter any soviet move, such as a blockade of Berlin, with conventional forces.
The idea of meeting any and all soviet aggressions in the NATO area with nuclear weapons is, I think, highly dangerous. The interests of both sides, the interests of all are too vitally involved in Europe for a nuclear war there to remain a limited nuclear war. That is why we feel that Canada must insist that NATO recast its strategy, its tactics and its organization so that its defensive forces are capable of meeting any soviet aggression with conventional weapons long enough to allow diplomacy to seek a settlement before, progressively, tactical nuclear weapons and thermonuclear weapons are brought into use.
So long as NATO both earnestly endeavours to reach an agreement with the Warsaw pact countries on disarmament and disengagement and also simultaneously begins revising its present suicidal nuclear strategy, then we in the C.C.F. say that Canada should remain in and support the NATO organization.
I would be failing my responsibility if 1 expressed a view on defence and weapons in Europe and then did not come right back home, so I should like to have a few words to say on the question of NORAD. Within our own borders there is much that we can do to lessen the suicidal possibility of thermonuclear war. With the continual refinement of the methods of delivery of thermonuclear weapons, the terrible danger of a pre-emptive attack by one massive power on the other becomes more and more prevalent. Indeed with each of the two major powers thinking in terms of a pre-emptive attack on the other such an attack almost becomes a certainty.

Surprise is essential for a successful preemptive attack else the annihilation will be mutual. Anything that Canada can do, therefore, to reduce the fear of either side of a surprise attack would be a step toward the prevention of war. That is why I fully associate myself with my colleague, the hon. members for Kootenay West, who called in this house about three weeks ago for the internationalization of the D.E.W. line, thereby making of Canada a true buffer between the U.S.S.R. and the United States. However, I thought it would be understood that the suggestion of the internationalization of Canada's radar warning lines would be a policy proposal for all radar warning lines throughout the world to be internationalized.
Since thermonuclear war between the United States and the U.S.S.R. could only be national suicide for Canada as well as for the United States, it follows that only deterrence makes sense. Actual defence against thermonuclear weapons is useless. As I see it, there is no point in shooting down 500 bombers if 500 others get through and thereby destroy us. The North American air defence command, NORAD, is therefore useless and I think we should withdraw from the alliance. The strategic air command needs time to get its squadrons airborne and the D.E.W. line furnishes this time, not the interceptors or anti-aircraft missiles of NORAD. The whole idea of protecting SAC bases, of shooting down Soviet bombers, stems from the notion of actually fighting a thermonuclear war which, according to my understanding, is not possible by any nation in the world unless it wants to commit suicide.
I feel strongly that the CF-105, the Arrow, was a waste of money from beginning to end and that the Bomarc is no better. I say that regardless of whether the Bomarc has a high explosive or nuclear warhead because if a war starts then it is almost bound to be a thermonuclear war leading to destruction. It could start if any nation or government is crazy enough to trigger a third world war in our generation. I think that the Liberals are right in what they have said today in opposing the Bomarc. However, we think they are entirely wrong to go on from there and advocate the replacement of the CF-100 with a supersonic plane. Either we can develop an adequate defence for Canada against thermonuclear attack or we cannot. If we cannot, and it is the firm belief of the C.C.F. that we, and every other nation, cannot, then it is useless to go on spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Canadian air defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You did not listen very carefully to what I said.
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: I listened very carefully to it, not only listened to it but I read it before you said it.
To have supersonic interceptors capable of identifying supersonic bombers would be nice, but would it be worth the hundreds of millions of dollars we would have to spend? I have my doubts that supersonic interceptors would deter supersonic bombers. If an aggressor were to decide on an all-out attack on this continent, and I cannot conceive of any aggressor making anything less than an all-out attack, enough bombers would undoubtedly get through even if we had the new and improved replacements.
Mutual deterrence alone unhappily, and I say unhappily, is still the only answer to a thermonuclear threat and in this Canada has no direct part. So we say, let us not continue fooling ourselves by talking continental air defence. It is time we cut our losses. It is time we got out of NORAD. It is time we devoted the money at present being wasted to trying to prevent war rather than continuing to prepare for suicide.
Then, of course, I come to the subject of the expenditure of money and that brings me to a reference to submarines. I have no hesitation in saying that I oppose the suggestion of the defence committee that Canada consider obtaining submarines. Submarines are weapons of all-out war and all preparations for actually fighting such a war just do not make sense in this day and age. If an all-out war were to break out how would one or 10 or 100 Canadian submarines save the nation? To do so, we would have to destroy every nuclear missile-firing submarine. We would have to do it within hours of war breaking out. I will admit that I cannot understand why there does appear to be so much deliberate propaganda from the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. building up to an eventual war. I do not think either country wants war. However, we have to consider it from that basis. Now then if we do consider it from that basis we come right back to the question I mentioned, submarines. If there has to be this continual propaganda fight, then if my understanding is correct that the war will be an all-out war, a thermonuclear war, how can Canada with a few submarines prevent an all-out attack or an all-out war on a thermonuclear basis?
I think we have to face the facts, harsh as they may be and I admit they are harsh. We have to stop this defence policy of wishful thinking and, therefore, I maintain, the useless expenditure of money. I cannot repeat too often that what we have to do is prepare for peace. We do not do that by entering into a policy of buying submarines. They neither defend nor do they deter.
757G

Supply-National Defence
I was rather surprised by the statement made by the Minister of National Defence yesterday, which can be found on page 7522 of Hansard. The minister is reported as having said:
-the primary aim of our defence policy must be to prevent war, not to win a war but to prevent war, and thus the importance placed by the west on their deterrent power. In the past it has sometimes been politically desirable to avoid a war. Today nuclear weapons have created a situation in which the main if not the sole purpose of the armed forces is deterrence. To use our armed forces in action would mean, therefore, that the purpose for which we have kept them has failed.
Then, only a page later the minister said this:
If the armed forces are not ready when war breaks out there will be no opportunity to recover.
Then just a few lines farther on he is reported as saying:
These are, as I think the committee knows, first of all the provision of naval, air and ground forces for the defence of the Canada-United States region, in other words the North American continent;
If you put those remarks together, or if you try to, I think they conclusively prove that he does not understand what defence is all about in a thermonuclear age. I feel that he does not understand the fundamental difference between the defence of North America and defence of the NATO area. They are two entirely different things. The NATO area is contiguous to the soviet zone, and the whole range of military power is required in the NATO area, from an infantry platoon up to thermonuclear weapons, so that any soviet aggressive move may be deterred by the certainty of the appropriate NATO response. Therein, of course, lies the present danger in the NATO area, because NATO's weakness in conventional weapons forces it into two exclusive a reliance, I feel, on thermonuclear weapons. If they are ever used then I say, as the minister said, our defence policy has failed.
In North America I think the situation is different from that in NATO. It is ridiculous to think of any attack on North America as anything less than an all-out attack, and an all-out attack would automatically trigger the United States deterrent, that is the strategic air command. Therefore, in North America we do not need infantry platoons to balance or to deter anything from the U.S.S.R. What we need is what we have, that is the strategic air command and the means to alert the strategic air command, which we have, the D.E.W. line.
I feel the minister has been confusing defence and deterrence. Deterrence is a part of our defence policy, that is true, but defensive weapons are no deterrence against the only


weapons which could ever conceivably be used in an attack on the North American continent, namely thermonuclear weapons. There is no defence, we have been told time after time, against such weapons. Therefore, I feel it is the failure to understand this point that leads the present government, and led the Liberals, to spend millions of dollars on Bomarcs, interceptors and anti-submarine weapons. There is no defence against H-bombers, ICBM's and nuclear missile-firing submarines. I feel that when the minister referred, as he did, to the provision of naval, air and ground forces for the defence of the Canada-United States region, he showed that he does not understand that the defence policy for the North American continent can only rest on one thing, and one thing alone, that is deterrence, until disarmament can be achieved.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, that my time is running short. At first sight it may appear strange to advocate that Canada be a buffer zone at home and yet support NATO abroad. The reason stems from what must be the basic aim of our defence policy: to prevent war.
I want to state and make it very clear that neither neutrality nor pacifism is necessarily commendable in itself. The fact of the matter simply is that by being a buffer in North America Canada can best prevent an all-out pre-emptive war between the United States and the Soviet union. On the other hand, were we simply to quit NATO without making the slightest attempt to modify NATO's strategy and organization, we would not have done all we could to prevent world-wide war breaking out there, a war in which we would surely suffer annihilation. But I want to make entirely clear that there can be no question, as far as the C.C.F. is concerned, of Canada retiring into isolationism. Rather we say we must move forward from outdated military alliances into the broadest internationalism.
We say we must quit wasting money on air defence, that is, defence against H-bombers, ICBM's and nuclear missile-firing submarines, for all such defence is obsolete. We say we must devote our energies instead to preventing war by really doing our best to bring about a complete and universal disarmament, and by working hard to reduce the underlying tensions in the world which are the cause of war.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer these main points as the basis for a new and sensible defence policy for Canada, a defence policy which fully takes account of the fact that thermonuclear war would be



I960

[Stage Direction]
suicidal and that the task of our armed forces is to prevent war and not to prepare for suicide:
1.	Canada should immediately end the NORAD agreement.
2.	Since air defence in the thermonuclear age is impossible, Canada should quit building Bomarc sites and should not replace the CF-100.
3.	No nuclear weapons should be permitted on or over Canadian soil.
4.	Foreign military aircraft of any kind shall not be permitted to use Canadian air bases or air space in any way involving espionage, or in a manner to cause international conflict or misunderstanding.
5.	Canada should encourage the principle of all radar warning lines being internationalized.
6.	Canada must aim at becoming a buffer between the Soviet union and the United States, thus lessening the necessity for each massive power thinking in terms of preemptive thermonuclear attack on the other.
7.	Our armed forces must be completely unified.
8.	Our armed forces should be reduced to those required for the radar warning lines, for training and administering our NATO forces, for basic civil defence military requirements in the event of thermonuclear attack, and for United Nations world police requirements.
9.	The money thus saved, and I think considerable money could be saved, should be used for aiding underdeveloped nations in a manner that will demonstrate Canada's interest in those less blessed than ourselves and our desire to assist throughout the world the establishment of economic and parliamentary democracy.
10.	Canada must urge on NATO a fundamental revision of its present nuclear strategy coupled with a reorganization of its forces so that any aggression with conventional weapons can be repulsed with conventional weapons.
11.	Canada must urge on NATO a detailed study of plans for bilateral disarmament and disengagement in Europe so that a buffer zone is created there at the same time as we create a buffer zone of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I timed that exactly right; I used up my 30 minutes. Those are some of our views on the question, and the most vital question, of national defence.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Chairman, after the clear and most logical expose which you heard yesterday and today from the Minister of National Defence, it becomes quite evident that the efforts of those who belittle our defence
Supply-National Defence policy are quite futile and in fact rather harmful to the cause of defence. It is quite obvious that the problem of defence is one which surpasses, because of its very scope and importance, the realm of political controversies. The very fact that the survival of the world which we know and of the civilization which we love depends on a sound defence policy is sufficient to make most people forget their political allegiances and to make them remember that their one and only allegiance should be first and foremost to Canada and the protection of its citizens. There is no one in this house, I am sure, who doubts the sincerity of the Minister of National Defence, a man who has, in the past, served his country with great distinction-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -and who continues to do so. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the past performance both in peacetime and in wartime of our service chiefs and of our other senior officers is a guarantee that these men have only one purpose, and that is to serve their country well; and one aim, which is the preservation of peace.
It has now been my privilege to act as Associate Minister of National Defence in this government for almost one full year. During this time I have learned a great deal and I am, of course, each day learning a bit more. I am proud to report today that I am most impressed by what I have seen and I do not hesitate to declare that the performance of our servicemen, whether they belong to the navy, the army or the air force, merits the applause of those citizens who are conversant and experienced in service matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: During a recent visit which I made to Europe I was proud to hear that our Canadian brigade group now serving in the shield forces on the continent is considered to be the best force of its kind in the NATO forces. I was also told by many that the performance of our air force is second to none, and it is with a feeling of pride that I salute the gallant servicemen of Canada who spread our fame in foreign lands. Our servicemen have served with equal distinction in Canada, in the United States and also in the United Nations contingents.
My duties at national defence are rather of an administrative nature. It is with pleasure today that I render homage to all those men at defence headquarters who perform these duties with such devotion and such efficiency.
I wanted to read these few remarks, and in this way I have followed the examples of
7578	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence those who preceded me. I will now, with your kind permission, shift to French. I will express a few comments on the speech which we have just heard from the hon. member for Trinity, and I will also pass a few comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
With these gentlemen's permission, and in fact since, with thanks to this government, we have simultaneous translation in this house, I shall continue my remarks in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I would not like to be too sarcastic with regard to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who found himself in a rather embarrassing position this afternoon. On occasion, I myself have run into certain difficulties with those gentlemen of the press. I would not say that they purposely put me in a spot, but I know how annoying it can be to have a prospective speech published ahead of time or else to have some remarks which were actually made misconstrued by the gentlemen of the press. I understand the hon. member's confusion. I am sure that if I had been in his shoes, I would have felt as ill at ease as he does.
However, I am not criticizing his predicament-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No confusion.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -but rather the substance of his speech. It is rather strange to find that our hon. friends opposite have constantly stated, by all possible ways and means, that, according to them, this government had no defence policy whatsoever or, at least, that its defence policy was based on no definite principle.
Fortunately, and possibly because he realized after reading out some 42 pages of written material that he had not said much, the hon. member for Trinity contradicted himself somewhat a few moments ago by saying that he perfectly realized that this government had a defence policy and that it was only on minor matters that he did not agree with what is taking place at this time.
Nevertheless, it is rather surprising, Mr. Chairman, to find that, during many long hours, at the beginning of this session, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as well as the hon. member for Trinity and some other hon. members in the opposition, loudly demanded a complete and total investigation on the question of a defence policy for Canada.
In order that there be no misunderstanding, the government asked the house for permission to form a committee whose duty it would


be to consider government expenditures in the matter of defence. Of course, during the 26 committee meetings, many other matters were discussed apart from vital questions of defence for the purpose of which the committee had been established.
As a matter of fact, so many questions were discussed, so many questions were asked and so many answers were given to so many questions, that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) thought it appropriate to have a summary of those discussions published in a rather excellent pamphlet which has been distributed to all hon. members and which briefly outlines the defence policy of our government.
Hon. members in the opposition claim we have no defence policy. They have been chanting that rigmarole for almost a year. And today, in a 42-page speech, our friends of the opposition served us their so-called brilliant essay on defence. Now, we read therein that, among other things, they want to maintain the budget at the same level, and even increase it, and that, in spite of the fact that -to use their own terms-they would like to demolish everything, and, as they put it to "scrap" everything.
Such inconsistency seems to me rather odd. On the one hand, the hon. member for Trinity wants higher defence estimates and on the other hand, he wants everything shelved and nothing done.
We find some rather strange suggestions in that masterpiece. We see, for instance, that basing his speech on what he believes to be the enlightened policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Trinity would not like any nuclear arms to be used on Canadian soil, nor carried in Canadian skies.
Mr. Chairman, to my mind there is some inconsistency in that attitude.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I am sure the minister would not wish to create a false impression, but assuming his translation is correct, I did not say that.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I will repeat it in English.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister mind
using my speech, instead of referring to a newspaper report?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The speech was published in the paper before it was delivered in the house.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, in order not to hurt the feelings of the hon. member for

Trinity whose sensitiveness, as I can well conceive, was bruised in more ways than one today, I shall merely repeat what he said and ask him whether he stated in his speech that he wanted no nuclear arms to be stocked in Canada. Is that not what the hon. member for Trinity said?
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said that the cancellation of the SAGE-Bomarc program would eliminate the necessity of arming Canadian forces in Canada with nuclear weapons.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member is ahead of me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is thinking of the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am certain that I distinctly heard the hon. member say that he did not want any modern weapons equipped with nuclear warheads here in Canada.
(Translation):
In any case, Mr. Chairman, if I misunderstood or misread his words, I shall be pleased to withdraw what I said.
I merely should like to say this to the hon. member for Trinity, that it is nearly as illogical to state, on the one hand, that a defence system is absolutely necessary under present conditions and, on the other hand, to require that our troops be equipped with anything less than the most modern of weapons.
Mr. Chairman, what would we have thought in 1939 and during the war years which followed, if we had insisted that our troops, instead of using the modern weapons of the time, fight with muskets, foils or rapiers? It would have been quite abnormal. So is it even more illogical to require that we, in Canada, have an efficient defence system without making the necessary efforts to provide our troops with the best weapons that science can provide.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I say I would not like to hurt the feelings of my hon. friend. If I understood him well he suggested that we should eliminate, demolish or scrap the CF-104 which, according to him, does not fulfil an efficient role, and that its use here is even a contradiction, since, in Canada, we are carrying out a defensive policy and not an offensive one.
Supply-National Defence
It seems to me, however, Mr. Chairman, that the efficiency of that aircraft has been adequately demonstrated.
This afternoon, the minister of defence reminded hon. members that this aircraft, precisely because it is efficient, is now used by German, Dutch and Belgian forces, and that it will be used shortly by Italian forces.
To say that this aircraft becomes an offensive weapon because it is designed to fulfil a striking and reconnaissance role, cannot be farther from the truth. If the hon. member for Trinity had taken the trouble of consulting his books or a few persons well versed in the matter, he would have soon learned that this aircraft will be used in case of aggression, in order to counterattack any enemy offensive forces.
And I believe the hon. member for Trinity will admit the usefulness of reconnaissance aircraft in these modern times as in any other times.
I also consider with interest the argument put forward by the hon. member for Trinity, whereby he suggests we should abolish at once the SAGE line, as well as the Bomarc missile.
It seems to me that the doctrine of the hon. member for Trinity is still being somewhat inconsistent when he asks for such a thing.
Is it not a recognized fact that in spite of some hesitation, the Americans have decided not very long ago to vote additional sums for the Bomarc's development, fully realizing the need for that weapon at the present time, they increased those estimates by $75 million, if I am not mistaken?
This Bomarc B went through many successful tests, in spite of the hon. member's predictions and those of members of the opposition who repeatedly stated that the Bomarc B would never be effective.
It seems to me that it is about time the house and the members opposite were clearly told that it would be useless, merely for some political purpose, to scrap a weapon which, so far has cost our neighbours to the south the huge sum of over $2.3 billion.
There is something else which I feel should also be made fairly clear to our hon. friends. It is a fact that the Bomarc sites at La Macaza and North Bay will cost in the neighbourhood of $12 million to the Canadian treasury. It is also interesting to note that our mighty neighbours to the south will invest in Canada over $80 million, which surely cannot harm the Canadian economy, while supplying our country with a defensive weapon that we urgently need at this time.

Supply-National Defence
Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the greatest strategists and those who are most experienced in military matters claim that it is absolutely necessary for us to have a triple radar and aircraft detecting system, in order to warn the North American continent of which we are part, of any possible attack? Those radar lines were built at terrific cost, and they are the very basis of the North American defence system. We want to cooperate in constantly improving those lines, and that is why we have agreed to co-operate fully with our friends to the south in the improvement of the Pinetree line. And now, our friends in the opposition would scrap the whole equipment of those lines, and scrap the Bomarc; further, advancing a new theory, they would also scrap the seven warships we are building to protect ourselves against submarine attacks.
In short, that new and supposedly brilliant policy of the Liberal party is bent on destroying everything, demolishing everything, abolishing the whole continental defence system, on the grounds that there is nothing to be done, there is no means of defence, but we will nevertheless maintain the budget at its present level and even increase it.
Mr. Chairman, I regret, but I cannot help smiling, and I think many Canadians will also smile on reading the speech of the hon. member for Trinity.
Mr. Chairman, I find that my time is getting on and, before closing my remarks, I should like to say a few words on the frequently discussed disarmament policy.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, every right-minded person, both in Canada and elsewhere, recognizes that the ideal solution is disarmament, and that, indeed, is the policy chosen by the government. God only knows how often the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) has repeated in this house that such was the purpose of the present government's policy, and he has tried to leave no doubt on the! matter in the minds of the most sceptical listeners.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us hope that some day, the world will finally realize that disarmament is the ideal formula and the only sure way of safeguarding our country. But we must remember that there was talk of disarmament at the time of Julius Caesar as well as at the time of the crusades. And Heaven knows-we must admit this-that poor mankind has not yet hit upon the ideal formula. Therefore, to protect ourselves
[Mr. Sevigny.)

against any attack, we must have the necessary weapons to convince the enemy that, if he attacks us, he does so at the risk of the most severe reprisals.
Mr. Chairman, our hon. friends of the opposition keep saying that no defence is possible, that it is impossible to protect ourselves against the nuclear weapons which might fall on us at any time.
In fact, I accept the theory that it is quite difficult, at this time, to present an efficient defence against intercontinental missiles which might come down on us one of these days-let us hope that this faraway day will never come but because there is a threat which is not yet indefinite enough, are we simply to ignore the real threat which exists today, that of a possible nuclear bombing by aircraft against which interceptors and Bomarc missiles can still provide a defence?
Do you really think that the Canadian nation would not be justified in protesting most vigorously if the government were to decide-as was suggested by the hon. member for Trinity and his colleagues-to scrap everything, but yet spend still more on defence? What a contradiction, Mr. Chairman. What a contradiction in that policy advocated by the hon. member who spoke just before me, and some others.
Quite to the contrary, I think that, instead of saying that all defence is impossible, thus giving an additional weapon to the enemy who would come to the conclusion that we are such defeatists that we do not want to arm ourselves, it would be more logical, as opposed to the proposals of the hon. members of the opposition and others who want to criticize the policy of the government, to remember that this policy is based on quite serious agreements entered into after thorough consideration, after all possible considerations had been weighed, after all the pros and cons had been gone into.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, it seems to me that we should have confidence in men like the chiefs of staff and other distinguished citizens who today are leaders of Canada's defence. I believe that we should have enough sense to understand that these men have only one objective, that of assuring the protection of the Canadian citizens and preserving peace. But, Mr. Chairman, what a mistake it is to always say it is impossible to defend ourselves.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to illustrate the point?
During the tragic days before the war of 1939, people in England said that it was useless to try to protect themselves against enemy bombings, because those bombings would smash everything, and there would be no possible means of defence against the menace. Some ministers, some statesmen, then rose in protest and said: "No, it would be a folly to demolish and destroy everything," as is being advocated today. "On the contrary, our air force must be strengthened, our fighter plane production must be intensified, and in that way we will protect our country".
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you what would have happened to England, to mankind, and to all civilization, without the heroism of those men in the R.A.F. and in the R.C.A.F. who, in 1940, saved mankind and civilization in the British skies?
Mr. Chairman, I find that for someone who wanted to deal with administration, I have slightly strayed from my text.
(Text):
I notice that as one who wanted to make a speech on his various administrative duties I have strayed somewhat from my text. There is one consolation. I will not be accused of reading my speech. I will thus succeed in proving that once again the hon. member for Essex East, who accused us this afternoon of reading our speeches, is no more accurate in his comments on defence than when he comments, shall we say, on labour and on a few other things.


An hon. Member:: What about agriculture?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Before I close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I simply say that Canadian citizens have every reason to be proud of the efforts of those whose duty lies in securing for our country the very best defence. May I emphasize the fact that this defence effort is conducted in the services in a spirit of mutual confidence and respect. Although the members of the services come from all parts of our 10 provinces and are of varying ethnic origins, differing from one another in language and religion, nevertheless they share the same ideas. They all share in the one aim, and that is our search for peace and security by assuring that Canada's part in NATO is well played.
In travelling across Canada and meeting literally thousands of members of our armed forces I have found one common quality, and that is the firm conviction of the justice of our cause. I can assure you that one and all realize the importance of their role. These
Supply-National Defence men serve Canada well and they deserve the applause and the grateful thanks of all Canadians.
(Translation):
I shall close my remarks in my mother tongue by saying that this national unity we all seek, we find it in our armed forces. All together, whatever our origins, whatever our differences in language, religion and other things, we are serving our country: Canada.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, before I read from the notes I carefully prepared on a matter as important as national defence, it is impossible for me to let the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) go unchallenged.
The minister seemed to be shocked by the fact that the speech of the hon. member for Trinity was published in the papers before it was made in the house and, moreover, he seemed to think that it is the first time such a thing has ever happened. I take the liberty of reminding him that on many occasions, speeches of hon. members and even of ministers on the other side of the house have been published in the papers before being delivered. But there was a difference, and that was the fact that we Liberals were never small enough to raise such a fuss, as the Conservatives are apparently trying to do in this case, with respect to a situation for which the hon. member for Trinity was not responsible.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) said I was shocked at the incident which occurred this afternoon. I would ask the hon. member to look up Hansard tomorrow morning; he will find that far from being shocked, I displayed sympathy for the hon. member for Trinity, who found himself in an embarrassing position. I say this, Mr. Chairman, to show that it is quite important, before making certain remarks, to listen to what has been said.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I think there is no question of privilege in the point raised by the Associate Minister of National Defence. I might read Hansard tomorrow morning, but I am convinced that I would realize that the friendly remarks which the hon. minister says he made were tinged with cynicism; in that respect, I shall remind him that, when the same trouble happened to the Conservatives, we never were so petty as to make a fuss about it.
7582	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When did it happen? Give us some instance.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In his remarks, the Associate Minister for National Defence implied that during discussions in the special committee, which was responsible for looking into the expenses of the Department of National Defence, hon. members in the opposition were free to ask all questions they wanted. I agree with the minister. It is true that we had the right to ask questions. But what we did not receive, on the other hand, were the answers to those questions. And that is what we are complaining about today, that is, we had no indication whatsoever of what could be the government policy with regard to national defence. I think it is quite easy to conclude that there was no way of knowing it because the government has no such policy.
I would also remind the minister that Canada's national defence cannot be assured only on the basis of the amount of money spent on certain things. Things change so quickly that what was spent yesterday is not necessarily an indication of what should be spent tomorrow. The minister says that the member for Trinity suggested we should destroy what has been built. He forgets one thing, namely that the member for Trinity has put forward specific suggestions to provide Canada with adequate means of defence, taking into account the circumstances and the present world situation. And I would point out to the house that to ensure Canada's security, we will need much more than the emotional outpouring we have just heard from the minister.
(Text):
Although there would be ample justification for doing so, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up the time of the committee in attacking the government for its painful lack of an appropriate defence policy. In spite of assurances to the contrary given by the Minister of National Defence last night, to anyone who has followed the speeches in the House of Commons and particularly the proceedings of the special committee on defence expenditures it is abundantly clear that there exists an alarming confusion and, indeed, contradiction in the minds of members of the government on national defence as well as on the closely related subject of international affairs.
I strongly suspect that the underlying cause of Canada's lack of an appropriate defence policy is the government's very partisan but utterly false sense of economy. Certainly it is a desirable goal to balance 

the budget but military personnel and Canadians generally have reasons to be anxious and worried when the government contemplates balancing the budget at the expense of our national security at a time that can certainly be considered as one of the most critical times in our history as well as in the history of the world.
It is convenient, of course, but transparently superficial for the government to justify its inaction on the erroneous assumption that there is no alternative to the tremendously high cost of nuclear war and that there is no adequate defence against nuclear attack. Although it is generally agreed in Canada that even if the cost were not prohibitive it would not be desirable for Canada to engage in the production of nuclear arms and though there is serious doubt as to the possibility of providing an adequate defence against nuclear attack, it does not necessarily follow that there is no other alternative and it is certainly no justification for letting a confused, bewildered and unprotected Canada drift into a situation which could possibly mean national suicide.
If, because of the appalling destructive power of nuclear war, recognized by friend and foe alike as capable of destroying the civilization of the world, it is admitted there can be no victors and no vanquished but just death and destruction, is it so inconceivable to believe that there must be some other less insane alternative? I for one cannot bring myself to believe that there is no alternative. If, indeed, we are to spare the world from impending destruction and avoid at the same time a complete surrender of our philosophical and political ideologies, our way of life and the things in which we believe, then Canada and the rest of the world must stop rationalizing and find or create an effective alternative to nuclear war.
No one, I am sure, will question that an adequate defence policy in present world conditions, as indeed, our foreign policy-I think the minister mentioned this last night -must be based first and foremost on the true and vital interests of our own country, but it would be unwise as well as ungrateful if, in the formulation of our defence policy, we did not give ample consideration to the geographic, economic and political ties as well as the common defence problems that link us to our powerful neighbour and ally to the south, the United States. We certainly should and must always take into account the strong and friendly bonds that make us a part of the family of the commonwealth of nations. Then, of course, there is our participation in and our commitments

to NATO as well as our membership in and our hopes for the United Nations, which cannot but orient our national defence policies. However, the first responsibility of national defence is, of course, our own national security.
The fact that nuclear war is not the answer to international conflicts or problems and that neither the United States nor the U.S.S.R. would willingly resort to it does not, unfortunately, eliminate the possibility of a nuclear war. In the face of the possible danger of a nuclear war one of the greatest and most pressing responsibilities of the government is to ensure the security and, indeed, the survival of our nation in the event of such a war. Surely there should be no hesitation in giving the very top priority to this fundamental responsibility, and yet there have been only very feeble, hesitant and almost apologetic measures taken by the government in the field of civil defence. Surely Canadians have a right to expect and, indeed, should have strong and courageous leadership where our national survival is concerned.
Although helpful, it is not sufficient for the government to train its militia for nuclear defence. It is not sufficient for the government to stockpile food and medical supplies in strategic areas and issue brochures describing the build it yourself shelter. It is not adequate protection to have warning systems against bomb bursts and fall-out when there is really no place for the population to go for shelter. These are more of the half measures that are characteristic of the government, adopted to ward off criticism but not intended to solve and incapable of solving the problem, in this case the safety and survival of Canadians.
It is the responsibility of the federal government, along with the provincial and municipal authorities, to give the population a realistic appraisal of the dangers and consequences of a nuclear war and then together work out the most practicable means to assure Canada's national survival. I realize that the cost of building underground shelters in all the densely settled areas would be prohibitive, but surely the government could at least invite the provincial and municipal authorities as well as members of chambers of commerce, architects and contractors engaged in the construction of public projects to see whether existing construction could not be refitted in order to provide some shelter against radiation and bomb bursts.
I am thinking of such construction as the subway in Toronto and even the metropolitan boulevard in Montreal, parts of which could possibly be adapted as effective shelters and.
Supply-National Defence incidentally, would give much needed employment. The government could also encourage financially those concerned in the planning and construction of large public buildings so that they would build the foundation and the accommodation at subterranean levels in such a way that they could be used as underground shelters as well as for their original purposes. Some study might also be given to the underground shelters built in Sweden which also serve other purposes as well. One example I could give would be the underground garages and underground parking places which would be very convenient at this time. These projects would also provide work.
Nor would it be enough to stockpile provisions and medical supplies in these shelters for the period of attack and fallout, but very serious consideration should be given now to the problems to be faced after the attack and the appropriate rehabilitation program should be conceived to help the population meet these problems. It is not, of course, agreeable to speak of such a catastrophe, but we would be less than honest if we did not speak of these possibilities and we would be shirking our fundamental responsibilities as parliamentarians if we failed to force the government to take the steps necessary to provide this measure of security for our population in the event of a nuclear war. However, once we have taken all the possible precautions to ensure our national survival I believe that we should forget all about nuclear war and concentrate our attention on finding an alternative to it.
Recently I suggested in the house that Canada should invite all countries except the United States and the U.S.S.R. to a consultative meeting to be held in Ottawa. My suggestion, because of the number of countries involved, was considered to be difficult and unwieldy. I agree that not only would it be impracticable but indeed impossible if those countries met to decide on specific issues such as the United Nations is called upon to do. But I cannot help but feel that it would not be impossible to come to some agreement among these nations on very broad, general but important basic principles.
One of these principles on which I believe agreement could be reached would be the renunciation by those nations of the manufacture and possession of all nuclear weapons, whether it be a 10-megaton bomb or a nuclear rifle bullet. If poison gas and biological warfare, because of their inhumanity, were not used in the last war, surely the same reasons could apply even more forcibly to the use of nuclear weapons.
It is impossible to turn back the clock at the present time and destroy the stockpile of
7584	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence existing nuclear arms. Surely it should not be impossible to stop them from mushrooming throughout the world and greatly increasing the risk of total destruction. I believe, however, it would be unrealistic, and even unwise, to ask these nations to ban the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Perhaps some agreement might be reached along the lines of the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that experimental nuclear explosions for commercial and industrial use be carried out under the supervision of an appointed body of the United Nations.
I cannot help but feel that even the attempt to arrive at such agreements might have some value in achieving greater world stability. There are, of course, many other general principles of fundamental importance on which there might be some hope of reaching agreement. But the undeniable and real value of such a meeting of nations would be, to my mind, the tangible proof to the newer nations of the world, particularly the nations of Africa and Asia, that we earnestly and sincerely desire peace. It would permit us, as a democratic nation not having the tremendous economic and military predominance and the corresponding responsibility of a world power, to prove that we recognize them as nations who have a right to their culture, their philosophies and their way of life; to convince them that we are not seeking to conquer, exploit or hinder them in their march toward nationalism; to convince them that we realize that, in spite of differences that may exist, they have many interests and many problems that are similar to our own and these can best be solved by reasoned understanding and mutual help.
Last week Prime Minister Lumumba of the Congo stated that because Canada was not a colonial power, because she had no interests in Africa, she would understand and help the new republic by sending badly needed doctors, nurses, teachers and technicians. Prime Minister Lumumba was of course speaking for the Congo, but he reflected very accurately the confidence and the trust which many new nations of Africa and Asia have placed in Canada in these troubled times. It would be a very tragic mistake for democracy, indeed for world peace, if Canada failed that very special and very important trust.
Out of a meeting of nations with no international ambitions there might come a far better understanding of what our democratic principles really mean in terms of international relationships. The display of a truly democratic attitude at this time would,
I believe, come as a refreshing breeze not only to the nations of Africa and Asia but


to nations such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania, as well as the others who have for many years now struggled in the stifling climate of communist imperialism. It would not be difficult for Canada to point to very many instances when we have shown by our actions, through the Colombo plan and the United Nations, our profound belief that mutual understanding and help is a far more sensible and practical approach to sound international relationship than is the continued threat of mutual destruction.
Though this meeting of nations might help to promote better understanding, and perhaps greater trust among nations, it would not of itself provide the alternative to a nuclear war nor, unfortunately under the present world tensions, would it eliminate completely the possibility of war of any type. I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I say that armaments and an arms race which leads to war is a result and not the primary cause of international strife and conflict.
Many will be ready to accept the corollary that a trustworthy disarmament program can best be realized when the international problem has been solved and then disarmament takes place naturally and almost automatically. But are we ready to accept that so long as the basic cause of the present international conflict exists disarmament is most unlikely and perhaps not the best policy for the west to follow, unless there is some justification for believing that adequate control and inspection provisions are possible.
Does the recently planned sabotage by the U.S.S.R. of the disarmament meeting, after 15 years of frustrated hopes in this field, not indicate the western powers' only alternative? Effective negotiations between two nations have often been more easily arrived at on the basis of equal military strength, and wars have been avoided, at least for a period of time, because of balanced strength. The danger lies when one negotiator with aggressive intentions knows his enemy to be militarily weaker and then of course there is no end to his arrogance and to his demands, and war will ensue as it did in 1939. I cannot help but feel that the growing arrogance of the U.S.S.R. indicates that she is conscious of her massive military power, if not supremacy, particularly in the field of conventional weapons and missiles.
The possession and the explosion of the first atomic bomb in 1945, which promptly ended the war, unfortunately gave the western nations a false sense of security. At that time the U.S. alone had the weapon that

would end all wars and western powers already considered conventional arms as obsolete and useless. Shortly after 1945 demobilization and disarmament took place in the western world, including Canada. Usable ships, planes, tanks and other military equipment, built in panic and at great cost, were scrapped. But not the U.S.S.R. In spite of the disarmament talks held at the U.N. the U.S.S.R. did not disarm, but added captured German and Japanese weapons and military and industrial equipment to her own and continued to build up her strength in conventional weapons, as indeed she is still doing today. In 1949 an atomic explosion in the U.S.S.R. indicated to the world that the United States was no longer alone to possess the dreadful weapon. That of course was the signal for the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and since then the west has measured everything in terms of a nuclear war.
Conventional arms are spoken of in almost apologetic terms in the west and indeed are being neglected as all eyes are turned to the more formidable weapons. But the U.S.S.R., while keeping pace with the United States in the nuclear field, has not only maintained but strengthened her conventional forces, if not in number, certainly in power. I am given to understand that the U.S.S.R. and her satellites have a standing army of 175 divisions and can double this number within six weeks, completely equipped, while the western armies at the present time could muster a maximum of 148 divisions, and NATO conventional ground forces now number approximately 24 active divisions. The communists have 20,000 fighting aircraft, as compared to 3,685 NATO aircraft. The Russians now count some 400 submarines in her naval forces.
I need not press this point further, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is sufficient to appreciate the importance the U.S.S.R. has given and continues to give to conventional arms and it is because of these conventional arms that she is indeed in a far better position than the west to negotiate from strength both nuclear and conventional.
The western powers by concentrating mostly on the deterrent aspect of nuclear power may have failed to appreciate the necessity of retaining strong conventional forces with the unfortunate result that it is the western powers who have no other choice but to resort to atomic weapons. As a matter of fact the western powers have agreed, or are considering agreeing, to bolster NATO conventional forces with nuclear power in an atempt to restore the equilibrium between the two opposing forces in Europe. I cannot help but feel that by equipping NATO forces
Supply-National Defence with nuclear weapons at the expense of conventional forces, not only would we increase the potential danger of nuclear war but we would be destroying the only possible, though admittedly unsatisfactory, alternative to nuclear war, that is the use of conventional arms.
If nuclear power can be considered as an effective deterrent to a nuclear war, by the same token equality of strength of conventional weapons may in certain circumstances also act as a deterrent to war. But under present circumstances equality in nuclear power without equality in conventional power will lead to either a nuclear war or to complete surrender of our political ideologies and our way of life.
Would the western powers resort to nuclear weapons in reprisal of a communist aggression with conventional arms, knowing that the U.S.S.R. has and would not hesitate to use its formidable nuclear retaliation? Before the western powers are forced to answer that question would it not be wiser for NATO countries and for the western powers generally to concentrate on increasing their conventional military strength to counterbalance that of the U.S.S.R., leaving the nuclear power in the hands of the United States and the U.S.S.R. alone? The western powers would then be in a far stronger and less vulnerable position from which to negotiate; they would be inferior in neither nuclear nor conventional power and would not have to rely so heavily on fatal nuclear weapons.
Some agreement, I think, might be reached among members of NATO not to build or possess nuclear weapons of any type in their own countries and to equip NATO forces with modern but conventional arms alone and keep this conventional force completely distinct and separate from whatever nuclear bases and installations exist in NATO.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee consent to the hon. member continuing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, for their indulgence, and I will only be a few minutes more.
It was gratifying to me to read that the three Bundestag representatives who visited the House of Commons last week stated that West Germany would not manufacture or possess nuclear weapons. I cannot help but believe that the greatest example yet of their universally recognized diplomatic acumen and foresight would be for Great Britain and France, in an effort to stop the spread of

Supply-National Defence nuclear arms, to follow the example of West Germany or at least to pool all their nuclear weapons under a unified western control.
I believe that all nuclear bases, whether in Europe, Canada or elsewhere, should be under a unified control similar to but not necessarily the military committee of NATO. It would be far more easy psychologically and financially for the NATO members to live up to and increase their conventional military commitments to that organization. Understandable hesitation has existed in many nations in the spending of money for the construction of conventional arms in the face of the devastating power of nuclear weapons. But because there is really nothing to be gained from a nuclear war even the U.S.S.R. might consider reserving for herself the control of nuclear weapons, and if nuclear weapons could be kept from spreading to all nations, western and satellite countries alike, and effectively counterbalanced where they do exist, then the urgent necessity of the western powers to achieve equality of conventional forces with the U.S.S.R. can be easily appreciated. However, I think we know what to expect if the manufacture, possession and control of nuclear weapons spreads among the western nations.
After taking all necessary precautions to assure Canada's national survival in the event of nuclear war our defence policy, to my mind, should be oriented in such a way that it would have nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear armament of any type. Whatever nuclear bases might exist in Canada as part of our common NATO defence system should be considered exactly and controlled exactly as would be other similar nuclear bases in Europe and elsewhere by one nuclear power control centre.
Canada's effort should be turned, to my mind, toward suggestions such as were made by the hon. member for Trinity and toward suggestions made in the special committee on defence expenditures aimed at rebuilding our navy, army and air force into as effective defence forces as possible, with due consideration being given to the requirements of modern warfare. Great stress, I believe, should be placed in the mobility of our forces, and adequate air and sea transportation should be provided. I also believe that submarines should be part of our active defence forces, and I would sincerely hope that they could be built in our own country.
In spite of the difficulties mentioned by the minister last night of achieving an obligatory standardization of NATO military equipment,
I believe that Canada should concentrate its efforts in trying to set up the machinery necessary not only to standardize equipment of NATO forces but also to allocate to the
	(
different member nations, according to their strategic situation and capability, the construction of the military equipment required on a defence production sharing basis.
Because of the continuous eruption of military crises in the four corners of the globe, military concentration in Europe is no longer sufficient and adequate military strength in all the commonwealth nations whose territories stretch around the world should be encouraged by means of a coordinated defence program based on mutual help and defence sharing plans, with great stress being placed again on the mobility of these forces.
Canada, with greater combined conventional strength and not burdened with the cost and responsibility of nuclear power, might also be in a better position to co-ordinate her conventional defence arrangements with that of the United States and be of greater assistance in the carrying out of experimental and research work in the conventional arms field.
I am, of course, making these most incomplete suggestions as a private member of the house and with a thorough appreciation that I am no expert in the field, but surely recent events in international affairs make it imperative that some action be taken by the government. It is intolerable to realize that the evident indecision and hesitation of the government in the field of national defence has resulted in a progressive abdication of its paramount responsibility of assuring our national survival and indeed has placed Canada in a position of shameful reliance on the United States for our defence. Canada surely deserves better than that. It is only when the government has assured Canada of its national security in the event of a nuclear war and has seriously examined and taken all the possible means of finding an alternative to world suicide that the government will have respected its most fundamental responsibility to the Canadian people, and that, we submit, the government has not done.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to rise this evening to express a few thoughts on the defence policy of the Liberal party, but having heard the hon. member for Trinity earlier today and having heard the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres a few moments ago, I find that I am faced with the task of commenting on two pretty totally different policies.
If while they are fresh in my mind I could make a few comments on the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, I would start by pointing out that he spent a good deal

of time calling upon the government to undertake its responsibilities in regard to disarmament, to take every step toward achieving nuclear disarmament, and in general-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I am sure the hon. member does not want to misquote me, but the question of disarmament never even arose in my mind. I believe at this time it is impossible even to consider disarmament.


Egan Chambers: Nuclear disarmament.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Even nuclear.


Egan Chambers: Then I must have misunderstood the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the hon. member will read my speech tomorrow I think he will realize that.


Egan Chambers: I apologize to the hon. member if I have misquoted him, but he certainly urged us to be active in diplomatic negotiations for peace. Is that right?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, of course.


Egan Chambers: Then my comment on that would be that I do not think there is a government in the western world today which has taken more initiative in this regard than the Canadian government during the last few years. The backbone of our policy in this regard is the avoidance of war, and the first line, you might say, of the implementation of that policy is the seeking through every available international means to bring about a settlement of the difficulties which might lead to war.
I think the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other members of the government have no cause to be ashamed at all of their activities in this regard. In fact I think it is commonly thought throughout Canada by people who support all parties that the record of the government in this regard is outstanding.
There were a couple of other items, and one of them was the question of what went on in the defence expenditures committee. The hon. member said that while questions were asked no replies were given. I missed one of the 27 or 28 meetings of that committee and the record is available for members of this house. I do not suppose there has ever been a more complete exposition of the policy of a department of government than that given by the Minister of National Defence before that committee. Every question about policy, about detail, about equipment was answered.
The other point I would mention in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Ri-chelieu-Vercheres has to do with his advocacy 79951-0-479
Supply-National Defence of the build-up, or at any rate the maintenance, of conventional forces. Here I find him somewhat in disagreement with the hon. member for Trinity, who advocated scrapping all sorts of forces which could be called conventional, such as our anti-submarine ships and so on.
Perhaps I could take a few minutes to comment on the remarks made earlier today by the hon. member for Trinity. It was a very remarkable speech in several respects. It arrived with a good deal of advance publicity; in fact, perhaps more advanced publicity than the hon. member would have wished. It was a long time in preparation. As far back as January before this house met this year we read in the newspapers and heard from speeches of members of the opposition that there was to be at their instigation a great debate on defence. They were going to come before this house and before the people of Canada and expose the inadequacies of the government's policies, and at the same time, as I understood it, they were going to tell us what we should do; the things which we were doing which we should not do, and the things that we were not doing that we should do.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we waited. We waited through a number of supply motions and other opportunities. We waited anxiously, and now late in the session when the estimates have come back from committee we find what their policy is. The much-advertised new approaches are nowhere to be found. In fact, if anything, the policy enunciated by the hon. member for Trinity today was a complete endorsement of the details of the policy of this government. The only changes recommended were not changes of policy but changes of hardware; this weapon should be done away with and another substituted for it; that ship should not be built but a different kind of ship. Nowhere do we find a difference in basic defence policy.
Let me refer to the hon. member's closing remarks. He defined the Liberal policy as being designed to meet the following conditions; first, to spend those funds set aside for national defence effectively and wisely. I submit that this is exactly what the government is doing to a degree never realized by the previous government in this country.
Second, the hon. member said we should contribute to our collective alliances those components which continue to be useful. That is exactly what this government has done. In consultation with our allies, having in mind the capacities of Canada, we are contributing the most effective forces to the collective strength of the west that it is possible to do.

Supply-National Defence
Third, the hon. gentleman said we should build forces flexible enough to respond to virtually any United Nations request for assistance; forces in being, fully equipped, fully mobile and transportable by air or sea; forces capable of effectively participating in any brush fire or conventional encounter before it gets out of hand with the possibility of triggering a wider conflagration.
The United Nations came into being at the end of the second world war but it remained for the present Minister of National Defence to announce in 1958 that Canada was main-taning a force at the disposal of the United Nations. This force, trained, equipped and ready to go anywhere at the call of the United Nations was the brainchild and creation of the present Minister of National Defence and I think we should be grateful to the hon. member for Trinity for endorsing the actions of the government in this respect.
The hon. member's fourth point was that we should build forces which would be useful as part of a world police force in the event a disarmament agreement should be reached. The force I have just mentioned and indeed practically all of Canada's forces are ideally suited to such a police force.
As a fifth suggestion the hon. member said we should contribute to research to the end that the western world would forge ahead in scientific development keeping in mind also the economic by-products which might accrue. Here again the hon. member advocates exactly what the government is already doing.
The hon. gentleman's sixth point was to provide the maximum protection possible to the Canadian population in the event of irrational attack. The policy the government is following would accomplish this end but the moves advocated by the hon. member would drastically reduce our capacity to defend the people of Canada.
The hon. member's seventh recommendation is so much of a platitude that I hesitate to repeat it. He suggested that we are to promote an even more effective Canadian contribution to the preservation of world peace. Is there any party, indeed is there any Canadian, who does not subscribe to this, does not strive toward it?
At the beginning of his remarks the hon. member announced that he supports the principles of deterrence and of collective arrangements and he said that we cannot pursue a policy inconsistent with the common goals of our allies. He then proceeded to advocate a number of steps that would be completely


inconsistent with the co-operation that our allies have asked us to give.
Let me first consider what he had to say on the subject of NORAD. He said that the NORAD agreement did not materially affect the situation except as to improvements in communications, reaction time and control. Mr. Chairman, in these days of supersonic aircraft and the missile, what could be more important than an improvement in control, reaction time and communications? If we rely on the deterrent effect of retaliation, reaction time must be as close to immediate as possible and to effect any defence at all, control must be instantaneous. When there were some failures in the Bomarc tests the hon. gentleman said that it was no good and that it would never work.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It still is not.


Egan Chambers: Now that the tests are successful and it is working the hon. gentleman says that notwithstanding the fact it is good we should still get rid of it. That is what I understood the hon. member to say.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do not let it ever be said that I endorsed the use of the Bomarc under any circumstances.


Egan Chambers: That is exactly what I said. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a good weapon the hon. gentleman does not want us to use it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Too little and too late.


Egan Chambers: We are partners in the defence of North America. You have only to look at a map of this continent to know that it is impossible to defend either Canada or the United States independently. That is why NORAD was set up. There is a commander of NORAD responsible to the governments of both Canada and the United States. Let us examine his views on the Bomarc. The hon. member for Trinity in his remarks said that all the military experts had condemned this weapon. Let me quote from the testimony of General White, chief of the United States air force before the senate committee on appropriations. He said:
In case there is any doubt, the commander in chief of NORAD is completely satisfied that the nine squadron Bomarc B forces should stay in as recommended. In fact, NORAD wanted the complete program instead of the drastically curtailed one which he recommended for this committee at the time.
Where are the best military scientists of the day which the hon. member says are opposed to Bomarc?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was a little internal politics. I will quote the others tomorrow.


Egan Chambers: I am prepared to admit that there was some testimony on both sides of the Bomarc question but proof of the pudding, surely, is that the United States air force recommended, the United States congress voted and the United States president approved of the Bomarc program for this continent.
One of the reasons why the hon. member advocates the scrapping of the Bomarc is because it is capable of carrying an atomic warhead. It is one thing to say that we should have no offensive nuclear capacity; it is quite another to say that if an enemy should attack us with nuclear weapons we should not be allowed to use those same weapons to defend ourselves. The Bomarc is a defensive weapon. It has no offensive capacity whatsoever. Situated as it will be in a relatively northern part of Canada it could not possibly menace any other nation. What the hon. member advocates and what he is still saying is that we should not only renounce the sword but that we should also throw away our armour against the swords of others.
The hon. member also had something to say about control. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this subject. United States law imposes certain restrictions on the use of United States owned weapons. It has been clearly stated in this house, however, that if it is decided to acquire nuclear weapons Canada shall have its own measure of control.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member explain that?


Egan Chambers: I think it has been clearly explained to the hon. member four or five times in committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To your satisfaction.


Egan Chambers: There is a very interesting point in the hon. member's idea. Not only does he say that we should scrap the Bomarc but that we should scrap SAGE. In the next breath he says we should acquire F-101 interceptors to be used for identification and possibly for interception. This shows a complete failure to understand the principles of air defence. How will the F-lOl's that he proposes to acquire find their targets if they are not directed by some such system as SAGE? A SAGE controlled system is intended not only for Bomarc but for whatever interceptors may be in the area and, having in mind the speed at which an attack might come and the speed that the interceptors and the antiaircraft missiles are capable of, it is absolutely essential, if any effective defence is to be put up at all, that some kind of automatic radar control such as SAGE be used.
79951-0-479i
Supply-National Defence
When we come to the navy we are told that the greatest threat is that of the submarine; and then we are told that we should abandon our submarine defences. Our destroyer escorts, which are admitted to be the most modern and efficient to be built in the world today and which have been vastly improved in their capabilities in recent years, are to be replaced by something called combat troop carriers and supply ships; this notwithstanding the fact that it has been estimated that the Soviets have from 400 to 500 conventional submarines in their present inventory. How the combat troop carriers would operate in the face of this force we have not been told.
When we come to our forces in NATO we are told that the brigade must be given the most modern weapons and at the same time that we should abandon the CF-104, which will immeasurably strengthen and modernize our air force in Europe. Apart from the inconsistency of this attitude, I should like to point out that all the independent observers, soldiers from other nations, have without exception said that our NATO brigade is among the most efficient and best armed in the forces of the west. Today this brigade does not have a single weapon left over from world war II, and its equipment is being constantly improved. Improvements of the fire power include 106 millimetre anti-tank recoilless rifles; 81 millimetre mortars; 50 calibre medium machine guns; 30 calibre medium machine guns; and on order at the present time in the communications line are C-42 improved wireless sets.
Furthermore, as the minister pointed out in the committee, the brigade is today completely motorized. Some of the things that were advocated by the hon. member are certainly desirable. He said that the brigade should have an amphibious and an airborne capacity. It has not been the practice in any army, I do not believe; it has never been found efficient to provide amphibious vehicles or aircraft for troop carrying on a brigade level. These kinds of things are, however, in the program and the obvious and efficient method by which to provide them is to provide them on the division, corps or army level.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have not got that.


Egan Chambers: We are today co-operating with other forces in NATO in Europe, and troop carrying capacity and amphibious capacity are included in the NATO corps.
Another thing that I did not mention was the up-gunning of the Centurion tank. I do not think this committee should be misled into believing that there has not been a constant, continuous and intensive effort to
7590	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence keep the Canadian brigade in Europe at the highest possible standard of training and weapons.
One of the criticisms that the hon. member made about the CF-104 program is that its bases will be vulnerable to enemy attack. Here again we have a conspicuous lack of knowledge. The Bomarc must be abandoned because its bases are vulnerable, and it must be replaced by an interceptor, but in Europe our aircraft must be abandoned because aircraft bases are vulnerable. Incidentally, the CF-104 is to be replaced, in the hon. member's view, by some other aircraft whose bases presumably would be invunelrable to any attack. The hon. member has overlooked the fact that redeployment bases will, of course be available to the CF-104.
I should like now to proceed to the last item that time permits me to discuss, namely the question of survival or civil defence. The hon. member dealt with this at some length, as did the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres. Both hon. members make quite a point of emphasizing that today civil defence is possible, and say that the government should do more in this regard, and yet I should like to point out that it was only since this government came into office that any serious consideration in organizing civil defence was undertaken. The information that such a program was required has been available for some years, well before the election of 1957. When the Soviets first exploded their atomic weapons we on this continent knew that we were vulnerable to attack and that we should then have undertaken a serious study of civil defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is patent nonsense. For a while you were a little interesting, at least.


Egan Chambers: There were some small measures of co-ordination taken with the provinces but no responsibility was accepted by the federal government in those days. It remained for the present Minister of National Defence to give to the Canadian army in Canada the obvious role in this regard. Today our capacity to survive under nuclear attack is immeasurably greater than it was two years ago, and from day to day more equipment is being added, more training is being given to both our regular and our militia forces in this regard. The advocacy of civil defence by the hon. member for Trinity comes about three years too late.
May I say in closing that the program announced today by the hon. member for Trinity was one of the best expressed arguments in support of the policies of this government that I have yet heard. He has advocated no single change in policy; he has quarrelled, if I may say so, with a good deal


of false logic with some of the hardware, but it is interesting to note that it was not until the present Minister of National Defence took office that Canada started to develop a defence policy in keeping with the requirements of the terrible age in which we live, and it was not until the present Minister of National Defence enunciated this policy that the Liberal party found it necessary to give any attention to these problems at all. So that today they have unveiled their ideas, identical in principle with those of this government, repeating only the old cry of those hungry for office that they would do the same thing only better. Indeed, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw not so long ago in which a politician said that he was dedicated to producing an invulnerable defence and at the same time lowering the taxes. However, he said that his method was a question of security and therefore could not be revealed. I have an idea that he must have been related to the hon. member for Trinity.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, in opening the debate on the shape of things to come last night the minister told us that the day of large armies, large manpower, had passed. To cope with the situations which may arise in the future we will have to confine ourselves to relatively small forces. There will be no more mobilization, no more massed armies on large fronts. The only forces that will see action will be those already in being. We in the west are handicapped by limited manpower compared with the Soviet union which poses our greatest threat. That handicap must be compensated for by making our limited manpower as effective as possible. That can only be done by means of superior equipment that will compensate for our small numbers by giving us increased firepower and mobility. This can only be done through research and development. More money needs to be spent on research than we have been spending in recent years if we are to play our part with maximum effectiveness having regard to our limited manpower resources.
For example, the introduction of tanks afforded a very great superiority to those who were able to use them but the tank today is fast becoming obsolete. If we are to meet the threat of soviet tanks in Europe we need first of all a very light, portable anti-tank gun, some sort of one-man weapon along the line of a bazooka which can enable one man to knock out a tank effectively. As I have said, tanks themselves are fast becoming obsolete.
We also need devices that will give our troops superiority under certain environmental conditions. This is at least one lesson that we should learn from the last war when

the Germans and the Russians achieved a great advantage by the introduction of devices which enabled them to fight at night, and if we are to overcome that handicap some device is needed which will enable tanks to be able to fight at night, something they are not able to do at the present time. Therefore we should be concentrating our efforts on the development of certain devices such as radar, infra-red rays and light gathering devices which will enable tanks to overcome this handicap.
The same thing is true of the Bobcat which the minister told us last night is going to be provided for the use of our forces. The Bobcat is also very vulnerable to anti-tank weapons and we must find ways and means of using the Bobcat at night when it would be less vulnerable than in the daytime. We also need devices which will enable our forces to operate under certain environmental conditions such as are to be found in the Arctic regions of our country. We do not seem to be doing this.
If we look at the estimates for research and development over the past few years we see that while research appropriations have about held their own the money for development has been drastically reduced. Looking at the defence research board estimates for research we see that in 195758 we provided $24,188,000; in 1958-59 we provided $26.8 million; $21.9 million in 195960; and $23.9 million in 1960-61. Therefore we have been just about holding our own on the research side of our program. But when it comes to development the story is very different. In 1957-58 we provided $40.6 million for development; in 1958-59, $55.6 million; in 1959-60 only $21.5 million; and So that we have come down from $55.6 million in 1958-59 to $14.2 million in 1960-61.
I know that the minister gave an explanation of this to the committee when the matter was brought to his attention but that is not the point I am trying to make at the present time. The fact that certain programs have been completed does not mean that we should cut our development appropriations because there is such a great need for this kind of work to be carried on in other fields similar to what I outlined a few minutes ago. Instead of cutting off the supply of money when one program is completed we should actually be increasing this end of our program.
Not only is that necessary for military purposes but, as the hon. member for Trinity pointed out earlier this evening, it is necessary in a country like Canada to enable us to achieve our full industrial potential. The hon. member for Trinity referred to the research that we should be doing on atomic
Supply-National Defence engines for planes and small atomic engines for other purposes. I agree completely with what he has said, because we do have a problem today in finding markets for our uranium. Certainly this is a problem that affects not only the armed services but all Canadians in that it is tied in with the economic development of our country.
Another aspect of this reduction which I should like to bring to the minister's attention is the need for an increase in the salaries of our scientists. We are losing our scientists because today we are not paying them the same salaries that they can get in industry or even in the universities of our country. This type of economy is false economy. We are not doing our duty to our country when we economize in this way.
I would ask the minister, therefore, to take another look at this development program and to overhaul it radically, to take every possible means of increasing it. There must be hundreds, and hundreds of projects which are necessary for the maximum effectiveness of our limited armed forces and which would be of use in the industrial development of our country, devices that perhaps would give Canada an advantage over competitors in the foreign markets. I do not believe we should separate one from the other here because the advantage is not only to the military but to the whole country.
I am very sorry, therefore, to see the reductions that have been made in this part of our research and development program. I would ask the minister to see to it that this program is overhauled and increased at the earliest possible date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the committee would be agreeable to calling it eleven o'clock? I should like to reply to some of the points that have been raised.


An hon. Member:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is the same courtesy we extended to the minister last night at the same time.


Jacques Flynn: Is there unanimous consent to calling eleven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Apparently there seems to be a dissenter down there, Mr. Chairman, so I have no objection to speaking for four minutes if that is the wish of the committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think we have agreed to call it eleven o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: I have no objection to asking again for unanimous consent. Is there any objection?

Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house leader would be good enough to indicate the business for tomorrow and the balance of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will carry on with the estimates of the Department of National Defence. I am not sure when those estimates will be completed. If they are
finished tomorrow in the afternoon, I should like to leave it open, after further consultation with members on the other side, as to what business we might go on with immediately following the Department of National Defence. If our consultations do not result in agreement, we will proceed with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 5, I960

[Stage Direction]
Twenty-first and twenty-second reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the house, and I hope leave will be granted, I should like to bring up the question of what date might be set aside for discussion of the question of capital punishment. There were two bills before the house, one introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough and the other by the hon. member for Vancouver East. After we had discussed the matter for a couple of days the question arose whether or not a further opportunity would be given to the house to discuss this very important measure, and also the problem in general of the infliction of capital punishment. On a number of occasions since questions have been asked as to when that date would be, I made it perfectly clear that we on this side of the house would be most anxious to have the fullest possible discussion of this question which is of such paramount importance.
My recollection is that the last occasion on which the matter was mentioned was July 18. There may have been later occasions but at the moment they do not come to mind. At that time the Leader of the Opposition asked this question, as found on page 6410 of Hansard:
Has the government any plans for the resumption of the discussion of capital punishment?
To which my reply was:
As the hon. gentleman knows, plans were made some weeks ago and were made known to the house. As soon as the legislative program and the estimates have achieved that degree of completion which I believe is necessary, then with the co-operation to which the hon. member for Laurier referred, I am sure that a day will be set aside for that purpose.
The Leader of the Opposition then added these words:
What degree of completion does the Prime Minister consider necessary so that we may resume the discussion?
To which I replied:
The order paper is a pretty good indication, together with the estimates still outstanding.
The hon. member for Assiniboia then added some comments in this regard but more particularly directed to the question of consideration of extending the vote to those 18 years old. I wish to give hon. members the opportunity to express themselves with regard to resumption of the debate on capital punishment. Any day that would suit hon. members would be acceptable to the government.
We have now arrived at that point where, if hon. members in various parts of the house desire to debate this subject, it will be done. To that end I ask not only for the views of the Leader of the Opposition but also for those of the two hon. members to whom I have already alluded, whom I feel sure the house would want to hear, as they have taken a particular interest in this matter and have respectively introduced bills in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister has suggested that the house give leave to permit a more extended discussion than would be in order without a motion before the house under routine proceedings. Is it the pleasure of the house to permit the discussion proposed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My contribution will be short, Mr. Speaker. I think it is quite appropriate that the Prime Minister should have brought this matter up at this time. My own view is that we should complete the legislation that is on the order paper, and then certainly complete the consideration of the defence estimates. When that is done, perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to tell the house the views of the government and the supporters of the government on this matter. Naturally, we in the opposition will do our best to accommodate ourselves to those views. Perhaps on consideration, the Prime Minister might think a week from today would be a satisfactory day, but whatever position the Prime Minister and the government may take we will do our best to meet it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the words of the Prime Minister are of the utmost importance, and I appreciate very much the fact that he has

Business of the House
taken the opportunity of raising this subject at this time before the orders of the day are called. I do not have to tell you, sir, or the house, of my 25 years' interest in this matter of the abolition of capital punishment. There was in the early days of the session a two-day debate, and the understanding was given by the Prime Minister that a third day would be made available. This matter is of such importance that I feel a third day of debate on a private member's bill, which I seconded, should not be held in the dying days of this session.
I believe, sir, that we had a very good discussion for two days. If my information is correct I believe that, at the conclusion of the second day of debate, there were in the neighbourhood of 37 members who still wanted to speak on this issue. I do not know quite how to put what I have in mind, but having debated the subject for two days and it now being near the end of this session, in view of my 28-year fight in parliament both in British Columbia and here against capital punishment, I would hate to see a hasty decision made in this house. It is not so much a matter of seeing whether the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, which I seconded, would be defeated, but it is a matter which requires a quiescent, sensible and reasonable decision.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, much as it may break my heart, because I want to see my objective reached I am afraid, sir, it would not be reached if a decision were taken by the House of Commons to sit an extra day at this point in the session.
Therefore, because I believe in the objective and not in expediency, I hope the mover and seconder of this motion will agree with me that perhaps greater progress will be made toward our objective by agreeing now that a further day be not taken this session, because I believe from what I heard from the Prime Minister that consideration is being given by the government to the entire question of capital punishment and no objections have been raised to the matter being reinitiated at the next session of this House of Commons.
So, sir, on that basis I believe those of us who believe in the abolition of capital punishment might have our objective set back if at this time there were a further debate. Therefore, sir-and I am only speaking personally-I say I will accept the idea that there shall not be a further debate on capital punishment at this session. But it will be raised at the next session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to withhold my remarks if somebody wishes to make some contribution from the ranks of the official opposition, but barring that I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the members of the house, to the government and to those who co-operated in making an unprecedented two days available for the debate on the bill which I had the privilege of introducing.
The hon. member for Vancouver East and others who have already made their contribution to this debate are in a curious position. I am more concerned with the people who expressed a desire to speak, who were next in line and further down the list, than in those who have already spoken. However, I would be less than honest if I did not say to the house that most of the members- I am speaking purely from memory here-[DOT] who indicated a desire to speak in addition to those who have already spoken have shown an increasing reluctance to resume the debate and to insist on accepting the undertaking given to the house by the Prime Minister earlier.
If I were to interpret the wish of the house in this respect, I would judge the feeling of this chamber to be that the debate be not continued this session but that we reinitiate it at the beginning of the next session of parliament.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, as one who participated in the second day's debate on capital punishment some months ago, I feel there is such a thing as consistency. I also feel that the Canadian public will be very critical of any decision made by this house to break its own word. The public generally anticipate this additional day of debate. They anticipate a decision by this house. It has been indicated in a number of ways that this has become one of the foremost questions in Canada. My own personal feeling and my own stand on this question is that we should take the additional day now.


Gage Workman Montgomery: 
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by a member of the government that he thought I said I had spent 28 years fighting against abolition. I cannot understand my saying that, so may I say right now that I have spent 28 years in a fight to abolish capital punishment.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who would like to participate in a third day of debate on this question. However, at this point of the session I think the issue simply revolves around two points.
One is that at this point in the session there are many members who are unavoidably absent who would like to participate in a third day of debate, and therefore it would not be fair to them to hold a third day's debate at this time. The second point is that if we are going to have a third day of debate, perhaps the house would then want the issue to come to a vote. There again, with many members unavoidably absent, a vote taken on the question at this time in the session would not, to my mind, have any great significance.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the third day adjourned and the debate reconvened at the next session.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, something has been going on this whole session which I think is relevant to this particular point here, and it is the right of private members to introduce and speak on bills in this house. We have had a cynical demonstration of the ignoring of such rights of private members by a certain group in this house; the filibuster on divorce bills, to be specific.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not speaking to the specific question.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The specific question, sir, is whether or not we stay and finish the debate on capital punishment. May I say that the hon. member for Vancouver East is not the
79951-0-478
Business of the House
only one interested in the abolition of capital punishment. This bill was introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough some time ago. A good many of us have not spoken on this subject yet. I feel that our time as private members has been cynically abused. I should like to speak on this bill myself, and I find it may be impossible for me to be here. This is also true of some hon. members of the group in question.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say I will be here until the house closes.


An hon. Member:: Who cares?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would have been able to give an indication as to his views. I have no criticism in what I am about to say, but in view of the viewpoint expressed by him I could do nothing other than bring this matter before the house, having undertaken to do so. If I were now to say that regardless of the final decision in this regard on his part we were not going to proceed, then I would be in an equivocal position that I do not desire to be in. Therefore I presume that unless there is a decision on the part of the official opposition to the effect that it is willing and desirous of having this extra day devoted to the discussion of the subject, as promised, we will have no other course open to us than to proceed accordingly.
I want to add that the undertaking given will be carried out unless the house with reasonable unanimity, and particularly with the support of the opposition, relieves me of the responsibility which I accepted and which I am prepared to carry out.
In saying that I wish to tell the hon. member for Vancouver East that if this matter is not proceeded with at this session I would not want to be held responsible for the implication in his words that the government intends to take direct action at the next session. I am not going to be bound in any way by that. I simply point out that there is no reason at all for not going ahead. The fact that some hon. members are unavoidably absent is not an excuse for not proceeding. We are not looking for any excuse not to proceed. That is why I put it up to the house. I hoped that the opposition might have indicated one way or the other a final decision in this regard.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not indicate that perhaps definite action would be taken at the next session. I hope it will be, but I did not say it would. I hope that the question of capital punishment will be reopened next session. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister I want to say on behalf of this

Business of the House
group that if there is not unanimous consent concerning not proceeding with this discussion for the third day, we will be here for that day when the discussion is resumed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that the responsibility for the decision in this matter-and this is a strange statement to me-rests on the opposition, perhaps it would clear matters up if I were to read from Hansard of June 14, as reported at page 4878, what the Prime Minister said in connection with this matter when it was brought up. This may make possible a decision. The Prime Minister said:
The interpretation given to the words I used in the house in connection with this matter was that a further day would be allowed or provided for. That being so, while there is much yet to be done, I feel the proper course to follow would be this. Consultation having taken place among the leader of the house, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia,-
I have no knowledge that that consultation has taken place. I continue:
-if a motion made later on in the session to provide a private members' day were accepted by the house, then an opportunity would be provided to deal with this and other matters that are appropriate to a private members' day. In other words, the undertaking given is being carried out. The house will have an opportunity on a private members' day later in the session, when we have removed from the order paper many of the things which require to be done, to discuss the bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
I have told the Prime Minister now that if the Prime Minister and the supporters of the government wish to make a proposal to this house modifying in any way what has previously been said, we will do our best to accommodate ourselves to the view of the majority of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the very point I want to make clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not placing the responsibility elsewhere. I gave an undertaking and the house can relieve me from that undertaking. That is why I asked the Leader of the Opposition, occupying as he does the highest position as leader of the official opposition, whether or not he desired that the understanding shall be carried out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what he had in mind when he said:
-if a motion made later on in the session to provide a private members' day were accepted by the house-
Has such a motion been made?


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the statement the Prime Minister has made about the commitment, we agree that the day should be forgone now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the Prime Minister is what interpretation he gives to the statement he made on June 14, when he said:
-if a motion made later on in the session to provide a private members' day were accepted by the house, then an opportunity would be provided to deal with this-


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of any motion or further discussion is there any further business under motions?


William Moore Benidickson: Who is running the
country?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Government without responsibility.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, as the minister responsible for reporting to the house on radio and television. I notified him yesterday of my desire for certain information. In view of the fact that all members of the House of Commons from the lower mainland of British Columbia are being swamped with complaints that Victoria station CHEK-TV is blanking out reception on other channels, is the minister in a position to advise us what action is being taken in this matter?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is an important matter to hon. members not only from Vancouver but from Vancouver island and various parts of British Columbia generally. Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East gave me notice of this question. On that same day my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke to me about this matter, as did the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. The hon. member for Vancouver South and other hon. members from the island of Vancouver, the city of Vancouver and other parts of that province have also spoken to me with respect to this question during the last few days. It is a technical problem, Mr. Speaker, and one which falls strictly within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport officials who, of course, advise the board of broadcast governors on technical matters.
I am told that the officers are fully cognizant of this and that they are giving the problem careful study. Examinations are being made now, and I think the matter is also being taken up with the board of broadcast governors. Every step will be taken by

the responsible officials concerned to see that the interest of the listening public is safeguarded.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, based upon the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago in reference to myself. I have looked up Hansard regarding the statement made on June 14 by the Prime Minister about consultations that might take place among the leader of the house, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia.
The Leader of the Opposition said he had no knowledge of any such consultation having taken place. I am not responsible for reports to the Leader of the Opposition from members of his party, but I should like to point out that on Monday of this week a committee consisting of two representatives of the Liberal party, two from this party and two from the C.C.F. party met at nine o'clock in the office of the whip and discussed business of the house, including this question of whether there should be another day allotted for the purpose of discussing capital punishment. The answer given on that occasion was similar to the answer given today by representatives of the two parties on the other side of the house.
The implication in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that consultation had not taken place is the matter that I deal with as a matter of privilege. It is not the first occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition has attempted to imply that consultations had not been arranged, as mentioned in the house; and the fact that he has no knowledge of what has taken place is not my responsibility whatsoever.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government will not be able to get out of its responsibilities by these observations. On June 14 the Prime Minister made the statement which I put on the record this morning. The minister says the matter was brought up at a meeting on Monday of this week-


Harold Edward Winch: May I say one word on this very important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of
privilege has been disposed of, and we are now waiting to call orders of the day.
79951-0-476i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: rise on a question of privilege, in view of the statements made by the house leader and by the Leader of the Opposition. My question of privilege is, if there is a committee representing all parties, trying to work out the business of this house, why is a matter which is discussed in the committee in trying to arrange a decision denied-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not raising a question of privilege. We have concluded the discussion which the house permitted.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister anything to add to the statement he allegedly gave to the press indicating support by his department of an order restricting civil aviation from 2 a.m. to 8 a.m. on September 10 in order to facilitate a general NORAD alert.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of National Defence indicate the extent to which Canadian air squadrons and facilities are being involved in this alert?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, this is a NORAD exercise being carried out by the North American air defence command. Canadian squadrons may be called upon to take part in that exercise, as they are part of the North American air defence command. The extent to which the various squadrons will take part, of course, depends upon the general course of the exercise.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production, arising out of the great contribution made by the Polymer Corporation over the years and the large profit paid into the national treasury along with the lower consumer prices for rubber goods of all kinds. My question is, can the minister now give us a report from the cabinet committee that the Polymer Corporation will remain the property of the people of Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donat Raymond: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say when the study may be completed and when this urgent question of the future of the Polymer Corporation may be decided?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: When a decision is reached by the government it will be announced.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that French is the language currently spoken in the Congo, can the minister inform the house whether Colonel A. Mendelsohn, senior Canadian army officer in charge of our troops in the Congo, Major Bindoff, who will command the signal force, and Lieutenant Colonel Webb, the senior army administrative officer, are bilingual; and by "bilingual" I mean do they speak French fluently as well as English?


Hon.  G. R. Paarlres@Minisier of National Defence: To the best of my knowledge all those officers are bilingual.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Why did he not ask his question in French?


William Heward Grafftey: Liberal divide and rule all over again.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any complaints from organizations or individuals bringing to his attention the fact that a number of persons have been drowned recently while wearing life preservers stamped "Canada approved", and that the drown-ings occurred because the life preservers brought about an imbalance in the body, causing the head to be immersed?


George Harris Hees: No such complaints have been drawn to my attention, but I will make inquiries in the department to find out whether any complaints have been received by the department, and get all the information I can for the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that in Toronto some 25,000 immigrants employed in the building industry have walked out on strike because they felt they were being discriminated against? Can the minister give-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question seems to me not to relate to the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The fact that a strike is taking place is not the responsibility of that minister, and the fact that they are immigrants who are on strike makes no difference.


Leon David Crestohl: In this instance it did; therefore I thought the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration might be interested. Because they are recent immigrants to Canada, perhaps the Minister of Labour may be able to deal with the question and explain to the house what was the discrimination and why the 25,000 immigrants left their employment.


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member repeat the whole question?


Leon David Crestohl: Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that in Toronto some 25,000 immigrants, employed in the building industry, have walked out on strike because they were being discriminated against? Can the minister give the house any information as to the nature of the discrimination, and why they walked out?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I read about this incident in one of the Toronto papers, but I must point out to the hon. member that I do not know what the nature of the discrimination was or the reason for the walkout, because this trade comes completely under provincial jurisdiction.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I have received, and I think all Vancouver members and members of the government have also received, a telegram to the effect that the plywood industry of British Columbia is oh the verge

of collapse and asking the government to take action to try to -revive it. I know this is a difficult matter, but can the minister tell us whether any consideration is being given by his department to helping the plywood industry of this country?


Michael Starr: A matter of this nature does not come within the ambit of the Department of Labour. Any action that might be taken would of necessity be government action. In this regard this matter has not been considered, nor has it been brought to our attention in the same light as the hon. member has put his question.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a supplementary question. I believe that the original telegram was sent to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from British Columbia with respect to additional lay-offs in the plywood industry of that province and asking for federal government assistance to maintain the industry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, obviously it would be impossible for me to answer that question without looking at the record. I shall do so and answer tomorrow.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that British Columbia is an exporting province and that the timber industry, the major industry in its economy, is now in difficulty, can the Prime Minister inform us whether or not it is possible for an examination of the situation to be made by the government with a view to assisting the forest economy of British Columbia?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of the forest economy naturally is of preeminent importance. That was why we asked parliament to set up a department of forestry. Every industry of importance in this country is at all times receiving the fullest consideration. It is interesting to hear this expression of viewpoint, because it is only a few days ago, as I recollect, that the premier of that province spoke in the most euloglistic terms of the progress being made there.


Harold Edward Winch: He is facing an election, so we can expect that.



ACREAGE PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position now to
Inquiries of the Ministry announce the policy of the government in respect of the request made by the western liaison committee of grain producers for acreage payments?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Durham.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister be able to announce the policy in this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already recognized the hon. member for Durham. I will come back to the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister give the house some information as to how arrangements are coming along for the proposed meeting with the western liaison committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been communication with the liaison committee, and the committee has been advised that when a date has been fixed a meeting will take place. In the meantime may I point out that the fullest representations with regard to this important matter have been made by the many members from western Canada supporting the government. They have made most clear the desires and wishes of their people and are able to speak for them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his very interesting statement as to the government's policy with reference to western farm income. Can the Prime Minister say whether even one of the members around him has recommended the payment of deficiency payments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now getting beyond the proper scope of questions on orders of the day.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reginald Percy Vivian: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reported statement of the Prime Minister of South Africa that he would seek a referendum as to the views of his people with respect to a republic, should that become a fact what effect will it have on the readmission of South Africa as a member of the commonwealth? Would the Prime Minister care to comment?
7536	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of South Africa has announced that a referendum will take place in that country, I think on October 5, to determine whether South Africa desires to become a republic. That decision is a matter for the people of South Africa, as was made abundantly clear in the communique following the prime ministers' conference in London. In the communique then issued it was made clear that the decision whether or not South Africa would then be admitted to the commonwealth would be a question to be decided at that time.
When I answered a question respecting this matter some weeks ago I made it clear that no undertaking had been given by Canada as to what Canada's attitude would be, for to do so might well constitute an interference with the rights of the people of South Africa or with the course that might be followed by the people of South Africa when voting on the referendum. I am glad that Prime Minister Verwoerd has underlined the correctness of that stand.
Further than that I would not want to go, for to do so might well constitute an invasion of the rights of the people of that country or might have an effect on the voting on the referendum, which is their own decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to say that I think the attitude of the Prime Minister on this very important question is entirely correct.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State. On July 13 the house passed a motion for the production of papers and documents relating to the Columbia river, and on July 20 another motion for certain documents with respect to television in the Kootenays. Will the minister kindly make inquiries and find out whether my curiosity is going to be satisfied before the session ends?


Léon Balcer: I will be very pleased to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member.



HUMAN RIGHTS


John George Diefenbaker: the third reading of Bill No. C-79, for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai):
That Bill C-79 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 1 as follows:
"That the following paragraphs be added after present paragraph (b):
(c)	The right of the individual to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and against attacks upon his honour and reputation.
(d)	The right of the individual to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of Canada.
(e)	The right of the individual to leave the country and to return to the country.
(f)	The right of nationality and the right to change nationality.
(g)	The right of the family to protection by society and the state as the natural and fundamental group unit.
(h)	The right of the individual of equal access to public service.
(i)	The right of the individual to social security and his entitlement to realize the economic, social, and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
(j)	The right of the individual to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
and that the remaining paragraphs of clause 1 be relettered accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that in my view the amendment which has been moved goes far beyond what I would consider to be an appropriate amendment on third reading. Before definitely ruling, however, I would be pleased if hon. members would elaborate on the point that the amendment goes far beyond the scope of the bill which is now before the house.
The references in Beauchesne's fourth edition which bear most directly on the point are in citations 415 and 418. The first one, at the bottom of page 287, the last paragraph of citation 415, reads:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
Then citation 418, on the next page, the second sentence, reads:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.

Further down in the same citation I read:
This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision of the bill.
I have not had an opportunity, as the hon. member who moved this amendment appreciates, to study it carefully, but some of the matters I think might very well have been the proper subject of amendments. However, unless I can be persuaded to the contrary, I feel that the latter two clauses definitely go beyond the scope of a juridical bill which contains certain rights enforceable by the courts and go into the field of economic rights, which to my mind would depart from the principle approved on second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour has referred us to citation 415 which, I submit, does not preclude this amendment. I would suggest to Your Honour that consideration of the amendment will indicate that all the matters referred to in the amendment now before the house were voted on when this house considered the bill in committee yesterday. There were some amendments that were declared out of order yesterday, and which are not here included. There is no new principle being put into this bill. All we are seeking to put in is to add certain rights that are not contrary to the principle of the bill. Citation 415, to which we were referred, reads:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
It seems to me that is the qualifying phrase in that paragraph.
The motion for third reading is debatable under standing order 32. Or the bill may then be ordered to be reprinted or committed to a select committee.
(2) Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case the committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them. When material amendments are desirable, the order for the third reading may be discharged, and the bill recommitted to introduce the amendments in committee.
(3)	A bill may be recommitted, amended in committee, reported, considered on report and read a third time at the one sitting by simple order of the house.
It seems clear, I would submit with confidence, that the amendment I have proposed is within our rules. As I say, there is nothing proposed in this amendment that was not voted on yesterday. In other words, what was regarded in committee yesterday as being in order must be regarded as in order today. We are not seeking to change the principle of the bill. We are seeking to
Human Rights
strengthen the principle of the bill. For these reasons I submit that the amendment is in order.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word on that point. I have particular reference to paragraph 1 of citation 415, which says:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
It will be observed that the amendment moved is that the bill be referred back to the committee for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 1. Clause 1 of the bill is the clause containing the enumeration of rights, and it reads:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely-
Then follows an enumeration of the particular rights. The amendment is to the effect that when the matter is referred back to the committee it is for the purpose of considering and amending clause 1 as follows, and there is a change in the enumeration of the rights that are recognized and declared to have existed. In other words there is no change of principle in any respect, but there is a better elaboration and enumeration of the rights that have existed and shall continue to exist. The amendment offered deals with the enumeration of those rights, and does not in any way deal with the principle of clause 1. It is merely a better enumeration of those rights by the addition of certain subparagraphs. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that it comes clearly within the type of amendment that is proper on third reading of a bill.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say a few words on this proposed amendment. I was privileged to be on the special committee, and throughout the hearings the committee was very much in agreement on a good many matters, but there were two matters' of principle on which the committee disagreed and on which the whole basis of the bill was founded.
The main matter of principle was the question whether rights in this bill should be specialized and listed one by one, or whether they should be stated in general form. During the hearings of the committee, and yesterday in committee of the whole, the opposition attempted to raise various particular clauses and particular rights and freedoms which would have extended the principle beyond a

Human Rights
general statement of rights and freedoms into a bill of particulars. This, I think, was not a matter of detail but a matter of basic principle. As is clearly stated in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 415, the last subsection:
(4)	On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the enumeration of the rights and freedoms which have been included in this amendment would take it out of the main principle of the bill, which was to set out general rights and freedoms and not to particularize them. For that reason I would think the amendment proposed would be much beyond the original principle of the bill as adopted on second reading.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may just say one word. The argument of my hon. friend who has just spoken seems to be more on substance than on procedure. In effect he is saying that all the amendments which were moved yesterday, which are enumerated in this motion, were out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Leader of the Opposition contend that the same conditions apply on third reading, with respect to amendments, as in committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; I am contending-


Mr. Speaker:: If so, I would like to see some authority, because that is an important point. If these matters were relevant at one stage in committee and the considerations are the same on third reading, that is an important point to have established.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With respect, if the amendments had been ruled out of order yesterday they could not, of course, have been introduced today. They were accepted as amendments yesterday and they were accepted, I suggest, because they did deal with the principle of this bill, which is not a principle founded on political rights but a principle founded on human rights. There is no distinction, as I see it, in human rights as between political and economic rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, surely the question is not quite as stated by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me that the question must be decided on the basis of the rules and the citations. The one to which I believe you have already drawn our attention, the most important one, seems to be citation 418, which contains the following two passages:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the

third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained In the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the citation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The citation is 418 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 288. Further in that citation it is stated:
On the second reading of a bill, an amendment may be moved expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with Its introduction or prosecution, or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees or commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or the opinion of judges. This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision of the bill.


George James McIlraith: This is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely that passage which says, first, that a motion on third reading cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill, and further, that motions cannot be moved which are not directly connected with any provision of the bill, speak perfectly clearly. In applying them to this amendment I think one can see a number of matters in it which are not connected with the bill at all. I would say that the proposed subparagraph (f)-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a right.
Mr. Fulton -and proposed subparagraph (i) are definitely in the field of economic rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And proposed paragraph (j) is definitely in the field of economic rights.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is the difference? These are human rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there may be others, but those are the ones to which I refer particularly, on short notice. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that by virtue of citation 418 these amendments are clearly out of order. It is not, in my view, a sound argument to say that simply because they were permitted in committee, that necessarily establishes that they can be permitted now, because in committee we are dealing with the bill in detail.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are dealing with rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is frequently moved in committee that provisions of a bill be amended in ways which it would not be open to move on third reading. That, sir, is surely why we have a separate committee stage to deal with the bill.
To carry the argument of the Leader of the Opposition to its logical conclusion would be to say that every amendment that can be moved in committee can also be moved on third reading. This would bring us into direct

conflict with the citation to which I have referred, which clearly establishes that not all motions that can be moved at other stages can be moved on third reading, but that the motions which can be moved on third reading are definitely restricted, as set forth in that citation.


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker,
would you allow me to deal with the arguments that have been made by the Minister of Justice? He properly relies on citation 418, but surely the interpretation that he gives is not a valid one. That citation reads:
AH amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading-
So up to that point there is no difficulty.
-with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
The amendment before the house does not deal with any matter not already in the bill. What is the matter in the bill? The matter in the bill has to do with certain rights enumerated in subparagraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) of clause 1. The matters referred to in the amendment are likewise the same kind of matters; they too refer to rights. The fact that the hon. gentlemen do not agree that these rights should be included does not change in any way the character of the rights or the matter involved in the amendment, unless one is prepared to argue that these are not rights. That cannot be the case, because every one of the rights enumerated in the amendment is a right that is contained in the declaration of human rights of the United Nations, a declaration which Canada supported, along with other countries of the world.
What hon. gentlemen have got to do, then, in order to succeed in their argument is to establish that the matter involved in the amendment is not the kind of matter involved in the bill. That is the issue, and it seems to me that the matter ought to be clearly settled, because of that obvious fact.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka argued on the merits. We are not arguing on the merits now. There are differences on the merits, of course. The hon. member argued whether or not these words should be included. This is not the point. That will be the question in debate, if Your Honour accepts the submission I make. I would simply add that not only were these matters voted on in the committee of the house after second reading, but they were also voted on in the special committee set up by this house.
Human Rights
So my submission, Your Honour, is that the matter involved in the amendment is the same kind of matter involved in the clause of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with much interest to the hon. member who moves this motion in his expression of his view that the rights enumerated in the proposed amendment are of the same order as those in the bill, because to my mind that is the crux of the decision I have to make.
I think it is clear that on third reading there is a fair scope for amendment, but by that time the principle of the bill has been approved by the house on second reading and therefore we cannot go beyond that principle. Furthermore, the bill has been before the committee of the whole house, where latitude is given to make changes which expand it or contract it within the principle approved on second reading.
Now we come to third reading and we have the bill in specific terms. I think it is obvious that third reading is intended as a final protection for parliament, to give the bill final consideration before it becomes law, and that there is a final opportunity to reject it or to refer it back to the committee if the house feels that the committee has not done what it should have done.
With that in mind my conception of a proper amendment on third reading is that it should not depart in kind; it should not introduce new principles. Quite frankly, as the hon. member read his amendment I could see that subparagraphs (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) could be added to those principles in clause 1 of the bill which were declared as having existed and continuing to exist in Canada, and enumerated as the right of the individual to life, liberty etc., and the right of the individual to equality before the law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. These are all matters which could be brought before the court where an individual could claim the right of protection. They do not involve the expenditure of money. They do not involve anything other than protection of those rights by the law of the land.
When I came particularly to the last two clauses of the amendment, however, it seemed to me that there one departs into a new and different area of legislation. I am not sure that it would not involve the expenditure of money if it means what it says, and it would therefore have to be preceded by a resolution. But in any event I do distinguish in my mind these rights in subparagraphs (i) and (j) of the amendment as being different in character and in order from those enumerated in clause 1, of the

Human Rights
bill, particularly a right such as the right of the individual to social security.
If that right means anything at all it means social security in the commonly accepted sense of the term. It means the right to maintenance by the state under certain circumstances, either because of ill health or unemployment or whatever it may be. Social security involves not the protection of a right which exists but the granting or the providing of something by the state as of right.
Subparagraph (i) goes on "and his entitlement to realize the economic, social and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity", etc. Clause (j) refers to "just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented if necessary by other means of social protection." That surely involves the right to work at a fair wage.
If that sort of right is to be asserted in legislation, it is not something that arises simply by saying that it exists, and is therefore not of the order which can be protected by access to the courts. It involves, I think, not the protection of some personal right or right of property which an individual enjoys, but involves a right to have added something which he does not already have in the form of economic well-being.
I distinguish those two, and therefore feel that these clauses do go beyond the bill as it was originally drawn, as it was debated on second reading and as it appears now. Therefore I must, with great respect to the views expressed by the hon. member who proposed this amendment, find that it is not in order in its latter clauses and therefore not in order at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
may I thank you for the careful consideration you have given. Your Honour will not take offence if I say that our views have not altered in so far as subparagraphs (i) and (j) are concerned. But since Your Honour has taken that position, and as I would not seem to have any occasion or opportunity for testing the validity of that opinion, I have no other course open but to accept Your Honour's ruling.
Therefore, with your permission, I would ask that I be allowed to drop subparagraphs (i) and (j) so that my motion would cover (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) and (h), without of course in any way being put in the position of feeling that I was not justified on the merits with regard to (i) and (j). Therefore I ask your permission to drop (i) and (j) so that the motion will be considered with these two deletions.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to accept that amendment and to put it before the house in the new form now proposed by the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one thing. I am not quite sure how far a member can go in changing his amendment or in deleting particulars from his amendment without arriving at a position where he is really offering a new amendment altogether, which of course I think would be agreed is not allowed by our rules.
I make that observation by way of preface, because I still think that even if it should be ruled that the hon. member is permitted to drop those two subparagraphs and that the amendment did not then constitute a new amendment, I would nevertheless point out that the amendment still contains, for example, subparagraph (f), the right to nationality and the right to change nationality, which in my submission definitely imports something which is not in the bill at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, we had arguments as to whether indeed Canadian law could confer the right to change nationality, but I am not going to resurrect those arguments. May I simply say that it is something not in the bill at the present time, and it is not covered by the matters in the bill at the present time. I will not repeat the reference to the citations I made earlier, but I would add a further reference which I think clarifies the point upon which Your Honour originally ruled. That is the reference appearing at page 578 of May's sixteenth edition. Dealing with debate on third reading May says:
The procedure on the third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to the second reading, but the debate is more restricted at the later stage, being limited to the matters contained in the bill.
If debate is restricted to the matters contained in the bill, obviously amendments must be restricted to matters contained in the bill. I think that quotation from May puts the matter more clearly and more succinctly than it was put even in citation 418 in Beau-chesne, to which I referred.
I suggest that the ordinary meaning of those words is that you cannot deal with matters not contained in the bill. You will note that the word "matters" is plural, not singular. This I emphasize as seeming to me to indicate that May means there that where you have a bill with several clauses, the debate on third reading is restricted to what is contained in those clauses. If the debate on third reading is thus restricted so also must be amendments. So I come back to the point that since this amendment still contains matters which are

not contained in the bill, it is out of order as an amendment on third reading.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct Your Honour's attention to citation 203, subsection 12, Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which reads:
A member who has been given leave to withdraw an amendment may move it again at a later date.
When an amendment has been withdrawn, a portion of it, without any change in phraseology, cannot be moved.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been no withdrawal of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some sympathy with the point of view expressed by the Minister of Justice. I think I see a distinction between the two final clauses which I objected to and the earlier ones on which I propose to base my decision. It is clear that one should not go outside the scope of the bill in amendments on third reading, and I do not think these do go outside the scope, although I admit there is room for argument.
On the other point of the possibility of altering the amendment, as the house will recall the hon. member made his motion and then submitted it, but it was not placed before the house because I had doubts as to its admissibility as he read it. So it has never been placed before the house formally. I think it is quite in order to accept it in the attenuated form in which the hon. member now proposes it, and I will therefore put the amendment.
It is moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai):
That Bill No. C-79 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 1 as follows:
"That the following paragraphs be added after present paragraph (b):
(c)	the right of the individual to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, pr correspondence, and against attacks upon his honour and reputation.
(d)	the right of the individual to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of Canada.
(e)	the right of the individual to leave the country and to return to the country.
(f)	the right of nationality and the right to change nationality.
(g)	the right of the family to protection by society and the state as the natural and fundamental group unit.
(h)	the right of the individual of equal access to public service.
and that the remaining paragraphs of clause 1 be relettered accordingly."


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the house would desire any lengthy repetition of the arguments that were advanced
Human Rights
with respect to these amendments when they were moved in committee of the whole yesterday and the day before. They have been the subject of full discussion both there and in the special committee of the house. Generally speaking, they were rejected on such grounds as that they were not appropriate for inclusion in a bill of rights, that some of them were already covered in the wording of the bill of rights, and on similar grounds. These grounds of course are as applicable today as when the committee came to its conclusion that they should be rejected for those reasons.
I am pleased to find that our arguments have obviously carried weight with the opposition, at least to the extent that they have now moved on third reading to add only about one half the amendments they moved to add when we were in committee. Either one of two things must have happened. Either the hon. member for Essex East must have been convinced by our arguments that they were not suitable for inclusion or else he must have decided himself that his amendments previously suggested were, after all, of no value. Either one of those two things must have happened, I submit, for the opposition to have reduced the changes that it suggests from some 16 down to 8. Now by the further deletion on grounds of order they are reduced to 6.
I suggest to you sir, that what has happened is that the opposition has simply shown that lack of flexibility of which they accused us yesterday. In other words they have accepted our arguments that these things are not valid. They recognize that, but they refuse to give that argument its full application because they still stubbornly say, "Oh, all right; we will throw overboard half the amendments we moved, but we are not going to fully accede to the government's views and we will put forward the other half."
I do not know upon what basis of selection the hon. gentleman operated. Indeed, I was puzzled by this when hon. members opposite were making their attempts to insert seriatim many of the articles of the universal declaration. I was puzzled then about the reason they left out other articles which are equally desirable statements of objective, such as the article dealing with the health and welfare of mothers, widows and children. Does that mean that my hon. friend had no concern for the welfare of those groups of our society?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were ruled out of order.	:


George James McIlraith: It means no such thing.

Division


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that by inference that is the only conclusion one can draw, because they moved most of the articles of the universal declaration but there were certain significant omissions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me put them in now and we will support them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that having thus demonstrated the rather peculiar position in which hon. gentlemen opposite are placed by their own ineptitude, I can conclude the matter by saying that the same arguments that led to the rejection of these amendments previously still apply today; that proposed subclause (c) is covered by the wording of our bill of rights; that proposed subclause (d) is largely covered and in the areas in which it is not covered it is, of course, in the realm of provincial rights; that subclause (e) is not a sound one in any event for inclusion in a bill of rights because it contains reference to the right to return to the country, which right cannot arise in any practical sense until the individual is outside Canada and this is to be a bill of rights in Canada; that subclause (f) is not valid because it pretends that we can do something in Canadian law which we cannot do, and that is give a person the right to acquire another nationality which, of course, no Canadian law can do; that subclause (g) is in part a declaration of principle which is covered in the wording of the preamble where recognition has been specifically given to the position of the family in society; and that subclause (h) again is one for inclusion in some other kind of statute than the bill of rights and indeed in Canada is largely if not completely covered in the present Civil Service Act.
Therefore, without expanding these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the house that all the arguments which applied yesterday, the day before and prior to that, and which have been rehearsed exhaustively, still apply to these amendments on their merits. In addition, the position now taken by the opposition that half their amendments could be jettisoned without any danger whatsoever is, by logical extension, capable of application to prove, as I now maintain, that the rest of these amendments can and should be jettisoned without any danger or disadvantage whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it one o'clock?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite agreeable to us if the house decides to sit through.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without any further word, because our position in regard to the matter is well known, I would like to move an amendment which I think is in order because it deals with a principle already in a section of the bill and does not involve any of the considerations which caused you some hesitation in regard to the other amendment this morning. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten):
That Bill No. C-79 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering an amendment to clause 6 as follows:
"That subsection 5 of section 6 be deleted and that there be added the following section as section 6A:
6A (1) Subject to subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation made under the authority of this act, shall be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgement, or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian bill of rights.
(2)	No naturalized Canadian citizen may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act.
(3)	No Canadian citizen may be deported from Canada under this act.
(4)	No Canadian citizen or British subject may be detained under this act beyond a period of sixty days, unless the cause for his detention has been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal which has reported to the minister or authorities authorizing the detention.
(5)	Any order or regulation under this act conferring authority to order the detention of any person shall, forthwith after it is made, be laid
Human Rights
before parliament, or if parliament if not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
(6)	Where an order or regulation has been laid before parliament pursuant to subsection (5), a notice of motion in either house, signed by ten members thereof, and made in accordance with the rules of that house within ten days of the day the order or regulation was laid before parliament, praying that the order or regulation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in the house was made.
(7)	If either house of parliament resolve pursuant to a motion made under subsection (6) that the order or regulation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect, without prejudice, to the previous operation of the order or regulation, or anything duly done thereunder.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I be allowed to ask a question, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: If any hon. member wishes to say anything about the regularity of the amendment I would be glad to hear it now, so that it may be put before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I want to ask a question on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the proposed amendment, it imports into the War Measures Act certain new provisions which are not there now, in this bill. If no hon. member wishes to suggest that the proposed amendment to clause 6 of the bill is beyond the scope of the bill or is an irregular amendment on third reading, I shall be glad to place the matter before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I do not desire to speak completely on the purport of the amendment. I think on first reading it I understand the principle, but there is certain wording in this suggested amendment which I must admit has me entirely confused.
As everyone knows, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot understand at the moment why we have reference in this proposal to a Canadian citizen in one aspect, a British subject in another aspect and a naturalized British subject in still another. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will understand why as a layman I am confused as to what this means. Are we Canadian citizens or are we not? Is a British subject a Canadian citizen or is he not? And what is the status of a naturalized British subject?
On page 2 of the amendment reference is made to a naturalized Canadian citizen, in the third line to a naturalized British subject, then again further on to a Canadian citizen, and in the next paragraph there is reference to "No Canadian citizen or British subject". I find it most confusing and I hope I can have an explanation now, because

Human Rights
surely there is one term or another which is applicable under Canadian law to describe who is a citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that
1	might deal with this question.
The designations of naturalized Canadian citizen, Canadian citizen and British subject are all terms that are incorporated, and necessarily so, into the Canadian Citizenship Act. Section 26 of the Canadian Citizenship Act says that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. However, in Canada there are British subjects who are not Canadian citizens and that is, in accordance with their rights as provided for in the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Canadian citizens, then, are made up of three potential classes. There are those who were born in Canada and who become Canadian citizens by what is called jus soli, the law of the soil. Then there are British subjects, who may or may not become Canadian citizens, depending upon their wish. A naturalized Canadian citizen is one who has come from another country to live in Canada. That person may or may not wish to become a Canadian citizen. Let us say he comes from Czechoslovakia. He is allowed to stay here; he is not compelled to become a Canadian citizen, but if he becomes a Canadian citizen pursuant to the requirements of the Canadian Citizenship Act, then he is a naturalized Canadian citizen.


Harold Edward Winch: Then I have a question to raise, because I imagine that the bill of rights is a matter of principle. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, why in the principle which the hon. member has now enunciated on page
2	of the amendment a differentiation is made between rights according to whether they are Canadian citizens, British subjects or naturalized Canadian citizens? Does not the same principle of right apply to all? Why differentiate between the three categories? Is a bill of rights applicable to all or not? Incidentally, as I read this now it is breaking down the principles of the bill of rights by discrimination. I would like to get clarification of this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This differentiation is inevitable because of the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Mr. Speaker:: We are not in committee now, and hon. members are only permitted one intervention on third reading.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will simply ask you to rule on this question as to whether or not amendments to the citizenship act come within the provisions of the bill of

rights. In other words, the principle of this bill is now being torn asunder by a purported amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say to the Prime Minister that these amendments do not purport to be amendments to the Canadian. Citizenship Act. They incorporate terms from and are in accordance with the Canadian Citizenship Act, but they seek to provide amendments to the War Measures Act.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the amendment and as I put it before the house, it deals with the subject matter of the War Measures Act, which is dealt with in clause 6 of the bill now before the house for third reading. The amendment would appear to trespass into the territory of the act relating to citizenship and naturalization, but I do not think that in itself would make the amendment out of order if it is otherwise an appropriate amendment to the War Measures Act within the general tenor of the bill and of the purposes of the clause dealing with the War Measures Act.
I had some doubts about the propriety of the proposed amendment on the ground that it seems to go beyond the general character of the amendment to the War Measures Act which is in the bill, but as I put it before the house I would not like to recede from that position simply because the bill affects matters dealt with by other statutes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reiterate the arguments which were made yesterday in committee on this question. It is very obvious that these amendments are various types of particulars which might very well be considered in connection with the War Measures Act when it receives a complete going over next year and is reviewed, providing parliament so decides. This is simply a means whereby through a suggested amendment the opposition is endeavouring by piecemeal measures to amend the citizenship act and to amend as well the War Measures Act. I have said before that all of us are gratified to learn of the change in attitude in the passing years on the part of the opposition, but one finds it difficult to forget the wrongs that hon. gentlemen opposite committed in freedom's name but a few years ago. While up until recently they scoffed at a bill of rights, let me remind them of words which I may not quote correctly: "some who came to scoff remained to pray". That is the attitude of the opposition, for they have a guilty conscience which portrays and reveals itself in sundry ways.


William Moore Benidickson: Your bill is not good enough.


John George Diefenbaker: We find this statement in the amendment:
No naturalized Canadian citizen may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act.
They who placed before parliament only a few years ago the legislation that makes this possible, now in the light of events which have brought about a transition of position have been impelled to endeavour to rectify the wrongs which they themselves committed. Turning again to the amendment we find these words:
No Canadian citizen may be deported from Canada under this act.
One does not want to go into the past, but the record of the previous administration with respect to the deportation of those whose only offence, as I said before, was confined to their colour is known to all. No matter how the hand of history writes, it cannot erase what was done. This amendment has that purpose, to lead the Canadian people to believe that those who did those things yesterday have changed and that the wrongs of yesterday are to be rectified today, although they took no measures to do that when they were in power following the war.
Turning again to the amendment we find these words:
No Canadian citizen or British subject may be detained under this act beyond a period of sixty days, unless the cause for his detention has been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal which has reported to the minister or authorities authorizing the detention.
We asked for that on a number of occasions. We asked why it was that men were held against whom there was no evidence but only suspicion. We understood the incarceration of those people was in the interest of the maintenance of the security of the state, but we asked that some measures be taken to enable those persons deprived of the ordinary rights of Canadian citizens to have the opportunity of establishing their innocence. In effect, what was asked for in those days is now being sought by a devious course, instead of by direct amendment, to be introduced into a bill of rights for the preservation of Canadian life.
All these questions are deserving of consideration. All of them will receive consideration in the committee to be set up to cover the whole ambit and field of the War Measures Act. And then, in the light of all the circumstances, with a full realization of the necessity of maintaining undiminished the security of the state, the War Measures Act may be rewritten and those terms removed that are unnecessary and unjustifiable.
Through the medium of an amendment in the nature of a subterfuge, hon. gentlemen
Human Rights
seek to lead the Canadian people to believe that those who wronged now wish to put the situation aright through the medium of legislation in which particular items should not be incorporated, and which consists of amendments to existing statutes.
We are in agreement with these matters in very considerable measure and possibly completely. Without close study of the matter I know that over the years these are some of the things I have believed. Next year, next session-and I do not think it will be too far removed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh?


John George Diefenbaker: -we will be able to set up a committee-


William Moore Benidickson: How about an election?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says "How about an election?"


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember very well that on January 17, 1958 they said the same thing, and very soon the results achieved did not justify the requests which they then made for the holding of an election.


William Moore Benidickson: In 1957 you did not think you would be elected, or you would not have made all the promises you did.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard bravado of that kind on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite before. I remember that day in January very well. Just when they got what they asked for, then the people gave them what they did not ask for.
I am not to be led away from this. I am simply saying that at the next session, which in the light of circumstances may not be too far removed, having regard to the intervening circumstances and events that may occur, but whether that session be close at hand or normally removed, if the house is in agreement the committee will be set up and each of these statutes containing the very tyrannical terms that have remained on the statute books over the years will receive the fullest and most complete consideration. At that time a reformation can be made not of particular sections but of the acts as a whole.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the purpose of the amendment is a good one and the amendment itself is a good one. The Prime Minister has given the official opposition a lecture about their past wrongs-


Gordon Minto Churchill: A well deserved one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Page the Minister of Justice.


Hazen Robert Argue: -an eloquent and well deserved lecture; but surely castigating the Liberal

Human Rights
party for past misdemeanours is scarcely a substitute for enacting a law that will make such wrongdoing impossible from here on. I suggest that at this time these provisions should be inserted in the bill of rights. The Prime Minister says we will do it next session, and that the session may come earlier than we would otherwise expect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is always "next session".


Hazen Robert Argue: I hope that is right, because there are many problems that need solving soon. I think of the many emergencies facing the Canadian people, and it occurs to me that next January is a long time away if that is to be the time the government will start solving these problems and stop procrastinating as it has been doing for a number of years.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member may be facing an emergency himself within the next few weeks.


Hazen Robert Argue: Some of us thrive on emergencies. The Prime Minister has had a lot of emergencies in the past. He may soon be facing his greatest emergency; and who knows, he may find that he will not be able to meet it.
This is a good amendment, in our opinion; it deserves the support of the house. The War Measures Act should be amended, and I think the placing of these provisions in a bill of rights is very appropriate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already intervened twice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. May I simply point out to you that the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question, and under the rules of debate the Leader of the Opposition is precluded from speaking-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is speaking on the point of order I have raised, namely the question of his right to speak, and he is endeavouring to satisfy me that he has the right to speak a third time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: He did not say anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You allowed the question to be put, Mr. Speaker, and you allowed a reply to be made. The hon. member put the question several times so that he would be heard. If I am not allowed to speak, the situation will be that those of us

who have been in the house, pursuing this matter, will be denied the opportunity of dealing with the remarks made by the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event, I say to you-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is following his usual course-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the Prime Minister on the point of order, but I have expressed a view, and the hon. member who wishes to speak has the right to point out what considerations arise before I confirm my ruling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that if it is your ruling that I cannot speak at this time, I accept your ruling. I would suggest that in a matter such as this involving a bill of rights which has been introduced by the Prime Minister and approved by the house, an opportunity should be given to Liberal spokesmen to speak.


John George Diefenbaker: Three times.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister wishes to speak on this point I will hear him, but I am satisfied that the hon. member did have the floor on two occasions to explain the amendment, as did the hon. member for Vancouver East, and if further debate were permitted we would be departing from the fixed rule which limits each member to one intervention on third reading. I am sorry; I must insist. Is the house ready for the question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's piety was very touching but not completely convincing. Today we see here a strange about-face.


An hon. Member:: We certainly do.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Here is the Prime Minister, here is the man, here is the right hon. gentleman who has argued so vehemently and so eloquently in the past against the War Measures Act; here is the right hon. gentleman who in days past has said that the War Measures Act should be abolished, should be removed from the statute books of Canada; here is the right hon. gentleman who says, "See the crimes which have been committed in the name of the War Measures Act"; and now, today, we see this strange and incomprehensible about-face. He suggests now that we are to have two bills of rights, the one before us today and another one, the War Measures Act.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot argue that human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the War Measures Act are as secure as they would be if they were included in the bill before us, inadequate as it is. Surely the Prime Minister is not trying to impress us with the fact that a future parliament, which might have some hesitation about amending and taking out of this bill rights which have been put in it, would have less hesitation in taking out of the War Measures Act rights which are guaranteed and which are included in this legislation. This is a strange development indeed.
Here is the right hon. gentleman who throughout the decades, throughout his service in this parliament, has been most vehement and most persuasive in opposition to the War Measures Act; yet when he has the opportunity in this house to remove from that act some of the opportunity for the circumvention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, he denies this parliament the right to act. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if this legislation has any meaning at all; if the Prime Minister is sincere in trying to put into a bill of rights those human rights and fundamental freedoms which he hopes no future parliament will dare abridge; surely if he is sincere in this he will want to put in this bill today those further guarantees and protections so they cannot in any circumstances be circumvented in the future by the back door route or the devious route he himself has described. Surely, in the Prime Minister's own words, this bill of rights will have perhaps some effect; it will have a retarding effect on future parliaments. Perhaps it will. Indeed, they should be reluctant to remove from the legislation any of those human rights and fundamental freedoms which are guaranteed by this bill, inadequate as it is. Surely it is not sound to put these human rights and basic freedoms in the War Measures Act which can be changed by parliament at any time.
Now, if the Prime Minister wishes to follow a straight course, if he wishes to be logical and consistent in this matter, he should rise in his place and say that throughout the debate he has taken the position that human rights and fundamental freedoms should be included in this legislation which he himself has introduced so that future parliaments would be reluctant to remove them, and that he would not leave to any future parliament, even one under his own leadership, the possibility of debasing or removing any of the rights which might under any circumstances be put into the War Measures Act.
Division


James MacKerras Macdonnell: should like to add just one word. We have been around this course now so often that I would put in a plea in the words used once by a former leader of this party, which I have used in this house before; "Let us have some regard for the immortal grounds of common sense". Also I would like to quote the words of Omar Khayyam:
Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same door wherein I went.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of general remarks that I intend to make at this time. I need hardly express to this house my feelings at this moment. You will appreciate what it means to me to be approaching, having regard to the attitude of members in all parts of this house, the legislative enactment of a framework of ideas of some of the deepest convictions that can come to human beings who believe in freedom.
I want to begin by a reference to the kind of Canada that is represented in this House of Commons, made up of many races. To a varying degree, the committee itself was the embodiment of those things that indicate to us the changes that have taken place in our nation in a period of 46 years.
I say 46 years because it was that number of years ago today that world difficulty that has continued since had its inception in the beginning of the first world war.
At that time freedom was accepted as representative of a concept generally held in the world, and in the intervening years we have seen those vast changes that have taken place. In large areas of the earth freedom

has been swept away. Indeed, since the beginning of the first world war we have lived in continuous conflict, either active or quiescent. In other words, since the first world war ended on the 11th November, 1918, with the exception of the actual days of hostility in the second world war there has been a continuous armistice. Today we are in that position. As we look back to 1945 we realize that in the intervening years more than one third of mankind has come under the domination of a philosophy materialistic and godless, to use the words of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) on an earlier occasion.
When one looks back 46 years and remembers the sentiments that touched us then, it would have been indeed unusual if anyone had then been able to look forward to the day when men of so many races would be joined together in the Canadian House of Commons in their devotion to the maintenance and preservation of those things that are dearer than life itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember those days. I remember the years from 1903 to 1914, when the west was being opened up. Hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house are in that position. People came from other lands, and it was asked whether the day would ever come when those from foreign countries would be able to become part and parcel of a great Canadianism. Yes, we were in that position, after the first world war; that while those who served were Canadians during the days of war and had "Canada" proudly on their shoulder pieces, at the end of the war they returned once more to their paternal racial origin, and all were proud of that racial origin. Those of us representative of that ever-increasing number of Canadians who were not of British or French origin hoped for the day when we would have a Canadian citizenship. I think of my early days in the House of Commons when I advocated that which through the years represented to me the embodiment of a great Canadianism. I wondered whether the day would come when we would build that Canada out of a polyglot of racial origins.
Well, look at the committee, sir. The committee represented the trustees of freedom, entrusted by the members of this house to bring about a Canadian bill of rights, was representative of the original races but representative as well of those of-may I go down the list as I see it-'Italian, German, Chinese, Norwegian, Ukrainian, Polish, German, Icelandic and all other races; yes, all of them Canadians in a House of Commons that never before had the type of

representation that we have today, representative of so many origins.
* This group of members, following the authority given them by the house, brought about many recommendations and ideas which, translated into legislative form, now form the bill which will shortly, I hope, be passed by this house. No Canadian can give sanction to bigotry. That is the essence, one of the major portions of this bill of rights. We exiled it in the days of war. We today, by legislative enactment, ensure that the hallmark of freedom is the recognition of the sacred personality of the human being that denies discrimination in any form.
As the moving finger of history has written in the last 50 years, I am more than ever convinced of the rightness of one view that I have held throughout my life; that the existence of discrimination anywhere in Canada is a denial of that citizenship which we Canadians espouse and have a right to express. I believe, too, that the existence of discrimination anywhere in the world is a potential seed-plot for war. As we strive for peace our consecration to the maintenance of human rights is a fundamental requisite.
What does this bill achieve? I do not intend to reiterate any of the details now well known to the house, but I do believe that the essence of the bill of rights may be summed up under a number of categories. First, within the legislative and constitutional competence of parliament, this is the first integrated statement of the principal rights in the fields of political activity and matters of conscience, and in the relations of the individual to the courts, to the law and to the state.
It is true that we state that these rights have existed in the past. They have. I shall not repeat anything that will be partisan at this time. All of us have some responsibility for the fact that these rights and freedoms have not always been maintained. Where interfered with, the individual has too often been denied his right of recourse to the courts. Surely there is a vast difference between having these rights existing in many areas of our public and private law, between a diffused and unco-ordinated expression of these rights spread throughout many cases and statutes, customs and conventions, and this effort to boldly state them in understandable form.
Second, this bill of rights is a statement of values; values expressed in terms of law, values expressed in substance and in procedure. This is a statement not only of rights in a narrow sense but of values. Third, the specific contribution made by this bill to the law should not be underestimated. It makes the assumption, as I said a moment ago, that
Human Rights
these rights have existed. It is true that the language of the bill with respect to discrimination, the power of the press, due process of law and the forceful succession of clauses setting out the freedoms referred to, means to me something more together than if each individual item stood alone. Clause 1 is a major summary of substantive law as it affects our fundamental freedoms and rights, and no court henceforth can be indifferent to the effect of this statement when faced with the task of interpretation of past or future statutes.
As I look at this bill of rights and the declaration of the existence of these rights in the past, I can see a tremendous task resting upon the courts when it comes to the interpretation of statutes already existing. I know there were many who felt that the social rights and social freedoms should be included. They are of high value, and they are our goal under Canadian law. But this bill of rights is intended to be a document which I hope will influence the behaviour of the courts in dealing with the traditional problems of the relations between the individual and the state. It is because of that fact, restricted as this bill is to those things which come within the federal jurisdiction, that many of the social freedoms and rights which may be or are within provincial jurisdiction ought not to be stated in a national bill of rights unless that bill of rights is effective not only nationally but provincially as well.
Furthermore, these are rights which require a type of individual action in the courts. The whole range of social security and welfare matters are questions of policy and decision which rest upon broad administrative action. I can see the day, if perchance we are as close to national agreement in this regard as some state the fact to be, when after having secured the right to amend our constitution in Canada our major action will be to have restated in Canada's parliament, with the agreement of all the provinces, the abiding principles of freedom as well as those freedoms which were described in the days of war as freedom from fear and freedom from want.
There are many who still hide behind the Maginot line of their own failure to endeavour to understand the bill of rights, and who have not yet appreciated the fact that it will be very difficult in days ahead for any statute today existing to be interpreted in a way which will do violence to the letter and spirit of these provisions. It will be very difficult for any statute to be drafted and enacted by parliament from this day on which will in any way deny the provisions of subparagraphs (a) to (g) inclusive

Human Rights
in paragraph 2. The day of arbitrary detention, the day when an individual did not have to be informed of the reason for his detention, the day when the individual was denied the right to obtain and instruct counsel, the day when a habeas corpus was swept aside by order in council is, I hope, a day of the past in so far as days of peace are concerned.
And even in wartime, subject to those restrictions which will ensure that even in days of danger we must not unjustifiably imperil the rights of the individual, we must not interfere with the rights of the individual in a spirit of administrative lawlessness or caprice on the part of those who have the administrative responsibility to keep order.
The day, too, of arbitrary behaviour by any tribunal, commission or board in dealing with persons before them by depriving a person of a fair hearing is past. Every free man is entitled not necessarily to attain what he hopes for but to have his day and to give his answer to those who would limit his rights.
I think the clause which was added yesterday regarding the right of the individual to an interpreter, while not as significant as some of the other general declarations, is further evidence of our desire in this parliament, representing the conscience of the Canadian people, to ensure that Canadians everywhere, whatever may be their maternal language, shall not be denied the right and the privilege of full answer.
There is placed on the Minister of Justice a responsibility charging him with his own duties in regard to all legislation and special duties with regard to this legislation, so that in the examination of those things which come before him for legislative enactment any denial of these freedoms shall immediately receive his attention. This is an important responsibility.
Doubtless in the days ahead the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort William and other hon. members respecting a committee on human freedoms will receive the fullest and most sympathetic consideration of parliament. I believe, as I have said on many occasions, that we should have a committee similar in nature to the scrutiny committee in Great Britain, to the end that every step that would in any way derogate from the maintenance of our fundamental freedoms should be subject to the closest examination.
I would hope that some day uniformity may be achieved throughout this country, as I have said on more than one occasion, in those matters over which parliament does not have jurisdiction, either by some appropriate constitutional process arrived at

through consultation with the provinces or through the other means of the adoption by the provinces themselves of collateral provincial legislation to preserve the freedoms.
This bill recognizes the deep and sometimes, I fear, the deadly cleavage between the rights of peace and the duties of war. The amendment to the War Measures Act is something that will require to be considered, as well as the entire act, to the end that we shall bring about such changes as a committee may recommend that will have the effect of assuring that in days of war we shall not desert freedom in order to assure freedom.
I think there is a paradox in the position we sometimes take. We deny the freedoms in days of war. In the days of the last war freedom was the impelling motive that caused men to give their all. I sometimes wonder what the result would have been if it had not been for those who were our leaders then and who, whatever the fears and tribulations of the moment, were able to say as free men, "We shall not surrender". How different things would have been had they not taken that position. None of us would consider our lives when weighed against the awful consequences of the actions of those who would deny freedom.
This recognition that something must be done in order to assure a proper balance-[DOT] not a compromise but a proper balance-[DOT] between the needs of security and the maintenance of the wells of freedom in the hearts of a free people will be given in the setting up of this committee. This process of recognition commences in clause 6 of this bill. Provision is made in that clause that the powers-and the can be tyrannical-under the War Measures Act shall within 15 days after proclamation be brought before parliament. In doing so we put the responsibility for the continuance of the proclamation where it ought to be, namely in and on parliament.
I said at the beginning that it was difficult to express my feeliftgs at a time like this, and some will ridicule what I say as an emotional reaction. I have devoted-and I say it in all modesty-not an inconsiderable part of my life and interest to the problems of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Whatever the cynics may say they do not deny that feeling. Having been able to bring about a major change in respect of freedom in this country through the co-operation of hon. members in all parts of this house, gives to me a reaction of deep appreciation for the democratic process and for the fact that when the people realize that there is need of change, all the minds that are closed against change must ultimately give way.

I do not pretend that this bill by itself will create a free and responsible society. The plural elements that make up freedom we take for granted, but they are many and varied. The church, the press, the educational systems, the trade union movements, a free economy, a culture which is naturally disposed toward freedom and personal dignity; all these things make up the society which we call Canada where this kind of bill is possible and where it reflects them to a far greater degree than it can ever create them.
I think what we have done has been right. I think it has been for the good of Canada. I also think that our conviction that a belief in the guidance of God makes possible a realization that law, justice and morality can be combined in words and perpetuated in a statute and this has been shown in the experience of the days that have elapsed since the introduction of this bill on Dominion day to be justified.
All that is required now is for each of us, and for Canadians as a whole, to mobilize in their hearts the determination that we shall make freedom work to a greater extent than ever before. This bill as I see it, is a major step forward. It gives a warning, and I hope brings to a halt the relentless expansion of the wide powers of the state, exercised at the expense of the individual, which has been a characteristic of all freedom-loving countries in the past 46 years. This outgrowth of the days of war, during which we made shortcuts through democratics rights under the excuse of need and contributing to efficiency, must be brought to an end.
I think that this bill will do its part to halt the march which has become ever more general since the outbreak of the first great war. The concept of efficiency has in the experience of 46 years brought about changes in democratic thinking that too often denied the rights of the individual. This bill will do its part to prevent unnecessary and unjustifiable interference with the rights of the individual by the state. To the average Canadian it will constitute a solemn declaration that we the Canadian people have the right to have our rights preserved. We have the right not to have determined what is right for us by others who are placed above the courts. It will determine now and for the future, in other words, that the dignity of the human person shall be maintained in equality under law and always without discrimination.
The purpose of the bill will be to achieve order and more liberty under law. This bill of rights will, I hope, establish a principle for all Canada which political passions will
Human Rights
not dare to destroy. It will set up an altar of freedom that will ensure that the minority will not be unjustly treated by the majority. This is of the essence of freedom. It will place before Canadians a declaration in favour of a government of laws, not men. It will make individual Canadians strong in the knowledge that under law the state shall not interfere unjustly with the person.
The principles of freedom are never final. Freedom is not static. It cannot be fixed for all time. It either grows or it dies. It grows when the people of a country have it in their hearts and demand that it shall be preserved. I would be the last to contend that any document made by man, however impressive, can assure freedom; but I think that what we have done will provide an anchor for Canadian rights. The ultimate assurance of them must always be a vigilant people, vigilant to invasions of and intrusions on their freedom; for, sir, when the spirit of freedom dies in the hearts of men no statute can preserve it.
I am glad of this day. To all members in all parts of the house I say I hope that in the years ahead these days will be looked back upon and that those who follow us will say that whatever the disagreements in detail, there was a united parliament and that in that parliament, they builded better than they knew.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, in the serene calm of post debate and the calm which the Prime Minister's rather complete summation of a splendid piece of legislation, I should like to make one or two personal observations. Certainly, it is thrilling for me to realize that I live in a free country, in which there is a free parliament, and in which such a piece of legislation can be enacted. I came to Canada, as my colleagues in the house know, rather a young boy with my parents. It was through the freedoms which we were able to enjoy in this country, those which existed on our arrival and those which continued to be improved and enlarged upon, that it was possible for me to become a citizen of this country and a member of this free parliament. It was in virtue of the citizenship act, which was enacted by a wise government, and in virtue of all the rights and freedoms which subsequent parliaments and legislation gave, that not only I, but all new Canadians joyfully welcome this bill of rights, not only in its entirety but also the spirit and the means by which it was enacted.
When the bill was introduced, some of us thought that it could be improved upon. As the Prime Minister so eloquently described,

Human Rights
the composition of the committee was arranged in such a way that all shades of opinions could be brought forward. I feel that as a result of the services which the committee so devotedly performed, and I think the Prime Minister agreed with this and I think he has said it, a better bill came out of the committee than went into it.
Some of us thought that perhaps it should have been more complete. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) say during the course of the discussion that as time passes and as necessities arise, more freedoms and more rights, if they can be found, will be created. Some of us thought that not all were included that might have been, but if some were not included, I feel this was done with the best of intentions and the best of good will on all sides. One cannot always say with certainty that one is right. I had the thought, for example, that the right to Canadian citizenship is one of our basic human rights and I expressed some views on that during the course of the debate. I may not be right; I may be wrong. Perhaps those who advanced arguments against its incorporation in the bill were right, but it is quite possible that time will show that it is one of those human rights which Canadians should be privileged to have.
When I heard the Prime Minister invoke the Almighty I was touched, I was moved. I am rather pleased, yes, proud, that we have invoked the sacred name of God in the preamble, because to me it is a sanctification of the whole measure, and personally I am grateful to my leader who first suggested that a preamble should be incorporated in the bill. I also know that in the special committee the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and other members pressed for the inclusion of a preamble. When one reads even the first paragraph of the preamble he cannot help but be moved by the aura of sanctity which now surrounds this magnificent piece of legislation. Let me read the first paragraph of the preamble.
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
In invoking the sacred name of God, Mr. Speaker, we all acknowledge that He is the one and the same God from whom we all seek divine guidance and wisdom in our duties and responsibilities as servants of the people of a great country. It is God who is the fount of justice, righteousness, compassion and charity; it is God to whom we turn for solace and comfort in adversity and it is

God who guides the destinies of all of us, regardless of the place, means or language by which we beseech Him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time spent on this legislation, the serious consideration given to it on second reading, by a special committee of the house, by the committee of the whole house and now on third reading in the discussion of the principles of the bill and the numerous amendments moved by the opposition, I think there is little of value that I can add to the many excellent speeches that have been made on this subject. Suffice it for me to say on behalf of this group that while we welcome the passage of this legislation as a first step in the right direction we consider it as unfinished business and look forward to the incorporation of a bill of rights in our constitution.



PRIVILEGE


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privilege of all members of this house. In today's edition of the Ottawa Citizen there appears, under the byline of Mr. Charles Lynch, an article entitled, "Liberals' Defence Platform". It starts:
The Liberals, after three years of agonizing Indecision, Anally came out today with their own defence policy-one that would involve several breaks with present policies of Canada and the United States.
Question of Privilege
Paul Hellyer, Liberal defence critic, placed the new Liberal defence platform before the commons in a major policy speech.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arises out of the fact that these words are reported:
He advocated that the present level of defence spending be maintained and even expanded, but that the direction of that spending be altered.
The main points:
No nuclear weapons for use on Canadian soil or in Canadian airspace;-


An hon. Member:: He has not made that speech yet.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the question of
privilege relates to the describing of a speech in the house which has not yet been made?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It was never made.


Some hon. Members:: It was never read.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You will be sorry; your chief may make you sit in here and listen to it.


Egan Chambers: In May's Parliamentary Practice, 16th edition, at page 55, it states:
The repeated orders made by the house forbidding the publication of the debates and proceedings of the house, or of any committee thereof, and of comments thereon, or on the conduct of members in the house, by newspapers, newsletters, or otherwise, and directing the punishment of offenders against such rules have long since fallen into disuse. Indeed, since 1909, the debates have been reported and issued by an official reporting staff-
When a wilful misrepresentation of the debate arises-


William Moore Benidickson: Are you making a motion?


Egan Chambers: It goes on:
-or if it may be necessary to enforce the restriction, the House censures or otherwise punishes the offender-
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that I have been in the house pretty well all day and I have not heard this speech. It seems to me that if a speech is to be made in the House of Commons today, as reported in this newspaper and also, I understand, in the Winnipeg Free Press, the house has a right to hear it before the Winnipeg Free Press.


An hon. Member:: The Ottawa Citizen.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that there is a question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to move a motion, he is at liberty to do so.


Egan Chambers: Perhaps the hon. member involved would agree to explain how this occurred.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I did not write the newspaper dispatch.
7554	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


Some hon. Members:: Did you write the speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And seeing that this is what might be called bill of rights day in the House of Commons I think it would be a good idea to just drop the whole matter right now and, Mr. Speaker, we will deal with the accuracy or otherwise of the report when we get to the defence estimates, if and when we ever do.


An hon. Member:: You scrapped everything else; you might as well scrap your speech.



JUDGES ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-89, to amend the Judges Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister anything to say?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that everything which needs to be said on this matter was said when the resolution was before the committee. It is a simple proposal to provide a salary for a fourth judge in Prince Edward Island which has been requested by all interested authorities in that province. It is recommended to the house on the basis, amongst other things, that the province proposes to abolish the separate position of probate judge and transfer probate jurisdiction to the supreme court of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.
Charles Edward Rea: Department of National Defence, item No. 217. This item will be found on page 44 of the blue book, the details on page 290.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, when I started to make my opening remarks yesterday I was referring to the three cardinal principles


which govern our defence policy, namely that of the deterrent, that of collective security and that of forces in readiness.
The first of these, the deterrent, is brought about by the consequences of a war involving the use of nuclear weapons which are so terrible that we must make every effort to prevent such an occurrence. Whether our commitment is to NATO, to the defence of this continent or to the United Nations, we have undertaken such commitments in every case on the basic assumption that they will all contribute to the deterrent to aggression.
The second principle which I referred to was the requirement for collective security. The complexity of modern warfare coupled with the high cost of new weapons has made it impossible for any one nation to maintain adequate unilateral defences. This knowledge has resulted in Canada joining with other like-minded nations in such collective defensive alliances as NATO and NORAD and with others who are contributing to peace preserving forces of the United Nations.
Since events in the Congo are of topical interest at the moment I outlined briefly how we were assisting the United Nations force which is being assembled in the Congo to restore order and to prevent the outspreading of destruction which might possibly lead to war.
The final point I made was that if a deterrent was to be successful, if the collective forces of the west were to be effective, forces in being are required. There will be no time for a general mobilization as we have known it in the past, such as that which followed the outbreak of the first world wax; and it is significant that today, August 4, is the anniversary of that first global war. There would be no time to regroup or reinforce the forces in the field. We must have regular forces well trained and well equipped to ensure that the deterrent philosphy will prevail.
When the committee rose last night I was discussing Canada's contribution to these deterrent forces of the west, and I was pointing out that no part of the NATO area has been absorbed by the soviet since 1949 and that this was not solely due to the threat of massive retaliation. The fact that substantial land forces with adequate technical support have been maintained in Europe has been responsible for the continued peace of that area.
Canada's contribution of one brigade group and the Canadian air division has not been large, but the fact that we are there in position well equipped and highly trained has had a psychological and moral effect on the alliance as a whole as adding to the over-all

effectiveness of the forces available. Certainly the retaliatory forces of the stragetic air command of the United States are a major part of the deterrent, but if that portion of the deterrent is to be successful it must have the capability of being able to reach stragetic targets in the Soviet union.
To facilitate that we have established four refuelling bases in Canada. From these refuelling bases tankers can supply, if necessary in the air, the bombers as they pass over, and hence extend their range.
An adequate warning must also be given to prevent the SAC bombers from being caught on the ground and sufficient protection must be available to safeguard their bases. In this regard Canada plays an important part. Canadian land space is essential in the maintenance of the required warning system. The radar lines which have been mentioned are effective against the manned bomber.
Here again it has been suggested that since an attack on this continent will now be by missile there is no further use for the radar lines. The fact is that at the present time and in the immediate future any attack on this continent would consist of a combination of both missiles and manned bombers. The Russians have a large number of manned bombers still in service in their air forces. To give up all defences against manned aircraft at the present time would be inviting disaster.
Production of the intercontinental ballistic missile by the Soviet union is not estimated to be in sufficient quantity at the present time to ensure a successful attack-that is successful from their point of view-against the military and industrial targets of this country.
Certainly if there were no defences against the manned bomber Russia has enough aircraft which, equipped with nuclear bombs, could create sufficient devastation to justify the opinion that an attack would be successful. The radar lines, interceptor aircraft and surface-to-air missiles are therefore necessary as long as there is a threat of a manned bomber attack and since Canadian territory and Canadian airspace are inexorably involved in the successful defence against such an attack, it is to Canada's advantage to continue to be a partner with the United States in the joint air defence command known as NORAD.
It has been made perfectly clear that at the present time there is no defence against the ICBM. An early warning system known as BNEWS, the ballistic missile early warning system, is being established to detect the actual firing of such missiles. Canada has made a substantial contribution toward this
79951-0-477
Supply-National Defence warning system by providing the communications between the warning centres and the centres of population. Extensive research work in which Canada participates is proceeding to devise a method to combat these ICBM's.
I should like to refer at this time to statements that I made in the committee concerning the activities of our research program. I said:
In the event of an attack most ICBM's are likely to arrive in North America from a northerly direction. A special problem exists here because of the presence of the aurora borealis which tends to play havoc with radio devices. Radar beams can be seriously disturbed when the aurora is prevalent. Defence research board had for some time been investigating radio communications in the north and was well equipped to undertake a research program involving the aurora. In recognition of this fact, the United States offered to cooperate and loan to Canada a very powerful radar now installed at the Prince Albert radar laboratory. The scientific program of this laboratory is agreed with the United States authorities but full operational control is in Canadian hands. Much useful data already has been obtained. Defence research board scientists have also worked out measuring techniques for radio reflections from various types of warhead.
Another defence research board program is designed to differentiate between a warhead and the other parts of an ICBM rocket wihch would be in space when such missiles have been fired. In particular, I might mention a program at the Canadian armament research and development establishment where projectiles are shot at high speed down indoor ranges in tubes in which a vacuum has been produced, thus simulating the conditions in the upper atmosphere. This program has been of great interest to our United States partners, and a number of agencies concerned with anti-ICBM problems have been awaiting the results of CARDE tests in order to use them in their own program.
Further along I said:
The D.R.B. and the R.C.A.F. now are actively engaged in a co-operative United States-Canada program with instrumented aircraft in the south Atlantic connected with missile firings from Cape Canaveral. These tests are designed to determine what an incoming ICBM looks like.
When an incoming ICBM has been detected and identified, a missile must be launched from the ground to intercept and destroy it. Time is of the essence and such a missile must be fired at a few moments' notice. Many missiles are now using liquid propellants which require considerable time for preparation before firing. A solid propellant capable of instant readiness is obviously the requirement of the future. D.R.B. scientists have been working for some time in the propellant held and, in particular, have been concerned with low temperature characteristics of such propellants. It is believed that these characteristics will be most important in an anti-missile missile. The work conducted looks very promising.
I could give many other examples of where Canadian scientists are spending their endeavours in defence research and are co-operating to a very successful extent with their United States colleagues.
In this year's estimates funds are provided for two items of equipment which on account of their capability have caused some
7556	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence comment. I refer to the Bomarc surface-to-air missile which is to be installed at sites near North Bay and La Macaza and the CF-104 aircraft which is to replace the F-86 Sabres of the eight squadrons in the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe.
The subject of the Bomarc consumed a considerable amount of time in this session of parliament. Due to the fact that it is a weapon being developed in the United States the comments that have been made here have been based on reports emanating from that country. Press and unofficial reports have been varied to say the least. The fact remains that after a number of trials in the testing of this weapon and discussions in the debates preceding the authorization of necessary United States funds for its continued development and procurement, the Bomarc has been accepted and now is considered an effective weapon capable of adding materially to the over-all deterrent and anti-aircraft defences of both Canada and the United States.
The units which are being established here and in the United States will provide coverage from Winnipeg to the Atlantic coast and are sufficiently dispersed and have sites so small in area as to obviate the likelihood of destruction from an intercontinental ballistic missile. From the trials that have been recently undertaken, the Bomarc with a designated range of over 400 nautical miles and with an effective guidance system, will add significantly to our defences.
Construction work is proceeding at the two Bomarc sites, the one at North Bay and the one at La Macaza. The cost of these two sites to Canada will be approximately $12 million. Construction will continue throughout the winter and will be completed by the time the Bomarc launchers are available.
I think the real point of contention with regard to both the Bomarc and the CF-104 is that both these weapons systems have the capability of being armed with a nuclear warhead. While there are no funds allocated in this year's estimates, it has also been announced that the Canadian army is to procure the Honest John launcher and associated surface-to-surface missile, the 762 mm. rocket. This weapon, too, has a nuclear capability.
The Prime Minister has on a number of occasions made Canada's position clear with regard to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Speaking in the House of Commons on July 4, 1960, as reported at page 5653 of Hansard of that date, and referring to remarks he had made on an earlier occasion, the Prime Minister said:
On February 20, 1959, as reported on page 1221 of Hansard, I set forth the views of the Canadian government with respect to this matter, and they remain unchanged. At that time I set forth, as I
[Mr. Pearkes.l

say, that the full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads, and that of course was referring to Bomarc and other defensive weapons.
Later on he said:
In these circumstances negotiations are proceeding with the United States in order that the necessary weapons can be made available for Canadian defence units if and when they are required.
I think it will thus be agreed that the weapon systems that are being procured require nuclear warheads to reach their full effectiveness. To refuse or to neglect to have these available when required would place an intolerable handicap on our defences. The defensive weapon can only be used when hostile bombers are in Canadian air space; but these Bomarc weapons and the interceptors which may be flying through Canadian air space are defensive weapons only to be used, and their nuclear warheads only to be used, when attack is imminent and hostile bombers are actually in Canadian air space over Canadian territory.
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.
When discussing this matter on July 2, 1959 the Leader of the Opposition made this point when referring to the use of nuclear weapons, as reported at page 5371 of Hansard:
Tactical nuclear weapons have now been reduced to a point where they can be used by small formations against purely military targets. They are conventional almost in the sense that they are ordinary weapons with nuclear ammunition, but used in almost the same way as if it were ordinary ammunition. Second, if these weapsons were not used, NATO forces in Europe would be facing armies which had them and would not hesitate to use them. Unless we can get international agreement on this matter, the resulting military disparity created might well be considered intolerable to NATO morale. If the Canadian forces were deprived of these weapons or were not permitted to use them-this is a consideration which no doubt the government has very much in mind-their morale could hardly be expected to remain very high if they were serving alongside NATO forces which had these tactical nuclear weapons.
This records very definitely the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, speaking for the Liberal party, as to his views on the use of nuclear weapons.
The Bomarc, the CF-104, the Honest John, will not be coming into service with the

Canadian forces until late in 1961. What we are undertaking and what has already been made perfectly clear is that we are discussing with the United States arrangements which will be acceptable to both countries as to conditions under which such weapons would be available to Canada if and when required. We are cognizant of the United States law on this matter. We are also firm in the conviction that the use of those weapons by Canadian forces should be at the discretion of the Canadian government. 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 the nuclear warheads depends on circumstances which might develop sometime in the future.
In the past year great progress has been made in another aspect of our defence policy. I am referring to the part the Department of National Defence plays in survival operations. Our defence philosophy is, as I have said before, based on the deterrent but the possibility of the deterrent failing to prevent an outbreak of war calls for steps to be taken to ensure the survival of our country under these distressing circumstances. It is admittedly an awful eventuality, but the fact that we are taking such precautions is, in effect, an added insurance for survival.
As hon. members know, last September an order in council was passed assigning to various government departments, including the Prime Minister's office, various duties relating to survival. The Canadian army has been designated as the co-ordinating body within the department to carry out such duties as were set out in that order. Excellent progress has been made in the training of both the regular and the militia forces in survival operations. A great deal of equipment has already been obtained and the procurement of additional rescue and survival equipment is included in this year's estimates. Communications have been broadened and emergency regional headquarters are being constructed. I dealt with this in some detail when speaking before the estimates committee, and I should like to refer to some of the statements that I made there, as they define clearly the responsibilities of and the progress which has been made by the defence department in this respect. When dealing with national survival I said:
It is essential for the preservation of Canada as a nation that there should be continuity of civilian government in order to provide guidance and leadership, especially in the event of a nuclear attack. Each provincial government must be closely connected with the central federal facilities for emergency government through a highly efficient communications system.
79951-0-477J
Supply-National Defence
The responsibility for establishing the system rests with the Canadian army. Progress has been made in this respect. I continue:
Regional centres are being established in each of the provinces. There will be some variation in their size and character, depending on a number of factors including the size of the population to be served, the likelihood of the provincial capital coming under direct attack, and particularly the emergency communications system and its technical requirements. The centres will be limited in size but will be sufficient to ensure the required operational capability.
Then I went on to describe in detail the responsibilities which the Department of National Defence had assumed in this respect.
Provision of technical facilities and the operation of a system to give warning to the public of the likelihood and imminence of an attack.
That communication and warning system has now been established. It is manned down to the provincial regional centres on a 24-hour a day basis and is being extended to every large municipality and centre throughout the country.
Determining the location of a nuclear explosion and the patterns of fall-out, and giving the necessary warning of fall-out to the public.
Once a warning of an impending attack has been given, should nuclear bombs fall on any part of Canada it is necessary to advise the population as to where the fallout is likely to come down on various areas. The pattern of the fall-out is not the same from one day to another and it is necessary to set up a grid across the country. Such a grid is being set up with some 2,000 or more detecting centres being established. These are known as radiation reporting centres and they are in communication with the provincial centres.
I do not intend to repeat all I said on national survival during the committee's meetings. It is all included in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee and in the pamphlet which I issued at the conclusion of those hearings. I do not want to repeat what I said at that time other than to say that the regular forces in Canada and the members of the Canadian militia are assuming these duties in a capable manner and with further training will provide a nucleus of men experienced in many ways with the various facets in which they will be involved in ensuring survival in the face of a nuclear attack.
I should like to say a special word about the militia and the other reserve formations, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the auxiliary squadrons of the R.C.A.F. Changes in the nature of the threat, new weapons and so on have dictated a change in the role of
7558	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence these bodies. As a result some have said that the need for these forces is reduced. That is not my view. The magnitude of the problem which would face this country in the event of a nuclear attack would require the largest possible body of trained and disciplined personnel. Those who give of their time and energy to ensure that we will be ready for whatever comes deserve the gratitude of all Canadians.
We are making good progress in supplying the militia with survival equipment. This summer many militia men attended training camps in which survival exercises were carried out in all commands across the country. From the reports I have received they have shown commendable enthusiasm and have made remarkable progress with their training.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I trust that what I have said with regard to our defence policy and the commitments we have undertaken to implement that policy have made clear our present position. We do have a very definite defence policy aimed, as it always should be, at preserving the security of our country, and the fact that our country continues to be secure indicates the success of that policy.
Critics outside this house can propound at length as to what is wrong with defence but unburdened by responsibilities their criticism is generally destructive, rarely constructive. In their lack of responsibility they have an advantage over the government. As Minister of National Defence, with the responsibilities that devolve on my position, I am required to make constructive decisions which will maintain the efficiency of our forces. I think that the steps we have taken in recent times with regard to the organization of our forces and in respect of new equipment either issued or on order have and will materially improve the contribution we are making to the overall deterrent and the peace preserving forces in many parts of the world. Our forces are well trained and of high calibre and wherever they serve they are making a vital and effective contribution to our collective defence efforts. We have every reason to be proud of their endeavours in this field.
Before I sit down, I should like to make reference to the reported speech of the hon. member for Trinity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The undelivered speech.


George Randolph Pearkes: The report indicates that it was delivered in the house. The report reads in part as follows:
The Liberals, after three years of agonizing indecision, finally came out today with their own defence policy-one that would involve several breaks with present policies of Canada and the United States.
IMr. Pearkes.]

Paul Hellyer, Liberal defence critic, placed the new Liberal defence platform before the commons in a major policy speech.
Then the article goes on to indicate what he advocates. If I believed the article was true I would offer my apologies for the hon. member for not being here when he delivered that speech. However, I wish to extend my sympathy to him because he has been the victim of an irresponsible and unscrupulous newspaper reporter who, in order to obtain a newspaper scoop, did not hesitate to publish in advance an article based on the copy of the speech which I presume the hon. member handed to him.
I should like to say a few words about the main points made in that speech. As found in the article, the first one is:
No nuclear weapons for use on Canadian soil or in Canadian air space.
I dealt with that a few minutes ago and if that is the Liberal policy, if they are prepared to sacrifice the efficiency of our deterrent and the means of destroying hostile aircraft when they are over Canadian cities and armed with nuclear weapons; if they wish to say that Canadian forces are not to have nuclear weapons for the very purpose of defending Canadians, I hope they will go throughout the whole country declaring that policy. It is quite obvious that that policy is diametrically opposed to the policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition which I referred to in the debate a few minutes ago. The next point is:
Scrap plans to build the CF-104 supersonic jet interceptor for the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe, a project now under way at a cost of $400 million.
As I explained last night, the supreme allied commander in Europe asked us if we would re-arm and re-equip the squadrons of the air division which are now armed with the F-86 Sabre. After exhaustive inquiry into many different kinds of aircraft we decided that the F-104 was the most suitable aircraft which could be chosen for the role which the supreme allied commander had asked our squadrons to carry out. Having made the decision that the F-104 was the most suitable, we were happy to find out that other NATO countries who had made similar investigations to what we had had also decided the F-104 weapon would be the most suitable to them.
I mentioned yesterday that Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy were all procuring this same type of weapon. This means that many of the NATO forces have a uniform type of aircraft. It may be of interest to know that the minister of national defence of the Netherlands had this to say

when he announced the selection of the F-104G for the Royal Netherlands air force:
The Netherlands government has decided to buy the F-104G to replace jet fighters now in use tor the air defence and tactical air forces. Prior to taking this decision both the Netherlands and Belgium air forces made a comparative study of the problems involved. Both air forces wanted a type which was capable of both offensive and defensive tasks in order to give a small air force the most efficient operational effect. The Netherlands sees in the F-104G, the best plane to meet the double role requirement. Since the German and Canadian governments have already purchased the same type of aircraft, the "Star Fighter" also offers the additional advantage of a high degree of standardization.
This explains why we cannot subscribe to the points suggested in this speech, one of which reads:
Scrap plans to build the CF-104 supersonic jet interceptor for the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe, a project now under way at a cost of $400 million.
Acquire from the United States a supersonic jet interceptor to replace the CF-100 in Canadian home defence squadrons.
I explained yesterday that this latter matter was being given the most careful consideration by the government. I explained the difficulties that there were in reaching a quick decision, and I informed this committee that we would very soon be able to make a definite decision.
The next recommendation in the report of this speech is:
Scrap the seven new destroyer-escorts now being built for the Royal Canadian Navy at a cost of $26 million apiece, and replace them by ships designed to act as combat troop carriers and supply vessels.
I do not know how combat troop carriers are going to protect the shores of this land against submarines. I should think that combat troop carriers might themselves be very vulnerable to attack by submarines. Then the article continues:
Scrap the Bomarc-SAGE program for anti-bomber defence of the North American continent.
We find here what is described as the bold proposals, representing the Liberal policy, and they turn out to be nothing but scrap, scrap; scrap the CF-104, scrap the seven destroyers, scrap the Bomarc-SAGE, scrap nuclear weapons. It is a policy of scrap, and there is nothing constructive about it at all. If those are the bold proposals which the hon. member has been hoping to have an opportunity of propounding this afternoon and which he was so anxious to get before the Canadian public that he issued this to the press gallery so that it might be out on the wires across the country, I suggest to him that now is the time to scrap that speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Randolph Pearkes: Finally, this newspaper report goes on to suggest this:
Supply-National Defence
Expand defence research and specialize in the development of atomic engines for use in transportation, and particularly aircraft.
This afternoon, before I had the opportunity of seeing these profound suggestions, I read to the committee what I said over a month ago as to what our defence research was doing in this direction. Additional money is being provided in these estimates for research. I know the hon. member is going to pick me up there and say, but not for development. There is additional money being provided for research. Yes, these are bold proposals. Then he goes on to say:
Mr. Hellyer's speech, embodying the beliefs of Opposition Leader Lester Pearson, said flatly that the Russians are not yet in a position to wage all-out war with any hope of success.
"During the next two or three years, the likelihood of a planned, calculated all-out attack is not great," he said. Therefore, the intervening period could be used to alter the direction of defence spending without peril to the national security.
I think the hon. member must have been recalling some words which I uttered when I was before the committee, because at the very first meeting I said this:
The Soviets would not, I believe-
That is a reference to me, not the hon. member for Trinity.
-and this belief is based on the best evidence I can possibly get-deliberately take any action at this time which in their opinion would involve a serious risk of provoking a general war.
Then I did go on to explain how a general war might suddenly come about by misadventure or by the outspread of some local disturbance or by the possibility of there being a technical breakthrough which might enable one country to discover how to destroy missiles over its airspace. Under those conditions, by misadventure, by the outspread of a local war, by a technological breakthrough, war might come and it might come at any time. We are not the aggressor. The enemy chooses the time when he will attack Canada. But I agree, and I said so here, that conditions generally do not look as though at the present time the Russians are in a position to do that. In other words, I said, the communist world recognizes that a nuclear war with the west would only end in mutual destruction. Therefore, a sudden and planned attack is unlikely at the present time.
That was the great deduction that was made as to how this was going to change everything. The profound statement made by the hon. member for Trinity is obviously based on what I said at that meeting, no doubt reinforced by other statements which have been made elsewhere, which I have read as well as he. I would like to express

Supply-National Defence my appreciation to the hon. member for having adopted the remarks that I have made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not impossible that we can come to the same conclusion on something.


George Randolph Pearkes: This article starts with these words, and this is apparently going to be his speech:
He advocated that the present level of defence spending be maintained and even expanded, but that the direction of that spending be altered.
As you read this program of scrap, scrap, scrap, he gives very little indication as to how he is going to spend the money he is going to save, other than buying supersonic interceptors from the United States-of which there are very few available, I can tell him -and buying these mysterious ships designed to act as combat troop carriers.
Again I repeat, and in all sincerity, that I am sorry the hon. gentleman in his enthusiasm to get this profound doctrine across the country beat the pistol and issued it in advance. But I sympathize with him for what I consider a scandalous abuse of the privilege of the press in publishing this speech before it was given in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has happened so often on the other side that your observations are ridiculous.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to what the minister has had to say, and to his statement, which has been a very lengthy one.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if before the hon. member starts his speech on these estimates we could get a copy of the speech so that we may follow it more accurately?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You had better address that to your own speeches and every other person's in the ministry.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We Liberals try to oblige, and I will be happy to send this over.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there no sportsmanship in this government? I do not think there is any sportsmanship or chivalry, in spite of the bill of rights.


An hon. Member:: I walk alone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Unfair.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister today, of course, in addition to giving us very little new information in his own statement because of the lack of any positive direction or policy on the part of the government, has fallen


into the mistake that some newspaper editorial writers sometimes make-


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -when they write editorials on the basis of newspaper speculation, and the minister would have been well advised to have held his comments, as I suggested to him that he should, until he had heard the whole statement, so that he would know the reasoning behind the proposals which we intend to put forward.
The minister has said that our whole program is a matter of scrap, scrap, scrap. Well, Mr. Chairman, a great deal of the equipment he has been buying, and which is at the present time on inventory, is just junk and scrapping is the only thing to do with it. This will become more obvious as my speech proceeds.
I am making these suggestions today, of course, without the benefit that the minister has of confidential and secret information, and without the advice of the military advisers whom he has at his disposal.


Thomas Miller Bell: You were
the minister of defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Notwithstanding that, we
think it is worth while to put forward proposals and to enter into the type of discussion and debate which will assist, not only the gentlemen of this house but the people in the country at large to understand the many complex and difficult problems involved in this whole matter of national defence at the present time. It is a pleasure, in this sense, to give to the committee this statement. My leader will be speaking later in the debate and he will augment and amplify some of the ideas that will be put forward at this present time.
First, Mr. Chairman, Canada's defence policy, as has been stated by the minister, is -or at least should be-an instrument of our foreign policy. Our national objectives are to preserve the peace while at the same time guaranteeing those fundamental freedoms which we hold sacred, and these objectives are only possible, as the minister has again stated today, through collective arrangements.
This position is fundamental and, I am glad to say, bipartisan, because obviously a small country of the size of Canada is not in a position to defend itself against any possible aggressor. Peace is our only sure defence today, and the great objective of defence, as well as of foreign policy, must be to preserve it. If it is lost, and a general war breaks out-which, as the minister has said, would mean nuclear war-then there

is no defence that would ensure protection against universal destruction, and there is no defence of any kind through national effort alone. There is no sure defence and there is no possible victory. We can, however, as part of the defence coalition, dedicated to peace and freedom band together to prevent war by making it disastrous for any aggressor to break the peace.
The minister has repeatedly referred to deterrent as the solution in trying to avoid war, by making it disastrous for any potential aggressor to break the peace. Canada as a part of such a coalition can best achieve that measure of security that depends on defensive force, and within the measure of our resources we can give leadership in such a coalition. But only if we have a policy of our own. We can play an important part in appropriate collective arrangements. We can speak with a clear voice and we can take initiatives and promote ideas of far-reaching importance. We can generate enthusiasm and work diligently. All these things we can do with this independence which we claim as a free and sovereign nation. What we cannot do, however, is to pursue a policy inconsistent with the common goals.
If, as has been widely agreed, we depend for our survival as a free nation on mutual co-operation, then we must accept the reasonable conditions of that mutual co-operation. This does not imply subservience, but a true team spirit, comradeship and dedication to unity of purpose. Under these circumstances it is not possible to consider our defence posture in isolation, but only in the context of total western strength and policy.
There has been a great deal of talk about the possibility of disarmament. It is the goal which we must pursue with diligence and perseverance, but any agreement to disarm must contain satisfactory provisions for inspection and control. So far it has been impossible, Mr. Chairman, to achieve anything on this basis. We must pursue and search for agreement while at the same time maintaining our strength until disarmament has become a reality. In the meantime, the chances of success are far greater if the western world is negotiating from strength and not from weakness. Presently the balance of military power still remains with the west. I think the minister concurs in this view; he has stated so publicly on a number of occasions.
The capacity of the United States strategic air command is very great indeed. Last spring I had the pleasure, along with some other members of this House of Commons and of the other place, of visiting the headquarters of the strategic air command at Omaha, Nebraska. The briefing we received was very
Supply-National Defence thorough and very reassuring in regard to the efficiency of that organization. General Thomas S. Power, commander in chief of SAC, answered our questions frankly and fully, which I might say was a most refreshing change for some of us.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the strategic air command stands on guard for the western world and that without the deterrent which it in part provides soviet imperialism might not have been contained even to the extent that it has been contained during the past decade.
Not only does the strategic air command have an overwhelming retaliatory capacity, but unquestionably at this moment it would be able to get through the Russian defences and reach its targets. The organization and communications of this command are of an order of magnitude probably unprecedented in the military history of the world. As is well known a substantial percentage of its bombers are on a 15-minute alert at all hours of the day and night. In the case of an alert they are put into the air and headed in the direction of their targets in case an alert should develop under any circumstances into an all-out nuclear attack. At a certain predetermined point, however, as is well known, they automatically return to their bases unless given positive, incontrovertible instructions to proceed on the basis of an authorization from the President of the United States of America.
The strategic air command comprises the bulk of the western deterrent and retaliatory power. The remainder lies with the bombers of the Royal Air Force and with the atomic bomb carrying strike attack aircraft stationed in Europe under NATO command.
This western military superiority in the nuclear and thermonuclear field has been overwhelming until recently. Now the Russians are narrowing the gap. They appear to be concentrating their efforts in the missile field, and in this field they have achieved remarkable success.
There are three main components to an intercontinental ballistic missile; the propellant, the guidance mechanism and the nose cone. In two of these, the guidance mechanism and the nose cone, the achievements of Russia and of the United States are not too far apart. In the field of propellants, however, the Russians have a considerable advantage over their western competitors. Both sides have perfected this weapon to the point where it has intercontinental capability of amazing and frightening accuracy. This is all the more remarkable when we recall that it is only three years since the first sputnik was placed in orbit,
7562	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and not long before that military scientists were saying that they would not live to see the day when the intercontinental ballistic missile would be operational. This incredible change in military science in the short space of three years has altered many of the traditional concepts and put great strain on our capacity to understand their implications.
Because of the intercontinental ballistic missile and its capability of knocking out retaliatory power on the ground, it has been widely suggested that the strategic air command should put its bombers on a continuous airborne alert. The United States government has taken the position that it is not yet necessary to do so. Their stand is based on the belief that the Russians do not yet have enough ballistic missiles to knock out the major portion of United States retaliatory strength on the ground, and that view would seem to be confirmed by what the minister said today.
In other words, even with a surprise attack involving the use of all of Russia's existing missiles the United States would still have sufficient retaliatory capacity to survive such an attack and to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet empire. A sufficiently large number of United States bases would remain intact from which this retaliatory power could be launched.
At the present rate of production of Russian missiles, however, the situation is changing from month to month, and under these circumstances one would expect the United States strategic air command to commence something more than a token airborne alert within the next year or so. This will become, provided there is no disarmament agreement reached in the meantime, absolutely essential in order to ensure that sufficient retaliatory capacity is at all times available to inflict unacceptable damage on the Russians. Only in this event will the threat of massive retaliation remain effective.
In the meantime the United States will no doubt continue to develop new and mobile retaliatory capacity in anticipation of the day when its bombers will wear out. This capacity will be provided through a number of projects. For example, the Polaris missile will be carried by atomic submarines. These will be deployed at sea and will be relatively invulnerable to enemy attack. Missiles and bomb-carrying aircraft will be available for launching by ocean-going ships whose whereabouts and position will not be known to a potential enemy and will not therefore be vulnerable to enemy attack in the same way as fixed land installations would be vulnerable.

The United States is developing a new intercontinental ballistic missile which they call the Minuteman which may be installed on mobile carriers such as trains, barges, et cetera. By moving these about they will not be sitting ducks for Russian missiles as they would be if based on permanent installations.
There are many projects underway designed to increase the mobile retaliatory potential of the United States, but these illustrations will suffice to demonstrate the effort being made. They must provide sufficient deterrent power to make it inadvisable for any aggressor to commence a war in the knowledge that retaliation would be sure and devastating.
In the existing circumstances this capacity must be maintained as long as the Russians have the power to strike. It is, according to many military scientists, the first priority of defence preparedness. As the minister has stated on many occasions, however, it is not a field on which Canada has chosen to embark.
It is perfectly obvious, however, that within a few years-assuming no universal disarmament agreement in the meantime-that each side will have sufficient capacity to devastate all major enemy targets with power to spare. This extra capacity is referred to in Pentagon jargon as an over-kill capacity. In layman's language it just means that there is more than one missile or bomber available for each target. When each side has this tremendous destructive potential which cannot be nullified by a surprise attack, it would be unthinkable for either side to take the offensive. No rational person would take the responsibility for an attack which would bring complete and utter destruction on his country.
There would be in effect a sterilization of the offensive potential on each side, an uneasy stalemate with neither side daring to fall appreciably behind the capacity of the other. At this point I should like to assert that I agree with the minister in one respect, that the development and research into anti-missiles and other weapons must continue for the very reason he stated earlier and which I just repeated, that one side cannot under any circumstances allow itself to fall appreciably behind the capacity of the other.
It is necessary then to consider what might happen under these circumstances. First of all there is the virtual certainty of an acceleration in the ideological and economic offensive. Second, there is the real possibility of skirmishes or limited engagements where potential aggressors would commence at least by using conventional arms only. Third, there is always the possibility of an irrational

attack, the act of a mad man or the consequences of an accident or miscalculation. The latter possibility, miscalculation or accident, may constitute the greatest danger that threatens us.
Even a cursory examination of news dispatches indicates the extent to which the western world has fallen behind on the ideological and economic fronts. We have shown a great lack of imagination in taking advantage of available opportunities. We have underestimated or failed to accept the magnitude of the task, our effort being analogous to the moving of a mountain of sand with a teaspoon. The west will have to accept the challenge and not only accept it but take the initiative all along the front. Failure to do so will result in defeat notwithstanding any expenditures for military equipment.
The best thing that military preparedness can do is to buy time albeit at a very high price. The economic and ideological aspects of the cold war are integral parts of the problem we face. They must receive full attention and corresponding action. As this is a defence debate, however, I will put my emphasis on the defence aspects and leave discussion of the economic and ideological aspects for another occasion.
General Maxwell Taylor in his book "The Uncertain Trumpet" has raised a question in respect to the policy of reliance on massive retaliation. I might underline that this is really part and parcel of the great defence argument which now faces us not only in this country but in other countries of the western world. I found his book disappointing and contradictory.
The one central point he raised, however, was clear. That was that at the time when both sides have a tremendous nuclear and thermonuclear capacity, what happens if one side decides to commence a limited action without the use of these weapons? In other words, reliance on the threat of massive retaliation ceases to be valid at a time when a bluff is just a bluff, when neither side would dare to stake the annihilation of its peoples and territories on the winning of a minor political objective. Under these conditions a limited action anywhere in the world involving the use by the aggressor of conventional weapons only would require either sufficient conventional forces to stop the attack or the use by the defenders of atomic weapons.
General Taylor cited the example of Korea where, as a matter of national and United Nations policy, action was limited to conventional weapons even against the advice of the commanding general. He suggested a similar condition not only could but might easily arise again. He questioned whether 79951 0-478
Supply-National Defence the United States and its allies have sufficient conventional strength to meet such a possibility and suggested that it would be prudent to consider sufficient augmentation to give military commanders the capacity to fulfil their objectives in accordance with the policy laid down by their political employers. He argued that more ground troops are required along with greater mobility and conventional fire power. The argument is basically realistic and one which cannot be ignored.
Another possibility which cannot be ignored is the possibility of irrational attack. It is difficult to comprehend the frightening implications of such a development. Certainly, by the mid-1960's-when both sides will possess a tremendous offensive capacity -there will be in the normal conventional sense no such thing as adequate protection or defence. If the deterrent fails, if general nuclear war breaks out, defence is futile, just as victory is impossible. That is not to say, as the military men will argue, that every attacking plane or missile shot down might conceivably save the destruction of a military target or a town. This argument really resolves itself into a mathematical problem. If each side has two missiles or bombers designated for each target it would be of little comfort to shoot down one of them. Of course, if both missiles or bombers destined for any particular target were shot down, the target or the town might be spared.
The cost of providing even a minimal and at best partial defence, however, is so staggering as to almost exceed the comprehension. The cost is so staggering because of the problems involved. The problem is not just shooting down bombers but also missiles launched from bombers, ICBM's and missiles launched from submarines. At the present time, of course, there is no known defence against ballistic missiles so that it is not just a matter of cost but also of technical possibility. Even should a major scientific breakthrough occur, however, which might offer the possibility of an anti-missile, the cost of providing installations on the scale necessary for even a token defence is so great as to be impractical. Consequently, one is driven to consider the alternative of spending on other projects.
I come now to a consideration of Canada's present position. It is necessary to discuss Canada's part in the over-all strategy and to study the integration of Canadian effort as a part of the whole, unless we disengage from the whole, and I do not recommend that.
Once it was known that the Russians had developed the thermonuclear bomb and had

Supply-National Defence the means of carrying it to the North American continent a scramble began to make such preparations as would give warning of any impending attack and permit the destruction of as large as possible a proportion of the attackers. The radar warning lines were built and interceptor squadrons established. Canada continues to operate nine air defence squadrons equipped with the now obsolete CF-100 interceptors; interceptors so slow they could not overtake the latest passenger aircraft.
To supplement the interceptor squadrons the United States undertook the development of a number of ground to air missiles designed for use against the manned bombers. All of these concepts had their inauguration before the intercontinental ballistic missile became operational. Included amongst them is the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile intended to complement manned interceptors as a second line or area defence.
Soon after the present government took office it signed the NORAD agreement which placed all of the air defence of the North American continent under a single unified command. This agreement, in a sense, did not materially affect the situation except perhaps as to minor improvements in communications and reaction time, in addition to the other aspect of control. Using this agreement as an excuse, our government has stubbornly insisted on proceeding with the installation of the Bomarc missile, notwithstanding our objection that it is a fixed installation which will be extremely vulnerable to enemy mis-silry by the time the whole system becomes operational. Its decision to proceed with the construction of fixed missile bases is contrary to the advice of the best military scientists of the day and should be reversed.
The Canadian navy continues to be occupied primarily in the anti-submarine role. The government is still building destroyer escorts of the same type they built three years ago, notwithstanding the development, in the meantime, of new and swift atomic powered submarines.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give consent to the hon. member to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the committee for its indulgence. Canada's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in

Europe continues to be 12 interceptor squadrons and one army brigade group. The interceptor squadrons which were first line in 1956 have become increasingly obsolescent since. Last summer the present government announced its decision to replace eight of those squadrons with a version of the United States Starfighter interceptor, presumably designed to carry out a strike attack role. This is a development of considerable significance in that for the first time Canada has commenced on a policy of acquiring equipment capable of participating in the role of nuclear retaliation. The particular aircraft chosen for this job has been widely criticized and therefore it will ever remain a mystery why the Canadian government chose a high altitude air superiority fighter for conversion to a low altitude strike reconnaissance role. We in the Liberal opposition have maintained it was the wrong aircraft for the job. Superior aircraft were available and could have been in use sooner had the government so decided.
The remaining four squadrons of interceptors, according to the minister, are to continue in use for two more years, but after that what? The minister has given us no indication at all, neither in the committee nor again today, whether they will be replaced or withdrawn.
Our brigade group in Europe is inadequately equipped. This was made perfectly clear in the evidence given to the committee. The minister has indicated some minor acquisitions of new equipment, but at the same time he tells us the brigade troop is now trained to operate under nuclear conditions but without being equipped with nuclear weapons. At page 449 of the evidence of the special committee on defence expenditures, in reply to a question, the minister said:
Yes, definitely. All troops of the Canadian army are trained so that they can operate on a nuclear battlefield, as well as being trained for the other tasks which might confront them; that is, the prevention of the outspread of a local war, where it is not anticipated that nuclear weapons would be used; and they are trained to be able to fight not only on a conventional battlefield, but also on a nuclear battlefield.
In either case that implies that the forces should be completely mobile; that they should be equipped with short range aircraft with helicopters, with amphibious carriers and so forth. We are advised, however, that none of this equipment is in the hands of the brigade group at the present time and that no money is included in the current estimates for procurement of these arms.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is he advocating that nuclear weapons should be provided for the forces in Europe?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the minister will bide his time and be patient, Mr. Chairman, he will have the answer in due course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not find it in the printed part of the speech in the paper, that is all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are going to have to be patient and hear it out if you wish to know, or else wait until tomorrow's report.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Advanced reports tomorrow, too?


Egan Chambers: More accurate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is far better to have that kind of a report than to withhold secret reports.


Thomas Miller Bell: Martin is the one who held up the proceedings today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would you direct the hon. gentleman from Saint John-Albert that when he refers to an hon. member to do so in accordance with the rules of this house, which call for the recognition of the constituency. In any event if the hon. gentleman would confine his remarks to himself we would make greater progress in the house.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a question of privilege, I apologize; I should have said the hon. member for Essex East was the one who caused trouble this afternoon by making his long speech at noon and thus the deadline was not met.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are now
on the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, after this small break for station identification I shall continue with the discussion of these matters. These omissions are a terrible indictment, the omission of adequate equipment, of the present administration.
In the committee the minister told us, that there was at the present time no requirement for the Caribou aircraft, and yet within a matter of weeks what do we find the government doing? We find it going out and making another one of those ad hoc, hurry up decisions, to acquire a piece of equipment of which it should have anticipated the requirement in a more normal and considered approach.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he anticipate the Congo trouble?
79951-0-478J
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In reply to the minister, let me say that troops which are properly equipped and mobile would have the equipment to deal with any of those situations without a crisis arising and that is exactly our objection to the policies of this government. They make nothing but crises decisions.


An hon. Member:: What about Suez?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The government has left our brigade group ill equipped to do the job it might have to do, and the remedy is not in sight.


Norman Platt Lambert: What about Suez?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have the Suez situation in mind when I make some of the suggestions included in this statement, and the hon. member should listen because he might learn something. I repeat, the government has left our brigade group ill equipped to do the job it might have to do and the remedy is not in sight. Yet the brigade group is still expected to do its job. It is little short of criminal negligence to permit the situation to continue.
Another new situation is the question of atomic arms. This has become a very urgent factor. Confused and conflicting statements on the part of various members of the government have left the situation completely up in the air. Announcements have been made that three items of equipment will be purchased, about which the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 1223 of Hansard oi February 20, 1959:
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
These include weapons for our NATO forces and for home defence. For NATO, our eight squadrons of new strike attack aircraft are to be equipped with atomic bombs. At the same time, as has been made perfectly clear from the evidence, no agreement has been reached with the French government in respect of stationing on French soil Canadian squadrons so equipped. Furthermore, according to the Minister of National Defence, no negotiations have yet taken place on the governmental level, although he states there have been preliminary discussions at the military level through the supreme allied commander in Europe. It seems difficult to believe that the government of Canada would go ahead and commit itself to the purchase of this equipment before arrangements were finalized for its use.
It is true that we do have two air bases in Germany and presumably F-104's could operate from them. In the day of missiles, however, it would seem sheer folly to station eight squadrons of atomic equipped planes on two

Supply-National Defence bases where they are vulnerable to sneak attack. We urge and demand that the government communicate to the house exactly what plans it has for the effective use of these machines.
The only other weapon on the government's present list which can utilize an atomic warhead is the Honest John ground to ground missile. This is a heavy and cumbersome piece of artillery but it is transportable by air if air transport is available.
With respect to North American defence, the government has committed itself to the use of the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile which even its staunchest supporters have never claimed to be effective without an atomic warhead. The government has committed the Canadian taxpayers to an expenditure of approximately $120 million for the SAGE-Bomarc system before it has made up its mind whether or not it will allow atomic warheads to be stored on Canadian soil. Without them the expenditure is useless but the decision has not yet been taken. It is a question of spending the money first and making the decision afterwards, a decision which might nullify the value of that expenditure.
The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that any atomic warheads stored in Canada would be under Canadian control. Obviously, however, this is not possible under United States law. The most that could be conceivably expected, would be so-called joint control. This is an arrangement under which Canada would have the discretion whether to use atomic warheads but only after they had been released to Canada by the President of the United States. It would be a question of whether to use uncle's car but only after uncle had decided it would be safe to turn over the key.
In summation, we allege that the present government has no defence policy. Its statements and actions with respect to air defence are confused and contradictory. It plans to re-equip our air division overseas with an aircraft which is virtually, I believe a re-design, notwithstanding government statements to the effect that we are no longer in the development business. It continues to build ships which may well be obsolete by the time they are launched. It organizes our brigade group for atomic war while at the same time denying it the necessary mobility and fire power. It involves us in the acquisition of weapons which only reach their full potential when armed with atomic warheads before any decision has been reached whether or not to so equip them. All in all, Mr. Chairman, the government's fumbling in defence matters is a sad and sorry mess. Our objection is not that they are spending too much
[Mr. Hellyer.l

or too little money but that what they do spend is not spent wisely or well. The objects of many of their expenditures are obsolete or pointless.
We asked for a special committee in order that a thorough study might take place. We asked the government to state a policy, a coherent, full and complete policy. Failing that, we felt we would be obliged, in keeping with our responsibility to the Canadian people, to indicate an alternative. The committee met but witnesses were not called. The minister failed to clear up the existing confusion. In opposition we do not have the advice of the chiefs of staff and we do not have access to classified data. Notwithstanding the limited information available to us, however, we feel obliged to live up to our undertaking and to indicate what we believe to be a sensible alternative to the government's confused lack of policy.
Based on all existing evidence, we believe that the Russians are not yet in a position to wage an all-out war with any hope of success. The minister re-emphasized that this afternoon and that is one point on which we agree. During the next two or three years the likelihood of a planned, calculated allout attack is not very great. In our suggestions, therefore, we have projected on this basis to the circumstances we expect several years hence at a time when the Soviet union will have a very large missile inventory which will neutralize and be neutralized by the striking capacity of the United States.
My first heading in this regard is continental air defence. By that time effective defence of the North American continent in the traditional sense will not be practical. Even if there should be a scientific breakthrough in the anti-missile field, it is not likely that the defence could overtake the tremendous lead presently enjoyed by the offence. Under these circumstances the main continuing function of what is presently continental air defence will be detection and identification. These are continuing requirements. Speaking to the NATO parliamentary group in Washington on November 18, 1959, General Kuter said:
We must first know what is present in our air space. Next, we must identify the object as friendly by one of several available methods. Failing in this, we classify the object as unknown, which necessitates an immediate scramble of an interceptor to visually examine the unknown.
As I stated earlier, it is likely that within the next year or so the strategic air command will find it necessary to commence a significant airborne alert. When it does, there will be hundreds of SAC bombers flying each way across Canada daily. These bombers will pass through our radar warning lines, the

D.E.W. line and the mid-Canada line. There is no problem in this as long as the communications systems remain intact but if they are disrupted problems arise. For example, if Russian trawlers were to cut trans-Atlantic telephone communications, as they have done, SAC bombers leaving European and African bases and coming to North America over the great northern route would have to rely on radio communications for the filing of flight plans. Radio communications though usually reliable are subject to wide fluctuations and at times are quite undependable. There is the possibility, therefore, of SAC bombers appearing on our radar screens as unidentified objects. Consequently, it is desirable that we have some equipment capable of undertaking a positive indentification. I might add that sometimes commercial aircraft fail to file flight plans. One case I remember well is when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport left for Winnipeg and wound up in Quebec city. This is just one other example of an occasion when it is better to send up an aircraft to take a look than to send up a Bomarc and say goodbye.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do you believe that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said goodbye to a lot of your friends who were once here.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Our present equipment allocated to this task of identification is the CF-100 interceptor. This plane is far too slow to overtake the fastest bombers in the Russian inventory. Obviously, therefore, if the identification role is to be carried out satisfactorily we must have a supersonic aircraft at least twice as fast as the one at present in service, one capable of a reserve of speed sufficient to allow early identification. The United States air force is very anxious that Canada should take such action, so anxious, indeed, that it has agreed to purchase from Canadair Limited of Montreal a number of CL-44 carriers if the Canadian government will at the same time buy a number of United States supersonic interceptors as replacements for the CF-100.
There has been considerable objection raised in the United States senate to the possibility of the United States air force buying Canadian planes. It was overcome, however, on the basis that the deal would be good for both countries. Because of the nature of the arrangement there would be no appreciable balance of payments problem and the employment created on one side of the border would approximately equal that enjoyed on the other side. The number of interceptors acquired would not be nearly as great as the number of CF-lOO's presently in our nine
Supply-National Defence squadrons. Perhaps the number which would be acquired under this arrangement would be sufficient for this role.
After consideration of all the factors involved we would recommend the acceptance of this proposal. I think the minister concurs with this suggestion, we hope he will, and that he will endorse it before the debate is concluded. The advantages to both countries are considerable. Canada would obtain a supersonic interceptor which would carry out the identification role and also, because it would be available immediately, it would provide some limited defensive capacity during the next two or three years. It would seem preferable that this role, which of necessity must be carried out over Canadian skies, should be done by the Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian airmen. From the commercial standpoint, Canadair would obtain an advantage in cost which would put it in a more competitive position in regard to future sales of the same aircraft to commercial carriers. This would be a most welcome boost to Canada's failing aircraft industry.
Because of our belief that from the midsixties on there will be no possibility of effective air defence of the North American continent we can see no reason for continuing with the installation of equipment designed exclusively for that purpose. It is our contention, therefore, that the government should discontinue at once its participation in the SAGE-Bomarc system, and not proceed with the installation of radar gap fillers. These are only useful against attack by manned bombers. We contend that the possibility of attack during the next two or three years is not very great, and this is the only period during which these installations would be worth while. Interestingly enough, this would be the period during which they would be still under construction, not yet operational. By the time they are in place they will be obsolete, because by that time an all-out offence would involve the overwhelming use of missiles against which there is no defence.
Elimination of the SAGE-Bomarc system in Canada would eliminate the necessity for Canada storing or using atomic warheads on Canadian territory. The supersonic interceptors, which we would be acquiring under this arrangement, could be armed with conventional guided missiles such as the sidewinder. There would then be no immediate question of extending control of atomic weapons to another power. I know that this is a matter of great concern, not only to us on this side of the house but to the government, the Prime Minister and to others.
Then, in respect of NORAD, may I say that the leader of the Liberal party has stated from time to time that we believe NORAD
7568	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence should be part of NATO. We are not satisfied, on the information given us, that this liaison requires Canadian membership in NORAD as an organization outside the NATO command structure. We think it is one which reflects the form more than the substance of partnership. On the basis, however, that our future contribution is confined to the detection and identification roles, we would not withdraw from NORAD unless it could be positively shown that the necessary liaison was possible outside of that organization.
I come now to NATO. At the time the NATO agreement was signed the objective was to build up in Europe a shield consisting of a substantial number of divisions armed with conventional weapons. Subsequently, however, at a time when the United States still had overwhelming superiority in atomic capability the NATO forces were reorganized along the lines dictated or at least rationalized by the theory of massive retaliation. More recently the European NATO shield has been described as a trip wire, a defensive force which would cause any attacker group to pause long enough that a rational decision must be taken before proceeding further with the attack, presumably in the knowledge that to proceed would bring about an all-out, unlimited war. This theory loses its validity, however, when the time comes that the threat of nuclear retaliation is merely a threat. When the offensive capability of each side is neutralized by the other the only way to stop a ground attack would be with those forces immediately available for that purpose. For this reason, we urge the NATO alliance to take cognizance of the future situation and to reorganize and rebuild its forces to the point required to stop a conventional attack by conventional means.
We believe that there should be a complete re-examination of the defence strategy of the NATO alliance to this end. Until that is completed and the Canadian role can be assessed in the light of its result the brigade group should remain in Europe in its present role. We deplore, in any event, its lack of more up to date equipment for its presently assigned task. We recommend that it be supplied with aircraft, helicopters and amphibious equipment necessary to give it the maximum flexibility. We would also recommend a policy of supplying it with up to date weapons with the maximum firepower.


Mr, Churchill:: Would the hon. member answer the question which he asked me to defer as to whether or not he would provide nuclear weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What was the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member said the brigade was inadequately armed, and I was


asking if the hon. member was advocating the supply of nuclear weapons to the brigade in Europe?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it is clear from what I have said that we are advocating a complete re-examination of defence strategy of the NATO alliance, and we would not want to prejudge the results of that examination.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock we were discussing the alternative policy being put forward by this party in respect to the re-equipment and redirection, in a sense, of our armed forces. We had just completed discussion in respect to the brigade group in Europe.
With respect to the air division, we regret the decision of the government to re-equip on the basis of the strike attack role. Canada has not, in the past, contributed to the offensive potential in any way, and especially any nuclear potential. We feel that it is unnecessary and unwise to change this basic policy. Re-equipping the air division in this way creates a number of problems. Included in these is the possibility of duplication of targets between NATO's tactical bomb-carrying aircraft and the bombers and missiles of the strategic air command. It creates a serious problem as to the bases from which these planes can be operated and, above all, it creates the problem of the use by Canadian forces in Europe of nuclear weapons under national and not under collective control. By "national" I mean United States control.
If such weapons, even tactical defensive ones, are to be used as part of NATO defence forces, this should only be as a result of a collective NATO decision and if they are brought under NATO's collective control. Furthermore, we have no confidence in the aircraft chosen. We have never been able to understand why the government would choose a high altitude air superiority fighter converted to a low altitude striker role. Indeed, the long period of time which has elapsed between the selection of this plane and the present, when we are informed that the prototype has not yet been completed, is indicative of the extent to which modifications were necessary. This amounts practically to the development of a new aircraft, at a time when the Prime Minister has told us that Canada is no longer in the aircraft development business.

We also note that even after continued efforts the major accident rate of those models of this aircraft presently in use remains approximately double that of other "Century class" interceptors. Under these circumstances we would recommend cancellation of the acquisition of the CF-104 and the abandonment of Canada's offensive role.


George Randolph Pearkes: Canada has no offensive role.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We suggest that the air division in Europe should be given a ground support role designed to give ground cover and tactical support to our brigade group. The aircraft chosen for this role, a new aircraft, would be one which could be utilized similarly in any trouble spot in the world where Canada's forces might be engaged.
Here again we would emphasize the international character of our defence policy and forces. This type of air support and air cover would be extremely valuable in circumstances of brush wars, limited engagements, et cetera, where perhaps United Nations action might be required, as well as in defence against conventional attack in Europe. The contribution it would make might be of significant importance, whereas in the event of an allout attack we cannot imagine that a few strike attack aircraft armed with small atomic bombs are going to alter significantly the outcome.
In respect to the Canadian navy, at the present time the Canadian navy is assigned almost exclusively to the role of anti-submarine warfare. Based on the belief that after the mid-19 60's real defence is impossible, the navy's anti-submarine role will be like any other form of defence, only partial and inadequate as far as the protection of the Canadian nation and all our peoples is concerned. Destroyer escorts presently being built are not as fast as contemporary submarines being built by the United States and Russia. They are also more vulnerable. Continuance of this program beyond the present strength seems to us quite unrealistic. In these circumstances the government should consider the possibility of replacing the six destroyer escorts in the current program with ships designed to act as combat troop carriers and supply ships, useful among other things for United Nations service. These could be used as bases for launching and supporting land operations in areas inaccessible to long range transport aircraft. These ships would increase the flexibility of Canada's mobile tactical forces and would add considerably to our capacity to react to United Nations requests involving international police action. Last night the minister spoke of mobility, transport mobility; but surely forces which
Supply-National Defence do not have sea support miss in one essential respect the all-round type of tactical transport and support which might, under some circumstances, be required.
The hon. member for Edmonton West stated this afternoon-at least, he reminded me to think back to the Suez situation. I am thinking back to when the Canadian aircraft carrier had to be stripped of its equipment in order to provide transport. It was not subsequently used, but the capacity was not at that time there which was considered essential and which might, under different circumstances, have been essential. Similarly, the minister told us in a statement-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Could I ask a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As soon as I am finished you can ask all the question you want. The minister also mentioned that troops should have the capacity of meeting commando operations anywhere in Canada, and yet very large portions of this country, including a great part of our sea coast, are inaccessible by air. They are inaccessible in any way except by sea, and certainly the type of mobility we have in mind here would add something to the general flexibility and capacity of tactical forces.
With respect to air transportability the Liberal party once again urges that the government's present program in respect to air transportability be augmented. It recommends an increase in the number of long range transport aircraft, sufficient to permit the simultaneous airlift of one brigade. This capacity would be available to transport Canadian troops to trouble spots anywhere in the world, which would tremendously increase Canadian capacity to respond to United Nations requests for immediate assistance. This capacity would be available, not only for transporting troops but for evacuating refugees, transporting food and supplies, et cetera. This capacity to airlift the brigade would be true air transportability. Again, the events of the last two weeks have demonstrated the necessity for this.
In the Congo situation you had practically an exclusive airlift by the United States military air transport service. It could easily happen that a situation will arise where for one reason or another it was not advisable to use military transport of the United States. Under those circumstances a large capacity for a Canadian airlift would prove extemely valuable and could be of great assistance not only to those troops or personnel we might be supplying in that particular situation but also to other nations with whom we might be co-operating.
Now as to research. This party believes that one of Canada's greatest contributions
7570	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence to collective defence is in the field of defence research. We contend that we have the scientists and the capacity to undertake pure and applied research far in excess of the present level. We would recommend that expenditures in this field be augmented by annual increments until a level considerably higher than that of the present one is achieved. As a general policy we should undertake on behalf of the western world any research projects within our capacity referred to us. At the same time we would be able to put forward our own ideas and the method of selection would not be too different from that presently employed by the defence research board. We believe that many of these projects could be carried out at Canadian universities and by Canadian industry on behalf of the defence research board.
In the field of applied research we recommend the development of some equipment in fields where it is believed that Canada could become pre-eminent. We realize that there are a few limited projects which might come within this class or category at the present time, but very few. These areas of development would provide the technical and industrial know-how which would permit Canada to compete in world markets in respect of the commercial equivalents and derivatives of such development. This specialization would provide steady growth for the export of Canadian manufactured goods.
There is one major area of development which we feel would be a challenge to Canadian capacity, and particularly suited to Canadian needs. It is the development of atomic engines for use in transportation, particularly as applied to aircraft. This is a project with virtually unlimited civil and defence applications.
We are told that the Russians are developing atomic powered aircraft and that the west is falling behind in this race. It is also forecast that atomic powered aircraft will, to an extent at least, supersede the guided missile. It would be capable of flying for virtually unlimited periods at low altitudes at supersonic speed and will render existing radar equipment and allied paraphernalia obsolete. As a component of a deterrent force it will be mobile and virtually invulnerable, being at the same time capable of carrying and launching ballistic missiles with deadly accuracy. Commercial and other applications are virtually unlimited and test the imagination to conceive. This would not only be an unique and urgent contribution to the collective defence of the west but would also be of vital importance to Canada's industrial potential.
[Mr. Hellyer.I

Unquestionably the day will come when there will be a very large world-wide market for small and medium sized atomic reactors and engines. Canada as one of the world's leading uranium producers will be vitally interested in supplying fuel for this market. The market, however, will likely be available to those who are best equipped through experience and capacity to provide the complete package. For this reason future uranium sales would hinge to a large extent on Canada's ability to capture for itself a sizeable proportion of the world reactor market. Seldom has a country been faced with such a promising challenge of such great opportunity. This is not the first time I have put forward this suggestion. It is in fact a restatement of a proposal I made at the national Liberal convention in January, 1958. I believe, however, it is one worthy of implementation without further delay.
It has been stated that Canada cannot afford to undertake any major developmental projects. This view has been widely accepted and is held by the present government. Obviously, however, if there are 15 major developmental programs required to be done by the western world Canada should be able to afford and should undertake one of them. The United States with her great resources can well afford to do many, but at least we should do our proportionate share. The attitude of the present government reminds me of the parable of the talents. Discovering to its horror that Canada had only one talent, our government decided to bury it in the ground. This is a negative and passive approach to the use of our resources. There is, of course, always the risk of failure and failure is embarrassing. A government with courage, however, would not turn its back on the course it believed to be right, simply because of the element of risk involved.
All of these suggestions have been based, of course, on the premises stated. These, unfortunately, include no general disarmament agreement. This party has urgently stressed the importance of trying to arrive at an agreement which would reduce the likelihood of the possibility of an atomic war or indeed of any war. We still believe that all efforts should be bent in this direction. Any agreement, to be workable, however, must have effective provisions for inspection and control. Today's discussion is based on the conditions existing in the world today, that no such agreement has yet been reached and that the possibility of living through a long period under what might be called the era of thermonuclear terror is a

real possibility. If this is so, civil defence becomes a much more urgent problem.
In an extended period where each side in the cold war possesses the power of thermonuclear destruction there exist two possibilities of catastrophe. First, if one side thought it had an overwhelming military superiority which would enable it to launch a surprise attack and survive retaliation there could be the temptation of a calculated risk. Much more likely, however, would be the possibility of a war started by a madman or as the result of an accident or incident. Should this occur there is no real protection against disastrous destruction. There is the possibility, however, of saving a good proportion of our population by taking adequate steps to protect against radiation.
It is obvious from talking to Canadians in all walks of life and reading letters to editors that we have, as a people, been brainwashed. We have adopted the fatalistic attitude that in the event of an all-out war all is lost and there would be no survival. It would be the end of civilization, it is said, like "On the Beach". This fatalistic viewpoint is just not sound. "On the Beach", written by the late Nevil Shute, is science fiction and does not purport to be technically accurate. In the event of all-out war millions of people would be saved if fall-out shelters were available. From the standpoint of survival alone this is just about the most effective way in which we can spend money on defence against attack. Over a period of years, for a small proportion of our national budget we could provide survival for a large proportion of our people.
Furthermore, it has been asked "What is the sense of surviving if one takes into account the conditions of radiation which would exist in the post-attack environment?"
This case is very well stated by Rogers Cannell, manager of the industry and civil defence research, Stanford research institute in an article entitled "Civilization Can Recover" in which he states:
Many accept the idea that shelter can effectively reduce casualties but believe that survival in the post attack environment would be impossible. They fear the invisible and mysterious atomic radiation and believe that recovery from the loss of a major portion of the nation would be impossible.
A radioactive environment will take its toll. This fact must not be minimized. But it is also important to know that its toll is not worse than a setback of only a few decades in medical history. Our lives would be as long as our grandfathers' and the proportion of stillborn children and child deformities should be no worse than 30 years ago. In fact, the post-attack environment with our present state of medical knowledge would be somewhat safer than the one most of us entered at birth.
Supply-National Defence
The author goes on to draw examples from history including one from the thirty years* war. One or two of my newspaper friends have told me I should not refer to such an historical example so I will not. But if I were to mention it I would merely say-


George Randolph Pearkes: Go ahead.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -that history does offer additional evidence that a civilization can recover from a devastating war. In the words of Mr. Cannell:
Take, for example, the thirty years' war-an ideological conflict fought in central Europe in the first half of the 17th century. The loss of life due directly to the war has been placed by the lowest estimate at one third of the entire population of both Germany and Bohemia. Other estimates run as high as 80 per cent. The social effects were catastrophic-entire districts were turned into deserts, wolves ran in the streets of once populated cities, and cannibalism was widespread. Yet, in a generation or so these areas had recovered in most respects. After a nuclear attack, short in duration, and starting from a much higher base of knowledge, recovery would be far easier for us. War must be prevented at any cost-
I wish to underline this. The goal of all our policies and proposals on both sides of the house is equally dedicated to one important realization and that is the avoidance of war. If there is any difference between us it is merely on the means of achieving this end. Again in the words of the author:
War must be prevented at any cost-and protection and preparation for recovery are part of that cost. But war is not the end of civilization. We must take every step we can now to accelerate the recovery process.
Believing this proposal to be fundamentally sound we urge steps to accelerate rapidly a national capacity to survive a nuclear holocaust. Like any other insurance it will be expensive, but it is certainly far more urgent and necessary than many of the ways we presently spend our national income.
Before leaving the subject of civil defence I want to admit that I am a recent convert to this way of thinking. Until recently, at least, like many other people I wondered just what efforts could be taken that would be of any use, if indeed there were steps which could be taken, which would justify the expense and which would offer some reasonable insurance in case of all-out attack. After giving the matter considerable study, however, I have come to the conclusion that under these circumstances-under the circumstance of an uneasy period of years when both sides have the capacity of total thermonuclear annihilation-we have no alternative but to try and take such steps as we can to protect the largest possible proportion of our civilian population.

Supply-National Defence
I believe this to be urgent. I think the minister, to at least a certain extent, agrees with this. I hope that we will have a more realistic attitude toward this matter of civil survival which up until now has been more a matter of games, planning and the passing of papers than it has a real and vital program.
In summation then, the Liberal policy is designed to meet in the best way possible the following conditions:
1.	To spend those funds set aside for national defence effectively and wisely.
2.	To contribute to our collective alliances those components which continue to be useful.
3.	To build forces flexible enough to respond to virtually any United Nations request for assistance; forces in being, fully equipped, fully mobile and transportable by air or sea; forces capable of effectively participating in any brush fire or conventional encounter before it gets out of hand with the possibility of triggering a wider conflagration.
4.	To build forces which would be useful as part of a world police force in the event a disarmament agreement should be reached.
5.	To contribute to research to the end that the western world forge ahead in scientific development keeping in mind also the economic by-products which might accrue.
6.	To provide the maximum protection possible to the Canadian population in the event of irrational attack.
7.	To promote an even more effective Canadian contribution to the preservation of world peace.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the suggestions we have made will contribute materially to these objectives. Before resuming my seat I should like to deal briefly with one or two of the comments made by the minister at the conclusion of his remarks. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to examine his address in detail so I will deal with the other points later.
The minister tried to leave the impression that by a policy of not having Bomarcs and nuclear warheads for Bomarc the Canadian nation was being placed in jeopardy. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we believed for one moment that the Bomarcs provided any real protection with or without nuclear warheads we would concur in their use, but we do not believe so. On the contrary, we think they are nothing but an added liability. We think they would put in jeopardy the survival of people in the immediate area because they would in fact become one of the few priority targets in this country.
In our minds it is not a question of using a missile with an atomic warhead such as the Bomarc. It is our conclusion after serious consideration that in the time period in which


these missiles will be in operation they will provide no effective defence whatsoever and might just as well not be there. If anyone else thinks differently let him support the policy and let him pay the piper. We do not believe so. We particularly do not believe so when the atomic warheads would be under the control of the United States government.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is not correct. The hon. member knows that is not correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With respect to atomic weapons being used by NATO, as we have stated we urge a complete revaluation of the NATO policy to determine if it would not be possible to build up conventional forces. We have stated that we would not wish to anticipate the results of such reconsideration. If after this reconsideration it was felt that situations might arise when nuclear defensive weapons have to be used, then we would urge, provided it was a collective agreement, that these weapons be supplied and used or not used in respect to a collective NATO agreement.
There is nothing unreasonable about this. Our position has been logical and straightforward. We do not believe, however, that it is necessary for Canada to embark on a new role in Europe which it has never had, a role of strike attack with Canadian aircraft, carrying atomic bombs, which can penetrate enemy territory and be part of the retaliatory forces if so decided.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Coming and going at the same time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure that on reflection the minister will see the error of the early and hasty remarks he made, and we would be pleased to hear from him further in this regard as the debate continues. We will take another look at his statement, because our purpose is to try as best we can to contribute to a pool of ideas and the working out of solutions which are in the best interests of this country. I do not think any hon. member would deny this motive to anyone on any side of the house. We are not for one moment detracting from the sincerity of the government in what it is doing. All we are saying is that we disagree with the mechanics and with some of the specific proposals which the government has placed before this house.
In conclusion, in respect of the incident that happened today, I should just like to say that I had a few typewritten copies of my speech which I gave to a number of newspaper reporters who asked for them until all of the copies were gone. Each copy was marked "For release on delivery". I cannot believe that a newspaperman, or a newspaper, would deliberately violate the agreement under which advance copies of speeches are

made available to them. I am sure that from time to time accidents do happen. This is not the first time that speeches have been printed by mistake in advance of delivery. I do not believe it was done wilfully, but-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All hon. members will agree, that notwithstanding the possibility of some mechanical miscalculation which can happen even in the defence department, this time-honoured practice would not be wilfully violated by any member of the press gallery or of the Canadian Press.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the hon. member who has just taken his seat permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The speaker prefaced his remarks, as I recall it, by saying that he and his party did not have classified information at their disposal, nor did they have the advice of the chiefs of staff on which to base their ideas but their ideas were reasoned out logically. If that is the situation, on what basis does he, then, categorically state that it would not be possible by 1963 or 1965 for ships of the Royal Canadian Navy to deal effectively with Soviet submarines?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the basis of that information which does from time to time make itself available by means best known to the hon. gentleman, which I believe to be substantially accurate, and I do not think the hon. gentleman would deny that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question just for clarification? In the course of his remarks the hon. member attributed to the Prime Minister the statement that Canada is no longer in the aircraft development field. Will he give me the reference?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not have the exact reference, but it was made in the speech which was delivered in the house-on a Friday, I think it was-at the time the Avro Arrow was cancelled.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the speech in front of me and that statement is not there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will look it up for the hon.
gentleman.


Harold Edward Winch: On account of the importance of the item which is now before us and the fact that it does deal with a very complicated matter I intend to follow the procedure that was established by the Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Trinity and follow my notes very closely.


Norman Platt Lambert: They have not been
published?
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: They have not been printed yet.
I doubt whether there will be any question that we need common sense instead of nonsense in national defence. In trying to present what I think is a policy of common sense in national defence I am arranging what I have to say so as to make a number of references to NORAD, to Bomarc and to NATO. Then, I hope to enlarge upon these three matters from the C.C.F. point of view and to conclude my remarks with a definite statement of 11 points of C.C.F. policy as far as national defence is concerned.
The C.C.F. insists that there is no defence against thermonuclear weapons; therefore we maintain that NORAD is useless and that Canada should immediately withdraw from this alliance. The Bomarc, even if it were armed with a nuclear warhead, could never possibly shoot down enough bombers to prevent annihilation in a single attack. We feel that it is madness to think that any aggressor, if it were to attack North America, would do less than send all its available bombers in the first attack. If this is correct, and we think it is, then the Bomarc, just like the Arrow is a total waste of money from beginning to end.
The C.C.F. considers that NATO's heavy reliance on nuclear weapons is suicidal for this reliance leaves NATO only two choices for dealing with any aggressive soviet move in the NATO area, and that is either death or defeat. It means death in a thermonuclear holocaust, and that would be bound to result from the slightest use of nuclear weapons in Europe. Or it could mean defeat in a conventional war, because it is our understanding it is only the soviets who are fully equipped for conventional war. The C.C.F., therefore, insists that Canada must urge upon NATO a fundamental replacement of the present nuclear strategy; the C.C.F. also insists that Canada must urge that NATO honestly strive to work toward disengagement and disarmament in Europe.
We strongly feel that we must work toward the creation of a buffer zone in Europe at the same time as we make a buffer zone of Canada. When we use the term "buffer" we do so in the sense of the dictionary definition. The concise Oxford dictionary defines "buffer" as a neutral state lying between two larger ones serving to render less possible hostilities between them. Of course, in speaking of Canada as a small state, I am speaking in the military sense as compared with the major powers.
I think I am safe in saying that the basic trouble with our Canadian national defence policy is that those who are responsible for it
7574	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence cannot or will not understand one fundamental fact, namely that there is no defence against thermonuclear weapons and a war fought with such weapons would be suicidal. It therefore follows, in my opinion at least, that all defensive preparations for such a war are a waste of time, energy and money. Worse yet, such defensive preparations increase the ghastly possibilities of thermonuclear war by letting people think that defence is possible against thermonuclear war and that therefore a policy which could lead to thermonuclear war is not automatically idiotic. A national defence policy which includes the possibility of national suicide is a contradiction in terms.
It should be clear-we hope it is clear- that thermonuclear war would be national suicide since no amount of air defences, no amount of counterattacks, will prevent sufficient thermonuclear weapons getting through to destroy the nation. Therefore I insist and the C.C.F. insists that logic insists that the basic aim of our national defence policy must be to prevent war. This means that we must lend every support to any reasonable plan for total world disarmament. Neither the U.S.S.R. nor the United States will divest themselves of their nuclear weapons until all other means of making war have disappeared.
I should like at this time to divert from the basic principles I have been trying to outline in order to speak on certain aspects and I will return to the basic principles in a few minutes. I should like to spend a little time on what I might term the German question and Berlin. Some 15 years after the end of the second world war Germany is divided and no peace treaty has been signed. Very strong conventional Russian forces surround the city of Berlin, fully strong enough to blockade the city and prevent us doing anything about it unless we are prepared to engage in a thermonuclear war. Defeat or death appear to be the only two alternatives in Berlin if the Russians start something, so we say surely it is not impossible to work out an agreement that will reconcile the minimum aims of both sides.
I admit, of course, that we will have to make concessions but so too will the Russians. After all, they would like to see all of Berlin fully integrated into communist East Germany and, of course, we will not let them have this and I think the Russians realize that they are not going to be allowed to have it. So I believe that we have got to try to get some sense into both sides. I admit that in saying that I am perhaps in the field of foreign policy but I do so because I think that we have to remember constantly the inter-relationship between foreign and defence policies.


When we think of Berlin and the entire problem of Germany we have to consider Europe and when we consider Europe we have to consider NATO. I say that regardless of why massive soviet forces are in eastern Europe, as long as they are there then NATO must be powerfully supported by the western allies. However, I do feel that the present military situation in Europe is that the NATO forces are greatly outnumbered by the Russians in effective combat formations. The western policy appears to be to balance NATO's weakness in conventional forces by being ready to use so-called tactical nuclear weapons. This appears to be a carry-over from the early days of NATO when it had nuclear superiority. But the west has absolutely no grounds for assuming that NATO still has this superiority, and it has still less reason for thinking that a weak force armed with nuclear weapons is going to beat a large force armed with nuclear weapons. What is important is to be able to counter any soviet move, such as a blockade of Berlin, with conventional forces.
The idea of meeting any and all soviet aggressions in the NATO area with nuclear weapons is, I think, highly dangerous. The interests of both sides, the interests of all are too vitally involved in Europe for a nuclear war there to remain a limited nuclear war. That is why we feel that Canada must insist that NATO recast its strategy, its tactics and its organization so that its defensive forces are capable of meeting any soviet aggression with conventional weapons long enough to allow diplomacy to seek a settlement before, progressively, tactical nuclear weapons and thermonuclear weapons are brought into use.
So long as NATO both earnestly endeavours to reach an agreement with the Warsaw pact countries on disarmament and disengagement and also simultaneously begins revising its present suicidal nuclear strategy, then we in the C.C.F. say that Canada should remain in and support the NATO organization.
I would be failing my responsibility if 1 expressed a view on defence and weapons in Europe and then did not come right back home, so I should like to have a few words to say on the question of NORAD. Within our own borders there is much that we can do to lessen the suicidal possibility of thermonuclear war. With the continual refinement of the methods of delivery of thermonuclear weapons, the terrible danger of a pre-emptive attack by one massive power on the other becomes more and more prevalent. Indeed with each of the two major powers thinking in terms of a pre-emptive attack on the other such an attack almost becomes a certainty.

Surprise is essential for a successful preemptive attack else the annihilation will be mutual. Anything that Canada can do, therefore, to reduce the fear of either side of a surprise attack would be a step toward the prevention of war. That is why I fully associate myself with my colleague, the hon. members for Kootenay West, who called in this house about three weeks ago for the internationalization of the D.E.W. line, thereby making of Canada a true buffer between the U.S.S.R. and the United States. However, I thought it would be understood that the suggestion of the internationalization of Canada's radar warning lines would be a policy proposal for all radar warning lines throughout the world to be internationalized.
Since thermonuclear war between the United States and the U.S.S.R. could only be national suicide for Canada as well as for the United States, it follows that only deterrence makes sense. Actual defence against thermonuclear weapons is useless. As I see it, there is no point in shooting down 500 bombers if 500 others get through and thereby destroy us. The North American air defence command, NORAD, is therefore useless and I think we should withdraw from the alliance. The strategic air command needs time to get its squadrons airborne and the D.E.W. line furnishes this time, not the interceptors or anti-aircraft missiles of NORAD. The whole idea of protecting SAC bases, of shooting down Soviet bombers, stems from the notion of actually fighting a thermonuclear war which, according to my understanding, is not possible by any nation in the world unless it wants to commit suicide.
I feel strongly that the CF-105, the Arrow, was a waste of money from beginning to end and that the Bomarc is no better. I say that regardless of whether the Bomarc has a high explosive or nuclear warhead because if a war starts then it is almost bound to be a thermonuclear war leading to destruction. It could start if any nation or government is crazy enough to trigger a third world war in our generation. I think that the Liberals are right in what they have said today in opposing the Bomarc. However, we think they are entirely wrong to go on from there and advocate the replacement of the CF-100 with a supersonic plane. Either we can develop an adequate defence for Canada against thermonuclear attack or we cannot. If we cannot, and it is the firm belief of the C.C.F. that we, and every other nation, cannot, then it is useless to go on spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Canadian air defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You did not listen very carefully to what I said.
Supply-National Defence


Harold Edward Winch: I listened very carefully to it, not only listened to it but I read it before you said it.
To have supersonic interceptors capable of identifying supersonic bombers would be nice, but would it be worth the hundreds of millions of dollars we would have to spend? I have my doubts that supersonic interceptors would deter supersonic bombers. If an aggressor were to decide on an all-out attack on this continent, and I cannot conceive of any aggressor making anything less than an all-out attack, enough bombers would undoubtedly get through even if we had the new and improved replacements.
Mutual deterrence alone unhappily, and I say unhappily, is still the only answer to a thermonuclear threat and in this Canada has no direct part. So we say, let us not continue fooling ourselves by talking continental air defence. It is time we cut our losses. It is time we got out of NORAD. It is time we devoted the money at present being wasted to trying to prevent war rather than continuing to prepare for suicide.
Then, of course, I come to the subject of the expenditure of money and that brings me to a reference to submarines. I have no hesitation in saying that I oppose the suggestion of the defence committee that Canada consider obtaining submarines. Submarines are weapons of all-out war and all preparations for actually fighting such a war just do not make sense in this day and age. If an all-out war were to break out how would one or 10 or 100 Canadian submarines save the nation? To do so, we would have to destroy every nuclear missile-firing submarine. We would have to do it within hours of war breaking out. I will admit that I cannot understand why there does appear to be so much deliberate propaganda from the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. building up to an eventual war. I do not think either country wants war. However, we have to consider it from that basis. Now then if we do consider it from that basis we come right back to the question I mentioned, submarines. If there has to be this continual propaganda fight, then if my understanding is correct that the war will be an all-out war, a thermonuclear war, how can Canada with a few submarines prevent an all-out attack or an all-out war on a thermonuclear basis?
I think we have to face the facts, harsh as they may be and I admit they are harsh. We have to stop this defence policy of wishful thinking and, therefore, I maintain, the useless expenditure of money. I cannot repeat too often that what we have to do is prepare for peace. We do not do that by entering into a policy of buying submarines. They neither defend nor do they deter.
757G

Supply-National Defence
I was rather surprised by the statement made by the Minister of National Defence yesterday, which can be found on page 7522 of Hansard. The minister is reported as having said:
-the primary aim of our defence policy must be to prevent war, not to win a war but to prevent war, and thus the importance placed by the west on their deterrent power. In the past it has sometimes been politically desirable to avoid a war. Today nuclear weapons have created a situation in which the main if not the sole purpose of the armed forces is deterrence. To use our armed forces in action would mean, therefore, that the purpose for which we have kept them has failed.
Then, only a page later the minister said this:
If the armed forces are not ready when war breaks out there will be no opportunity to recover.
Then just a few lines farther on he is reported as saying:
These are, as I think the committee knows, first of all the provision of naval, air and ground forces for the defence of the Canada-United States region, in other words the North American continent;
If you put those remarks together, or if you try to, I think they conclusively prove that he does not understand what defence is all about in a thermonuclear age. I feel that he does not understand the fundamental difference between the defence of North America and defence of the NATO area. They are two entirely different things. The NATO area is contiguous to the soviet zone, and the whole range of military power is required in the NATO area, from an infantry platoon up to thermonuclear weapons, so that any soviet aggressive move may be deterred by the certainty of the appropriate NATO response. Therein, of course, lies the present danger in the NATO area, because NATO's weakness in conventional weapons forces it into two exclusive a reliance, I feel, on thermonuclear weapons. If they are ever used then I say, as the minister said, our defence policy has failed.
In North America I think the situation is different from that in NATO. It is ridiculous to think of any attack on North America as anything less than an all-out attack, and an all-out attack would automatically trigger the United States deterrent, that is the strategic air command. Therefore, in North America we do not need infantry platoons to balance or to deter anything from the U.S.S.R. What we need is what we have, that is the strategic air command and the means to alert the strategic air command, which we have, the D.E.W. line.
I feel the minister has been confusing defence and deterrence. Deterrence is a part of our defence policy, that is true, but defensive weapons are no deterrence against the only


weapons which could ever conceivably be used in an attack on the North American continent, namely thermonuclear weapons. There is no defence, we have been told time after time, against such weapons. Therefore, I feel it is the failure to understand this point that leads the present government, and led the Liberals, to spend millions of dollars on Bomarcs, interceptors and anti-submarine weapons. There is no defence against H-bombers, ICBM's and nuclear missile-firing submarines. I feel that when the minister referred, as he did, to the provision of naval, air and ground forces for the defence of the Canada-United States region, he showed that he does not understand that the defence policy for the North American continent can only rest on one thing, and one thing alone, that is deterrence, until disarmament can be achieved.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, that my time is running short. At first sight it may appear strange to advocate that Canada be a buffer zone at home and yet support NATO abroad. The reason stems from what must be the basic aim of our defence policy: to prevent war.
I want to state and make it very clear that neither neutrality nor pacifism is necessarily commendable in itself. The fact of the matter simply is that by being a buffer in North America Canada can best prevent an all-out pre-emptive war between the United States and the Soviet union. On the other hand, were we simply to quit NATO without making the slightest attempt to modify NATO's strategy and organization, we would not have done all we could to prevent world-wide war breaking out there, a war in which we would surely suffer annihilation. But I want to make entirely clear that there can be no question, as far as the C.C.F. is concerned, of Canada retiring into isolationism. Rather we say we must move forward from outdated military alliances into the broadest internationalism.
We say we must quit wasting money on air defence, that is, defence against H-bombers, ICBM's and nuclear missile-firing submarines, for all such defence is obsolete. We say we must devote our energies instead to preventing war by really doing our best to bring about a complete and universal disarmament, and by working hard to reduce the underlying tensions in the world which are the cause of war.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer these main points as the basis for a new and sensible defence policy for Canada, a defence policy which fully takes account of the fact that thermonuclear war would be



I960

[Stage Direction]
suicidal and that the task of our armed forces is to prevent war and not to prepare for suicide:
1.	Canada should immediately end the NORAD agreement.
2.	Since air defence in the thermonuclear age is impossible, Canada should quit building Bomarc sites and should not replace the CF-100.
3.	No nuclear weapons should be permitted on or over Canadian soil.
4.	Foreign military aircraft of any kind shall not be permitted to use Canadian air bases or air space in any way involving espionage, or in a manner to cause international conflict or misunderstanding.
5.	Canada should encourage the principle of all radar warning lines being internationalized.
6.	Canada must aim at becoming a buffer between the Soviet union and the United States, thus lessening the necessity for each massive power thinking in terms of preemptive thermonuclear attack on the other.
7.	Our armed forces must be completely unified.
8.	Our armed forces should be reduced to those required for the radar warning lines, for training and administering our NATO forces, for basic civil defence military requirements in the event of thermonuclear attack, and for United Nations world police requirements.
9.	The money thus saved, and I think considerable money could be saved, should be used for aiding underdeveloped nations in a manner that will demonstrate Canada's interest in those less blessed than ourselves and our desire to assist throughout the world the establishment of economic and parliamentary democracy.
10.	Canada must urge on NATO a fundamental revision of its present nuclear strategy coupled with a reorganization of its forces so that any aggression with conventional weapons can be repulsed with conventional weapons.
11.	Canada must urge on NATO a detailed study of plans for bilateral disarmament and disengagement in Europe so that a buffer zone is created there at the same time as we create a buffer zone of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I timed that exactly right; I used up my 30 minutes. Those are some of our views on the question, and the most vital question, of national defence.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, after the clear and most logical expose which you heard yesterday and today from the Minister of National Defence, it becomes quite evident that the efforts of those who belittle our defence
Supply-National Defence policy are quite futile and in fact rather harmful to the cause of defence. It is quite obvious that the problem of defence is one which surpasses, because of its very scope and importance, the realm of political controversies. The very fact that the survival of the world which we know and of the civilization which we love depends on a sound defence policy is sufficient to make most people forget their political allegiances and to make them remember that their one and only allegiance should be first and foremost to Canada and the protection of its citizens. There is no one in this house, I am sure, who doubts the sincerity of the Minister of National Defence, a man who has, in the past, served his country with great distinction-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -and who continues to do so. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the past performance both in peacetime and in wartime of our service chiefs and of our other senior officers is a guarantee that these men have only one purpose, and that is to serve their country well; and one aim, which is the preservation of peace.
It has now been my privilege to act as Associate Minister of National Defence in this government for almost one full year. During this time I have learned a great deal and I am, of course, each day learning a bit more. I am proud to report today that I am most impressed by what I have seen and I do not hesitate to declare that the performance of our servicemen, whether they belong to the navy, the army or the air force, merits the applause of those citizens who are conversant and experienced in service matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: During a recent visit which I made to Europe I was proud to hear that our Canadian brigade group now serving in the shield forces on the continent is considered to be the best force of its kind in the NATO forces. I was also told by many that the performance of our air force is second to none, and it is with a feeling of pride that I salute the gallant servicemen of Canada who spread our fame in foreign lands. Our servicemen have served with equal distinction in Canada, in the United States and also in the United Nations contingents.
My duties at national defence are rather of an administrative nature. It is with pleasure today that I render homage to all those men at defence headquarters who perform these duties with such devotion and such efficiency.
I wanted to read these few remarks, and in this way I have followed the examples of
7578	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence those who preceded me. I will now, with your kind permission, shift to French. I will express a few comments on the speech which we have just heard from the hon. member for Trinity, and I will also pass a few comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
With these gentlemen's permission, and in fact since, with thanks to this government, we have simultaneous translation in this house, I shall continue my remarks in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I would not like to be too sarcastic with regard to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who found himself in a rather embarrassing position this afternoon. On occasion, I myself have run into certain difficulties with those gentlemen of the press. I would not say that they purposely put me in a spot, but I know how annoying it can be to have a prospective speech published ahead of time or else to have some remarks which were actually made misconstrued by the gentlemen of the press. I understand the hon. member's confusion. I am sure that if I had been in his shoes, I would have felt as ill at ease as he does.
However, I am not criticizing his predicament-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No confusion.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -but rather the substance of his speech. It is rather strange to find that our hon. friends opposite have constantly stated, by all possible ways and means, that, according to them, this government had no defence policy whatsoever or, at least, that its defence policy was based on no definite principle.
Fortunately, and possibly because he realized after reading out some 42 pages of written material that he had not said much, the hon. member for Trinity contradicted himself somewhat a few moments ago by saying that he perfectly realized that this government had a defence policy and that it was only on minor matters that he did not agree with what is taking place at this time.
Nevertheless, it is rather surprising, Mr. Chairman, to find that, during many long hours, at the beginning of this session, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as well as the hon. member for Trinity and some other hon. members in the opposition, loudly demanded a complete and total investigation on the question of a defence policy for Canada.
In order that there be no misunderstanding, the government asked the house for permission to form a committee whose duty it would


be to consider government expenditures in the matter of defence. Of course, during the 26 committee meetings, many other matters were discussed apart from vital questions of defence for the purpose of which the committee had been established.
As a matter of fact, so many questions were discussed, so many questions were asked and so many answers were given to so many questions, that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) thought it appropriate to have a summary of those discussions published in a rather excellent pamphlet which has been distributed to all hon. members and which briefly outlines the defence policy of our government.
Hon. members in the opposition claim we have no defence policy. They have been chanting that rigmarole for almost a year. And today, in a 42-page speech, our friends of the opposition served us their so-called brilliant essay on defence. Now, we read therein that, among other things, they want to maintain the budget at the same level, and even increase it, and that, in spite of the fact that -to use their own terms-they would like to demolish everything, and, as they put it to "scrap" everything.
Such inconsistency seems to me rather odd. On the one hand, the hon. member for Trinity wants higher defence estimates and on the other hand, he wants everything shelved and nothing done.
We find some rather strange suggestions in that masterpiece. We see, for instance, that basing his speech on what he believes to be the enlightened policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Trinity would not like any nuclear arms to be used on Canadian soil, nor carried in Canadian skies.
Mr. Chairman, to my mind there is some inconsistency in that attitude.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I am sure the minister would not wish to create a false impression, but assuming his translation is correct, I did not say that.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I will repeat it in English.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister mind
using my speech, instead of referring to a newspaper report?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The speech was published in the paper before it was delivered in the house.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, in order not to hurt the feelings of the hon. member for

Trinity whose sensitiveness, as I can well conceive, was bruised in more ways than one today, I shall merely repeat what he said and ask him whether he stated in his speech that he wanted no nuclear arms to be stocked in Canada. Is that not what the hon. member for Trinity said?
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said that the cancellation of the SAGE-Bomarc program would eliminate the necessity of arming Canadian forces in Canada with nuclear weapons.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member is ahead of me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is thinking of the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am certain that I distinctly heard the hon. member say that he did not want any modern weapons equipped with nuclear warheads here in Canada.
(Translation):
In any case, Mr. Chairman, if I misunderstood or misread his words, I shall be pleased to withdraw what I said.
I merely should like to say this to the hon. member for Trinity, that it is nearly as illogical to state, on the one hand, that a defence system is absolutely necessary under present conditions and, on the other hand, to require that our troops be equipped with anything less than the most modern of weapons.
Mr. Chairman, what would we have thought in 1939 and during the war years which followed, if we had insisted that our troops, instead of using the modern weapons of the time, fight with muskets, foils or rapiers? It would have been quite abnormal. So is it even more illogical to require that we, in Canada, have an efficient defence system without making the necessary efforts to provide our troops with the best weapons that science can provide.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I say I would not like to hurt the feelings of my hon. friend. If I understood him well he suggested that we should eliminate, demolish or scrap the CF-104 which, according to him, does not fulfil an efficient role, and that its use here is even a contradiction, since, in Canada, we are carrying out a defensive policy and not an offensive one.
Supply-National Defence
It seems to me, however, Mr. Chairman, that the efficiency of that aircraft has been adequately demonstrated.
This afternoon, the minister of defence reminded hon. members that this aircraft, precisely because it is efficient, is now used by German, Dutch and Belgian forces, and that it will be used shortly by Italian forces.
To say that this aircraft becomes an offensive weapon because it is designed to fulfil a striking and reconnaissance role, cannot be farther from the truth. If the hon. member for Trinity had taken the trouble of consulting his books or a few persons well versed in the matter, he would have soon learned that this aircraft will be used in case of aggression, in order to counterattack any enemy offensive forces.
And I believe the hon. member for Trinity will admit the usefulness of reconnaissance aircraft in these modern times as in any other times.
I also consider with interest the argument put forward by the hon. member for Trinity, whereby he suggests we should abolish at once the SAGE line, as well as the Bomarc missile.
It seems to me that the doctrine of the hon. member for Trinity is still being somewhat inconsistent when he asks for such a thing.
Is it not a recognized fact that in spite of some hesitation, the Americans have decided not very long ago to vote additional sums for the Bomarc's development, fully realizing the need for that weapon at the present time, they increased those estimates by $75 million, if I am not mistaken?
This Bomarc B went through many successful tests, in spite of the hon. member's predictions and those of members of the opposition who repeatedly stated that the Bomarc B would never be effective.
It seems to me that it is about time the house and the members opposite were clearly told that it would be useless, merely for some political purpose, to scrap a weapon which, so far has cost our neighbours to the south the huge sum of over $2.3 billion.
There is something else which I feel should also be made fairly clear to our hon. friends. It is a fact that the Bomarc sites at La Macaza and North Bay will cost in the neighbourhood of $12 million to the Canadian treasury. It is also interesting to note that our mighty neighbours to the south will invest in Canada over $80 million, which surely cannot harm the Canadian economy, while supplying our country with a defensive weapon that we urgently need at this time.

Supply-National Defence
Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the greatest strategists and those who are most experienced in military matters claim that it is absolutely necessary for us to have a triple radar and aircraft detecting system, in order to warn the North American continent of which we are part, of any possible attack? Those radar lines were built at terrific cost, and they are the very basis of the North American defence system. We want to cooperate in constantly improving those lines, and that is why we have agreed to co-operate fully with our friends to the south in the improvement of the Pinetree line. And now, our friends in the opposition would scrap the whole equipment of those lines, and scrap the Bomarc; further, advancing a new theory, they would also scrap the seven warships we are building to protect ourselves against submarine attacks.
In short, that new and supposedly brilliant policy of the Liberal party is bent on destroying everything, demolishing everything, abolishing the whole continental defence system, on the grounds that there is nothing to be done, there is no means of defence, but we will nevertheless maintain the budget at its present level and even increase it.
Mr. Chairman, I regret, but I cannot help smiling, and I think many Canadians will also smile on reading the speech of the hon. member for Trinity.
Mr. Chairman, I find that my time is getting on and, before closing my remarks, I should like to say a few words on the frequently discussed disarmament policy.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, every right-minded person, both in Canada and elsewhere, recognizes that the ideal solution is disarmament, and that, indeed, is the policy chosen by the government. God only knows how often the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) has repeated in this house that such was the purpose of the present government's policy, and he has tried to leave no doubt on the! matter in the minds of the most sceptical listeners.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us hope that some day, the world will finally realize that disarmament is the ideal formula and the only sure way of safeguarding our country. But we must remember that there was talk of disarmament at the time of Julius Caesar as well as at the time of the crusades. And Heaven knows-we must admit this-that poor mankind has not yet hit upon the ideal formula. Therefore, to protect ourselves
[Mr. Sevigny.)

against any attack, we must have the necessary weapons to convince the enemy that, if he attacks us, he does so at the risk of the most severe reprisals.
Mr. Chairman, our hon. friends of the opposition keep saying that no defence is possible, that it is impossible to protect ourselves against the nuclear weapons which might fall on us at any time.
In fact, I accept the theory that it is quite difficult, at this time, to present an efficient defence against intercontinental missiles which might come down on us one of these days-let us hope that this faraway day will never come but because there is a threat which is not yet indefinite enough, are we simply to ignore the real threat which exists today, that of a possible nuclear bombing by aircraft against which interceptors and Bomarc missiles can still provide a defence?
Do you really think that the Canadian nation would not be justified in protesting most vigorously if the government were to decide-as was suggested by the hon. member for Trinity and his colleagues-to scrap everything, but yet spend still more on defence? What a contradiction, Mr. Chairman. What a contradiction in that policy advocated by the hon. member who spoke just before me, and some others.
Quite to the contrary, I think that, instead of saying that all defence is impossible, thus giving an additional weapon to the enemy who would come to the conclusion that we are such defeatists that we do not want to arm ourselves, it would be more logical, as opposed to the proposals of the hon. members of the opposition and others who want to criticize the policy of the government, to remember that this policy is based on quite serious agreements entered into after thorough consideration, after all possible considerations had been weighed, after all the pros and cons had been gone into.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, it seems to me that we should have confidence in men like the chiefs of staff and other distinguished citizens who today are leaders of Canada's defence. I believe that we should have enough sense to understand that these men have only one objective, that of assuring the protection of the Canadian citizens and preserving peace. But, Mr. Chairman, what a mistake it is to always say it is impossible to defend ourselves.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to illustrate the point?
During the tragic days before the war of 1939, people in England said that it was useless to try to protect themselves against enemy bombings, because those bombings would smash everything, and there would be no possible means of defence against the menace. Some ministers, some statesmen, then rose in protest and said: "No, it would be a folly to demolish and destroy everything," as is being advocated today. "On the contrary, our air force must be strengthened, our fighter plane production must be intensified, and in that way we will protect our country".
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you what would have happened to England, to mankind, and to all civilization, without the heroism of those men in the R.A.F. and in the R.C.A.F. who, in 1940, saved mankind and civilization in the British skies?
Mr. Chairman, I find that for someone who wanted to deal with administration, I have slightly strayed from my text.
(Text):
I notice that as one who wanted to make a speech on his various administrative duties I have strayed somewhat from my text. There is one consolation. I will not be accused of reading my speech. I will thus succeed in proving that once again the hon. member for Essex East, who accused us this afternoon of reading our speeches, is no more accurate in his comments on defence than when he comments, shall we say, on labour and on a few other things.


An hon. Member:: What about agriculture?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Before I close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I simply say that Canadian citizens have every reason to be proud of the efforts of those whose duty lies in securing for our country the very best defence. May I emphasize the fact that this defence effort is conducted in the services in a spirit of mutual confidence and respect. Although the members of the services come from all parts of our 10 provinces and are of varying ethnic origins, differing from one another in language and religion, nevertheless they share the same ideas. They all share in the one aim, and that is our search for peace and security by assuring that Canada's part in NATO is well played.
In travelling across Canada and meeting literally thousands of members of our armed forces I have found one common quality, and that is the firm conviction of the justice of our cause. I can assure you that one and all realize the importance of their role. These
Supply-National Defence men serve Canada well and they deserve the applause and the grateful thanks of all Canadians.
(Translation):
I shall close my remarks in my mother tongue by saying that this national unity we all seek, we find it in our armed forces. All together, whatever our origins, whatever our differences in language, religion and other things, we are serving our country: Canada.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, before I read from the notes I carefully prepared on a matter as important as national defence, it is impossible for me to let the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) go unchallenged.
The minister seemed to be shocked by the fact that the speech of the hon. member for Trinity was published in the papers before it was made in the house and, moreover, he seemed to think that it is the first time such a thing has ever happened. I take the liberty of reminding him that on many occasions, speeches of hon. members and even of ministers on the other side of the house have been published in the papers before being delivered. But there was a difference, and that was the fact that we Liberals were never small enough to raise such a fuss, as the Conservatives are apparently trying to do in this case, with respect to a situation for which the hon. member for Trinity was not responsible.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I rise
on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) said I was shocked at the incident which occurred this afternoon. I would ask the hon. member to look up Hansard tomorrow morning; he will find that far from being shocked, I displayed sympathy for the hon. member for Trinity, who found himself in an embarrassing position. I say this, Mr. Chairman, to show that it is quite important, before making certain remarks, to listen to what has been said.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I think there is no question of privilege in the point raised by the Associate Minister of National Defence. I might read Hansard tomorrow morning, but I am convinced that I would realize that the friendly remarks which the hon. minister says he made were tinged with cynicism; in that respect, I shall remind him that, when the same trouble happened to the Conservatives, we never were so petty as to make a fuss about it.
7582	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When did it happen? Give us some instance.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In his remarks, the Associate Minister for National Defence implied that during discussions in the special committee, which was responsible for looking into the expenses of the Department of National Defence, hon. members in the opposition were free to ask all questions they wanted. I agree with the minister. It is true that we had the right to ask questions. But what we did not receive, on the other hand, were the answers to those questions. And that is what we are complaining about today, that is, we had no indication whatsoever of what could be the government policy with regard to national defence. I think it is quite easy to conclude that there was no way of knowing it because the government has no such policy.
I would also remind the minister that Canada's national defence cannot be assured only on the basis of the amount of money spent on certain things. Things change so quickly that what was spent yesterday is not necessarily an indication of what should be spent tomorrow. The minister says that the member for Trinity suggested we should destroy what has been built. He forgets one thing, namely that the member for Trinity has put forward specific suggestions to provide Canada with adequate means of defence, taking into account the circumstances and the present world situation. And I would point out to the house that to ensure Canada's security, we will need much more than the emotional outpouring we have just heard from the minister.
(Text):
Although there would be ample justification for doing so, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up the time of the committee in attacking the government for its painful lack of an appropriate defence policy. In spite of assurances to the contrary given by the Minister of National Defence last night, to anyone who has followed the speeches in the House of Commons and particularly the proceedings of the special committee on defence expenditures it is abundantly clear that there exists an alarming confusion and, indeed, contradiction in the minds of members of the government on national defence as well as on the closely related subject of international affairs.
I strongly suspect that the underlying cause of Canada's lack of an appropriate defence policy is the government's very partisan but utterly false sense of economy. Certainly it is a desirable goal to balance 

the budget but military personnel and Canadians generally have reasons to be anxious and worried when the government contemplates balancing the budget at the expense of our national security at a time that can certainly be considered as one of the most critical times in our history as well as in the history of the world.
It is convenient, of course, but transparently superficial for the government to justify its inaction on the erroneous assumption that there is no alternative to the tremendously high cost of nuclear war and that there is no adequate defence against nuclear attack. Although it is generally agreed in Canada that even if the cost were not prohibitive it would not be desirable for Canada to engage in the production of nuclear arms and though there is serious doubt as to the possibility of providing an adequate defence against nuclear attack, it does not necessarily follow that there is no other alternative and it is certainly no justification for letting a confused, bewildered and unprotected Canada drift into a situation which could possibly mean national suicide.
If, because of the appalling destructive power of nuclear war, recognized by friend and foe alike as capable of destroying the civilization of the world, it is admitted there can be no victors and no vanquished but just death and destruction, is it so inconceivable to believe that there must be some other less insane alternative? I for one cannot bring myself to believe that there is no alternative. If, indeed, we are to spare the world from impending destruction and avoid at the same time a complete surrender of our philosophical and political ideologies, our way of life and the things in which we believe, then Canada and the rest of the world must stop rationalizing and find or create an effective alternative to nuclear war.
No one, I am sure, will question that an adequate defence policy in present world conditions, as indeed, our foreign policy-I think the minister mentioned this last night -must be based first and foremost on the true and vital interests of our own country, but it would be unwise as well as ungrateful if, in the formulation of our defence policy, we did not give ample consideration to the geographic, economic and political ties as well as the common defence problems that link us to our powerful neighbour and ally to the south, the United States. We certainly should and must always take into account the strong and friendly bonds that make us a part of the family of the commonwealth of nations. Then, of course, there is our participation in and our commitments

to NATO as well as our membership in and our hopes for the United Nations, which cannot but orient our national defence policies. However, the first responsibility of national defence is, of course, our own national security.
The fact that nuclear war is not the answer to international conflicts or problems and that neither the United States nor the U.S.S.R. would willingly resort to it does not, unfortunately, eliminate the possibility of a nuclear war. In the face of the possible danger of a nuclear war one of the greatest and most pressing responsibilities of the government is to ensure the security and, indeed, the survival of our nation in the event of such a war. Surely there should be no hesitation in giving the very top priority to this fundamental responsibility, and yet there have been only very feeble, hesitant and almost apologetic measures taken by the government in the field of civil defence. Surely Canadians have a right to expect and, indeed, should have strong and courageous leadership where our national survival is concerned.
Although helpful, it is not sufficient for the government to train its militia for nuclear defence. It is not sufficient for the government to stockpile food and medical supplies in strategic areas and issue brochures describing the build it yourself shelter. It is not adequate protection to have warning systems against bomb bursts and fall-out when there is really no place for the population to go for shelter. These are more of the half measures that are characteristic of the government, adopted to ward off criticism but not intended to solve and incapable of solving the problem, in this case the safety and survival of Canadians.
It is the responsibility of the federal government, along with the provincial and municipal authorities, to give the population a realistic appraisal of the dangers and consequences of a nuclear war and then together work out the most practicable means to assure Canada's national survival. I realize that the cost of building underground shelters in all the densely settled areas would be prohibitive, but surely the government could at least invite the provincial and municipal authorities as well as members of chambers of commerce, architects and contractors engaged in the construction of public projects to see whether existing construction could not be refitted in order to provide some shelter against radiation and bomb bursts.
I am thinking of such construction as the subway in Toronto and even the metropolitan boulevard in Montreal, parts of which could possibly be adapted as effective shelters and.
Supply-National Defence incidentally, would give much needed employment. The government could also encourage financially those concerned in the planning and construction of large public buildings so that they would build the foundation and the accommodation at subterranean levels in such a way that they could be used as underground shelters as well as for their original purposes. Some study might also be given to the underground shelters built in Sweden which also serve other purposes as well. One example I could give would be the underground garages and underground parking places which would be very convenient at this time. These projects would also provide work.
Nor would it be enough to stockpile provisions and medical supplies in these shelters for the period of attack and fallout, but very serious consideration should be given now to the problems to be faced after the attack and the appropriate rehabilitation program should be conceived to help the population meet these problems. It is not, of course, agreeable to speak of such a catastrophe, but we would be less than honest if we did not speak of these possibilities and we would be shirking our fundamental responsibilities as parliamentarians if we failed to force the government to take the steps necessary to provide this measure of security for our population in the event of a nuclear war. However, once we have taken all the possible precautions to ensure our national survival I believe that we should forget all about nuclear war and concentrate our attention on finding an alternative to it.
Recently I suggested in the house that Canada should invite all countries except the United States and the U.S.S.R. to a consultative meeting to be held in Ottawa. My suggestion, because of the number of countries involved, was considered to be difficult and unwieldy. I agree that not only would it be impracticable but indeed impossible if those countries met to decide on specific issues such as the United Nations is called upon to do. But I cannot help but feel that it would not be impossible to come to some agreement among these nations on very broad, general but important basic principles.
One of these principles on which I believe agreement could be reached would be the renunciation by those nations of the manufacture and possession of all nuclear weapons, whether it be a 10-megaton bomb or a nuclear rifle bullet. If poison gas and biological warfare, because of their inhumanity, were not used in the last war, surely the same reasons could apply even more forcibly to the use of nuclear weapons.
It is impossible to turn back the clock at the present time and destroy the stockpile of
7584	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence existing nuclear arms. Surely it should not be impossible to stop them from mushrooming throughout the world and greatly increasing the risk of total destruction. I believe, however, it would be unrealistic, and even unwise, to ask these nations to ban the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Perhaps some agreement might be reached along the lines of the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that experimental nuclear explosions for commercial and industrial use be carried out under the supervision of an appointed body of the United Nations.
I cannot help but feel that even the attempt to arrive at such agreements might have some value in achieving greater world stability. There are, of course, many other general principles of fundamental importance on which there might be some hope of reaching agreement. But the undeniable and real value of such a meeting of nations would be, to my mind, the tangible proof to the newer nations of the world, particularly the nations of Africa and Asia, that we earnestly and sincerely desire peace. It would permit us, as a democratic nation not having the tremendous economic and military predominance and the corresponding responsibility of a world power, to prove that we recognize them as nations who have a right to their culture, their philosophies and their way of life; to convince them that we are not seeking to conquer, exploit or hinder them in their march toward nationalism; to convince them that we realize that, in spite of differences that may exist, they have many interests and many problems that are similar to our own and these can best be solved by reasoned understanding and mutual help.
Last week Prime Minister Lumumba of the Congo stated that because Canada was not a colonial power, because she had no interests in Africa, she would understand and help the new republic by sending badly needed doctors, nurses, teachers and technicians. Prime Minister Lumumba was of course speaking for the Congo, but he reflected very accurately the confidence and the trust which many new nations of Africa and Asia have placed in Canada in these troubled times. It would be a very tragic mistake for democracy, indeed for world peace, if Canada failed that very special and very important trust.
Out of a meeting of nations with no international ambitions there might come a far better understanding of what our democratic principles really mean in terms of international relationships. The display of a truly democratic attitude at this time would,
I believe, come as a refreshing breeze not only to the nations of Africa and Asia but


to nations such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania, as well as the others who have for many years now struggled in the stifling climate of communist imperialism. It would not be difficult for Canada to point to very many instances when we have shown by our actions, through the Colombo plan and the United Nations, our profound belief that mutual understanding and help is a far more sensible and practical approach to sound international relationship than is the continued threat of mutual destruction.
Though this meeting of nations might help to promote better understanding, and perhaps greater trust among nations, it would not of itself provide the alternative to a nuclear war nor, unfortunately under the present world tensions, would it eliminate completely the possibility of war of any type. I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I say that armaments and an arms race which leads to war is a result and not the primary cause of international strife and conflict.
Many will be ready to accept the corollary that a trustworthy disarmament program can best be realized when the international problem has been solved and then disarmament takes place naturally and almost automatically. But are we ready to accept that so long as the basic cause of the present international conflict exists disarmament is most unlikely and perhaps not the best policy for the west to follow, unless there is some justification for believing that adequate control and inspection provisions are possible.
Does the recently planned sabotage by the U.S.S.R. of the disarmament meeting, after 15 years of frustrated hopes in this field, not indicate the western powers' only alternative? Effective negotiations between two nations have often been more easily arrived at on the basis of equal military strength, and wars have been avoided, at least for a period of time, because of balanced strength. The danger lies when one negotiator with aggressive intentions knows his enemy to be militarily weaker and then of course there is no end to his arrogance and to his demands, and war will ensue as it did in 1939. I cannot help but feel that the growing arrogance of the U.S.S.R. indicates that she is conscious of her massive military power, if not supremacy, particularly in the field of conventional weapons and missiles.
The possession and the explosion of the first atomic bomb in 1945, which promptly ended the war, unfortunately gave the western nations a false sense of security. At that time the U.S. alone had the weapon that

would end all wars and western powers already considered conventional arms as obsolete and useless. Shortly after 1945 demobilization and disarmament took place in the western world, including Canada. Usable ships, planes, tanks and other military equipment, built in panic and at great cost, were scrapped. But not the U.S.S.R. In spite of the disarmament talks held at the U.N. the U.S.S.R. did not disarm, but added captured German and Japanese weapons and military and industrial equipment to her own and continued to build up her strength in conventional weapons, as indeed she is still doing today. In 1949 an atomic explosion in the U.S.S.R. indicated to the world that the United States was no longer alone to possess the dreadful weapon. That of course was the signal for the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and since then the west has measured everything in terms of a nuclear war.
Conventional arms are spoken of in almost apologetic terms in the west and indeed are being neglected as all eyes are turned to the more formidable weapons. But the U.S.S.R., while keeping pace with the United States in the nuclear field, has not only maintained but strengthened her conventional forces, if not in number, certainly in power. I am given to understand that the U.S.S.R. and her satellites have a standing army of 175 divisions and can double this number within six weeks, completely equipped, while the western armies at the present time could muster a maximum of 148 divisions, and NATO conventional ground forces now number approximately 24 active divisions. The communists have 20,000 fighting aircraft, as compared to 3,685 NATO aircraft. The Russians now count some 400 submarines in her naval forces.
I need not press this point further, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is sufficient to appreciate the importance the U.S.S.R. has given and continues to give to conventional arms and it is because of these conventional arms that she is indeed in a far better position than the west to negotiate from strength both nuclear and conventional.
The western powers by concentrating mostly on the deterrent aspect of nuclear power may have failed to appreciate the necessity of retaining strong conventional forces with the unfortunate result that it is the western powers who have no other choice but to resort to atomic weapons. As a matter of fact the western powers have agreed, or are considering agreeing, to bolster NATO conventional forces with nuclear power in an atempt to restore the equilibrium between the two opposing forces in Europe. I cannot help but feel that by equipping NATO forces
Supply-National Defence with nuclear weapons at the expense of conventional forces, not only would we increase the potential danger of nuclear war but we would be destroying the only possible, though admittedly unsatisfactory, alternative to nuclear war, that is the use of conventional arms.
If nuclear power can be considered as an effective deterrent to a nuclear war, by the same token equality of strength of conventional weapons may in certain circumstances also act as a deterrent to war. But under present circumstances equality in nuclear power without equality in conventional power will lead to either a nuclear war or to complete surrender of our political ideologies and our way of life.
Would the western powers resort to nuclear weapons in reprisal of a communist aggression with conventional arms, knowing that the U.S.S.R. has and would not hesitate to use its formidable nuclear retaliation? Before the western powers are forced to answer that question would it not be wiser for NATO countries and for the western powers generally to concentrate on increasing their conventional military strength to counterbalance that of the U.S.S.R., leaving the nuclear power in the hands of the United States and the U.S.S.R. alone? The western powers would then be in a far stronger and less vulnerable position from which to negotiate; they would be inferior in neither nuclear nor conventional power and would not have to rely so heavily on fatal nuclear weapons.
Some agreement, I think, might be reached among members of NATO not to build or possess nuclear weapons of any type in their own countries and to equip NATO forces with modern but conventional arms alone and keep this conventional force completely distinct and separate from whatever nuclear bases and installations exist in NATO.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee consent to the hon. member continuing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, for their indulgence, and I will only be a few minutes more.
It was gratifying to me to read that the three Bundestag representatives who visited the House of Commons last week stated that West Germany would not manufacture or possess nuclear weapons. I cannot help but believe that the greatest example yet of their universally recognized diplomatic acumen and foresight would be for Great Britain and France, in an effort to stop the spread of

Supply-National Defence nuclear arms, to follow the example of West Germany or at least to pool all their nuclear weapons under a unified western control.
I believe that all nuclear bases, whether in Europe, Canada or elsewhere, should be under a unified control similar to but not necessarily the military committee of NATO. It would be far more easy psychologically and financially for the NATO members to live up to and increase their conventional military commitments to that organization. Understandable hesitation has existed in many nations in the spending of money for the construction of conventional arms in the face of the devastating power of nuclear weapons. But because there is really nothing to be gained from a nuclear war even the U.S.S.R. might consider reserving for herself the control of nuclear weapons, and if nuclear weapons could be kept from spreading to all nations, western and satellite countries alike, and effectively counterbalanced where they do exist, then the urgent necessity of the western powers to achieve equality of conventional forces with the U.S.S.R. can be easily appreciated. However, I think we know what to expect if the manufacture, possession and control of nuclear weapons spreads among the western nations.
After taking all necessary precautions to assure Canada's national survival in the event of nuclear war our defence policy, to my mind, should be oriented in such a way that it would have nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear armament of any type. Whatever nuclear bases might exist in Canada as part of our common NATO defence system should be considered exactly and controlled exactly as would be other similar nuclear bases in Europe and elsewhere by one nuclear power control centre.
Canada's effort should be turned, to my mind, toward suggestions such as were made by the hon. member for Trinity and toward suggestions made in the special committee on defence expenditures aimed at rebuilding our navy, army and air force into as effective defence forces as possible, with due consideration being given to the requirements of modern warfare. Great stress, I believe, should be placed in the mobility of our forces, and adequate air and sea transportation should be provided. I also believe that submarines should be part of our active defence forces, and I would sincerely hope that they could be built in our own country.
In spite of the difficulties mentioned by the minister last night of achieving an obligatory standardization of NATO military equipment,
I believe that Canada should concentrate its efforts in trying to set up the machinery necessary not only to standardize equipment of NATO forces but also to allocate to the
	(
different member nations, according to their strategic situation and capability, the construction of the military equipment required on a defence production sharing basis.
Because of the continuous eruption of military crises in the four corners of the globe, military concentration in Europe is no longer sufficient and adequate military strength in all the commonwealth nations whose territories stretch around the world should be encouraged by means of a coordinated defence program based on mutual help and defence sharing plans, with great stress being placed again on the mobility of these forces.
Canada, with greater combined conventional strength and not burdened with the cost and responsibility of nuclear power, might also be in a better position to co-ordinate her conventional defence arrangements with that of the United States and be of greater assistance in the carrying out of experimental and research work in the conventional arms field.
I am, of course, making these most incomplete suggestions as a private member of the house and with a thorough appreciation that I am no expert in the field, but surely recent events in international affairs make it imperative that some action be taken by the government. It is intolerable to realize that the evident indecision and hesitation of the government in the field of national defence has resulted in a progressive abdication of its paramount responsibility of assuring our national survival and indeed has placed Canada in a position of shameful reliance on the United States for our defence. Canada surely deserves better than that. It is only when the government has assured Canada of its national security in the event of a nuclear war and has seriously examined and taken all the possible means of finding an alternative to world suicide that the government will have respected its most fundamental responsibility to the Canadian people, and that, we submit, the government has not done.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to rise this evening to express a few thoughts on the defence policy of the Liberal party, but having heard the hon. member for Trinity earlier today and having heard the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres a few moments ago, I find that I am faced with the task of commenting on two pretty totally different policies.
If while they are fresh in my mind I could make a few comments on the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, I would start by pointing out that he spent a good deal

of time calling upon the government to undertake its responsibilities in regard to disarmament, to take every step toward achieving nuclear disarmament, and in general-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I am sure the hon. member does not want to misquote me, but the question of disarmament never even arose in my mind. I believe at this time it is impossible even to consider disarmament.


Egan Chambers: Nuclear disarmament.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Even nuclear.


Egan Chambers: Then I must have misunderstood the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the hon. member will read my speech tomorrow I think he will realize that.


Egan Chambers: I apologize to the hon. member if I have misquoted him, but he certainly urged us to be active in diplomatic negotiations for peace. Is that right?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, of course.


Egan Chambers: Then my comment on that would be that I do not think there is a government in the western world today which has taken more initiative in this regard than the Canadian government during the last few years. The backbone of our policy in this regard is the avoidance of war, and the first line, you might say, of the implementation of that policy is the seeking through every available international means to bring about a settlement of the difficulties which might lead to war.
I think the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other members of the government have no cause to be ashamed at all of their activities in this regard. In fact I think it is commonly thought throughout Canada by people who support all parties that the record of the government in this regard is outstanding.
There were a couple of other items, and one of them was the question of what went on in the defence expenditures committee. The hon. member said that while questions were asked no replies were given. I missed one of the 27 or 28 meetings of that committee and the record is available for members of this house. I do not suppose there has ever been a more complete exposition of the policy of a department of government than that given by the Minister of National Defence before that committee. Every question about policy, about detail, about equipment was answered.
The other point I would mention in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Ri-chelieu-Vercheres has to do with his advocacy 79951-0-479
Supply-National Defence of the build-up, or at any rate the maintenance, of conventional forces. Here I find him somewhat in disagreement with the hon. member for Trinity, who advocated scrapping all sorts of forces which could be called conventional, such as our anti-submarine ships and so on.
Perhaps I could take a few minutes to comment on the remarks made earlier today by the hon. member for Trinity. It was a very remarkable speech in several respects. It arrived with a good deal of advance publicity; in fact, perhaps more advanced publicity than the hon. member would have wished. It was a long time in preparation. As far back as January before this house met this year we read in the newspapers and heard from speeches of members of the opposition that there was to be at their instigation a great debate on defence. They were going to come before this house and before the people of Canada and expose the inadequacies of the government's policies, and at the same time, as I understood it, they were going to tell us what we should do; the things which we were doing which we should not do, and the things that we were not doing that we should do.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we waited. We waited through a number of supply motions and other opportunities. We waited anxiously, and now late in the session when the estimates have come back from committee we find what their policy is. The much-advertised new approaches are nowhere to be found. In fact, if anything, the policy enunciated by the hon. member for Trinity today was a complete endorsement of the details of the policy of this government. The only changes recommended were not changes of policy but changes of hardware; this weapon should be done away with and another substituted for it; that ship should not be built but a different kind of ship. Nowhere do we find a difference in basic defence policy.
Let me refer to the hon. member's closing remarks. He defined the Liberal policy as being designed to meet the following conditions; first, to spend those funds set aside for national defence effectively and wisely. I submit that this is exactly what the government is doing to a degree never realized by the previous government in this country.
Second, the hon. member said we should contribute to our collective alliances those components which continue to be useful. That is exactly what this government has done. In consultation with our allies, having in mind the capacities of Canada, we are contributing the most effective forces to the collective strength of the west that it is possible to do.

Supply-National Defence
Third, the hon. gentleman said we should build forces flexible enough to respond to virtually any United Nations request for assistance; forces in being, fully equipped, fully mobile and transportable by air or sea; forces capable of effectively participating in any brush fire or conventional encounter before it gets out of hand with the possibility of triggering a wider conflagration.
The United Nations came into being at the end of the second world war but it remained for the present Minister of National Defence to announce in 1958 that Canada was main-taning a force at the disposal of the United Nations. This force, trained, equipped and ready to go anywhere at the call of the United Nations was the brainchild and creation of the present Minister of National Defence and I think we should be grateful to the hon. member for Trinity for endorsing the actions of the government in this respect.
The hon. member's fourth point was that we should build forces which would be useful as part of a world police force in the event a disarmament agreement should be reached. The force I have just mentioned and indeed practically all of Canada's forces are ideally suited to such a police force.
As a fifth suggestion the hon. member said we should contribute to research to the end that the western world would forge ahead in scientific development keeping in mind also the economic by-products which might accrue. Here again the hon. member advocates exactly what the government is already doing.
The hon. gentleman's sixth point was to provide the maximum protection possible to the Canadian population in the event of irrational attack. The policy the government is following would accomplish this end but the moves advocated by the hon. member would drastically reduce our capacity to defend the people of Canada.
The hon. member's seventh recommendation is so much of a platitude that I hesitate to repeat it. He suggested that we are to promote an even more effective Canadian contribution to the preservation of world peace. Is there any party, indeed is there any Canadian, who does not subscribe to this, does not strive toward it?
At the beginning of his remarks the hon. member announced that he supports the principles of deterrence and of collective arrangements and he said that we cannot pursue a policy inconsistent with the common goals of our allies. He then proceeded to advocate a number of steps that would be completely


inconsistent with the co-operation that our allies have asked us to give.
Let me first consider what he had to say on the subject of NORAD. He said that the NORAD agreement did not materially affect the situation except as to improvements in communications, reaction time and control. Mr. Chairman, in these days of supersonic aircraft and the missile, what could be more important than an improvement in control, reaction time and communications? If we rely on the deterrent effect of retaliation, reaction time must be as close to immediate as possible and to effect any defence at all, control must be instantaneous. When there were some failures in the Bomarc tests the hon. gentleman said that it was no good and that it would never work.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It still is not.


Egan Chambers: Now that the tests are successful and it is working the hon. gentleman says that notwithstanding the fact it is good we should still get rid of it. That is what I understood the hon. member to say.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do not let it ever be said that I endorsed the use of the Bomarc under any circumstances.


Egan Chambers: That is exactly what I said. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a good weapon the hon. gentleman does not want us to use it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Too little and too late.


Egan Chambers: We are partners in the defence of North America. You have only to look at a map of this continent to know that it is impossible to defend either Canada or the United States independently. That is why NORAD was set up. There is a commander of NORAD responsible to the governments of both Canada and the United States. Let us examine his views on the Bomarc. The hon. member for Trinity in his remarks said that all the military experts had condemned this weapon. Let me quote from the testimony of General White, chief of the United States air force before the senate committee on appropriations. He said:
In case there is any doubt, the commander in chief of NORAD is completely satisfied that the nine squadron Bomarc B forces should stay in as recommended. In fact, NORAD wanted the complete program instead of the drastically curtailed one which he recommended for this committee at the time.
Where are the best military scientists of the day which the hon. member says are opposed to Bomarc?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was a little internal politics. I will quote the others tomorrow.


Egan Chambers: I am prepared to admit that there was some testimony on both sides of the Bomarc question but proof of the pudding, surely, is that the United States air force recommended, the United States congress voted and the United States president approved of the Bomarc program for this continent.
One of the reasons why the hon. member advocates the scrapping of the Bomarc is because it is capable of carrying an atomic warhead. It is one thing to say that we should have no offensive nuclear capacity; it is quite another to say that if an enemy should attack us with nuclear weapons we should not be allowed to use those same weapons to defend ourselves. The Bomarc is a defensive weapon. It has no offensive capacity whatsoever. Situated as it will be in a relatively northern part of Canada it could not possibly menace any other nation. What the hon. member advocates and what he is still saying is that we should not only renounce the sword but that we should also throw away our armour against the swords of others.
The hon. member also had something to say about control. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this subject. United States law imposes certain restrictions on the use of United States owned weapons. It has been clearly stated in this house, however, that if it is decided to acquire nuclear weapons Canada shall have its own measure of control.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member explain that?


Egan Chambers: I think it has been clearly explained to the hon. member four or five times in committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To your satisfaction.


Egan Chambers: There is a very interesting point in the hon. member's idea. Not only does he say that we should scrap the Bomarc but that we should scrap SAGE. In the next breath he says we should acquire F-101 interceptors to be used for identification and possibly for interception. This shows a complete failure to understand the principles of air defence. How will the F-lOl's that he proposes to acquire find their targets if they are not directed by some such system as SAGE? A SAGE controlled system is intended not only for Bomarc but for whatever interceptors may be in the area and, having in mind the speed at which an attack might come and the speed that the interceptors and the antiaircraft missiles are capable of, it is absolutely essential, if any effective defence is to be put up at all, that some kind of automatic radar control such as SAGE be used.
79951-0-479i
Supply-National Defence
When we come to the navy we are told that the greatest threat is that of the submarine; and then we are told that we should abandon our submarine defences. Our destroyer escorts, which are admitted to be the most modern and efficient to be built in the world today and which have been vastly improved in their capabilities in recent years, are to be replaced by something called combat troop carriers and supply ships; this notwithstanding the fact that it has been estimated that the Soviets have from 400 to 500 conventional submarines in their present inventory. How the combat troop carriers would operate in the face of this force we have not been told.
When we come to our forces in NATO we are told that the brigade must be given the most modern weapons and at the same time that we should abandon the CF-104, which will immeasurably strengthen and modernize our air force in Europe. Apart from the inconsistency of this attitude, I should like to point out that all the independent observers, soldiers from other nations, have without exception said that our NATO brigade is among the most efficient and best armed in the forces of the west. Today this brigade does not have a single weapon left over from world war II, and its equipment is being constantly improved. Improvements of the fire power include 106 millimetre anti-tank recoilless rifles; 81 millimetre mortars; 50 calibre medium machine guns; 30 calibre medium machine guns; and on order at the present time in the communications line are C-42 improved wireless sets.
Furthermore, as the minister pointed out in the committee, the brigade is today completely motorized. Some of the things that were advocated by the hon. member are certainly desirable. He said that the brigade should have an amphibious and an airborne capacity. It has not been the practice in any army, I do not believe; it has never been found efficient to provide amphibious vehicles or aircraft for troop carrying on a brigade level. These kinds of things are, however, in the program and the obvious and efficient method by which to provide them is to provide them on the division, corps or army level.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have not got that.


Egan Chambers: We are today co-operating with other forces in NATO in Europe, and troop carrying capacity and amphibious capacity are included in the NATO corps.
Another thing that I did not mention was the up-gunning of the Centurion tank. I do not think this committee should be misled into believing that there has not been a constant, continuous and intensive effort to
7590	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence keep the Canadian brigade in Europe at the highest possible standard of training and weapons.
One of the criticisms that the hon. member made about the CF-104 program is that its bases will be vulnerable to enemy attack. Here again we have a conspicuous lack of knowledge. The Bomarc must be abandoned because its bases are vulnerable, and it must be replaced by an interceptor, but in Europe our aircraft must be abandoned because aircraft bases are vulnerable. Incidentally, the CF-104 is to be replaced, in the hon. member's view, by some other aircraft whose bases presumably would be invunelrable to any attack. The hon. member has overlooked the fact that redeployment bases will, of course be available to the CF-104.
I should like now to proceed to the last item that time permits me to discuss, namely the question of survival or civil defence. The hon. member dealt with this at some length, as did the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres. Both hon. members make quite a point of emphasizing that today civil defence is possible, and say that the government should do more in this regard, and yet I should like to point out that it was only since this government came into office that any serious consideration in organizing civil defence was undertaken. The information that such a program was required has been available for some years, well before the election of 1957. When the Soviets first exploded their atomic weapons we on this continent knew that we were vulnerable to attack and that we should then have undertaken a serious study of civil defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is patent nonsense. For a while you were a little interesting, at least.


Egan Chambers: There were some small measures of co-ordination taken with the provinces but no responsibility was accepted by the federal government in those days. It remained for the present Minister of National Defence to give to the Canadian army in Canada the obvious role in this regard. Today our capacity to survive under nuclear attack is immeasurably greater than it was two years ago, and from day to day more equipment is being added, more training is being given to both our regular and our militia forces in this regard. The advocacy of civil defence by the hon. member for Trinity comes about three years too late.
May I say in closing that the program announced today by the hon. member for Trinity was one of the best expressed arguments in support of the policies of this government that I have yet heard. He has advocated no single change in policy; he has quarrelled, if I may say so, with a good deal


of false logic with some of the hardware, but it is interesting to note that it was not until the present Minister of National Defence took office that Canada started to develop a defence policy in keeping with the requirements of the terrible age in which we live, and it was not until the present Minister of National Defence enunciated this policy that the Liberal party found it necessary to give any attention to these problems at all. So that today they have unveiled their ideas, identical in principle with those of this government, repeating only the old cry of those hungry for office that they would do the same thing only better. Indeed, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw not so long ago in which a politician said that he was dedicated to producing an invulnerable defence and at the same time lowering the taxes. However, he said that his method was a question of security and therefore could not be revealed. I have an idea that he must have been related to the hon. member for Trinity.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, in opening the debate on the shape of things to come last night the minister told us that the day of large armies, large manpower, had passed. To cope with the situations which may arise in the future we will have to confine ourselves to relatively small forces. There will be no more mobilization, no more massed armies on large fronts. The only forces that will see action will be those already in being. We in the west are handicapped by limited manpower compared with the Soviet union which poses our greatest threat. That handicap must be compensated for by making our limited manpower as effective as possible. That can only be done by means of superior equipment that will compensate for our small numbers by giving us increased firepower and mobility. This can only be done through research and development. More money needs to be spent on research than we have been spending in recent years if we are to play our part with maximum effectiveness having regard to our limited manpower resources.
For example, the introduction of tanks afforded a very great superiority to those who were able to use them but the tank today is fast becoming obsolete. If we are to meet the threat of soviet tanks in Europe we need first of all a very light, portable anti-tank gun, some sort of one-man weapon along the line of a bazooka which can enable one man to knock out a tank effectively. As I have said, tanks themselves are fast becoming obsolete.
We also need devices that will give our troops superiority under certain environmental conditions. This is at least one lesson that we should learn from the last war when

the Germans and the Russians achieved a great advantage by the introduction of devices which enabled them to fight at night, and if we are to overcome that handicap some device is needed which will enable tanks to be able to fight at night, something they are not able to do at the present time. Therefore we should be concentrating our efforts on the development of certain devices such as radar, infra-red rays and light gathering devices which will enable tanks to overcome this handicap.
The same thing is true of the Bobcat which the minister told us last night is going to be provided for the use of our forces. The Bobcat is also very vulnerable to anti-tank weapons and we must find ways and means of using the Bobcat at night when it would be less vulnerable than in the daytime. We also need devices which will enable our forces to operate under certain environmental conditions such as are to be found in the Arctic regions of our country. We do not seem to be doing this.
If we look at the estimates for research and development over the past few years we see that while research appropriations have about held their own the money for development has been drastically reduced. Looking at the defence research board estimates for research we see that in 195758 we provided $24,188,000; in 1958-59 we provided $26.8 million; $21.9 million in 195960; and $23.9 million in 1960-61. Therefore we have been just about holding our own on the research side of our program. But when it comes to development the story is very different. In 1957-58 we provided $40.6 million for development; in 1958-59, $55.6 million; in 1959-60 only $21.5 million; and So that we have come down from $55.6 million in 1958-59 to $14.2 million in 1960-61.
I know that the minister gave an explanation of this to the committee when the matter was brought to his attention but that is not the point I am trying to make at the present time. The fact that certain programs have been completed does not mean that we should cut our development appropriations because there is such a great need for this kind of work to be carried on in other fields similar to what I outlined a few minutes ago. Instead of cutting off the supply of money when one program is completed we should actually be increasing this end of our program.
Not only is that necessary for military purposes but, as the hon. member for Trinity pointed out earlier this evening, it is necessary in a country like Canada to enable us to achieve our full industrial potential. The hon. member for Trinity referred to the research that we should be doing on atomic
Supply-National Defence engines for planes and small atomic engines for other purposes. I agree completely with what he has said, because we do have a problem today in finding markets for our uranium. Certainly this is a problem that affects not only the armed services but all Canadians in that it is tied in with the economic development of our country.
Another aspect of this reduction which I should like to bring to the minister's attention is the need for an increase in the salaries of our scientists. We are losing our scientists because today we are not paying them the same salaries that they can get in industry or even in the universities of our country. This type of economy is false economy. We are not doing our duty to our country when we economize in this way.
I would ask the minister, therefore, to take another look at this development program and to overhaul it radically, to take every possible means of increasing it. There must be hundreds, and hundreds of projects which are necessary for the maximum effectiveness of our limited armed forces and which would be of use in the industrial development of our country, devices that perhaps would give Canada an advantage over competitors in the foreign markets. I do not believe we should separate one from the other here because the advantage is not only to the military but to the whole country.
I am very sorry, therefore, to see the reductions that have been made in this part of our research and development program. I would ask the minister to see to it that this program is overhauled and increased at the earliest possible date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the committee would be agreeable to calling it eleven o'clock? I should like to reply to some of the points that have been raised.


An hon. Member:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is the same courtesy we extended to the minister last night at the same time.


Jacques Flynn: Is there unanimous consent to calling eleven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Apparently there seems to be a dissenter down there, Mr. Chairman, so I have no objection to speaking for four minutes if that is the wish of the committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think we have agreed to call it eleven o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: I have no objection to asking again for unanimous consent. Is there any objection?

Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house leader would be good enough to indicate the business for tomorrow and the balance of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will carry on with the estimates of the Department of National Defence. I am not sure when those estimates will be completed. If they are
finished tomorrow in the afternoon, I should like to leave it open, after further consultation with members on the other side, as to what business we might go on with immediately following the Department of National Defence. If our consultations do not result in agreement, we will proceed with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 5, I960