1961-09-12

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NATO SECRETARY GENERAL

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the gallery today the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Mr. Dirk Stikker, who is making his first official visit to Canada since taking over his present responsibilities in April. This is not the first time he has been in Canada. His first visit goes back to 1946, and in the intervening years he has been here on more than one occasion. As the house knows, Mr. Stikker has a long and distinguished record in the field of foreign affairs. He was foreign minister of the Netherlands from 1948 to 1952. My colleagues and I greatly appreciate the opportunity he has given us of discussing with him not only the problems of NATO but generally of the international situation today.
I feel that I speak for all hon. members in welcoming Mr. Stikker and in expressing to him the hope that under his direction the alliance will continue to develop its strength and unity, and that the greatest possible use will continue to be made of the NATO council for intensive consultations on the critical issues currently facing the NATO partners. On behalf of the house I extend to him a warm welcome.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I on behalf of the opposition join very warmly in the welcome the Prime Minister has extended to the new secretary general of NATO, who is paying his first visit to Ottawa in this capacity. I do so officially, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a party which has supported and will continue to support a strong and united NATO as a bulwark of defence and peace. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I also do so personally as an old friend and colleague of Mr. Stikker.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome Dr. Stikker to the gallery, as we have in the past welcomed representatives of other important organizations. We are certain that Dr. Stikker will be interested to 90205-6-519
learn the opinions of Canadians on various public issues with which he is connected as well as of members of the house. We have read in the press certain statements attributed to Dr. Stikker. With some we are in hearty agreement; with others we have certain reservations. These opinions also will be made known in the course of the coming debate.
We join with others in welcoming to our gallery this distinguished gentleman who in the past has played an important role in many organizations and in particular in the organization for European economic co-operation.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on fall-out resulting from the resumption of nuclear tests by the Soviet union. Since the first test explosion on September 1, my department's network of 24 air sampling stations located across Canada has continued to provide regular material for analysis on a daily basis. From the results obtained, it now appears that effects of the Russian testing program have been observed at some of our stations.
For example, on September 7, the reading for Edmonton showed a fresh fall-out level of nine disintegrations per minute per cubic metre of air, a value which was about 30 times higher than the levels observed for this station during the past several months. This is the most significant increase recorded for samples received to date, although a value of four units, or 15 times higher than normal, was observed for Winnipeg on September 8, and a value of one unit or three times higher than normal for Calgary on September 7.
As I have previously indicated to the house, the significance of all radioactivity data from the health viewpoint can only be assessed on the basis of average levels for a reasonable period of time, perhaps up to a year. The observations we have made in the air monitoring program have consistently shown large fluctuations from day to day, and it is interesting to note that the level observed for Calgary on September 8, the day after the high reading, was back to normal.

Nuclear Fall-out Results In attempting to interpret the present situation I think it is appropriate to refer to the recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection, which provide the basic data for calculating the maximum permissible level for the public at large. From these data, a level of 6.6 units has been derived. In this connection it is important to realize that the calculations imply continued exposure at this level throughout a lifetime. Short duration increases above this limit are not considered to be of serious public health concern.
Furthermore, it is of interest to note that measurements of fall-out levels in air were made during and subsequent to the extensive weapons testing programs of the fall of 1958. These data were collected by the national research council as part of Canada's contribution to the international geophysical year project. Nine of the observing stations were located in areas now served by our present program, and for these stations the highest over-all monthly average reached a value of 6.88 units in February, 1959. During the same period, however, individual daily results were as high as 38.1 units. Six months later, when my department's program began operating, the monthly average had dropped to 0.85 units and it has subsequently continued to decrease to the point where the over-all monthly average for July, 1961, was 0.29.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the house will want to examine carefully the announcement on radioactive levels given this morning by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is evident from the statement of the minister that his announcement is of great significance. An indication of an increase in levels following recent test explosions is something that cannot be ignored in this or any other country.
We are fortunate in Canada in having a testing system, which I believe we owe largely to the late Dr. Cipriani and Dr. Watkinson, one that can take its place with any similar system in any country of the world.
The minister did not tell us whether the increased radiation was of a character which would warrant our concluding that there was a substantial increase in the danger to human health. We do know that the best scientific opinion as of 1956 suggested that for the population at large the concentration of radioactive strontium should not exceed one tenth of that permitted to the small number of persons employed in radioactive industries. But we have not been told by the minister whether the dangers from these levels are to be compared with the dangers that flow from traditional uses of materials from which have emanated dangerous radio-


activity over the years. In any event, the minister's statement is a forceful demonstration of the undesirability of nuclear testing at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a further confirmation of the opinion of mankind generally that the resumption of nuclear explosions was a mistake and is against the best interests of the people of the world no matter in which country they reside. The evidence presented this morning is a clear indication of the dangers that flow from a continuation of such weapons testing, and would indicate that once again in Canada there may be evidence, as was the case a few years ago, of some contamination of food.
This demonstrates once again the need for Canada and other nations to pursue a policy of support for an international agreement that would prohibit the testing of nuclear weapons. We think this is an indication that those members both in the government party and in the opposition who are so strongly in favour of the abolition of weapons testing should redouble their efforts.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of
National Defence whether Air Marshal Roy Slemon, R.C.A.F., deputy commander of NORAD, appeared recently in Washington with General Kuter, the commander of NORAD, on the ABC-TV show "Issues and Answers"? If so, did he make his appearance with the knowledge and consent of the minister?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: I received notice of this question shortly before coming into the house. No date was given for the program in question; thus I am not in a position to state whether or not Air Marshal Slemon appeared. I have asked the R.C.A.F. to get a full report in connection with all appearances Air Marshal Slemon may have made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The report is for a week ago last Sunday.



STATEMENT AS TO PROPOSED EMERGENCY ARMY HEADQUARTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East asked this question:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he feels he is in a position to answer this question. If he is not in a position to answer today he may take it as notice. Can the minister pinpoint those target cities in Canada where it is proposed to establish emergency army headquarters as was announced by the minister in his statement on Thursday last?
_ I understand the question to mean the location of alternate army headquarters which were set up, and which I had stated had gone into operation on August 24. From reading over this question I take it that what the hon. gentleman is really interested in is the target area headquarters, a different thing entirely. These, of course, must be made known to the municipal and provincial authorities and, as a result, I am quite pleased to give the answer to that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the whip will note that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These target area headquarters will be put into operation in the coming months. They are located near principal cities. These sites will be manned by military personnel, who will work closely with both municipal and provincial authorities in controlling search, rescue and re-entry operations in areas that may be attacked. In most cases the new target area headquarters will be located some 20 to 50 miles from the major cities.
Thirteen of the projected 16 sites have been selected. They are as follows: Windsor for Halifax, N.S.; Camp Gagetown for Saint John, N.B.; Camp Valcartier for Quebec City, Que.; St. Jerome for Montreal, Qpe.; Almonte for Ottawa, Ont.; Newmarket for Toronto, Ont.; Chatham for Windsor, Ont.; Dunnville for Niagara Falls, Ont.; Portage La Prairie for Winnipeg, Man.; Wetaskiwin for Edmonton, Alta.; Olds for Calgary, Alta.; Camp Chilliwack for Vancouver, B.C.; and Duncan for Victoria, B.C.
Other sites for the cities of St. John's, Newfoundland, Hamilton and London, Ont., have not yet been decided. They will be announced in the near future.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in asking another question I wish to thank the minister for this information. May I be assured that the most careful consideration has been given to the selection of a nearby community for the purpose of bringing the city of Windsor in Ontario within the context of this program?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member for Essex East and all other hon. members may be assured that the utmost care is being taken in order to secure the best possible sites to serve as headquarters for reentry and rescue operations outside of each of the major cities.
90205-6-519|
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



DROUGHT CONDITIONS IN WEST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread crop disaster in the prairie provinces and the demand by farm organizations for special action by the government, including a demand by the farmers' union for a $5 acreage payment, can the Prime Minister say when the government will be announcing a policy? Is he able to indicate whether or not some assistance will be provided for hard pressed farmers?


John George Diefenbaker: I know something of the situation in western Canada, and also of the extent to which drought has seriously reduced the production of grain and thus the income of the western farmer. The house will recall that on two previous occasions the government acted to provide an acreage payment which the hon. gentleman rather ridiculed. However, I find that the small farmers throughout the west are very well pleased with the action taken.
Having regard to the interest this government has taken in this question, the house can be assured that when a decision is made as to what shall or shall not be done it will be made known to the house immediately.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Can I take it from the Prime Minister's statement that the government is considering doing something more than the $1 an acre payment, which was ridiculously low?


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that, no matter what the government does, the hon. gentleman always says, "More, please". (Translation):



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-l'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the government initiated steps towards the disposal of reserves of tin at St. Paul 1'Ermite, Assomption county? If so, what are the results of that transaction?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the government has had on hand since the Korean war six million pounds of tin which it has started to dispose of; according to the report I had on September 1, 643,000 pounds were sold at a price of $115 per 100 pounds.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):
On the orders of the day:



S.S. VACATIONLAND-STATEMENT RESPECTING IMPORTATION OF FERRY

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The other day the hon.
member for Laurier asked me a question about the S.S. Vacationland, following a statement by my colleague, the Minister of Transport. I can tell the hon. gentleman that I am advised that the S.S. Vacationland arrived at Port Colborne about 45 minutes ago for steamship inspection, and that no discussions have taken place with respect to taxes in any way whatsoever.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I wonder whether the minister has any comment to make on a news dispatch from Toronto indicating that when sentencing Michael Fakarie to ten days for making improper advances to girls at the Canadian National Exhibition a magistrate remarked that the court list contained no Anglo Saxon names on charges for indecent assault. The question is, how can the magistrate be impartial in the administration of justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me his question relates entirely to the administration of justice or the administration of the Criminal Code, which is not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, but of the provincial authorities.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received a brief from the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers in connection with the establishment of a Canadian merchant navy, arising out of the subsidization policy which he announced in the house some time ago? The question is this. Has the minister had an opportunity of studying the brief, and what conclusion has he come to?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to study the brief, but I will do so some time today.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate last Thursday concerning a story appearing in the press to the effect that a very substantial interest in the private television station in Toronto is to be transferred to United States interests, may I say this. The board of broadcast governors recommended that approval of this application be deferred in order to provide the applicant with an opportunity to receive offers from experienced Canadian broadcasting interests. Further consideration will be given to the matter by the board on September 25.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and appeal to his aesthetic sensibilities. Does the minister consider it proper for building contractors to disfigure the east block on parliament hill by the erection of a large advertising sign, particularly in a location where the Prime Minister's office is situated and at a time when parliament is sitting?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to deal with this matter of urgent and national importance. It is customary for contractors to have signs erected. It is a good thing in order to have material directed to the site. However, before they erect a sign on parliament hill they must obtain our permission. In this instance no permission was obtained, and as a consequence the sign is being removed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear it.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether negotiations are going on for the purpose of effecting a merger of Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Airlines?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has raised a great deal of speculation. At the present time an interdepartmental committee is studying the situation of major air lines in Canada. This interdepartmental committee has made an interim report to the cabinet, and the report is under study.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
232. Departmental administration, $3,455,378.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had of presenting the estimates of the Department of National Defence to the committee. I appreciate the privilege. It gives me a very welcome opportunity to speak on the important subject of our military security. But before I do so I should like to say a word about my very distinguished predecessor in office, General George Pearkes, V.C., now His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia.
I have had the privilege of a long acquaintanceship and close friendship with George Pearkes, extending back to the early 1920's. I served in the first Canadian division under his command, and we entered parliament at the same time. He is a distinguished soldier who rendered signal service to Canada during the first war, between the wars, and throughout the second world war. His interest in and concern for the defence of Canada was demonstrated throughout his years in parliament and particularly as minister of national defence for nearly three and a half years. He is a great gentleman and a great Canadian, and I am sure we all wish him well in his present distinguished position.
I do not think anyone would deny that we are living in times of great stress. Important and far reaching changes are taking place hi many parts of the world; new nations are emerging, resulting on occasion in violence and bloodshed. But overriding all other considerations is the open threat of the Soviet union to eventually achieve world domination. This threat is being implemented on many fronts, economic, political, ideological and military. To combat it requires counteraction in all these areas.
Today, however, I intend to deal with the military threat to our national security. That it continues to exist was made very clear by the Soviet premier earlier this year, when he warned of the consequences which would follow if nations tried to resist the communist move to world wide acceptance of this
Supply-National Defence organization of society. I might add that Mr. Khrushchev went on to say that one of the means for preventing a new war is the development of peace fronts throughout the world, including pacifists of all political beliefs, and through a policy of peaceful coexistence-as defined by him, of course, meaning acceptance of communism. This policy, he said:
facilitates the activities of the communist party and other progressive organizations of the working class in the capitalist countries, makes it easier for the peoples to combat aggressive war blocs and foreign military bases and contributes to the success of the national liberation government. The policy of peaceful coexistence is, thus, so far as its social content is concerned, a form of intense economic, political and ideological struggle between the proletariat and the aggressive forces of imperialism in the world arena.
I think that reinforces what the Leader of the Opposition said a day or two ago to the effect that words have been debased, and they no longer mean, in the Soviet lexicon, what they mean in ours.
In recent weeks, of course, we have been confronted with a series of threats with regard to the Berlin situation. I shall be referring later to the steps the government has taken in the light of the present international situation.
The government's defence policy has two objectives; first, to maintain peace by preventing a third global war; and second, to prevent subjection to a foreign power. Everything we do in defence is devoted to attaining these two purposes.
We believe they can best be attained by a system of alliances, and thus we have been strong supporters of, and have been taking and will continue to take our full part in, making NATO, NORAD and the UN effective. History has shown that had the coalitions that won the last two world wars been in existence and firmly united before the wars, those wars might well have been avoided. When in 1948 it became apparent that the west was again faced with a situation where one by one the countries of Europe might fall under communist domination, the formation of the North Atlantic treaty coalition was the logical step to take. Canada pressed for this action and has firmly supported it since then. It is the cornerstone of our defence policy.
Working as a member of a group of nations is an art that is not easily acquired. To play an effective part, individual nations must show that they are prepared to accept their responsibilities and to make sacrifices, sacrifices in money, men or risks. Only so long as the will of the individual members remains steadfast will the coaltion be strong and its will to stand together be abundantly clear to any would-be aggressor. Canada must, therefore,

Supply-National Defence maintain her proper share of forces committed to NATO, and show to her fellow members and to any possible opponent a determination to stand with the coalition against any aggression.
If membership in NATO demands some abrogation of national freedom of action, it has advantages that far outweigh any drawbacks. The strength of the union is the sum of the strengths of the individual members, and the total strength of the west thus marshalled is formidable indeed. Individual members do not have to maintain a balance of all the forces that go to make up modern military power. Individual members can contribute to the whole those forces that best suit their national circumstances. Canada, for example, does not attempt to provide strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles or fast carrier task forces; yet the NATO organization has the necessary forces in these categories.
I think one of the difficulties which many people experience in their thinking on defence is that they tend to think of Canada particularly as a nation which in their view should be in a position to maintain a force of all kinds, which at the present time is a complete impossibility.
A very important part of the NATO philosophy is the reliance on the retaliatory nuclear forces maintained by the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada does not contribute directly to these forces, but she does make an important contribution to ensure that the major portion of these forces remains effective. By this I mean that through the maintenance, together with the United States, of the early warning radar lines and the anti-bomber defences, she is ensuring that retaliation would be of such an order as to cause equal, if not greater, destruction on the territory of those responsible for launching an attack on this continent.
In North America, a regional area of NATO, the defence against air attack is a single problem. It cannot be separated into parts by boundary lines or limits of territorial waters. This fact was recognized during world war II, when joint plans for defence were drawn up and co-ordinated between the United States and ourselves. After the war, when it became apparent that there was an increasing risk from the air, further closer collaboration in planning took place. Eventually, because of the increasing speeds of aircraft and the resulting shorter and shorter reaction time, consultation and co-ordination were too time consuming, and it was decided to form a joint headquarters to control the air defence forces of the two partner nations
[Mr. Harkness.l
so as to make the most effective use of the very short warning time available to the defences.
NORAD has been attacked as an organization wherein Canada might lose some element of sovereignty. Theoretically I suppose any international agreement involves some loss of sovereignty, but I do not consider that there is any significant loss of Canadian sovereignty involved in the NORAD agreement. The Canadian forces remain under Canadian command. Only operational control is exercised by the joint headquarters of NORAD, and there is no intrusion of United States forces or United States authority in areas that were not already provided for under the former co-ordinated arrangements.
I would like to stress again that the NORAD agreement is a purely defensive agreement. Military action can only be taken if North America comes under attack from the air. In other words, it cannot by any conceivable circumstance start a war. The commander in chief of NORAD is responsible to the Canadian and the United States governments through their respective chiefs of staff, and these governments can and do exercise control over the planning and operating procedures and actions that NORAD takes.
Our contribution to the United Nations is,
I think, well known. We have substantial forces in Egypt, and our servicemen take part in a number of truce commissions and supervisory bodies in various trouble spots in the world. In the last year, of course, we have taken on the additional responsibility of providing some 300 army and air force personnel to the United Nations force in the Congo.
I have just given a broad outline of our general defence policy. Before going on to some more specific matters I should like to briefly mention some opposing ideas which have been put forward from various quarters.
As an alternative to the collective security arrangements we have entered into, other proposals have been put forth, in many cases after genuine and sincere consideration, generally motivated, I think, by the very real fear of nuclear attack on Canada. Some have suggested unilateral disarmament. Presumably the thinking is that if Canada were completely disarmed there would be no provocation for attack. This theory, of course, ignores history; it ignores our geographical position, and it ignores the stated policy of the Soviet. I submit that it is completely unacceptable to Canadians as a whole. It would neither ensure our security nor enhance our reputation in the eyes of the world. To suggest that such an action would have a profound effect on Russia, China or any

other communist regime displays a naivete that is beyond reasonable comprehension.
In talking or writing about defence policy, many people have become so obsessed with equipment matters-in other words the kind of aircraft and armaments available-that they have come to look upon these as the main features of defence policy rather than as one of the means by which basic defence policy is carried into effect. The type of equipment secured depends on the strategy being followed to implement our defence policy and on the tactics which it is believed we will have to employ. Essentially this means that our forces must be equipped to give them the maximum possible mobility and flexibility. It requires that they be equipped with weapons comparable to if not better than those of a potential adversary. It is the policy of the government that our forces should not be required to face a potential enemy with inferior weapons.
Inevitably there will continue to be much argument about the various items of equipment supplied to the services, or which various people think should be supplied to them. Contrary to the statements which have frequently been made that the services, particularly the army, have chiefly old and obsolete equipment, they have in fact been supplied with an almost completely new range of equipment of all kinds.
Three weapons systems-the Honest John surface to surface missile, the Bomarc antiaircraft weapon and the CF-104 aircraftbeing obtained have a nuclear capability, but I should like to make it clear that their military role can in no way be compared with such strategic nuclear weapons as are maintained by the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union. Defensive weapons with a nuclear capability may be required to maintain the credibility of the deterrent, and in the event that the worst happened would be required to provide an effective defence against Soviet aggression. A considerable lead time is necessary for the provision of any such weapons, amounting in most cases to two or three years or more, and it is only prudent to obtain the weapons systems now so that they will be available and our forces trained to use them. The situation is much the same as that of a man living in a lonely cabin in the woods who fears he may be attacked by a bear. He does not wait until the bear actually attacks him to buy a rifle, but secures it beforehand and has it ready in the event of need.
The Bomarc will form part of the defences we must maintain against the manned bomber as long as there are potentially hostile aircraft in existence that could be used against us. A bomber, if unopposed, is by far the
Supply-National Defence best and most effective way of delivering atomic weapons, and it is necessary therefore that we maintain a defence against such a threat as long as it is in existence. We do not know how many long range missiles of adequate accuracy the Russians possess, but we do know that the number is limited. On the other hand, it is a fact that they do have a considerable number of manned aircraft in operation, and should an attack be decided upon it must be presumed that these aircraft would be used.
That was the reason for the decision to improve our air defence by the acquisition of the Bomarc surface to air missile, new heavy radars and the SAGE control system. That was also the reason for the agreement concluded with the United States calling for the acquisition by the R.C.A.F. of 66 F-101B interceptor aircraft. The F-101B is considered the best two place interceptor for service in NORAD today. Five squadrons of 12 aircraft will be formed, one each at Comox,
B.C., North Bay and Ottawa, Ontario, Bagot-ville, Quebec, and Chatham, N.B. Squadrons will be converted progressively with CF-lOO's being withdrawn as each squadron commences conversion.
As part of the agreement the R.C.A.F. will take over the operation and maintenance costs of 11 Pine Tree radars now operated by the United States air force and the maintenance costs of a further five radars now manned by the R.C.A.F. but financed by the United States. The take-over of the 11 radars will be carried out progressively, and present plans are that the program will be completed within a two year period. Canada also assumes financial responsibility for the five radars now manned by the R.C.A.F. as from the date of the agreement.
One other aspect of the agreement relates to the production of the F-104 aircraft by Canadair for our allies. This is a matter not strictly within the purview of the Department of National Defence but it does emphasize, I think, the important part this aircraft has in the over-all equipment policy being implemented by several member nations of NATO.
Other aircraft recently being taken into service or in production will materially strengthen the capabilities of the R.C.A.F. New transport aircraft, including the long range CC-106-the Yukon-the C-130B and the medium range CC-109 will not only increase the over-all air transport capacity of the R.C.A.F., but will also greatly facilitate the movement of Canadian army personnel and equipment to whatever part of the world a requirement exists for our forces.
Canadian production of the CF-104, the aircraft selected to replace the Sabres now being

Supply-National Defence flown in the No. 1 air division, is proceeding according to plan, and this aircraft will enter operational service in 1962. As was announced in 1959, it was selected to meet a specific NATO requirement. It is interesting to note that since then several NATO countries, including Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands, have announced their intention to procure F-104 aircraft. These three countries will all use the F-104 in three roles; as a fighter bomber, an all-weather interceptor and for tactical reconnaissance. It is also expected that Italy will obtain a number of F-104 aircraft, and apart from the NATO countries Japan intends to equip its self defence air force with the F-104. In fact, the F-104 has turned out to be the nearest approach to standardization of aircraft within NATO which has been achieved to date.
For a number of years now the Royal Canadian Navy has been developing methods to combat the submarine menace which exists off both our western and eastern shores. This threat has been further aggravated by the development of the missile capable of being launched from both the surface of the water and under the surface. Continuous improvements have been made to our naval vessels, one notable achievement being the variable depth sonar, product of our own Canadian research teams. This year authority has been given for the installation of helicopter platforms on a number of our destroyer escorts, and additional helicopters will be obtained for anti-submarine duties from these ships. In May last the navy took delivery of the submarine H.M.C.S. Grilse which has been lent by the United States navy. The procurement of this submarine, manned by Canadian naval personnel, will enable our anti-submarine forces on the west coast to get valuable and essential training in the months and years ahead. Ships and aircraft on our east coast for a number of years have had the same facilities provided by submarines of the United Kingdom navy.
The three army brigade groups in Canada, together with members of the reserve forces, have in the past year, in addition to their normal field exercises, been undergoing intensive training in survival operations. New survival equipment has been issued, and the recent exercise Tocsin '61 proved that while a lot remains to be done, great advances have been made in a short space of time in this important aspect of national survival.
The operations of the defence research board are, I think, well known to members of the committee, and I do not intend at this time to outline in detail its various activities. However, I should like to say that within the concept of collective security the board is an essential component of our defence structure.
[Mr. Harkness.l
COMMONS	.
The importance of the place which defence science holds in present day and future planning cannot be too strongly emphasized. Without the advice of a competent and knowledgeable research organization it would be impossible to arrive at sound decisions on military questions in which the technical factor exerts a major influence.
In the development of new equipment and new techniques we must work closely with Canadian industry as a whole. Awareness of this has led the government to authorize the defence research board to develop an extended program of defence research in industry with a primary view of building up and maintaining a more adequate level of defence research capacity. The Department of Defence Production will be co-operating with the defence research board in selecting the research objectives for this expanded defence industrial research program.
I should now like to refer to the decisions the government has taken recently with regard to the deterioration of the situation in Europe. Since the house adjourned in July the international situation, especially with regard to Europe, has been the cause of concern to all nations of the western alliance. The announcement by Premier Khrushchev that the Soviet union intended to sign a separate peace treaty with Eastern Germany, coupled with military preparations taken by the communists, has led Canada and her allies to make a serious study of the implications of the Soviet moves. The decision of the Soviet union to resume nuclear weapons testing, followed by the recent atomic explosions, leaves little doubt in our minds as to the threat that faces us today. The Soviet ambassador to Canada is quoted as saying that the purpose of the resumption of such tests is to "jolt the allies" into agreement on disarmament. He might have added that such agreement is to be on communist terms and communist terms alone.
Following the conference of foreign ministers of the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany, the NATO council met on August 8, and as a result of this meeting the members unanimously agreed to consider measures they might take to bolster the overall NATO forces. Although Canada has lived up to her commitment to NATO in the past, the Canadian government after fully considering the matter decided to take certain action to further strengthen our contribution in Europe, and at the same time to increase the effectiveness of the forces committed to NATO in Canada and to step up the national survival program. Although announcements have already been made in this regard it would, I think, be useful to give a general summary at this time.

In so far as our national survival program is concerned, it has been decided to partially man emergency headquarters and warning centres in Canada; to stockpile and disperse certain stores; to accelerate the purchase of national survival equipment; to speed up the nuclear detonation and fall-out reporting system; to expedite the warning siren program and the survey of existing fall-out protection; and to carry out, as the Prime Minister said earlier, a national survival exercise later this fall to test the effectiveness of the program as a whole.
With their present strengths the regular army and the militia cannot supply the necessary personnel required as a result of the increased activity in the national survival program. To improve this position the government has approved a plan to increase, in the shortest possible time, the number of people trained to take part in survival and rescue operations should the need arise. It has been decided to train up to 100,000 men in the militia on special courses, each lasting six weeks. Approximately 25,000 will be trained on each course in existing military armouries across the country. As an example, training in the eastern Ontario area will not be limited to Ottawa but will be conducted also in Cornwall, Pembroke, Kingston, Peterborough, etc., all the places where military armouries exist and there is sufficient enrolment to justify a course.
Emphasis throughout will be on the teaching of subjects essential for national survival. There will be sufficient basic military training to provide the discipline and response essential to the control and effective employment of such a force on operations. Recruits will be trained with regular militia units in their home districts, and on completion of their courses will be given an opportunity to remain with the militia.
All trainees will be enrolled on a continuous call-out basis during the period of their course. They will receive normal pay with subsistance allowance in lieu of rations as given to a regular army recruit private of single status, that is $108 a month pay and a subsistence allowance of $65 per month. Standards of enrolment will be somewhat modified to permit acceptance of applicants between the ages of 18 and 50 years, married or single. Physical requirements based on the pulhems profile will not be as stringent as those now in force for the regular army.
The first course is scheduled to get under way before mid-November. For each course of 25,000 a training staff of approximately 2,700 officers and N.C.O.'s will be required. This staff will be found through existing instructional staff for the army survival
Supply-National Defence operations and from militia officers and N.C.O.'s and former regular army personnel called out on a voluntary basis for the duration of the program. Any deficiencies which may exist after calling on these three sources will be made up from the regular army. The administration of the program will be based on the existing militia structure.
In so far as our commitment to NATO is concerned, we are determined to make it perfectly clear that we fully support that organization. Over the past few years we have been strengthening the brigade group in Europe by modernizing and increasing the quantities of the brigade weapons. As an example, the armoured component of the brigade has been increased from squadron to regimental strength. Despite the increase in weapons and equipment, it was not considered necessary to make a corresponding increase in manpower. However, in a period of tension, and of course this is a period of tension, it is necessary to provide additional personnel to units in the field to ensure that they can, without delay, meet all their commitments on a 24-hour basis. The retention in the brigade of the first battalion of the Black Watch has already been announced. It is now proposed to strengthen the brigade group in Germany by the immediate addition of 1,100 men, of whom 300 are being allocated to man the surface to surface Honest John missile battery and to operate the reconnaissance helicopters which are being added to the brigade group.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The minister's time has expired. Will the committee give unanimous consent to permit him to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to thank the committee, Mr. Chairman. Initially the men to meet these requirements will be provided from existing units now in Canada. 1 might say that the first 400 men to strengthen the brigade will sail for Europe on the 22nd of this month, to be followed by a further 400 about a week later.
The strength of the R.C.A.F. air division in Europe is to be increased by 250 men. This will provide, amongst other things, an increased ratio of pilots to aircraft, thus improving the operational readiness of the division. In so far as the Royal Canadian Navy is concerned, we have a commitment to NATO for the provision of ships and aircraft in the event of an emergency. Our ships are at present manned at an average of 86 per cent of full operational complement. It is intended that immediate action be taken toward manning all operational ships at full

Supply-National Defence strength. This means the addition of some
1.750	personnel in naval strength.
A further decision has been made to increase the air transport capability of the R.C.A.F. It was planned that with the introduction of the long range Yukon aircraft, the North Star transport aircraft would be phased out of service. However, a squadron of these aircraft is now to be retained, thus enhancing the long range operations of air transport command. The extra manpower required involves some 500 personnel. To man the Pine Tree radar sites being transferred from the United States to Canada during the next few months without reducing other activities being undertaken by the R.C.A.F., an additional 490 personnel will be needed.
As a result of the increased manpower requirements, authority has been given to raise the strength ceilings of our forces in Europe from 12,000 to 14,000, and of the regular forces as a whole from 120,000 to 135,000.
I have already referred to the R.C.N. and R.C.A.F. requirement and the increase in strength of the fourth brigade group in Europe. In addition, it is proposed to maintain an immediate reserve of 1,500 men in Canada for the fourth brigade group, who will be available for immediate dispatch, with their documentation and so on, completed, to strengthen the strategic reserve forces of the army earmarked for NATO and to provide additional army personnel for national survival operations. Immediate steps are therefore being taken to recruit an additional
1.750	personnel for the R.C.N., some 11,600 for the Canadian army, and 1,140 for the R.C.A.F.
The estimated cost of these programs in round figures during the current fiscal year is $6 million for the survival measures, plus $25 million for the special militia training of men to take part in survival and rescue operations, and $12 million for the additions to the regular forces including the strengthening of the NATO forces overseas. Part of this cost can be met from the estimates now before the house. The net addition to defence spending when all adjustments have been taken into account will be in the order of $35 million. A question was asked the other day as to what the cost would be in a full year. The estimated cost of the measures I have mentioned for the year 1962-63 will be $62.9 million. For subsequent years it will be $55.3 million.
I should emphasize that the action we have taken should not be construed as indicating an alarmist attitude or any belief in the inevitability of war. Rather it indicates our recognition of the present critical international


situation, our belief in NATO, and our determination not to succumb to the threat of force no matter how awful that threat may appear. By taking such an attitude in consort with our allies it is our belief that the chances of war are diminished. It is not we who have resorted to sabre rattling and military threats. Premier Khrushchev has deliberately chosen to make an issue of the Berlin situation, has threatened the use of force unless we come to agreement on his terms, and has ignored the welfare of millions of people by resuming nuclear weapons testing. In the face of such threats of our national security, I think the committee will agree that the steps taken by the government are fully justified.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that some hon. members will be a bit disappointed, as I was, in the minister's statement. After commencing with a lecture to persons unnamed for spending too much time in discussing military hardware and not sufficient time in discussing over-all defence policy, he then proceeded to do just that. In fact his statement was a rehash of departmental administration, of many of the bits of information already contained in the blue book, and of the announcements made the other day by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. The statement contained very little, if anything, which was new or of interest to the committee.
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that although it was stated in different terms today by the minister, the objective of Canada's defence policy is still, as it has been in the past, to be an instrument of our foreign policy. It should be, therefore, organized for and dedicated to the maintenance of peace rather than the waging of thermonuclear war. Because of our relatively small population and military capacity, we must continue to work with the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to achieve our goal. Our interdependence is such that we must consider western strength and capability as a whole before we can intelligently discuss what contribution Canada should be making to collective security; because, as the minister stated, we each make a contribution and the total strength of the alliance is equal to the sum of the individual contributions.
The struggle between the east and the west has been described as a protracted conflict. Not only is it protracted but the spectrum of the conflict is very broad, including competition in the economic, psychological, political and military spheres. Generally speaking, and subject only to a few happy exceptions, the west has been lagging in the various areas of conflict except its ability to deter an all-out,

direct thermonuclear attack. Even here the Russians have been narrowing the gap. They do not have the offensive power of the United States, but they are catching up. In addition, the fact that in a direct attack the Russians would strike first adds an equalizing factor to the deterrent equation.
The United States, realizing that in order to deter direct attack it must have the capacity to accept the first blow and still have enough potential to inflict unacceptable damage on the Soviet union, has embarked on a accelerated program designed to increase the invulnerability of its atomic striking force. They have embarked on a number of measures to achieve this goal. First of all, there is the Polaris submarine missile capacity. This is probably the most effective measure yet undertaken because the submarine, even though its location may be known at one moment, can hide from Soviet detection; and the deterrent capacity which it contains, and it is a very real deterrent capacity, is not vulnerable to Soviet attack.
In addition, the United States has embarked on an acceleration of the Minuteman program. As is known to the committee, this is a solid fuel intercontinental ballistic missile which will be installed in well dispersed hardened sites and later will be placed on mobile railroad cars so that its whereabouts will be unknown to any potential enemy. Then, too the Skybolt missile program has been accelerated. This is an air to ground missile with a relatively long range of 1,000 miles or so. It too is a solid fuel nuclear ballistic missile which carries an atomic warhead. It is to be carried by the B-52 bomber and by the British V bombers. Additionally, the United States has increased its capacity for an airborne alert and also its capacity for the 15 minute ground alert.
All these accelerated programs, Mr. Chairman, have been designed to make sure, to underline, the effectiveness of the United States to deter aggression, to deter a strike from the Soviet union. They have also improved their warning system. This is necessary if a ground alert is to be effective. As is well known, the first part of the ballistic missile early warning system is in operation, and the other parts will get into operation shortly. The Midas satellite system has been accelerated, and it is designed to provide a greater warning, perhaps of the order of 30 minutes, to the United States strategic air command.
All these steps combined increase the protection of the United States striking force and its ability to deter Soviet attack. I can say from experience, Mr. Chairman, having seen something of the strategic air command and of the steps it is taking, that it still has
Supply-National Defence an overwhelming capacity. It is formidable.
I know it has the capacity to blow the Soviet union off the face of the map. I think the Soviet union, too, is aware of this. I am convinced also the United States has and will keep its retaliatory forces up to date. They will not allow them to become out of date, and they will disperse them and make them invulnerable to attack as they feel required to do.
While Russia has been making giant strides toward narrowing the gap between its striking capacity and that of the United States, the west has been much slower in applying itself to the much greater gap between its conventional capacity and that of the Soviet union. The west does not have an adequate deterrent to moderate provocation. It does not have the conventional non-nuclear capacity to deter limited wars. Many people have been pointing out this inadequacy for some time. First of all, some of the more enlightened military officers did so. In most cases theirs was a minority opinion. When General Maxwell Taylor of the United States proposed this viewpoint it was considered radical and probably not correct. Now, at long last, this viewpoint is being accepted in official circles, and the United States has taken official notice of the deficiency in conventional strength and has included some remedial action in its current crash program.
President Kennedy stated the case well in his special message to congress on March 28, 1961. At that time he said:
The strength and deployment of our forces in combination with those of our allies should be sufficiently powerful and mobile to prevent the steady erosion of the free world through limited wars: and it is this role that should constitute the primary mission of our overseas forces. Non-nuclear wars, and sub-limited or guerrilla warfare, have since 1945 constituted the most active and constant threat to free world security. Those units of our forces which are stationed overseas, or designed to fight overseas, can be most usefully oriented toward deterring or confining those conflicts which do not justify and must not lead to a general nuclear attack. In the event of a major aggression that could not be repulsed by conventional forces, we must be prepared to take whatever action with whatever weapons are appropriate. But our objective now is to increase our ability to confine our response to non-nuclear weapons, and to lessen the incentive for any limited aggression by making clear what our response will accomplish. In most areas of the world, the main burden of local defence against overt attack, subversion and guerrilla warfare must rest on local populations and forces. But given the great likelihood and seriousness of this threat, we must be prepared to make a substantial contribution in the form of strong, highly mobile forces trained in this type of warfare, some of which must be deployed in forward areas, with a substantial airlift and sealift capacity and prestocked overseas bases.
The President backed up his policy statement by action with specific recommendations
8228	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence to implement the policy. These included the following, and I may say that the lettering is my own:
A.	Expanded research on non-nuclear weapons. I hope the President:
What is needed are entirely new types of nonnuclear weapons and equipment with increased firepower, mobility and communications, and more suited to the kind of tasks our limited war forces will most likely be required to perform.
B.	Increased airlift capacity. The appropriation put before congress was more than double the existing appropriation.
C.	Additional amphibious transport to increase the speed and capability of sealift capacity.
D.	Helicopters, rifles, electronics and communications equipment.
E.	Development of an advanced tactical fighter emphasizing non-nuclear capabilities.
F.	Modification of the F-105 tactical fighter to improve its capability to handle conventional armament ordnance items and to increase its suitability for airstrips of all types of areas.
G.	More personnel and training.
This new emphasis on increasing western capacity to deter or if necessary wage limited war is a complete vindication of the change in direction suggested by the Liberal party in this house a year ago. President Kennedy's recommendations in March, 1961, read like a catalogue of the suggestions we put forward as a consequence of a redirected policy.


An hon. Member:: He must have read them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think he did so. I feel it is unfortunate that the Canadian government has not yet seen the light. Now that we have a new Berlin crisis on our hands we see some evidence of token repentance. We hope it is not deathbed repentance. Now at the insistent urging of its allies the Canadian government is sending token reinforcements to its brigade group and air division in Europe. One might wonder what additional contributions we were asked to make. One might wonder about the connection between our lack of ground forces in Europe and the Berlin crisis.
Our lack of conventional strength there is well known to Mr. Khrushchev. It is also well known to Mr. Khrushchev that as the common market is enlarged, and as it becomes stronger, Europe is gaining in strength politically, economically and militarily. He also knows that finally the western allies have agreed to build up their conventional strength in Europe. Taking all these factors into consideration, he may have decided that now is the strategic time to cause trouble and see how far he can press without running


into absolute opposition from the NATO alliance. However, if we had been stronger on the ground in Europe the crisis might never have arisen in the first place.
The government has announced that 1,106 additional troops will be sent to our brigade in Europe. It has indicated that 300 of these will man the Honest John artillery.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; 235.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I beg the minister's pardon. We have not been told what the remainder will be occupied in doing. We would ask the government to tell us specifically what function they will perform, and how in fact they add to the fighting effectiveness of the brigade in Europe. We concur in that decision, but we deplore the failure of the government to provide modern equipment for the brigade. It has not been supplied with the mobility and firepower it needs. This is the situation notwithstanding the minister's brave words in many of the speeches he has made across the country. It has none of the light aircraft which are available such as the Otter, Beaver, and Caribou. Other armies have them, even other armies in Europe. However, the Canadian army has none of them.
On recent trips to the United States, visiting their army installations, it has been a matter of pride that the United States army relies to the extent it does on the excellent series of light aircraft manufactured by the de Havilland company in Toronto. United States army personnel just naturally assume that the Canadian army would be well equipped with these first class Canadian products. They can scarcely believe that such is not the case. Indeed, they are not the only incredulous ones. On one recent trip three of my Conservative colleagues also could not believe that the Canadian army would not be equipped with the Caribou aircraft. They were reluctant to take my word for it, but they accepted information supplied by a Canadian liaison officer. It is humiliating, Mr. Chairman, that we have such excellent equipment available but not available where it is needed, in the field with our forces.
As a sidelight here I might be permitted to say that this trip to which I was just referring was one during which parliamentarians of the NATO countries visited United States installations as guests of the United States congress and government. It was a most fascinating as well as instructive trip. We visited installations of the marine corps, the army, the navy and the air force. We saw a fairly wide spectrum of United States installations, and were given an insight into their capacity and plans. I should like to say for myself-and I am sure I speak for

my colleagues on the other side of the house as well, including Mr. Chairman-that we appreciated the courtesy which was extended to us, as well as the hospitality. The Americans are wonderfully hospitable people. They treated us with great respect and great deference and made the trip as instructive, pleasant and congenial as possible. We are extremely grateful to them for the opportunity that was presented to us.
Similarly, our army has not been equipped with helicopters. Goodness knows the suggestion has been made often enough. As found in Hansard at page 7525 for August 3, 1960, the then minister of national defence-and I join the present minister in his tribute to the former minister, who was a special friend of mine and a man for whom I had the greatest respect-Hon. George Pearkes had this to say, referring to the recommendations of the special committee on defence expenditures:
The committee also recommended giving consideration to the provision of helicopters which would increase the mobility of the brigade. We have that matter under consideration and it is just a question of when funds are to be made available, because I believe that helicopters will certainly increase the effectiveness of that brigade.
The army itself seems to be enthusiastic about the idea of obtaining helicopters. I quote part of a dispatch from camp Gage-town, New Brunswick, by Dave McIntosh, dated July 11, as follows:
The army wants some 40 of these helicopters and 40 transport types, but the government has not yet approved expenditure of the some $40 million required for this purpose.
It is true that some light reconnaissance helicopters are included in this year's estimates, but to my knowledge there is no provision for the heavier transport types which are required for moving troops and equipment on the battlefield.
So it is also with the personnel carrier. The Bobcat program has been slowed to a crawl. Instead of being accelerated and providing the desperately needed equipment to our brigade group, the government has done its best, and its best has been pretty good, to postpone necessary expenditures for budgetary reasons. The same story applies to a broad band of needed requirements; no money, no equipment. No money, that is, for the most important equipment. Some has been found for less useful projects.
The point is that the armed forces are starved for the type of equipment they require to do an effective job. It is a matter of regret and of deep concern that the appropriation for equipment for this fiscal year is the smallest since the post-Korean build up. It has been said that we have the best clothed
Supply-National Defence and best fed forces in the world. It is not possible to say that their equipment is the latest or the best. We were told by the minister in his statement today that it should be; that their equipment should be second to none, but the fact is that their equipment is not the best. It is second and inferior to equipment they might face in the hands of their enemy.
Now we are advised that the armed forces are to be augmented by approximately 15,000 men of all ranks, but there is no corresponding increase in the appropriation for equipment. On the contrary, one wonders how the new personnel can be paid with the funds referred to by the minister. He has told us that only $35 million will be required for the balance of the year. According to the blue book the cost of military personnel for 1961-62, including operations and maintenance, is approximately $10,000 per man. On a proportional basis, therefore, the annual cost of
15.000	additional men would be $150 million, and that is before any allowance is provided for equipment. As more than six months remain of the fiscal year, either the government does not expect its new program to be very effective or it has not made adequate financial provision.
There is also the cost of training the
100.000	civil survival recruits and providing equipment for them. I will leave further discussion of this subject until later. In passing however, Mr. Chairman, I might say that I agree with the minister's statement today that there remains a lot to be done. His was the understatement of the year.
Our whole concern here is one of direction. The government is not putting proper emphasis on developing mobile forces capable of assisting in the deterrence of limited war or, in the event one should be waged, of containing it before it spreads into a major conflagration. It continues to place far too great an emphasis on weapons systems which are not needed to deter direct attack, which do nothing to deter limited war, and which are relatively useless in the event of an all-out war. The minister said in Toronto:
Here in North America the major component of the threat to this continent is still the manned bomber regardless of what many of our so-called experts are claiming.
I would refer the minister to a book entitled "War and Peace in the Space Age" written by Lieutenant General James M. Gavin, who has this to say:
In conclusion, in the missile-space age the earth will become a tactical theatre, and combat in space will have begun. Missiles will be the dominant form of firepower and air mobility will provide the key to tactical success in land warfare. Through air mobility we must discover the innovations that will give us the margin of advantage we need to win in land combat.
8230	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


An hon. Member:: When will that happen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If Lieutenant General Gavin is correct, the minister is wrong on two counts. First of all the Prime Minister has told this house the missile is replacing the manned bomber as the main threat. The minister is now living in that unenlightened era of about four years ago. Second, if air mobility is needed in the field, the minister is missing the boat because his troops do not have any; and according to most of the experts, including Lieutenant General Gavin, they require it. I should like the minister to give more reasons why he and his government have delayed so long in providing this essential equipment.
It is interesting to note that in the long list of priority items presented by President Kennedy to congress on March 28 last there did not appear one of the major items on which the Canadian government is relying. Not one American penny for the Voodoo, the F-104, the Bomarc or the Honest John. The Canadian defence department has become a pawnshop for second hand American hardware.
Now we are being prepared for the introduction of atomic arms into Canada. The campaign to wear down the resistance in this house and in the country has begun. Speeches are being made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Defence which lead us to believe that the introduction of these weapons is inevitable. The commander in chief of NORAD was brought to Toronto to make a speech which would frighten the Canadian people into submission. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I think I should raise the question of the propriety of the Canadian government asking General Kuter to come and make a speech designed to do the government's political chores. I think if the government has any policy in which it firmly believes, it should state the case and accept the responsibility without trying to palm it off on military officers.
Our position in this respect is the same as we announced last year. We still feel that atomic weapons in Canada are unnecessary at this time. We feel they are redundant. We do not think they add anything to the security of Canada, and we think they provide no protection for the strategic air command. In his speech at Toronto the minister gave as one of the reasons for continuing the expenditure of large sums of money on these weapons systems the fact that they provide some protection for the deterrent, for the retaliatory striking power of the United States strategic air command. This position was valid four years ago; it is not valid now. It was valid at


a time when the bomber was the only threat to the North American continent. It is no longer valid.
The present situation, as the minister knows and as he should be expounding instead of having it done for him, is that if the Russians were to start a war now; if they were to embark upon a direct attack, they would not do so unless they had enough missiles to cover every American strategic air command base on the North American continent. That is fundamental. It would be suicidal-it might be suicidal anyway-for the Soviet union to start a war even by sneak attack if they did not have sufficient missile capacity to wipe out every strategic air command base in the first hour or so of the conflict.
The United States understands this. That is the reason for the accelerated programs to which I referred earlier in my speech. That is the reason the United States is stepping up the Polaris program. That is the reason they are going to accelerate the Minuteman program and alert more strategic air command bombers. They know that 30 minutes after war starts any SAC aircraft which is not off the ground will not be able to get off the ground.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Will the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the committee for its co-operation. The minister should understand the point I have just made. This is at the heart of the United States strategy now. They know they will not have time to call pilots in after a war has begun. The only thing they will have with which to strike back will be those components of the retaliatory force which are invulnerable in the event of attack by missile in the first few minutes of conflict.
The minister's strategy is four years old. He is still living in the "aircraft only" age. He has not projected himself into the missile age. Perhaps he has received some wrong advice from the department. If he has he should overcome it, because that is what he is paid for, and I hope he will do it without too much delay.
There is one element of the SAC retaliatory force I omitted to mention. If the hardened missile bases did not receive a direct blow within the first few minutes of attack they would have a period of two or three hours before any bombers would reach their location, during which time the missiles could be launched toward the Soviet union. If they were not launched in that period of time they would have no opportunity whatever.



1SB1

[Stage Direction]
This is the sum and substance of the United States strategy. Under these circumstances our Bomarc, even if it had any utility whatsoever, and our defence mechanisms other than warning and reconnaissance do not in fact protect the deterrent. They may do other things, but they do not accomplish this end.
For this reason we continue to believe that it is not worth while to put Canada into the atomic club, into the group of atomic nations, when the advantage of having atomic weapons on Canadian soil is so negligible. We reserve the right to reassess this position if at any time in the future the west should be successful in developing a really effective anti-missile missile. That would change the picture considerably. At the present time, however, there is none, and we are basing our policy on the facts as they exist.
In respect to atomic arms for NATO, our position there, too, is the same as that announced in this house last year. We believe that the first and primary emphasis should be on the building up of conventional strength in NATO, the building up of the capacity to deter limited aggression, and the building up of a flexible response. We believe this is the first priority. Second, we have taken the position that if atomic weapons of the defensive type are required as a second line of defence in NATO we would not object to Canadian forces being so equipped if these weapons came under NATO collective control. We take this position with the knowledge that if we had sufficient conventional strength to stop any Russian attack for days or weeks, there would be adequate time for consultation and for the decision to be made. The Leader of the Opposition, if he has an opportunity to participate in this debate, will elaborate on the political aspects of NATO co-operation and on the control of weapons within the NATO alliance.
In respect to our contribution to the United Nations, this party is proud of it. We are proud of the part our leader has played in making the United Nations a useful vehicle for international intervention. We hope that Canada's role in this field will increase. We hope that the usefulness of the United Nations in settling and arbitrating international disagreements will increase. We believe that we in Canada should support and build up those types of mobile tactical forces which are most effective for that type of job. This is the policy we put forward.
I shall leave until later the discussion of the role of the individual services and some of the equipment items that have been ordered for them. I feel that they can be better dealt with when the specific relevant items have been called.
Supply-National Defence
The whole purpose of the change of direction which has been suggested from this side of the house is to increase the effectiveness of Canada's contribution. We know we have to remain a member of the alliance. We know that the alliance is only as strong as the sum total of all contributions of the member nations. We do not think the Canadian contribution at the present time is adding very much to that collective strength. We feel that by a change in direction and by placing greater emphasis on the deficits in our collective strength we can make a much greater and more useful contribution.
There are side benefits, as well. There is the benefit of using in most cases equipment which can be designed and manufactured in this country, which will provide employment for Canadian workers. But this aside, the real purpose of our policy and the reason we urge a reconsideration on the government is this. We feel the government should stop wasting its money on Bomarc missiles and ten year old concepts. We urge it to enter the missile age, to accept the facts as they exist, and to attempt to make Canada's contribution to collective defence a useful and constructive one.
Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise at this point to participate in this debate. The committee will realize that my participation is due to the absence of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am sure all hon. members of the committee join me in wishing him the best of health and in trusting that he will soon recover and resume his place in this chamber.
I am aware that members of the opposition are at the greatest disadvantage in discussing the question of national defence and related subjects. Naturally there is available to the minister information which cannot be made available to those on the opposition benches. I therefore think it behoves us on this side of the house to perhaps apologize in advance if through misinformation or lack of information we should be led to say anything which on the basis of the minister's knowledge is grossly unfair and which, because of the requirement of secrecy, he is unable to answer.
Although, as I have said, I rise with trepidation and some concern, I am heartened by a statement attributed to a United States defence strategist, Mr. Walter Millis, who said:
The ablest students of the subject are either in complete contradiction or in a state of frank bewilderment.


Mr. Pugh:: Like the last speaker.

Supply-National Defence


Walter George Pitman: I am not commenting on the interjection which has just been made by an hon. gentleman on my left.
This is the first opportunity the house has had to discuss the question of life and death in relation to the problem of national defence. There is no problem which appears to generate more emotion. There is no subject in respect to which clear, cold logic is more necessary. I think many of us sitting here will agree that the differences of opinion are not between those who are loyal and those who are disloyal; rather the division is as to how this loyalty and love of country can be best expressed. It is not a difference between those who want war and those who want peace. We on this side of the house are fully confident that those who sit to the right of the Speaker's chair are as determined for and as desirous of peace as we are, but rather there is a serious difference regarding how war may come in the 1960's and the kind of war it will be. Although we on this side speak a great deal of peace we do not stand with a great moral case and look down upon those who are seeking peace in other ways. That is not the difference in any way. We believe wholeheartedly in the good intentions of all hon. members.
Third, it is not a difference between those who are pro-American and those who are anti-American; rather we may have two views on how we can best be the allies of the United States of America. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not a debate in which such words as "pacifism" or "neutralism" have any place, because it is not a difference of neutralism versus active alliance; rather it is a difference as to by what form of international participation-"participation" is a word which I think all parties in the house accept-Canada can best make a contribution.
As I stand here I recognize that men of all parties have played an active role in the fighting for freedom which has taken place in this century; therefore this is a question on which the motives of all hon. members should never be questioned. We have all wanted a peaceful world. We may be divided on the means by which this peace can be obtained.
There are many approaches to the subject of preventing war. No doubt the most popular one is the historical argument-and it is a very telling argument in so many ways-that if we had maintained our alliances, if we had kept our weapons in the 1930's, we would have prevented the march into the Rhineland, and we would have prevented the march into Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. If we had kept our weapons we could have stopped world war II and the world

would have been saved from the scourge of universal conflict. This is always a very popular concept, that history repeats itself; that we can avoid the mistakes of the past by heeding the warnings of the past.
Well, one historian has been very cynical, and has said that the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn anything from history; but I think we can learn a great deal from history as long as we do not try to force patterns which do not exist; because the irony of mankind's story is that history never repeats itself.
The belief in the 1920's and 1930's was that if the world forsook arms it would be another way of finding peace. We believed that if we had set up a League of Nations we would have stopped world war I. In the 1920's and 1930's we would have stopped world war I but we failed to stop world war II. The difference is that in the 1960's it is quite possible that our policies may be directed at stopping world war II, but the dreadful question is whether it will stop world war III. Indeed, an aroused America and the presence of weapons in the 1930's would have prevented the march of Hitler but the problem, of course, remains, what are we to do in 1961? We may hope that the solution of the 1930's will stop us from the wars of the 1960's, but I have not quite that great confidence that it will; because we exist in a new world of new weaponry, of new patterns of events, and only new solutions will have any effect upon those patterns of events.
Just briefly I should like to quote from Sir John Cockcroft, who said in 1957:
It is clear enough already, however, that our civilization can be destroyed in a night-
Probably it can be said at this time that our civilization can be destroyed in a few minutes. I continue:
It is clear enough already, however, that our civilization can be destroyed in a night if ever these great forces are released for our destruction. This presents the human race with the greatest challenge it has ever had: to co-operate in disarmament and so to banish the threat which now hangs over the whole world.
I realize, of course, that this government has played a great part in its attempt to bring about disarmament. This is a problem which we face. I think our defence policies and our external affairs policies must be dovetailed, must indeed be the same, and that anything which takes place in defence must in no way compromise or interfere with what is taking place in the Department of External Affairs in preventing war; because surely this is the end of our defence policy. A former minister of national defence said in this house last year that the primary aim of our defence policy must be not to win war but to prevent war. He certainly would be supported by

General MacArthur who said that it is a form of mutual suicide, and the entire effort of modern society should be concentrated on an endeavour to outlaw it.
Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch at one o'clock I had opened my remarks by suggesting that the end of defence policy is always the same for all parties. The security of the Canadian people, security of life and property and also, as the Minister of National Defence pointed out this morning, freedom of the Canadian people. We are as concerned with the quality of life as we are concerned with life itself. I attempted to point out that no defence policy can be found in 1961 by looking at the past, by assuming that we can stop a third world war by means by which we could have stopped world war II because, as one great historian and theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, has put it, this is the irony of human history. It is not that we wish war; it is simply that we cannot make the intellectual jump to keep us sufficiently ahead of events to prevent a new pattern from emerging which will bring war while we are trying to decide on how to deal with the older pattern.
So too in respect of weaponry we have become enamoured of the weaponry of the past. As the hon. member for Trinity suggested this morning, we are four years behind and perhaps in our basic concepts we are even further behind. A look at past wars will convince us that the first few months of every war have been fought with the weapons of the preceding war. We tried cavalry in world war I and the Maginot line in world war II, and we are still trying to defend against manned bombers in 1961. In spite of the fact that manned bombers are certainly the most accurate form of attack, none the less these are not the weapons which in my opinion will be used in any war which might begin within the next few years. Indeed, I understand that the accuracy of the long range missiles which the Russians are developing was such as to mean a degree of error of two or three miles, but that margin of error has been cut down tremendously over the last number of months. So in a real way we are bound by the past and we even talk about past events, but so far as an all-out war in defence of the North American continent is
Supply-National Defence concerned there is no defence. We are confusing the word "defence" with the word "deterrent", and we in Canada can play virtually no role in the realm of deterrence.
No more can we talk of winning the war. This is entirely irrational. I think the Minister of National Defence was quite right this morning when he said that we should not be motivated by fear, but I think we should be basing our defence on a realistic and rational realization of what the stakes really are and what kind of war we are really going to be fighting. I think it is rather important to know that each of the 16 missiles on each of the five Polaris submarines has more power than all the bombs dropped during the last war.
There seems to be a peculiar notion in some circles that this is going to be a limited nuclear war and that only a certain number of bombs which we know Russia and the United States have will be dropped, but surely this is a strange strategic concept. Surely when this war begins it will have to be an all-out war for the first few seconds. All the power of the opposing side will have to be destroyed; because if this is not done the subsequent attack by the opposing power will be such that it will bring about certainly most unacceptable damage to the country which originally launched the attack.
The United States has suggested that one and a half thousand megatons dropped on the United States would kill 49 million people, with only 263 bombs dropped. We know that the U.S.S.R. has 20,000 megatons capable of being dropped on the United States, and only
9,000	would be needed to wipe out all life. These are only a few statistics, but I think we should all know the stakes not in order to increase fear but in order to know exactly what we can do in this kind of situation.
Not only is it impossible to compare the policies of the past and the lessons of the past, but it is irrelevant to compare the role which Canada can play. In world war I Canada played a magnificent role in the forefront of the western front; indeed, she was the pride of the western front. In world war II we played an extremely important role, not as dramatic but as valuable. In world war III we will find ourselves in a world of two giants and we, as one author has put it, will be peeping between the legs of these giants. We will virtually have no role whatever. In other words, to put it in the vernacular, we are out of this league. We should therefore try to ascertain where we can best make a valuable contribution to the peace of the world.
It was in recognition of these facts, that we can no longer expect the old weapons will be used or that our role will necessarily be

Supply-National Defence as it was in the past, that the New Democratic party has tried to base its belief once again on a defence policy that will guard the life and property of the Canadian people as well as the freedoms and liberties of the Canadian people. It must be a policy which will take into account the uniqueness of our present situation.
We stand on two premises. The first is that we should do nothing in defence which will limit our activities in the area of diplomacy in seeking out a real peace. Yesterday the Prime Minister talked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as the idealist. We in this corner feel the minister is a realist in terms of the kind of world in which we live. He is determined that war will not take place; and that must be our basic policy, to prevent war. It makes it very difficult for us to be enthusiastic proponents of disarmament if we accept nuclear arms or if we are so two faced about it that the other countries do not know whether or not we are accepting them. We cannot fight to limit the nuclear club, so to speak, to those who have the weapons now if we give any indication that we wish to join the nuclear club. We have heard of the big threat in the production of atomic weapons whereby countries, perhaps 25 in the world, will be able to arm themselves with these weapons. This is the area in which Canada must make a real contribution, to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of more nations. It is for this reason I suggest our defence policy must in no way compromise the activities of our diplomats in this cause.
The second premise on which we have based our policy is that Canada is a middle power in size, in population and in opportunities. We cannot, like Stephen Leacock's hero, jump on a horse and ride off in all directions. We feel it is not possible for us to go in even one direction. But we feel that by going in too many directions we could lose all direction. I think the Minister of National Defence would agree with this proposition, that at certain times it might mean more to the security of the life and property, to the security of the freedom of the Canadian people, if we were feeding the people of southeast Asia rather than providing a certain kind of missile. It is for this reason we say that our participation must be a directed participation, not a directionless participation; one that has possibilities for Canada as a middle power.
As we have said, the significant fact is that the really big league defence is the deterrent. The deterrent has reached the area of the overkill. We have heard some interesting information this morning about the extent to which our friends south of the border have

been carrying on their program of deterrents. Canada can play no vital role in deterrents.
The problem is, where can we play a significant role? We believe that this area is the field of foreign aid. We can play an important role here, and we must not allow our activities in the area of deterrents to destroy that role.
This morning the minister used a very interesting example. He said we should not wait until the bear is ready to attack before we buy a rifle. We would all question the sanity of any person who waited until the bear was ready to attack before he bought a rifle. We would also question the sanity of a person who made no decision about shells when he bought the rifle. This situation exists in Canada today. We do not know what the shells are going to be in terms of this rifle. We are told that the weapons we have bought are practically useless without nuclear warheads, the reference being to the Bomarc and the CF-104.
Well, is it possible that we are waiting to let propaganda, to let the effect of the weapons themselves, make the decision for us? Are we going to have a clear-cut position taken by this government, one which can be debated in this house; because it will be clearly impossible to debate the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons when the time arrives. There will be no time to discuss or debate the subject at that time. Of course the whole example breaks down badly. A better example might be that of a person who buys a bottle of nitroglycerine to throw at the bear so he can blow himself up and the bear at the same time. One cannot claim to compare nuclear weapons with a rifle in terms of a war.
We believe, then, that there are three kinds of war. The first is one which will start by mistake, and that is why we are wholeheartedly behind the activities of the man we refer to as a realist, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his attempt to continue efforts at disarmament. Second, there is the war that might be started by the two great powers. If this war comes I seriously doubt whether Canada will have any part to play whatever. It seems inconceivable to me that the decisions which will have to be made in consequence will provide time for consultation with the NATO allies, and particularly Canada. It will require secretiveness in terms of manning the submarines, the intercontinental ballistic missiles and so on, to such an extent that this war will be decided by a very few men on a very limited part of the earth's surface.
As this debate goes on we would hope to have the opportunity of looking at this blue book of national defence in the light of a

possible nuclear war between the great powers and seeing what these deficiencies are. This is something which will be carried on if this debate continues. We can detect, with the D.E.W. line and reconnaissance aircraft, but we do not feel that the D.E.W. line and this reconnaissance is necessarily a part of our NORAD arrangements.
But there is a way in which Canada can make a real contribution in terms of a limited war, the bind of war which has been breaking out so often. Since the end of the second world war there have been some 30 of these limited wars. We have many young nations arriving on the scene. All of us know that during the first years of nationalism, aggressive tendencies very often come to the fore. This is the area in which we feel the defence policy of Canada can play a part. We should have a mobile force capable of taking police action in other areas of the world where these situations might arise.
We feel there should be a reappraisal of Canada's defence policy, a reappraisal of the determination to prevent war.
We feel that we must leave NORAD. We feel we should have an expanded foreign aid program. We have suggested 2 per cent of the gross national product, not because we are being unrealistic in terms of Canada's possibilities but because we are trying to be realistic in terms of the need. This need has been mentioned by the Associate Minister of National Defence and other members, notably the hon. member for Greenwood. We want to cut down in our defence expenditures in areas where we feel there is waste in terms in the kind of war which Canada will be undertaking if the possibilities should materialize. It is rather frightening to realize that in the cost of war, or of preparing for war, mankind is spending at least $120 billion a year. If we could spend that amount on peace we could bring up the income of each person in China, India and Pakistan. We could double their income. We could provide adequate housing for 240 million people in underdeveloped nations. We could give the three billion hungry people food and medical care.


Mr. Jones:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question just in order to clarify the stand he is setting forth on behalf of his party? Is he advocating that we dismantle our military defence forces and turn all the money into foreign aid? Is that what the hon. member is advocating?


Walter George Pitman: No, that is not what I am advocating. I suggested that we should be selecting areas where we are playing no part whatsoever. I think the Bomarc missile is a very good example of an area where we could
Supply-National Defence very well be spending something on foreign aid. We have suggested no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.


Henry Frank Jones: May I ask a further question for the purpose of clarification? I understand that our expenditures for Bomarc bases run in the area of $15 million. Is that the amount of change the hon. member is advocating, or is he advocating some greater change?


Walter George Pitman: I have been advocating a change in other areas, but I have certainly not suggested the disbanding of the military forces. If the hon. member will wait until I have finished I am sure that position will become evident.
We suggested there should be no nuclear weapon on Canadian soil because it adds nothing to deterrence. It does not defend us, and we lose immeasurably in our moral force. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that we must have faith and courage. This is an area where possibly faith and courage will be very necessary.
I should like to read a short editorial or a short excerpt from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of May 4, 1961:
Canada's two Bomarc bases will be ready within a few months to launch their missiles against hostile bombers. During this interval we can expect increasing pressure to tip the Bomarcs with nuclear warheads. Proof of this pressure is found in parliamentary debates like that on Tuesday when the external affairs minister, Mr. Howard Green, said a decision to acquire nuclear warheads depended on progress that is made in the next few months toward disarmament... Already the defence minister, Mr. Douglas Harkness, has declared that the full potential of Bomarc launching sites cannot be attained without nuclear warheads.
Lieutenant General Robert M. Lee, vice commander of United States air defence command, having no need to worry about elections, has stated flatly that Canada's two Bomarc bases are useless without atomic warheads.
He also goes on to point out the seriousness of any such stand.


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder whether the hon. member would give the date of that quotation.


Walter George Pitman: Yes, the date was May 4, 1961. The heading of the editorial is "Ban the A-Bomarc".
I have here an editorial which appeared in the Toronto daily Star of May 11, 1961:
The nuclear arms now being considered by the Canadian government are warheads for the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile. The Bomarcs are for use against manned H-bombers-a declining threat. They are useless against intercontinental missiles.
"They will contribute precisely nothing to our safety in the event of a nuclear war," says Maj. Gen. W. H. S. Macklin, former adjutant general of the Canadian army ...
Our obvious interest is to do all that a middle power can do to prevent a general holocaust. Renunciation of nuclear weapons would serve that

Supply-National Defence end, whereas acceptance of them would sabotage the crusade of external affairs minister Green for world disarmament.
I think that is a position which we in this party can accept. We also accept the suggestion of the development of a brigade of troops which we can keep in areas where limited wars are taking place. I think we were all heartened by the suggestion of the Prime Minister yesterday and of the Leader of the Opposition the day before that this was a role for the United Nations. Would it not be extremely valuable if we could go to the United Nations session when it opens and suggest that we have a brigade ready to move to the Brandenburg gate, to take part in the guarding of the access roads or in the prevention of any activity there which might create a nuclear war? Would it not be worth while if we could join, possibly with a member from the eastern bloc or possibly with a member from the neutralist bloc, in providing those forces? We have done it previously and, as one person has put it, this was our finest hour at the United Nations. Is it not time that we began to work in that direction once again?
We were also interested in the remarks made by the Minister of National Defence with regard to the defence research board, and we shall be discussing some of the matters under that head as time goes on. Is it not time that we had a peace research institute, as suggested by a scientist in the Oakville area, Mr. Norman Alcock, within the Department of National Defence? So long as we have hundreds of men seeking to find methods of creating armaments and only a few in the area of disarmament dealing with peace, we have very little opportunity to bring the scientific approach to the area of peace as well as to that of war. Could it not be independent of our national government but subsidized by the national government and working along with the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Walter George Pitman: I thank the house very much for this opportunity. I shall be only one or two minutes more.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I should put on record the consent of the committee, if the hon. member does not mind. Does the committee give its unanimous consent to give the hon. member additional time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter George Pitman: For example, we are very much concerned about accidental war. Is

there no possibility that we could have scientists working in areas which would help us to provide a means of guarding against this happening? I think all of us have been concerned that at SAC headquarters there have been situations in which the screen detected something but they were not sure what it was, and it later turned out to be a flock of geese. We are concerned that such a very small thing might very well touch off a nuclear war. Could we not have some means of providing scientists with an opportunity of doing research into ways of stopping war, even in the area of psychology as well. We are concerned as to what effect disarmament would have on our economy. Surely a defence research board working for war could well be set off by a peace institute working for peace.
I have attempted to put forward a very general pattern of the New Democratic party's program in view of a new and frightening world and in view of the weapons of annihilation. Canada should not be fearful but rather should be determined to play a role in an area in which she can have some effect. We can do very little or virtually nothing in the area of deterrence of all-out war. We can play a role in deterring a limited war, in taking police action within the United Nations structure or of taking police action in such areas as Berlin; extending our foreign aid programs; a defence policy exhibiting our desire for peace and placing weapons for peace in the hands of those who are to seek peace at the negotiation tables of the world.
These are the hopes of all parties, that we can find a policy which will bring security and freedom to the people of Canada.
We certainly hope that the defence of our nation will be looked after with efficiency, but we are concerned even more that it should be looked after in the light of the new events, the new kind of world in which we live, and with the new policies which must be adopted.


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great care to the speeches which have been made during the initial stages of this debate, first of all by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, and then by the critic of the official opposition and my good friend the hon. member for Trinity. I have also listened with care to the most interesting speech just delivered in this committee by the hon. member for Peterborough. I should like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to start my remarks in French and then to continue in English.

Supply-National Defence (Translation):
First of all, I should like to tell members of the committee how much I have been considering myself privileged, since my appointment to the position I now occupy in the Department of National Defence, to serve with two highly distinguished colleagues.
I should like first to salute my excellent friend and colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) who, after a remarkable military career, has added to his talents of a born politician those of a very competent administrator.
I should like also to salute the Hon. George Pearkes, who is now occupying the exalted functions of lieutenant governor of British Columbia. The Hon. Mr. Pearkes has also had a most remarkable military career. All those who are familiar with army life see in him the greatest contemporary Canadian soldier. As a cabinet member, he showed outstanding talents as a politician as well as an administrator. I know that he is carrying out very efficiently the important duties entrusted to him, and I wish him many years of happiness and great success in all his endeavours.
In the statement he made before the committee, the Minister of National Defence clearly defined the situation which is facing us. In the course of my remarks, I will try and avoid any unnecessary repetition of the arguments he put forward. I feel however that it might be useful to acquaint members of the committee with my personal views on military matters under review in this debate. I should also like to reply to the criticisms made by our learned friends of the opposition, concerning the military strategy and tactics used at this time by the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Chairman, it is most unfortunate that in 1961 we should still find it necessary to speak of defence and worry about events which are happening in a foreign land and which threaten us with a third world war. It would have been logical to think that after two horrible wars which tore our civilization and caused millions of deaths, countless sufferings and incalculable destruction, mankind would have come to realize that wars are useless and that it is only in peace that can be found progress, prosperity and salvation of future generations.
It would seem that the sacrifice of those who gave their lives on the battlefields of the world
where they fought with enthusiasm and conviction, should have been acknowledged with something else than the war threats which are hovering over the world today.
But we have to admit that mankind did not learn, and today more than at any time in its history, this earth of ours is threatened by the most terrifying cataclysm that be, a nuclear attack, if it should ever take place.
And yet, it seems that the ideal for which our fathers and brothers fought in two successive wars was an ideal of truth and justice. The various nations should have realized that happiness and our very civilization lie in the pursuit of that ideal. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, is there in the world anything more beautiful than this freedom we defended on the battlefield in two consecutive wars? Is there anything finer than this freedom of speech, of thought, of religion, of expression, this freedom to choose freely our own way?
Is there anything finer than freedom? How is it that half the world, instead of realizing the blessings of freedom, is now attempting to spread communist theories which can only lead civilization to the most unfortunate and cruel slavery.
Anyone who has travelled in the underdeveloped countries of the world realizes that this democracy in which we believe and our principles of life are the best, and that it is through the observance of those principles that we have succeeded in attaining our present standard of living which is rightly considered as the highest in the world today.
Those who appreciate the extent of our development should readily understand that happiness and progress are to be found under the democratic system and that they should give up these communist theories which, as I just said, can only bring chaos, confusion and disorder to the peoples of the world.
But let us face the sad facts: what we have to cope with in 1961 is a struggle between two ideals. Our ideal, the one which we feel is the only noble and fine one, is that of true democracy as we know it; our opponents' ideal is that of communist expansion throughout the world. Unfortunately, both sides have at their disposal extremely powerful weapons and we must live with- we come back on that point in each of our speeches and that thought is with us at every moment of the day-the possibility of this abominable catastrophe of a nuclear attack.
In the advent of a nuclear war, the aggressor would most definitely have an advantage.

Supply-National Defence It is obvious that if the attack is violent enough, he will be able to cause incalculable damage to the attacked country. Yet, on the other hand, the aggressor is not without knowing that practically as soon as he attacks there will be retaliation and that he will be destroyed and even wiped off the face of the earth. Therefore, nuclear war can only lead to the complete ruin of civilization, to the end of the world.
It is indeed because of the sheer horror of such a possibility that we find some comfort despite the problem facing us. We do believe that mankind will not agree to exterminate itself; but rather it will realize that a nuclear war can but lead to the worst disaster and that in such a war there will be neither victor nor vanquished. For that reason, we are led to believe that such a war will not happen. A comparison may be made between what happened at the outset of the second world war and what is taking place today.
At the beginning of the second world war, both sides had in their possession arms which were extremely powerful, such as poison gas and bacteriological weapons. But the thought of how horrible would be gas warfare or germ warfare made both sides hesitate to use them, and in fact they were not used. Similarly, we do believe today that nuclear weapons will not be used and that the world we know and the generations to come will be protected from the awful disaster which would result from nuclear attacks.
We must recognize that mankind has known many wars, that man apparently has yet to realize the blessings of peace, and so we can suppose that there may be other wars which, even if there are no nuclear bombs dropped, will be just as dreadful and will result in a greater bloodbath than the ones we have known during the disasters of 1914-18 and 1939-45.
We know that our opponents have at their command enormous forces, powerful armies equipped with the conventional weapons we know of, that is a mighty artillery, tanks and a well trained infantry. And for that reason, it is imperative that we should have, in the face of danger, such weapons and also a well equipped army, a navy formed of most modern units and an air force with a capacity to strike or to resist any attack.
This is why it is necessary, in 1961, to deal with those defence problems, to appropriate enormous amounts in order to

be well prepared, and to remember the proverb of Juvenal, the Latin philosopher who said: Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I agree with the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) who deplored a moment ago, the fact that it is necessary today to spend large amounts to defend ourselves or to counter-attack when in fact it would be so much more preferable to use that money for more useful purposes, to improve conditions in economically weak countries and even to foster prosperity, well-being and progress in our own countries.
All sound-thinking men are of the same opinion and would like to see come to an end that arms race, those enormous war expenditures. But all sound-thinking men are also aware of the fact that a single moment of weakness on our part, such as disarmament at a time when our opponents seem to arm themselves, could very well bring us total disorder and lead us to ruin. The best proof of the truth of what I just said is that if the world was saved from the horrors of a third world war it is in fact due to the power of that organization we call NATO, which succeeded in preventing a third world war since its founding 12 years ago.
Here in Canada, regardless of political parties, we want peace. We are wishing for it, as those men of 1914-18 and of 1939-45 wished and yearned for it. But, like them, we shall fight if necessary, because, like those who fought during the last two wars, we know that our way of life is the best and that the freedom we enjoy is still man's greatest gift.
Our soldiers, in the first world war, fought with the utmost courage alongside their brothers of allied nations; it is thanks to their sacrifice that peace prevailed, and it is also thanks to what they did that we succeeded then in protecting man's freedom. Their successors, those who fought from 1939 to 1945, showed an undaunted courage on the battlefields. We owe an enormous debt to those soldiers who, at the cost of their lives and of countless sufferings, fought for freedom. We wish that our efforts to safeguard that peace for which they fought become a tribute to their gallantry and the recognition of their sacrifices.
We shall take all means at our disposal, alongside our colleagues of the other NATO countries, to preserve that peace so hardly won.

We hope that Providence will enlighten the minds of men and protect us from the disastrous consequences of a nuclear war.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I listened with great care to the remarks which were made in committee by the hon. member for Trinity. Although I share many of the hon. member's views and believe that certain of the points which he described are worthy of consideration, I feel that other parts of his speech are not quite related to the facts, and I should like to advance certain corrections to some of the statements which he has made. The hon. gentleman did not mention today that Canada has no defence policy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should have. It was an omission.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: That is a view that has been expressed many times by the hon. member, and he has kindly expressed it again just now. To say that Canada has no defence policy is rather silly for it is equivalent to saying that NATO has no defence policy this for the simple reason that the defence policy of Canada is based on decisions which have been taken over the years at the NATO conference table, decisions which have been arrived at only after lengthy and most careful consideration. Canada is a partner in the marvellous association of NATO which has done so much since its inception 12 years ago to preserve world peace.
Each member nation has a definite role to play in NATO, a role which has been determined according to the capabilities, abilities and resources of the individual nation. It is this role which is allotted to each nation, and which is played individually but for the interests of the collectivity which forms NATO, and which represents the strength of this organization. NATO is truly the only organization which stands between the way of life in which we believe, namely the democratic way of life, and the onslaught of the forces of communism which threaten the world today. Therefore to say that Canada has no defence policy is equivalent to saying that NATO has no defence policy, and is almost an admission that it is useless to try to defend ourselves against the forces which menace us.
We in Canada have a very definite defence policy. We have an army which plays a specific role within the NATO forces and in the shield forces of the European continent and elsewhere where our men are requested
Supply-National Defence to serve. We have a navy which plays with distinction and great efficiency a definite role in the war which is continually being waged against the danger of a submarine attack. We have an air force which plays many roles. In Europe with the F-104 plane it will act as a strike reconnaisance group in the No. 1 air division which is over there. It plays a most essential and still most necessary role of interception here in Canada against the possibility of attack by enemy manned bombers. It also plays a role in locating enemy submarines which could threaten our shores, and it trains itself continually so as to be able to destroy those submarines which may attack our country at some later date.
The defence research board plays a role of primary importance in the scientific world. Achievements of considerable importance have already been realized by the defence research board, and it is reasonable to suppose, in view of the great efforts which are being put forward by all its members, that it will carry out this useful role in the defence of our nation and the world that we know.
The hon. member for Trinity asked a few questions and made a few statements during his remarks which seemed rather strange to us. For instance, he hinted that the Americans had based their most recent defence decisions on the Liberal program which was enunciated at this rather sad performance which took place in Ottawa this last January when the Liberal party held its convention. It seems to me that the major items of policy which were contained in the speeches made by the hon. member for Trinity and others who expressed themselves at the convention were to scrap almost all the methods of defence that we have at the present time and actually almost to leave the defence of our territory to our great and powerful southern neighbours. I fail to see the resemblance between policies adopted and enunciated by the President of the United States and the other American leaders and the policies announced during that Liberal convention.
The hon. member for Trinity mentioned the fact that he was in doubt concerning the use which would be made of the 1,100 men who will be reinforcing our overseas brigade within the next few weeks. It seems to me that the answer is a very simple one. Those men will go to Germany in order to reinforce our brigade thus making it a stronger and better fighting unit, if this is still possible. I mention this last part since it is well known in Europe that the best fighting unit among the land forces in the shield force of NATO in Europe is this Canadian brigade. When I visited the SHAPE headquarters in France approximately

Supply-National Defence a year ago it was indeed most gratifying to hear the generals from all nations voice their admiration for the quality of our Canadian soldiers, for the ability of their officers and for the levels of training which are being achieved by this truly remarkable force which is our Canadian brigade overseas.
It was mentioned by the hon. member that this brigade is not equipped with sufficiently modern weapons. This is rather strange, because once again when I was at SHAPE over a year ago it was mentioned by one and all that the other nations of NATO were envious of the quality of training of our Canadian brigade. It was frequently said that they possessed weapons which are of equal if not greater power than the ones with which the other nations are equipped.
It was mentioned also by the hon. member for Trinity that it was too bad indeed that the brigade over there was not equipped with helicopters. Well, he knows perfectly well that helicopters have been ordered for reconnaissance purposes and that the brigade leaders are quite satisfied with these arrangements.
The hon. member for Trinity mentioned the Bobcat program, and said it was at a standstill. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, the Bobcat program is being pushed forward as rapidly as possible, and is definitely on the move. The hon. member should know that the development of such vehicles is a long and slow process. For example, he should know that the British started to develop a vehicle more or less like the Bobcat at an earlier time than we did, yet their development program is far behind our own Bobcat schedule. I repeat, this program is going forward as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Where the hon. member found the figure of $10,000 per man which he mentioned I do not know.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the blue book.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The true fact is-and he can verify this if he wishes-that the figure is much closer to between $5,000 and $6,000 per man than to the figure he mentioned. He also talked about mobile weapons, without explaining exactly what he meant by "mobile weapons". Let me tell him this, and again he can verify this if he wishes. It is a fact that our brigade in Europe, as well as the other brigade in Canada, are quite mobile and equipped with the most modern conventional equipment that can be procured under present conditions and at the present time.
Then he talks about the threat of an attack by missiles. I agree with him that such an attack would indeed be a dreadful thing if it ever occurred and there is no doubt, as we all admit, that some day the missile

threat will replace the manned bomber threat that faces us today. But there is one thing which the hon. member has not mentioned and that must be mentioned. There is at the present time and there will be for some time to come a definite threat of an attack by enemy manned bombers equipped with the most lethal weapons, and because of the presence of this threat it is considered by the NATO forces, by the NORAD command and by all sound thinking persons interested in a sound defence of this country and the northern hemisphere that we must use all possible weapons at our disposal in order to destroy the threat of these manned bombers which may still attack our shores.
Possibly the hon. member has not read what we have read, but it has been published many times in recent months that not only is the supposed enemy still flying bombers but it is still producing these bombers, and until such day as we are assured that there is no threat from a manned bomber attack we consider it our sacred duty to have suitable defences against these bombers. These suitable defences are found in the existence of the three detection lines and in the presence of the interceptor planes which we have put at the disposal of our air forces.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must advise him that his time has expired. Is it the wish of the committee that he be allowed to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, to thank the committee for their consideration in allowing me to continue. I was most surprised when I heard the hon. member for Trinity say that it was the government of Canada that had asked General Kuter to speak in Toronto. General Kuter did not speak in Toronto at the invitation of the Canadian government. He was invited to speak there by those in charge of the international air show. The distinguished commanding officer of NORAD made a very fine speech indeed on that occasion and I am quite sure that he did not advocate the arguments which appeared in the manifesto of the Liberal party at their recent convention. I am also quite sure that he did not share the views expressed in the house only this morning by the hon. member for Trinity.
Along with the other member nations of NATO we are trying at the present time to build up our conventional strength simply because we know that our enemy will be impressed only by the strength of our forces and by the determination which will be

shown by NATO and the forces of the member nations to defend our way of life, to defend the freedom in which we believe at all costs and in all parts of the world.
The hon. member for Trinity finally accused us of not doing enough. He said that we were not trying to build up our forces by the purchase of equipment manufactured in Canada which, by being produced in Canada, would provide employment for our people. This again is false. On the contrary, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production are trying by all possible means to encourage our Canadian industries whenever it is possible to do so. We are doing this constantly and at all times and the best proof can be found in the production program of Bobcat vehicles, trainer aircraft, and so many other necessities.
Once again, as is the custom of members of the official opposition, the hon. member for Trinity tried to hint that there was no such thing as a defence policy for Canada. He tried to create the impression that there was only confusion in the defence department and no spirit of decision anywhere in the minds of those entrusted with the responsibility of national defence. As I said a moment ago, to say that Canada has no defence policy is to say that NATO has no defence policy since our policy is an integral part of the general NATO defence policy. To say that there is confusion and indecision in the minds of those entrusted with the care of national defence in Canada is actually casting a slur on the competence and devotion of those officers and men who are performing such a marvellous job in the service of their choice here in Canada, and elsewhere in the world.
I do not hesitate to say that we are indeed privileged to have such dedicated, competent and able men as leaders of our respective services. These men are well trained. During long careers they have given proof of their ability. The many decorations they have received and the long succession of promotions which mark their careers indicate the degree of confidence which they have enjoyed from their superiors and from the various leaders of government who have actually had in their hands the destiny of the nation during the last two or three decades. These men deserve the confidence of those who serve under them. They deserve the admiration, which they have, of those who serve with them. I do not hesitate to say that we are indeed privileged in Canada to have such distinguished leadership in all branches of our services.
If the worst should come, and if we have to fight again, I do not hesitate to say that
90205-6-520
Supply-National Defence we shall once again win the battles of tomorrow just as we won the battles of yesteryear, and this for many reasons. The main reason is that we have right on our side and that right in the days of tomorrow will triumph as it has always triumphed in formers years. We shall win again because I believe that here in Canada as elsewhere in NATO, we have the finest possible leaders and also because we have here in Canada and in the allied armies men who are determined to preserve at all costs this way of life which is ours and this freedom which we cherish almost more than life itself. Let us hope that the horrors of a nuclear war will never be present in our lives, and that God will guide the minds of men towards the road to peace.
Let us hope that the days of conventional war may also be at an end. It may be that there is still enough humanity and justice in this world for men to realize the futility of wars and to accept that only through peace can we make any real progress as free men.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, the announcement of Mr. Khrushchev that the Soviet union had resumed testing of nuclear weapons is having consequences which, at the moment, can be assessed as being of far-reaching effect in dashing the hopes of mankind for a peaceful settlement of differences between the Soviet and the western powers. It would almost appear that they have slammed the door shut on future efforts to maintain an honourable peace. The leader of the Soviet union is acting like a spoiled child who is losing an argument and turns to violence to put his point across. His resumption of nuclear explosions in the atmosphere has shocked not only the west but the entire world. The "ban the bomb" groups who raised their voices here in Ottawa earlier this year, as well as in other places on every possible occasion, suggesting that if the west gave up nuclear projects peace would suddenly descend upon the world will now surely have to change their thinking. I wonder how well they would fare if they were to parade their banners before the Kremlin in the same manner as they paraded before the parliament buildings last spring?
A question now arises about the right of one nation to contaminate the atmosphere around the entire globe with radioactive fallout. The sober statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare this morning pointed to the grave danger to which people everywhere are being exposed. If Mr. Khrushchev continues these uncontrolled explosions he will go down in history, if any history books remain, as having committed the greatest crime of all against humanity.
8242	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
The explosive international situation which has taken a serious turn during recent weeks has given national defence priority over any and all other subjects for serious consideration by the government and by parliament. Indeed, the statements of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defense, indicate that the whole question of national defence has become one of great urgency. It is a pity, however, that the government did not foresee this urgency earlier in the year. Had we taken the necessary measures at that time to put Canada's defence effort in proper perspective, we would now be in a better position as a middle power to offer the most effective effort in the defence of peace. We believe in a permanent international police force under the United Nations. Canada should maintain, equip and train mobile forces with air and sea transport for the United Nations.
The statement of the Prime Minister on Thursday last promised new defensive measures which will increase our armed forces for overseas duty as well as speed up the program for civil defence. I, for one, will not quarrel with a frank appraisal of our present inadequate facilities for both defence and survival. All I have to do is look at the almost total absence of armoury facilities in Fort William, a city of 45,000 and serving a rural population of an additional 10,000 to be reminded of the inadequate facilities.
In about 1920 an armoury was established on the premises of an old departmental store building located on one of our busy business streets. This building served until world war II, when the city turned the Fort William hockey arena over to the federal government to provide the space required by the exigency of war, then in its third year. This building served as an armoury until 1958, at which time it was condemned and torn down. Fort William has been without an armoury ever since.
I should like to point out to the minister the highly successful army unit which was served by the old armoury. They were the 18th medium battery, Royal Canadian Artillery; the second 4th field ambulance which was to sustain the 4th field ambulance unit serving overseas. It was from the personnel of this regiment that the 35th technical squadron and a provost unit were formed. For the purpose of showing the value of an armoury at Fort William I am going to enumerate the units using that facility at the time it was closed down. They were the 118th medium battery, Royal Canadian Artillery; the 17th medical company, Royal Canadian Medical Corps; the 35th technical squadron, Royal Canadian Engineers; the provost unit, Royal


Canadian Provost Corps, the highly efficient units of sea cadets, army cadets and air force cadets.
A movement for a new armoury was initiated immediately after the building was condemned by the fire marshal for the province of Ontario. In 1956 the prairie command gave top priority to this building, and I am informed it was near the top of the list in the Department of National Defence. The significant reason this request failed to materialize was the abandonment of the 67th as a regiment. However, in 1959 a petition for a new armoury at Fort William was signed by 5,000 responsible property owners of the city, supported by the Fort William city council, the chamber of commerce and the Canadian Legion unit of the area, and it was presented to the then minister of national defence. The city of Fort William made an offer, which still stands, of a suitable site free of charge. This site was approved by the prairie command which had jurisdiction of the area at that time.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I wish to stress a few irrefutable reasons why the establishment of an armoury in Fort William should not be delayed. Fort William is the granary of the continent and merits special consideration for army protection as it is vulnerable to attack from many directions. Fort William has always had a strong military organization and the nucleus is available for a renewed effort to recruit a new unit.
Decentralization of military and emergency measures organization forces is considered essential. Fort William is located in the centre of Canada, ideally located for a training and operational base.
The cadet movement is particularly strong, but requires a proper armoury in which to train our youth. Recruiting is slow, for the absence of a central location and adequate equipment discourages not only the officers but also the potential cadet.
Fort William is interested in organizing a mobile unit as part of the emergency measures organization. This is required to support our survival plans, and will do much to encourage our citizens to take an active part in protective planning.
The debate on the issue of national defence has amply demonstrated that at present the Canadian armed forces lack strength and equipment for any effort Canada may be asked to perform on behalf of the United Nations in the interest of peace. Whether we like it or not, and ruling out the probability of a nuclear war which to sane people everywhere is unthinkable, we are faced with a prolonged chilling cold war, and it is the duty of this parliament to see

that our conventional forces are built up to full strength. We need men and equipment, and the facilities to train our manpower.
There are in our midst some well inten-tioned men and women who believe that we should not spend money on armaments, and that our tax dollar would be better spent in building schools and hospitals. The uncomfortable facts, however, are that we cannot indulge in the luxury of neutrality. This has been tried before by some European nations, and to their sorrow. Who would believe for one minute that, if the Soviet union were involved in an all out war with the United States, Russia would respect our neutrality?
Those who advocate a neutral position for Canada are simply trying to avoid unpleasant facts in the hope that they will vanish in the wake of wishful thinking. At the same time, it would be a mistake to believe that a strong Canada should have nuclear weapons for its own defence and the defence of the alliance. These weapons should be left in the hands of those now in possession of them.
Notwithstanding the belief expressed by some members-and some people believe it- that the old weapons would be obsolete and no good in a future war, that money spent on conventional arms is money wasted, that only nuclear weapons would be used and that as a result humanity would be wiped off the face of the earth, I should like to remind those people that in world war II poison gas was not used by either side. In spite of the fact that both sides possessed enormous supplies of poison gas capable of exterminating whole armies, gas was not used. Why?
It was not used because both sides knew the terrible consequences of poisoning whole populations. I therefore believe that in the event of a clash over Berlin the knowledge of total annihilation will prevent the touching off of a nuclear war.
Canada's contribution and influence as a member of NATO can best serve by playing a role fitted to her capability such as that of having Canadian troops employed as part of any United Nations emergency force anywhere in the world. I was very much pleased to hear the Associate Minister of National Defence say that the Bobcat program will be implemented. I understand that the Canada Car plant at Fort William will have an opportunity to share in its production. I hope that situation will come about. In any event it is a vehicle which we should have not only for our own use but for that of our allies, and some of the underdeveloped coun-90205-6-520J
Supply-National Defence tries which could make use of this particular vehicle. However, with all the sincerity at my command I suggest that we should not fall into the temptation of confining the building-up to a much too small and poorly equipped force. A highly mobile, well equipped and highly trained army and air force capable of meeting commitments to North American defence and to NATO and commitments to security forces of the United Nations should be established. We should be prepared to spend the money for national defence in a manner consistent with the right to call ourselves an independent nation.


Mr. Chambers:: Mr. Chairman, I came to the house today prepared or hoping to be prepared to answer the biting and fundamental criticisms of our defence policy that I expected would come from the other side of the house. Unfortunately, having listened to the speeches from the other side of the house, I find myself a little bit at a loss. We have heard from the hon. member for Trinity a discussion of hardware which was very much along the lines of his speech last year. There did not seem to me to be any real discussion of policy.
We have heard from the hon. member for Peterborough the latest policy of his group. I must admit that it is difficult to come to grips with the defence ideas of the little band sitting to your left, Mr. Chairman, because of course they have a great variety of policies. In the last year they have been in and out of NATO like a drunk in a revolving door; and from what was said today, it is a little bit difficult to gather, whether actually as of September 12 they are in favour of Canada's participation in NATO or not. We heard the hon. member for Kootenay West the other day quoting the resolution of his party as adopted at their convention and which seemed to give lip service to participation in NATO but said that Canada alone, one of 15 nations, should change the whole purpose and direction of that organization. This, of course, is one of the penalties of alliances, that no one nation can control completely the direction and the policies of the organization. But I think it is fair to say that Canada has had and will continue to have a very large influence on the policies of NATO. Those influences have been constructive and have worked toward a strengthening of the organization and an increasing of its effectiveness.
The Minister of National Defence this morning outlined Canada's policy. There was criticism from the hon. member for Trinity when he said that the defence policy should be a part of our external affairs policy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: An instrument of it.

Supply-National Defence


Egan Chambers: I imagine the minister left that sentence out of his speech simply because he felt it had been said so often and had been made so obvious as to become a cliche. Obviously our defence policy flows from our general national policy toward the world situation and toward other nations in the world.
The minister said-and I should like to repeat it because I think it is most important- that our objectives are two in number. Many people these days who discuss defence start somewhere away on down the line in methods, but you cannot develop any effective policy in any line unless you first consider what you are trying to do. Therefore I should like to emphasize the two parts that sum up our objective-prevention of war and the maintenance of freedom. If you try only to consider the first you will get a policy very different from the one you get if you realize the necessity of maintaining both objectives.
It has also been said that the major instrument of our policy is NATO. It seems to me that one of the things that cannot be emphasized too much, although in the last few days it has been said frequently in this house, is that the great virtue of NATO is that it works. Let me recall to the minds of those who question the efficacy of NATO what the situation was in Europe before that organization was formed.
Hon. members will recall that Czechoslovakia had recently fallen to the communists. It will be recalled that the communist forces in some of the western European countries were so strong as to give great cause for concern. One did not know from day to day what might happen in Italy, and even in France we were uncertain. One can date from the formation of the NATO alliance the halt of the communist advance westward across Europe. One can also date from the formation of this alliance the rehabilitation of the countries of western Europe. This involvement by the United States, Britain and Canada in the affairs of Europe gave to those countries and to the people of those countries the courage, confidence and realization that they were not alone in their troubles that allowed them to rebuild after the ravages of the second world war.
Anyone who stands up in Canada today and says we should abandon NATO, in almost any circumstances, has an obligation to bear in mind the accomplishments of NATO and has an obligation also to recommend some other arrangement which would give us and our friends and allies the degree of security that has been provided by that organization.
There are those who say we should abandon NATO, NORAD and our other defence alliances because then our prestige at the United
[Mr. Hellyer.l
Nations, our prestige among the neutral countries of the world, would grow. In other words they advocate a defence by moral suasion.
Let those who consider that to be a responsible policy for the Dominion of Canada think of how much effect moral suasion had on Mr. Khrushchev when he ordered the resumption of nuclear testing. How much influence has the moral suasion of the Belgrade group and the pleas of Mr. Nehru, who personally went to Moscow? How much influence has that had on the continuation of these tests which, as we have heard this morning, may have the most disastrous effects if carried on long enough.
It seems to me that when we consider a policy to protect ourselves against the depredations of communism in the world we must rely on something more concrete than moral suasion. In fact we must rely on creating a situation in the world wherein they will not dare to start a war.
We know from the writings of their leaders and from the speeches of Mr. Khrushchev and his predecessors that it is a belief held by the communists that they have a historical right to take over world society. We know also, because this too they have told us, that they believe the end justifies the means, that they are justified in achieving their ends by any means, military, economic, subversive or whatever.
Our first duty in the west, then, is to create a situation wherein they cannot achieve these ends by military means. This is the strategy of the alliances to which we belong particularly that of NATO. Once again let me point out that the great virtue of this strategy is that it works.
I should like now to pass for a moment to the question of air defence. The hon. member for Trinity last year and again this year put forward the view that there is no necessity for a defence against manned bombers because manned bombers are obsolete. The hon. member may be correct, but I *wonder whether the gentlemen in the Kremlin have heard about, it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would you give the source, please?


Egan Chambers: I have not the page here. I got it last year and I can get it again from the speech of the hon. member this morning. We also know from the press, from the accounts of the Moscow air show not long ago, that there did not seem to be much evidence in that display of sabre rattling that the Russians had abandoned manned aircraft. In fact, of course there is a change from manned aircraft to missiles, but what so many people, including my hon. friend from Trinity, seem to forget or overlook is that

these changes do not take place overnight. They cannot take place overnight. Because some missiles exist which might be used in any attack upon North America, and very probably would be used in any attack upon North America, this does not mean that should such an attack come-or should such an attack be considered, which is perhaps the better way of putting it-it would be necessary at the present time, to the best of our information, for the Russians to plan on using a considerable number of manned bombers.
Thus if we can create a defensive situation on the North American continent where they can have no confidence that a sufficient number of their bombers would get through to accomplish their mission, they can take no rational decision to attack. No doubt there will come a day when the threat of the manned bomber can be ignored. Figuring out the intentions or possible plans of a potential enemy is not an exact science but to say that because there are missiles we should abandon defence against the manned bomber is tantamount to saying that because there are high explosive artillery shells we should abandon the steel helmet. We have to try on this continent as in our global strategy to create a situation whereby it will be impossible for our potential enemy to take a position to attack. The defence of the deterrent against manned bombers is part of the arrangement to do that.
There has been a great deal said on the question of mobility and particularly the mobility of the 4th Canadian infantry brigade group in Germany. I think it should be emphasized that this brigade is completely mobile. That is to say it has within its own resources the capacity to move itself. I remember that some time ago I was visiting the brigade. I had to leave one morning at about 7.30. Various arrangements were made to get me to an airport. When I got up at about 6.30 I found that three quarters of an hour before a surprise exercise had been sprung on the brigade by higher command and they had been ordered to move. Within three quarters of an hour the brigade which had been sleeping and which had no warning, had completely disappeared from the area. All the men had embarked in their vehicles and had moved off in tactical formation. To me this indicates a very high degree of mobility indeed.
We are told we must have forces ready to serve the United Nations. I believe the hon. member for Fort William said we did not have any such forces. This, of course, is utter nonsense. On each occasion when we have been called upon by the United Nations Canada has produced the forces that were requested. In fact, all of Canada's forces,
Supply-National Defence particularly her army, are in a practically constant state of readiness for the United Nations. Their equipment and vehicles are ideally suited to participation in any emergency that might arise. As I said this has been demonstrated both in the Gaza strip and the Congo. The forces being used so effectively there are not equipped differently from the rest of Canada's armed forces. As hon. members well know we have increased our capacity to transport our forces by air to any part of the world. It should be borne in mind that these United Nations tasks do not usually require heavy weapons. It is almost inconceivable that a situation would arise in which the United Nations would call for a force to make an assault landing or an airborne attack on some area in the world. Therefore I think it can be truly said that with respect to the type of forces that the United Nations are liable to call for, Canada is ideally equipped to supply them when the time comes.
It seems to me that one of the reasons people in this country occasionally advocate such impractical ideas in relation to our defence is that the consequences of a failure are so much greater today than they have been in the past. If one of our twin objectives, as I mentioned earlier, is to prevent war, the failure to achieve this objective would lead to the most terrible consequences, but this being so, it is no answer to the dilemma to say that like the ostrich we should therefore put our heads in the sand and say we will have nothing to do with it.
I believe it was the hon. member for Peterborough who said that a conflict between the United States and the U.S.S.R. would have no effect on us at all. I would say to the hon. gentleman we would certainly be affected and must therefore do all in our power to prevent it. Surely the way to do that is to do what Canada has always done, to live up to her international obligations and maintain the reputation she has built because she has lived up to her international obligations. We must not throw up our hands in despair and say that this problem is too big for us, that we will leave it to the big boys, that we will leave it to the United States or to the United States and the Soviet union and that we will concentrate on foreign aid. Foreign aid is a good and necessary measure and in my view it is part of our defence, in a manner of speaking, in that economic and ideological war that goes on under what might be called the umbrella of the nuclear threat. But the first obligation of the government of Canada in the area of defence is to do everything in its power for the security of the people of Canada. This we have done and this we will continue to do to the best of the ability of this country.

Supply-National Defence
As the minister said, we have recently decided on an increase in our contribution to NATO in the form of additional men for both the air division and the brigade in Germany. These in themselves will be valuable additions to the forces in western Europe; but more than that, it seems to me, they are a restatement of our faith in that organization and our realization of the necessity for it. Once again we have said to our allies: we stand with you in the defence of freedom and here is the earnest of our pledge. It is a cliche, if you wish, but never has it been more true than today that we will stand together or separately we will fall.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Chairman:
In my judgement, a Liberal is a man who ought to stand as a restraining force against an extravagant policy. He is a man who ought to keep cool in the presence of Jingo clamour. He is a man who believes that the confidence between nations begets confidence, and that the spirit of peace and good will makes the safety it seeks. And, above all, I think a Liberal is a man who should keep a sour look for scaremongers of every kind and of every size, however distinguished, however ridiculous-and sometimes the most distinguished are the most ridiculous-
These are not my words, sir; these are the words of Winston Churchill. It is not enough that we always speak and think in defence matters in terms of contention. It surely is necessary that we have something in the nature of a goal and a purpose. What is somewhat disturbing to people on this side of the house is the fact that when the Minister of National Defence is in the house the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not, and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in the house it appears that the Minister of National Defence is not.
You will forgive us, sir, if in thinking in terms of defence-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member does not want to be incorrect or unfair. I should like to point out to him that X was here practically throughout the entire debate on external affairs.


Mr. Drysdale:: Facts never bother the Liberals.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about the other half of the remark?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Secretary of State for External Affairs is busy today with Dr. Stikker and this afternoon the president of Iceland is coming in.


Mr. Malheson:: I accept the fact that I must have been in error. I did notice on a couple of occasions that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was speaking the Minister of National Defence was not present. I withdraw the observation of course but

I made it for another reason. It appeared very clear to us that the policies expounded so clearly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not appear to be in harmony with many points in the policies expounded by the Minister of National Defence. May I say this. We have heard something in the last few days.


Mr. Kindt:: May I ask the hon. member a question.


John Ross Matheson: At the end of my speech I will be happy to answer any questions.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: The
hon. member for Leeds has the floor. If he wishes to yield to the hon. member asking the question he may or may not do so. I believe he has indicated he does not wish the hon. gentleman to question him at this point in his speech.


John Ross Matheson: May I say that today we have had words which seem to substantiate the fact that what we have is defence policy by proxy. It appears that the policy is always formulated in NATO headquarters or in some other headquarters. What we are interested in is that there be something in the nature of Canadian policy with respect to national defence.
I think I made myself rather clear in the external affairs debate when I asserted the need for a strengthened military machine armed with conventional weapons and ready to meet challenge wherever it comes in the free world. Freedom is threatened but there are other factors that have to be considered. I should like to quote a few words from an article on foreign affairs by Sir Anthony Eden called "The Slender Margin of Safety". He said:
Since 1940 the Western European powers have voluntarily agreed to the independence of 18 different countries with a population of more than 600 million people. During the same period the communist countries have brought under their rule 12 previously free countries with a population of more than 120 million.
One of the things we have to consider at this time is the nature of the type of leadership which Canada may very reasonably be expected to provide for those people who have been brought into freedom. This by no means must be by virtue of what is so contemptuously referred in this house on different occasions as neutralism. May I quote from the memoirs of Mr. Truman who said:
We laboured to construct a weapon of such overpowering force that the enemy could be forced to yield swiftly once we could resort to it.
This remains the thinking of the speakers on the government's side, as has been demonstrated in this debate. I continue with the quotation:

They recommended further that it should be used without specific warning and against a target that would clearly show its devastating strength.
And so on. I continue:
Four cities were finally recommended as targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki.
Then, he heard about the bomb being dropped and he said:
I was greatly moved. I telephoned Byrnes aboard ship to give him the news and then said to the group of sailors around me, "This is the greatest thing in history. It's time for us to get home."
We read the news item which appeared in the Ottawa Journal which came out a few minutes ago and which referred to the extent of nuclear fall-out.
I should now like to quote a few words in French from Montesquieu:
(Translation):
If I knew something was helpful to my country and prejudicial to Europe or helpful to Europe and prejudicial to the human race, I would consider it a crime.
(Text):
A man who now enjoys the position of United States ambassador to the United Nations namely Adlai Stevenson said:
There are those who say that disarmament is impossible until political settlements have been reached and confidence restored. I disagree. I believe the nuclear arms race with weapons of mass destruction is a new element and in itself a cause of tension. Fear will not vanish until the arms race is arrested.
I think it is rather important that some matters of great moment, matters of national defence be discussed at this time. May I refer to the information which was gathered together for the special committee on defence expenditures in 1960. It was produced by the then minister of national defence, General Pearkes. This is what he said:
No one nation can afford a unilateral defence. Canada's defence effort must not be viewed in isolation but rather as a contribution to the combined deterrent of the western alliance. Our defence expenditures are not providing complete protection but in combination with others, they are contributing to the over-all effectiveness of an insurance against possible aggression.
With this I think we all agree. However, I think it has got to be more than that. NATO is composed of many different nations of many different backgrounds and of many different possibilities of service. I should now like to refer to an article which appears in the bulletin of the atomic scientists. It is called "The Future of Western Deterrent Power", by Alastair Buchan, and was published in 1960. He speaks about the considerations inherent in being a non-nuclear alliance member, and says:
The first step would involve a negotiation, possibly prolonged and difficult, to determine the considerations which should govern the siting of the land and water-based Polaris or other solid-fueled
Supply-National Defence missiles which will replace the existing bombers. Should they be sited in Germany? Almost certainly not for sound political reasons affecting relationships within the alliance and with Moscow which most intelligent Germans accept. Should Norway be asked to reconsider the refusal to accept nuclear bases since her terrain is ideally suited to their dispersal and hardening? Again probably not for equally sound reasons concerned with the delicacy of the political balance in Scandinavia. Should they be sited in Britain? Yes. In Benelux? Probably. In France? Yes.
This is the opinion of Alastair Buchan whom many of us knew rather well. He recognizes that in NATO there will be different functions and purposes. I remind this committee that only one nation with the background and the potential for the development of the atomic bomb refused as a matter of principle to do so, and that country was Canada. The fact that we live in close proximity to the very powerful and beloved neighbour to the south enables us to speak frankly to this great nation. We are able to furnish military equipment and personnel of absolutely the best type and quality possible, men who are prepared to take their stand in danger spots but without nuclear arms. We recognize that behind the NATO shields there may be nuclear support, but our troops should be men of courage with manifestly no offensive purposes at all. The principle behind them is to defend the peace. This is the most important cause to which we can contribute.
We should like to see in Canada something in the nature of a clear, enunciated, articulated policy. There is some suggestion that we are not in favour of NATO. This suggestion is ridiculous. After all, we remember the occasion when the University of London granted an LL.D. degree to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. The citation referred to him as the chief architect of NATO. We are proud of NATO. Our fear is that NATO may get off the rails. We must have confidence in NATO. Then we will be able to say, "We will march wherever you lead." There are powerful forces in NATO and there are weaker forces in NATO, and we have got to be in the position of being what Toynbee has referred to as a dominant minority in NATO, a creative minority, a minority that is prepared to try to have an effect and influence on the lives of the people of the world at large. I believe this is the only way that this dreadful holocaust can be avoided.
With respect to NORAD, I should like to refer to a book which in some circles is not popular. However, I believe we must read it and read it very carefully because the man who write it is a well informed, knowledgeable and respected member of the press. I am referring to the book, "Peacemaker or Powder-monkey", written by James M. Minifie. He has this to say:

Supply-National Defence
NORAD had been mentioned at cabinet level during the last months of the dying Liberal government of Louis St. Laurent. But it had not reached the stage of cabinet decision. Although Mr. Pearkes appeared to have been under the impression that the preceding cabinet had agreed on NORAD, this was almost certainly not the case. It was the child of the new Conservative government-as unlikely an offspring as could have been wished upon an administration which had made a fetish of Canadian independence and had run a spectacularly effective election campaign, not indeed on anti-Americanism, but on a pro-Canadian nationalism which NORAD made nonsense of... a nation which has put part of its forces under foreign command in a two-way deal with a vastly more powerful neighbour has lost its independence. Canada has become a military satellite of the United States sun. The hard-won power to decide on peace or war has passed from Ottawa via Washington ...
I submit that we do not yet know the extent to which we are in fact a satellite of the United States in this important regard. There have been hints and suggestions that there are at the present time nuclear armed aircraft under United States command which are patrolling Canadian skies. We do not know the facts. We are left in ignorance and I am sure the Canadian people at the present time are quite ignorant of what is happening. I say, sir, with all respect to some people on the other side whom I regard as close friends, that this is typically Conservative in its approach. It represents the attitude which says that we should not decide for ourselves.
If any hon. members would care to do so they can go to the parliamentary library and look at the debates that occurred in the year 1910 on the naval bill. You will remember how cries of treason rang through the chamber when Laurier said that we should have a navy of our own, that we should build it, that we should produce a flotilla and should decide what we were going to build although it would, of course, fit in with the British picture. There were Conservative members in the house in those days who rose and said, "No, definitely not". Their position was that it was improper for Canada to do this, that we should simply ask England what amount of money they wanted and then give it to them and let them spend it. I think that is not the typical view of Canadians generally.
If you want to take another illustration of the same thing, there is the argument relating to military command. Can we in Canada decide to govern our own forces? In the Chanak incident of 1923 Mackenzie King said Canada would not necessarily go to war on that matter over Turkey and in the result he perhaps saved Britain from serious and disastrous consequences. If my friend on my left will contain himself for a minute, I should like to refer to a little book which has been cited all over the world. It is entitled, "Democracy in World Politics". It is very elementary, particularly so in the light of all

the gadgetry and hardware that have been the subject of discussion today. The author has this to say:
If violence breaks out, the play of this principle helps to limit the breakdown to the minimum needed to defeat aggression and, above all, to restore the peace. If a nation uses force in aggression against its neighbour, that neighbour and its allies, and indeed the entire free community, acting through and within the principles of the United Nations charter, may justifiably use-in fact have an obligation to use-collective force to repel that aggression. This does not, however, give them a moral licence to attempt, by the use of overwhelming and unlimited force, to destroy completely the aggressor society.
This is developed to some extent in this book. There is a very simple proposition put forward with which all of us who have anything to do with the police courts are familiar. The law discussed is the law of assault and the author says:
The doctrine that only a limited use of force, proportionate to the circumstances and strictly necessary to accomplish specific objectives, can be justified as self-defence is, I think, inherent in the principles of natural law. Certainly it is basic to the domestic law of all civilized peoples.
Then he refers to the judgement of Mr. Justice Martin of the Saskatchewan court of appeal in the case of MacNeill and Hill and quotes these words:
While the law recognizes the right of selfdefence, the right to repel force with force, no right is to be abused and the right of self-defence is one which may easily be abused. The force employed must not be out of proportion to the apparent urgency of the occasion.
Then he quotes the Canadian Criminal Code, section 66:
Everyone authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess according to the nature and quality of the act which constitutes the excess.
Then he goes on to refer to the case of State v. Cephus, a well-known American authority, and follows that with our English authority, Halsbury's Laws of England. He then refers to the Encyclopedic Dalloz which expresses the French law to the same effect. Then he comes to the conclusion to which I have referred, that if violence breaks out the principle of limited force limits the breakdown to the minimum needed to defeat aggression.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: You would need a big police force.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I would be glad to answer questions-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It is not a question; it is an observation.


Neil Alexander Matheson: With respect to the observation about a police force, may I refer to something that may appear strange in a defence debate. Perhaps one person who never

intended to exert great influence on the commonwealth but nevertheless did so more than anyone else in the world was Mahatma Gandhi, and I should like to read a few brief lines respecting him:
Naked little Hindu fakir,
Vexing to the powers that be,-
Praying, spinning, scheming, fasting,
How absurd to such as we.
We never understood his wisdom,
Suddenly the tragic end.
Pistol shots that stirred the nations.
All mankind had lost a friend.
Stripes to him and to his children.
Weary years in British quod.
Dusty miles to briny ocean.
Raised on earth a child of God.
Fractious world beset with sorrows, Searching for what's brave and true,
Hover closer, gentle Bapu We need aid from such as you.
I think the situation right now is such that we in the western world need something of the personality of Gandhi. We cannot apply Gandhi's method to the particular situation confronting us. Any person who suggested such a thing would be foolish, but would it really be foolish to think of Canada taking these principles that are bold and brave and acting on them with our conventional weapons as and when the need arises and protected by the shield of NATO and our NATO allies? In a situation such as Berlin today we have a battalion, such as that of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the Black Watch with their pipes, or there are the R.C.R.'s whom I saw performing tremendously at Fort Henry a few days ago. Is this the type of thing that might appeal to the imagination of the world? We Canadians have taken on a great many assignments. We have in this house right now people who participated at Ypres and at the Somme and at so many other places. There was the Dieppe raid. Some of these things were foolish ventures. I think it is not at all unreasonable to say that in our Canadian army today we have men of idealism and courage who are prepared to assume the risk inherent in conventional weaponry. But we are not getting frank answers on this score. We are getting the old answer that the soldiers must have the best equipment possible.
I put it to the house that this is no answer and that we have not frightened Russia at all. Maybe Mr. Truman was able to frighten Japan a few years ago but the Russians are in a different position. There is only one thing greater than nuclear force and if I may refer to a speech made at the University of Oslo by the author of the book to which I have referred, Mr. Pearson said in that speech that ideas can also be explosive. I think this is something that we have got to bear in mind.
90205-6-521
Supply-National Defence
The person who wrote this book on the principles of defence was not absolutely naive and ignorant about war. He participated in the first great commando effort in the world, the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. It involved something like 120,000 British troops and there were 50,000 dead when it finally failed. The force was made up of British, Australians, New Zealanders, Gurkhas and many others and he brings to this subject the experience he had in those days and the war years that followed. He will recall that in those days, all troops did not do the same thing, just as all troops did not do the same thing for the British eighth army. You could not feed them the same way, you could not arm them the same way. They had different roles. My friend the hon. member for Edmonton West will recall that the Gurkhas would do things at night that his loyal Edmonton regiment troops would not do. They had special skills. In the role that I have suggested our Canadian militia could serve magnificently. We have a good record, a record of not being a dirty army. We have always had this reputation and that is a role we have to preserve.
Now, referring to the particular problem before us, there is an important article written by Pierre M. Gallois entitled, "New Teeth for NATO". In this article he recognizes the four stages in depth in which NATO defence can be developed. Conventional weapons at the front, a second nuclear shield until at last we finally go across the seas with the possibility of intervention by strategic air command. We suggest that we take the courageous role of world peacemaker and be on the spot, be there with the weapons we can carry, such as light artillery and things that are mobile.
In the publication the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, there is an article by Senator Saltonstall entitled, "Western Military Strength and Security." In this article, he says:
There are two permanent issues concerning the defence posture which have a particularly important relationship to the philosophy of deterrence. These are: (a) the strengthening of weapons and equipment suitable to fight in situations of limited conflict, and (b) the efforts to bring about dependable agreements on weapons tests, arms control, and eventual disarmament.
I quote from the article at another point:
Secretary McNamara commented there had been a tendency since the end of the Korean war to emphasize the nuclear capabilities of limited war forces. Although such use is essential, the Pentagon is careful to point out, the non-nuclear capability of conventional forces is stressed in the current plan in order to provide greater versatility.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, while I rise to take part in this debate, I do not pretend to be an expert on international politics or in the field of military or civil defence, but I want to express the concern that Canadians have felt in their hearts and minds because of recent developments, and more particularly because of the Russians' decision to resume nuclear tests.
I was astounded by the fact that for more than a year-and we have the evidence today-while negotiations were going on in Geneva about a final nuclear test ban, when western and other free countries represented at those conferences were discussing with sincerity and honesty, Russia was not of the same mind because, according to experts, it takes months to prepare an atomic blast.
Only a few days ago, Mr. Khrushchev made a threat which he accompanied by an imperative gesture as usual, and since then, the Russians have exploded six atomic bombs. Thus, while discussions were still going on in Geneva, while sincere and free countries were working together to put a stop to those nuclear tests, the Russians were secretly and dishonestly intending to resume them, and they have just proved it by exploding six atomic bombs.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian people are greatly concerned, of course, and we are presently going through dark days, not only because of the material consequences of those explosions, but also of the distrust that is spreading among nations.
That spirit of distrust, a venerable old man has painted it out very well in his recent encyclical letter Mater et Magistra. I should like to quote a short passage of John XXIII's encyclical:
90205-6-521J
Supply-National Defence
It can thus be understood how individuals and nations are getting more and more convinced of the urgent necessity of understanding and co-operation. However, it seems that men. especially those who shoulder the heaviest responsibilities, are incapable of causing the one and the other. The reason for that incapacity lies not in science, technology or economics, but in the lack of mutual trust.
A little further, John XXIII states:
The lack of mutual trust is due to the fact that the activities of men, especially those who bear the heaviest responsibilities, are inspired by different or radically opposed concepts of life. Unfortunately, some of these concepts do not take into account the existence of a moral order, of an order which is transcendent, universal, not absolute and of equal value for all. It becomes therefore impossible to meet and to fully agree, with all security, in the light of a same law of justice accepted and followed by all. It is true that the word "justice" and the phrase "the requirements of justice" continue to be used by everyone; but that word and that phrase have for each one a different or contrary meaning.
Indeed, there are between the Soviet bloc and the alliance of western free countries two basic differences in their concept of life. While we in the free nations, the Christian nations, the western nations, are trying to establish peace for the triumph of spiritual values and the installation of the rule of God over His creatures, our opponents are looking for peace-at least they say so-but only through a search for material and materialistic aims, without any belief in the spiritual values, without any belief in the dignity of the human being.
That is the real trouble in our hearts, and it is in such a climate of distrust, which becomes increasingly troubling, that we have all these important discussions in international organizations.
It must be said to the credit of Canada and of the present administration that they wish to pursue and promote negotiations in order to lessen that distrust. Furthermore, this government is to be credited-and this needs to be said-in the face of communist ideas spreading across the world, for embodying in its legislation that fundamental assurance and very concrete expression of human rights and freedoms. We cannot repeat it too often: those rights and freedoms are, initially and in final analysis, of God's creation.
That is the fine example the government has given the whole world by its bill of rights. In the pursuit of its activities, it recognizes man's dignity, the Canadian citizen's dignity, that of any citizen of the world, and it is yearning for peace in order to ensure the triumph of spiritual values and the recognition of God's rule over His creatures.
Private Bills

(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. It being five o'clock I do now leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



THE CUMBERLAND RAILWAY AND COAL COMPANY AND THE SYDNEY AND LOUISBURG RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-19, an act respecting the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company and the Sydney and Louis-burg Railway Company-Mr. Maclnnis-Mr. Chown in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Application of provincial statutes.
Frank Charles McGee: Before the bill is passed I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member who is sponsoring it whether the matters that were raised in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and about which there was some minor doubt in the minds of some of the members have been clarified, and whether we may have an assurance that no other impediment relating to these discussions has arisen in the interval?


Mr. Maclnnis:: In answer to the hon. member's question all I can say is this. A number of questions arose before the standing committee on this bill. At that time I thought that every question raised at the time was answered to the complete satisfaction of myself and of other hon. members who may have a particular interest in this particular amalgamation in so far as it concerns our part of the country.
It will be recalled that Mr. McGregor was present at the meeting acting in the interests of all the union men involved, and he himself was quite satisfied with the proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-1, an act for the relief of Jean George Lipsman-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to stand all the divorce bills on order paper 161.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether in this instance we might not follow the practice proposed to the house and agreed to on March 14 by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) relating to the consolidation of these bills under one order. I have just counted the pages and there are some 274 pages of divorce bills. I think we could perhaps agree to consolidate them all under one order and then upon, say, 48 hours notice list them separately when it was desired to proceed with them on a particular Tuesday. This would save a great deal of printing, paper and so on and would not in any way be an impediment to proceeding with the bills whenever it is desired to proceed with them.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I seem to recall being in the house on the date mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and there was in fact an order of this house that the bills be so consolidated. I should like to ascertain from any hon. member just what happened to that order of the house, and why was it changed to produce the result we sought to avoid in the first place?


Mr. Speaker:: If I correctly understood the previous order of the house, it was that the divorce bills be consolidated in one order and not be printed until notice was given that they would be proceeded with. That notice was given by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) some time recently-I think, just before the adjournment-and resulted in the listing on the order paper of all the bills which now stand for consideration.
It is agreed, then, that the previous order be reinstated with respect to these divorce bills so there will be no need to print them until notice is given by the chairman or deputy chairman of the committee requesting that they be listed again?


Frank Charles McGee: To clarify that point, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether any time limit was set. Was it one day before, two days before, or what were the conditions surrounding the change?


Mr. Speaker:: I think sufficient advance notice was to be given to make it physically possible for the printing to be accomplished when that was contemplated. Is it agreed that the previous order of the house to this effect be reinstated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT

[Stage Direction]
amendment to permit loans to caterers to

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-46, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act-Mr. Benidickson.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may this bill in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) stand, please.
Mr. John Pallet! (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think arrangements were made by the hon. member moving the bill and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bell, Carleton) that it be dropped because government legislation already passed has embodied this or even gone further than the bill contemplates.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not aware of that.


Mr. Speaker:: Then order No. 1 is passed.


Mr. Palleii:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the effect of the legislation already passed.
Bill dropped to bottom of list.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 2, 1960, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard for the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (Crown Bound).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to say at the outset that I intend to be very brief as I am sure there are many hon. members who would like to take part in the debate on this very interesting subject.
I think this is the third occasion upon which this bill has been introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I am happy to say that I feel he has been sincere on each occasion in introducing the bill. However, I must admit that he has failed to convince me of the necessity for this bill at this particular time.
The hon. member proposes to ask for an amendment to section 3 of the Canada Fair
Private Bills
Employment Practices Act whereby the act binds Her Majesty in right of Canada and servants and agents of Her Majesty.
I think it would be wise for us very briefly to review what the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act provides. In short, it provides that no employer shall discriminate in so far as the employment of employees or the terms or conditions of employment are concerned because of race, national origin, colour or religion. It also applies, of course, to hiring agencies and to trade unions, whereby it states that trade unions shall not discriminate against its members or prevent potential members from becoming members of the union.
This bill is a very short one. It merely seeks to make the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act apply to the crown and crown agencies. However, I would remind the hon. gentleman that crown corporations are already taken care of and must apply this act in all their dealings with employees. At the present time crown corporations come within the ambit of the act.
Section 3 of the act reads as follows:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, (m) the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
This bill would make the act apply to employees of of Her Majesty in the right of Canada. We may thus eliminate crown corporations because they have to abide by the act as it now stands. I firmly believe that the federal government is living up to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act all along the line. I know it is the duty of the unemployment insurance commission not to practice discrimination on any grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion. I also realize that the Department of Public Works has inserted in its contracts a clause that takes care of this matter. A similar clause is inserted in all supply contracts that are entered into by the government. I am therefore convinced that the Canadian government is fulfilling its duty in applying in all its departments the principles of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. The province of Ontario has a similar act and I feel that other provinces are doing an excellent job in promoting fair employment practices.
I am proud to say that I come from a municipality where no discrimination is exercised in the hiring of employees. I therefore feel that the bill as introduced by the hon. member for Skeena is unnecessary at the present time.

Private Bills
If the hon. gentleman will pause to reflect he will realize that a special committee was set up to study the Civil Service Act. During the meetings of that committee this very question was considered by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). As reported at page 521 of the minutes and proceedings of the committee dated June 20, 1961, the hon. member for Carleton had this to say:


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: May X ask the leave of the committee to revert to clause 33. The members of the committee will remember at the meeting of Friday, April 21, that there was presented to us a letter from the Canadian Jewish Congress in which they asked that there be inserted in the Civil Service Act a non-discrimination clause. That matter has had some consideration especially as to where, if such a clause were to be placed in the act, it should be placed. The advice of the draftsman is that if such a clause is to be inserted that it be inserted in clause 33.
The committee accepted an amendment in these words:
The commission may in relation to any position or any class or grade prescribe qualifications as to age, residence or any other matters that in the opinion of the commission are necessary or desirable having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed, but in so doing the commission shall not discriminate against any person by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion.
This amendment has been inserted in clause 33. The committee has reported to the house. If this is passed by parliament the very thing the hon. member for Skeena seeks to accomplish in introducing Bill No. C-9 will be attained. Since the introduction of his bill the bill of rights has been passed by parliament. The bill of rights will also accomplish what the hon. member for Skeena wishes to see brought about by the amendment as outlined in Bill No. C-9.
I believe I have covered most of the main points on the bill before us. I agreed with the general principle of the bill in that it calls upon the government of Canada to introduce provisions relating to the abolition of discrimination which I am sure we all wish to see eliminated in our land. I believe that the government should be bound by all the laws it applies to its citizens. I feel that the purpose of Bill No. C-9 will be well taken care of when the amendment to clause 33 of Bill No. C-71 relating to the Civil Service Act is adopted and passed by parliament.
I am unable to support this bill at this time for the following reasons. First, the hon. member who introduced the bill failed to give sufficient cases in which the government is not living up to the provisions of the Canada Fail Employment Practices Act. Second, I feel that the federal government is now providing equality of opportunity without discrimination

on the basis of race, national origin, colour or religion. Third, I feel that the provisions of Bill No. C-9 will be well taken care of when the amended Civil Service Act is passed. Fourth, I feel that what the hon. member seeks to accomplish by this bill has already been accomplished by the introduction of the bill of rights.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I say I am in complete agreement with many of the remarks made by the previous speaker. I think that all Canadians, whether we are referring to private employment practices or employment practices in relation to the government or crown, have no patience with and absolutely abhor anything which smacks of discrimination. I appreciate that we can speak only of our own particular areas. Whether with respect to government employment matters or employment practices in private enterprise, I am proud to be able to say that I have never seen anything in the nature of discrimination in the area I represent. I know of no incident of this kind in the past either in relation to government or private enterprise hiring.
I do not say this in a holier than thou attitude and I do not say this in comparing ourselves with other nations, but I feel that Canadians in general-although there are some notable exceptions-can be very proud of their history. I repeat that with some notable exceptions Canadians are able to look with great pride at their past in this regard. Canadians in general do not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, colour or religion. We see this in the field of education and in many other areas.
The Canada Fair Employment Practices Act came into effect on July 1, 1953. As has been pointed out, in general outline the act states that no employer can discriminate with respect to colour, race, national origin or religion. The general terms of the act also prevent an employer from using a hiring agency to obtain the same end. The general provisions of the act relating to trade unions state that no trade union may bar an individual from membership on grounds of discrimination. The act does not allow a trade union to expel a member or employee on grounds of discrimination.
It has been said that the bill before the house asks that its provisions be made applicable to the crown. I can only say I agree with the previous speaker. The sponsor of the bill before us this afternoon seeks to attain an end. Nobody within or without this house can quarrel with that end. In all sincerity, I say that what we are discussing is the means

to attain that end. We are all against discrimination. All Canadians are against it no matter how or where it exists.
I was interested to read that in speaking for his party the sponsor of this legislation said that so often the sanction for many laws was a state of mind. Perhaps he meant that so many of our laws come into being by custom and by tradition. I find it a little strange that a member representing the socialist party and speaking about socialist doctrine should advance such a theory. I have always thought that the socialists feel you can legislate for a state of mind.


Frank Howard: This shows how mistaken you are.


William Heward Grafftey: I make this reference only in passing. I underline the fact that I feel the end result of this legislation can be best attained by a revision of the Civil Service Act itself.
Again I say that nobody wants discrimination. It has been pointed out time and time again that in relation to civil service hiring practices there has never been a case of discrimination. If anybody inside or outside this house has any doubt in his mind in this regard he should bring it immediately to the attention of the government. I repeat that there has never been discrimination in relation to race, colour, religion or national origin with respect to government hiring of personnel. Therefore I ask this very simple question. Why in essence is the bill so described before the house this afternoon? I do not doubt its sincerity. Yet, when one realizes that there has never been any discrimination one wonders why this particular bill is before us. We agree that it is seeking a very desirable end.
It is admitted that in 1942 there was a question about colour in a civil service questionnaire. I am not quite sure of the kind of questionnaire it was. I am not going to admit, state or even imply for a minute that discrimination was involved but since that date the question has been dropped.
The civil service commission today, as in the past, is following a policy of non-discrimination. This goes without saying. If there is more than a modicum of doubt in anybody's mind perhaps it is only right that we should be discussing this most important matter in the Canadian House of Commons. I repeat what I said. If there has ever been a case of discrimination in relation to government, then it is the duty of the citizen or the member who has knowledge of it to bring it to the attention of the government.
Private Bills
To our knowledge discrimination has never been knowingly practised. There has never been such a case.
If Bill No. C-9 is to be passed it occurs to me that the penalty section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act would likewise need amendment. If we should pass this act today we would inevitably see that many anomalies would arise.
I have pointed out the fact that a revision of the Civil Service Act itself would be the best way to attain the ends desired. Apropos of the questions that have been asked in the past by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer), we must come to the point and ask ourselves what could be the effect of the proposed bill? It could give the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) authority to deal with complaints concerning discrimination in employment which in all other respects is subject to the civil service commission and to the Civil Service Act. We know the jurisdiction of the industrial inquiries commission appointed by the Minister of Labour. I therefore come back to the point I brought to the attention of the house previously, namely the fact that the civil service commission reports directly to the house and not through the minister. For this reason, if we proceed as proposed by the hon. member for Skeena, we could quite conceivably be setting up a great conflict in jurisdiction. I reiterate that which I have repeated time and time again. The desired results could be and should be brought about by an amendment to the Civil Service Act.
Another thing I should like to draw to the attention of the house relates to some of the general provisions in the bill of rights. The right of the individual to liberty comes in clause 1 of this bill. The right of the individual to liberty comes in part I of the bill of rights. I think it is obvious to all hon. members that the principle of fair employment must apply equally to all Canadians. I realize only too well that I am arguing in a very indirect fashion at this time, but liberty must have economic aspects. Many members on both sides of the house have brought up this question time and time again. The liberty to be employed fairly should apply equally to all Canadians. I think I am not letting my imagination run away with me when I say that these provisions of the bill of rights have a direct bearing on the question we are discussing this afternoon.
I should repeat that which I said at the beginning of my remarks this afternoon. It almost seems unnecessary to put written legislation in such detail on the statute books because the principles of non-discrimination

Private Bills
are written so largely within the hearts of the Canadian people. Because such provisions are provided in the bills of rights and because the civil service commission actually is following a policy of non-discrimination and because these ends can better be achieved by amendments to the Civil Service Act I do not think we should accept this bill.
The hon. member for Skeena said he had made numerous phone calls to members of the civil service commission or to members of the civil service in this regard and they had told him that perhaps this was not the case. My opinion is, after speaking to members of the administration, that is the official point of view, and that these ends would better be achieved by amendments to the Civil Service Act.
I might be considered to be straying from the subject but I know that if some hon. members opposite run true to form I will be classed among those who are said to be talking out the bill. Such is not the case. In the hour between five and six o'clock very often bills are not passed but I believe that the private members' hour is a most valuable one because much information is put before the government and many views are aired which eventually bring about good legislation.
I have discussed my point of view in relation to a most important subject. Just because I am not in favour of the immediate passage of the bill as it now stands, I hope no one will feel that I tolerate discrimination in any shape or form. I simply do not believe that as the bill now stands it will help to correct the situation, one which I believe the government can perhaps correct in a better way through the amendments I have discussed. In my opinion the bill seeks to correct a situation which exists only in the imaginations of certain members and other people. If you see discrimination in any particular instance, point it out. I believe that you will not find it in the past or present and I sincerely hope, as a Canadian, that you will never find it in the future.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on Bill No. C-9 and also to express sentiments which I hold on the subject of non-discrimination. It is my view, as has already been said by the speakers who have preceded me, that there is no feeling on the part of anyone that there should be discrimination.
Having said that, it is my view that Bill C-9 serves no useful purpose. It is unnecessary. The matter has already been taken care of. There is no case or example of discrimination in the civil service before us and therefore I find it impossible to support the bill. I might add that a similar bill has been before the

house for debate on three different occasions and each time advanced by the same sponsor. I have checked the records and I find that no other member of the C.C.F. or new party group other than the sponsor has spoken on the bill. I am wondering whether he has any support from that corner of the house for this measure.
I have already indicated that existing legislation covers the situation. If that is true, and I shall attempt to show that it is, I wonder why the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has insisted on bringing this bill forward on so many occasions. I should like to ask him what his motives were in bringing the bill forward.


Frank Howard: Motives of decency.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I wonder whether there are not deeper motives behind the bill, whether it is not perhaps designed to win votes in his riding or to gain some particular end that he is seeking to achieve. He has not disclosed these things and we can only surmise. However, I will take the bill just as it is and speak on this subject because in my opinion it is important. I am in agreement with the principle of nondiscrimination and, as the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) said, good should come out of this debate. Each speaker will have an opportunity to express himself and from that some good is bound to come.
I should like to quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Skeena on February 19, 1960 when he introduced a similar bill. As found on page 1271 of Hansard, he said:
The bill which is before the house is very short. It merely seeks to make the present Canada Fair Employment Practices Act applicable to Her Majesty, her servants and agents of Her Majesty, or, in effect, applicable to the civil service and to employees in the government service. This, of course, does not suggest that with regard to the employment of civil servants there exists at the present time any such discrimination because of the factors that I set out earlier. In fact, I think I can say without any contradiction or any qualification that no such discrimination enters into the employment of candidates for the civil service.
Note these words from the mouth of the sponsor of the bill:
In fact, I think I can say without any contradiction or any qualification that no such discrimination enters into the employment of candidates for the civil service.
He says there is none and yet he wants this particular measure applied to the civil service. For what reason? The present Civil Service Act is designed to take care of the problem if it should arise. The hon. member did not refer to any particular case. If the hon. member could point to some incident where an individual had been discriminated against by the civil service authorities or by some department of the government then we would have a case before us and something

to debate and get our teeth into. But here we are talking in the abstract. We are being asked to pass a piece of legislation and make it applicable to the civil service when it has no particular applicability. We are not correcting anything. There is no case before us to show there has been any discrimination within the civil service. I should like to refer to the Civil Service Act, chapter 48 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Section 19 reads as follows:
Except where otherwise expressly provided, all appointments to the civil service shall be upon competitive examination under and pursuant to this act, and shall be during pleasure; but no appointment, whether permanent or temporary, shall be made to a local position within a province, and no employee shall be transferred from a position in a province to a local position in the same or in another province, whether permanent or temporary, until and unless the candidate or employee has qualified by examination ...
In section 25 we find the following:
1.	Competitive examinations shall be held by the commission to establish lists of persons eligible for appointment.
2.	Such examinations may be written or oral or in the form of a demonstration of skill or any combination of these, and they shall be of a character fairly to test and determine the relative fitness and ability of candidates actually to perform the duties of the class to which they seek to be appointed, and any investigation of training and experience and any test of technical knowledge, manual skill, or physical fitness that, in the judgment of the commission, serves to this end may be employed.
In other words, the situation seems to be working very well under the Civil Service Act as it now stands. These examinations are open to everyone. There is a clause in the act which entitles war veterans to a preference, and I am sure everyone agrees with that. The Civil Service Act cannot be construed as containing any discrimination. The very essence of non-discrimination can be read between the lines in all parts of this act. Having worked as a civil servant for the federal government for a short time myself, I realize that what every civil servant wants is security. He wants to have good working conditions and he likes to be doing a job that he feels is important. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill were enacted it would do nothing to assist the present civil servant in the discharge of his duties or improve his life as a civil servant. In other words, the passage of this bill will not benefit present civil servants.
The purpose of the bill, therefore, must be to provide for non-discrimination in the hiring of new civil servants. On a previous occasion the sponsor of this bill made a statement that it is not possible to legislate against the state of mind. I thoroughly agree with him on that point. It is impossible to legislate to cover the way in which a person will act
Private Bills
when he is acting as a result of a state of mind. In other words, his intolerance or discrimination may be the result of acting by intuition. Certainly the bill which is before us would not help in preventing that individual from acting according to his state of mind. If this bill were enacted it would not prevent intolerance or discrimination. I think a better approach to the situation would be from the point of view of education. In this way people can be shown that we are all created equal and that, given the opportunity, each one performs different skills equally well.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I want to say again that in so far as this bill is concerned the matter is already covered by the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. This act takes care of the problem in so far as industry is concerned. The Civil Service Act takes care of the problem in so far as civil servants are concerned. If a revision of the Civil Service Act is to be undertaken, perhaps this matter could be referred to the committee dealing with the matter and, in this way, the question of discrimination could be given proper and thorough consideration.
I have already made the point that it is not possible to legislate in connection with a state of mind. Another point is that no evidence has been brought forward to indicate there has been discrimination in any particular segment of the civil service. In my view, this fact relieves the house of any necessity for taking immediate action. I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I must, because of the unnecessary aspect of this bill, cast my vote against it at this time.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate on this Bill No. C-19. At the outset, I may say I am in favour of the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. However, my position on the bill before us this afternoon is along the lines of the positions of previous speakers we have heard today. I may say I am rather disappointed that the sponsor of this bill did not see fit to make a statement at the commencement of this debate to bring us up to date on his views on the bill. I am disappointed also that no other member of the C.C.F. has taken part in the debate thus far, especially since they are now members of the New Democratic party and their views may have changed somewhat from those previously held. It is disappointing also to see that the Liberal party has not participated in this debate. I suppose the members of that party feel the bill is rather superfluous because the interest they

Private Bills
are showing is very small. I believe there are only three members of that group sitting in the house at the moment.
However, since the sponsor of the bill has not made a statement, I think the words he used in introducing the bill, as they are found at page 1270 of Hansard for February 19, 1960, might be usefully repeated. He said:
The Canada Fair Employment Practices Act came into effect on July 1, 1953 and, in short, it provides that no employer shall discriminate in so far as the employment of employees or the terms or conditions of employment are concerned because of race, national origin, colour or religion. The act also prevents an employer from using the facilities of a hiring agency which discriminates on grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion, and it provides, further, that a trade union shall not discriminate against its members or prevent potential members from becoming members of that union, and that it shall not expel them from the union on grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion. The act also prevents a trade union expelling a member because he lodges a complaint under this particular measure. Procedures are described, and penalties are provided for infringement.
As I stated at the beginning, I am wholeheartedly in favour of this act as I am sure are most of the members of this house. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned that the sponsor of this bill had indicated that he had no knowledge of any discrimination within the civil service to which this bill is primarily directed and he gave a quotation. I should also like to give a quotation, but a different one. It is from page 477 of the debates of the House of Commons of the session of 1960-61, volume 1, and is as follows:
I am quite sure, and there Is no shadow of a doubt in my mind-and I am sure there is no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone in this house-that the intent of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is followed by the civil service commission in its function of employing people. I am also quite sure that no discrimination exists on these bases whatsoever.
Therefore I believe the sponsor himself has admitted that the bill is rather superfluous. As the hon. member who preceded me has stated, if there were in the civil service any examples of discrimination, he certainly could have a basis for arguing for and supporting this bill.
As I stated, the chief purpose of this bill is to extend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act to bind Her Majesty in right of Canada and the servants and agents of Her Majesty in right of Canada. At the present time I believe that crown corporations are also covered under this act. Section 3 (m) reads as follows:
3.	This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing,.. .

(m) the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
Therefore this bill seems to restrict itself primarily to the civil service and I should like to make some remarks in this connection. As has already been stated by most of the members, I believe the civil service commission has always followed the policy of no discrimination. I do not believe they have ever transgressed the principles that are laid down in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act in so far as race, colour or religion are concerned. Any difference in treatment of applications can be attributed to national origin which has been imposed by requirements of the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
As has already been stated by a number of those who have spoken, the civil service commission have seen fit to modify their application forms where it has been found that any of the questions contained therein do not comply with the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. I believe they are always vigilant in this regard and that wherever possible they remove any question which may carry any hint of any discrimination in hiring for the civil service of Canada.
There is one thing that I should like to bring out. If this act were to come into effect the situation would be this. In essence, under the provisions for the review of infringements I believe there is set up an industrial disputes commission or industrial inquiry commission and that the recommendations of this commission may be made final and binding through orders issued by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). In other words, at the present time any infringement of the Civil Service Act would be dealt with by the civil service commission which reports directly to parliament and not to any minister. Thus any disputes which may arise are removed from any political influence. If this act were to come into effect it would in essence place the binding decision with respect to any dispute in the hands of the minister. Knowing the Minister of Labour whom I consider to be a good friend and for whom I have a high regard, I might say that in some instances the decision he might reach might be even more just than one that could be reached by the civil service commission. None the less, to me it is strange that the sponsor of this bill would wish that this happen. I am sure that he would be one of the last ones to deny that the civil service commission should be completely free from any act of political interference or jurisdiction.
As I have stated, there is a modification of terms in the application forms of the civil

service commission; and I believe that the act which is being revised at the present time will perhaps go even further in changing some of the requirements for admission to the civil service. I am thinking particularly of that specification which limits applicants to British subjects with five years residence in Canada. It is my own hope-and I hope my feeling is shared by members of the government-that perhaps this requirement can be changed in order to give Canadians any preference that may be given under the act.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six
o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. McGee in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE 232. Departmental administration, $3,455,378.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
(Translation):
Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned the debate at five o'clock, I was just about to state that Canada is quite right in promoting negotiations to the extreme limit in view of the international issues to be settled.
But those negotiations should be effected, as was stated by several members who preceded me, firmly, wisely and with unity between members of the alliance. And that unity which the allies must strengthen further will only be achieved by greater mutual confidence. Now, that confidence will not be generated in isolation, but in co-operation and by a co-ordination of all efforts.
That is why I submit that the stand of this government in respect of such organizations as NATO and NORAD is the wisest stand possible. For instance, I think that in view of this collective defence, the 14 NATO nations will have to draw more closely together to establish among themselves that mutual trust which will enable them to form a solid bloc so that negotiation can be as efficient as possible with regard to the objectives to be achieved.
Supply-National Defence
Since the Soviet government resumed its nuclear tests and since our southern neighbours decided to counter with similar tests, though theirs are underground and laboratory tests, the Canadian people shiver with apprehension and wonder what this country has in terms of civil defence.
Before coming back here for the second part of the session I found that several citizens from that fine riding of Sherbrooke, which is perhaps not familar to you, Mr. Chairman, but which, like many other ridings in this country, is composed of peaceful Canadians who want only to prosper in the sun in all dignity and freedom, were worrying about what they should do for their protection in the event of a nuclear attack and with regard to the damaging effects of strontium 90, of which a fall-out has again been noted following the resumption of the tests.
According to the information secured, we know that an order in council was enacted in May 1959 which resulted in a general revision of the duties and the powers relating to civil protection.
That order in council provided that it would be up to the Department of National Defence to set up a warning system for the public, to determine the site of nuclear explosions, to make an estimation of the damages and of the number of victims, to control, supervise and carry out the return operations into the stricken areas, and to give emergency support to municipal and provincial authorities for the maintenance of law and order. The Department of National Health and Welfare was given the responsibility of helping municipalities and provinces set up plans providing for medical and public health emergency services as well as plans for emergency housing, emergency food supplies and welfare.
Through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has been entrusted with the maintenance of law and order, as well as the control and the direction of traffic in case of emergency. Finally, through the emergency measures organization, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) has assumed the responsibility for co-ordinating the planning of civil protection at the federal level, for helping provincial and municipal authorities in the preparation of security plans and for keeping in touch with provincial governments and other countries in the matter of civil protection.
In addition to the foregoing, other government departments have emergency duties to perform in fields that normally come under their jurisdiction.

Supply-National Defence
For instance, in a state of emergency, the Department of Agriculture, would advise farmers on what they should do to protect their cattle and their crops against radioactive fall-about. The department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission would look after emergency control of labour and the Department of Defence Production would set up a skeleton organization which would attend to essential supplies.
On the provincial level, organizations have been established which correspond in general to the federal E.M.O. Those provincial units are concerned with planning for the uninterrupted operation of government at the provincial level; they also help in the implementation of plans to ensure the survival of local communities.
Even though emergency planning involves numerous problems, major progress has been made these last few years, and especially during the past months, as far as the implementation of the plans to guarantee the maintenance of government and the survival of the people in case of emergency.
Already the federal government has started the building of regional headquarters where, in the event of a nuclear war, parts of the federal and provincial governments could operate.
As far as communications are concerned, an organization called the national emergency telecommunication organization has been set up in order to insure the security of communication systems, to provide for replacement routes in danger zones and to stockpile mobile and stationary equipment.
The Department of Defence Production has made considerable progress in the establishment of its war supply agency and it has opened a number of regional offices throughout the country to help in that matter.
In the field of transportation planning, the establishment of skeleton organizations in the provinces is recommended; their task would be to control the use of commercial highway transportation in time of war.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is actively working towards its objective, which is to stockpile medical supplies in premises scattered throughout the country. About $10 million were provided to that end and a number of improvised 200-bed hospitals are to be placed at the disposal of the provinces for emergency cases.
The Department of National Defence has made great progress in the setting up of a warning system for the public with the installation of sirens in key locations and the establishment all across the country of warning centres with a full-time staff.

The drawing up of fall-out shelter plans for private homes has been one of the main undertakings of the federal E.M.O.
The organization also looks after training and frequently offers courses both in various areas and at the civil defence college in Arnprior, maintained and administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. Those courses have been attended by federal and provincial representatives, and also by mayors and reeves of several hundreds of municipalities in Canada. In Sherbrooke, the municipal authorities recently selected Colonel Sarto Roy to attend those courses.
Contacts between this organization and local civil defence organizations are also provided for otherwise.
To sum up, I should say that very great progress has been accomplished in the field of emergency measures, and this is why we are able to conclude that the Canadian population has every reason to have confidence in the present administration of this country. The vision of our leaders and their carefulness should lead us to do so.
Before closing my remarks, I should like to put one humble suggestion to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) which might also be put to the cabinet as a whole. It has to do with civil defence. Could not the Department of National Defence and the government consider the possibility of including in their winter works program the development of underground parking lots in municipalities where the population is more than 25,000? Such a project would achieve two objectives. In the civic field, it would alleviate parking and traffic problems in larger cities. In regard to civil defence, those underground parking lots, suitably organized from the standpoint of health and food services, would, in my humble opinion, accommodate adequately the people who would have to take cover in case of emergency.
(Text):


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, the minister reminded us this morning that this was his first presentation of the estimates of the department since he assumed the most important portfolio of Minister of National Defence. I should like to begin my remarks by extending to him my very best wishes on this very important occasion. I should like also to join with him in the tribute he paid to his predecessor whom we all respect as a gallant soldier and as a gentleman and whom we still remember with a great deal of regard and affection.

The minister told us this morning that we are living in a time of stress. He referred particularly to the threat of Soviet domination and the threat of force to attain that domination which overshadows us at the present time and which is indicated in the resumption of the testing of nuclear bombs.
It has been interesting to hear some hon. members draw a parallel between the use of nuclear weapons and the use of gas in the last war. In my opinion a true parallel cannot be drawn. It is true that both sides in the last war had the capability of using gas and of engaging in bacteriological warfare, yet neither side actually did so. Both sides refrained; but that I think was because each side was waiting for the other to start. If we are going to draw an exact parallel with respect to nuclear warheads we must somehow come to a decision in regard to the use of nuclear tactical weapons. While our parallel is based mainly on our thinking about strategic nuclear weapons, the line between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons is very thin and it is getting thinner with every new scientific development. Therefore, unless we do come to some understanding and agreement about the use of nuclear weapons for tactical purposes, then it is quite possible that the parallel will break down and one side may be tempted to use tactical weapons with nuclear warheads to offset the disadvantage of inferior numbers.
The minister told us also that this threat of Soviet domination was being implemented on many fronts. He listed the economical and political, the ideological and the military fronts. He told us that to combat it counteraction was required in all these areas. To my knowledge this is the first time that any minister has openly acknowledged the importance of the ideological factor and the need for ideological counter-measures.
Hon. members are well aware of my interest in this aspect of national defence; therefore they will understand my disappointment that today the minister chose to confine himself solely to the military aspect of our defence policy. It is well known that the military leaders of the U.S.S.R. and the Chinese republic put the ideological factor first. To them this is paramount and everything else, including economic policy and strategy, military policy and strategy and political manoeuvres, is subordinated to ideological considerations.
In the debate on the estimates of this department last year I made extended reference to this matter, as can be found in Hansard
Supply

National Defence of August 5, at page 7619, and I do not intend to repeat what I said on that occasion. I merely wish to call to the attention of the minister the words of Air Vice Marshal Traill, who said:
The war of arms, if it comes, is an extension of the ideological war. At the higher levels, military and ideological strategy are one. Together they form the strategy of this world conflict. If we wish to survive it is madness to consider one in isolation from the other. The enemy is very clear on this. He is equally prepared to take an ideological or a military initiative, to use an ideological or a military weapon.
Since these words come from such an eminent military authority, I think they should be given very serious consideration. I ask the minister to do this and I express the hope also that he will have something more to say on this important subject later on in this debate. At the same time I should like to compliment the minister on the ideological awareness which he has displayed on several occasions since taking office. That awareness is evident also in the statement he made this morning in his reference to the ideological implications of unilateral disarmament and of peaceful coexistence which, in my opinion, is an effective answer to those who urged coexistence upon us in the debate which took place a few days ago.
We have Mr. Khrushchev's own words about peaceful coexistence, and I should like to put them on record at this time. Mr. Khrushchev has spoken a hundred times on peaceful coexistence. The most precise definition he has given of it appeared in a speech he delivered at Novosibrisk some time ago. He said:
Peaceful coexistence must be properly understood. It represents a continuation of the struggle between two social systems, but a struggle carried on by peaceful means, without war and without interference in the internal affairs of other countries. For us it is an economic, political and ideological struggle, not a trial of military strength.
The plain fact is that peaceful coexistence does not mean peace but struggle, and we would do well to follow the minister's lead and explain this to our people at every opportunity.
The minister also told us this morning that the cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy was collective security based on a system of alliances as signified by NATO, NORAD and the United Nations organization. He pointed out:
The strength of union is the sum of the individual members.
And also:
Only so long as the will of the individual member remains steadfast will the coalition be strong and its will to stand together be abundantly clear to any would be aggressor.

Supply-National Defence
These two statements which I have quoted in the reverse order from which the minister made them point up the need for a positive unifying force in NATO. At present we are unified in NATO mainly by fear, by fear of the threat that faces us, but fear is never satisfactory as a source of unity, as we know from our experience in the last world war. Many nations then bound themselves together and called themselves united nations but as soon as the immediate threat disappeared the unity disappeared along with it. In my opinion maximum unity cannot be attained until we have worked out a clear-cut ideological objective which will challenge the communist and non-communist world alike.
Last year I advocated the setting up of an ideological strategy board which I outlined on page 7623 of Hansard, and I again ask the minister to give consideration to this suggestion.
All hon. members regardless of party will find themselves in full agreement with the two objectives outlined by the minister this morning, namely peace by preventing war and the prevention of our subjection to a foreign power. To these I should like to add a third objective, namely that we should work together to create a new moral climate from which a true and lasting peace can result. In the debate that was concluded yesterday we heard something about the lessons of history. The lessons of history teach us that peace never follows disarmament. That was the lesson of world war I and world war II. True disarmament can only follow a true peace and a true peace can only result from a climate which develops out of the practice of moral values.
Although general objectives are convenient for the purpose of making a brief summary or for giving a broad outline of policy, I feel it would be more helpful and certainly more conducive to an orderly debate if these general objectives could be broken down into a number of specific objectives. For the benefit of the committee I have listed a number of objectives which in my opinion should comprise a defence policy for Canada. I should like to place them on the record in the following order:
1.	To maintain a strong, healthy and sound economy capable of withstanding economic attack and of providing at the same time a strong economic base for a total defence effort.
2.	Within the limits of manpower and economic capacity, to make the maximum contribution of men, machines and weapons for the defence of Canadian territory by land, sea and air against any aggressor.

3.	To defend the Canadian people against ideological penetration and aggression.
4.	To develop and maintain the highest possible morale both among the armed forces and the civilian population; to develop the will to resist aggression, to survive and to win.
5.	Within the limits of manpower and economic capacity (a) to make the maximum contribution to the continental defence system of North America through NORAD; (b) to make the maximum contribution to the defence of the rest of the free world through NATO; (c) to meet our commitments and obligations to the United Nations organization and to increase its effectiveness.
6.	To maintain a fully mobile force of the order of a brigade group that can be put at the disposal of the United Nations to help extinguish small brush-fire wars before they can develop into big ones.
7.	To develop and maintain an adequate program of civil defence, including defence against nuclear flash and fall-out, together with the necessary organization of personnel and equipment to make it effective.
8.	To promote the fall-out shelter as the symbol of our will to survive.
9.	To offset the "Maginot line" psychology engendered by defence thinking, planning and training and by means of ideological training to enable both service personnel and civilian population to go on the offensive and take ideological initiatives. This is the only area where offensive action is possible but it is a most vital one.
10.	To maintain a proper balance of manpower and materials as between defence requirements, including defence industries, and civilian requirements so that the one will not undermine the other or impair the economy as a whole.
11.	To achieve the best defence value for every defence dollar.
12.	To preserve-I think this is most important-the prestige and honour of service in defence of one's country as one of the highest and noblest professions.
While there might be no disagreement with the general objectives stated by the minister there might be room for disagreement as to specific objectives and the methods by which they may be attained. In particular, I think there is room for disagreement as to the means of making the maximum contribution. It is open to question whether Canada's maximum contribution can be made best through more up-to-date and efficient equipment or through increased manpower as the minister advocated this morning.

I think there is also some room for disagreement whether we are really getting the best value for the defence dollar. Certainly when we look to the role of the navy there is room for doubt, in spite of what the minister told us this morning, that we are really getting the best defence for our tax dollar. It is true that the minister is going to man the navy to full strength but those destroyers are not capable of dealing with the type of submarines now possessed by the enemy. Certainly if we are going to place emphasis again on the use of conventional weapons we must think more about the conventional role, and the types of warships that we have at the present time are not very useful in this regard.
I think that the government should give more consideration to the use of hydrofoil vessels for naval purposes, as they are now developed to the point where they can deal more effectively with submarines and can be used for the rapid transportation of troops and equipment. I think possibly we should also be thinking about the use of killer submarines.
There is no doubt in my mind that we cannot obtain the maximum value for the tax dollar until our services are completely unified at the top operational level. Here I wish to point out that I am not talking about the kind of unification we have had so far which has resulted in an increase in personnel rather than a decrease. While I am on the subject of the tax dollar, I should like to draw to the committee's attention the parallel of Sweden. Sweden is a small country with a population of 7.5 million people. Her defence budget for 1960 was the equivalent of $550 million, Canadian, and that is comparable to an expenditure for Canada of $1,320 million. This year we are spending something of the order of $1,600 million.
For Sweden's $1,320 million, this is what the people get. They have an army of 250,000 troops, 14 divisions of first line troops; an air force of 1,000 first line aircraft, most of which are interceptors and ground attack fighters. For the navy, Sweden gets approximately the same number of ships as the Royal Canadian Navy, but uses only about one third the number of personnel we do. They will soon have included in their navy 33 modern submarines, some of which have anti-sub capabilities.
In so far as civil defence is concerned, for an expenditure of about $200 million, Canadian, in 1958 and declining to $55 million in 1960, the Swedish government is providing
Supply-National Defence the nation with civil defence measures which include not only warning, information, fall-out shelters, evacuation plans, and re-entry organizations but also blast shelters in literally every city over 50,000 people. Over one half million Swedes have been given intensive civil defence training in one role or another. Every new building in Sweden includes a fall-out shelter costing about 2 per cent of the over-all construction cost. People living in older buildings pay toward the cost of public blast shelters which are nearby for their use.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the cost for 1960?


Chesley William Carter: It was $200 million in 1958, declining to $55 million in 1960. I think when you compare what Sweden gets for her defence dollar with what we, in Canada, are getting for our defence dollar, the discrepancy is very apparent.
It is evident from what the minister said this morning that the government has reconsidered and reversed its stand on the threat from manned bombers.


Egan Chambers: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Chesley William Carter: I have only five minutes left, so I would rather wait to the end. If I heard the minister correctly this morning, he said:
The bomber, if unopposed, is the best and most effective way of delivering atomic weapons. It is necessary, therefore, that we maintain a defence against such a threat as long as it is in existence. We do not know how many long range missiles of adequate accuracy the Russians possess, but we do know the number is limited. On the contrary, it is a fact that they have a considerable number of manned aircraft in operation and should an attack be decided upon it must be presumed that these would be used.
Now, in my opinion, this view stands out in sharp contrast to what we were told two years ago, that the threat of manned bombers was decreasing and, in fact, had decreased to such an extent as to justify the destruction of the Avro Arrow which to many Canadians, I think, was a symbol of Canadian achievement. The armed forces are being trained in an operational role in which we hope they will never have to be employed. There is also a peacetime role which is now, and always will be, necessary. I should like to think that our armed forces form the backbone of our nation. We have seen in recent years how countries like Pakistan and Burma have had to fall back on the military forces when their democratic processes broke down. Only a few weeks ago we saw Brazil probably being saved from communism by the positive action of their military forces.
Now, the real strength of any nation is national character. I should like to close by

Supply-National Defence quoting the words of Mr. Edison, a secretary of the United States navy in 1940, who said as follows:
There Is one ingredient in national defence which transcends all others. It is born of the hearts of our people and it may he called national character. Without character and a deep-seated moral armament bred into the fibre of our citizens, no matter in what walk of life they may perform their civil tasks, there will be little worth defending. The navy is responsible for the training, welfare and discipline of its personnel. But these are few. A hundred and thirty seven million others-
That was in 1940 and today he would say a hundred and eighty million or a hundred and ninety million others.
-must know why their country lives and is worthy of living.
I think if we can instill in the minds and hearts of our armed services personnel the thought that they have a role as the backbone of our country, then that will go a long way towards restoring the prestige and honour of service which the armed services used to enjoy and which made it one of the noblest and highest professions.


Egan Chambers: Will the hon. member permit a question now? I was wondering if the hon. gentleman, in his comparison with Sweden, was advocating that our armed services be paid at the same rates of pay as Sweden's?


Chesley William Carter: Well, I think that is a false comparison. The Swedish forces are paid on a scale which enables them to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed by our forces.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I consider it a great honour and privilege to take some small part in this debate on the subject of Canadian defence. I take a great personal interest in Canada's defence and am not ashamed to stand and speak about it because I was a volunteer in the last great war. I do not relish the thought of a third great war. Nevertheless after reading the newspapers and hearing reports from abroad, I could not be sure that the third great war has not already started. We certainly have got to the point in international blackmail where it is hard for a man with red blood in his veins to sit idly by while our children and our children's children are poisoned from the skies in a cynical fashion. If the Russians do not know that this is a war against humanity, then it is time every free man in the world stood up and said what it is. Whether we have to retaliate in kind now or later, we do not know. We pray it may never come.
Let me take you back a thousand years or so for a few moments because if there is any
use in reading history, it is to try to learn some of the lessons which history has to give manking. I take you back to the days of Ancient Greece. Ancient Greece was a medium sized nation like Canada, these people were by and large simple, decent people who like to work in the lumberwoods and to sail the seas. They were in short industrious and free men. A great nation called Persia wished to extend her empire into Greece. Amongst the Greeks in those days, as in Canada today, there were many well meaning persons who hated war and who preached pacifism, tolerance and brotherhood; and well they might do so. But this did not deter Persia. Persia amassed an army of 10 million men. She moved down on little Greece and as she came, city after city offered gifts of earth and water which were the symbols of subservience. Athens, the greatest of Greek cities, was civilized. She liked ease, luxury and pleasure. She had those things. She was offered a dishonourable peace and refused. The few who wanted to fight marched against the Persian host and those who did not want to fight waited at home. The few who fought, won. The Persian king could not understand his defeat and he asked those around him why Greece did not fall. Nobody could answer him. I think I can answer him. I think that character won and will always win.
The challenge today is the same as it was 3,000 years ago. We face this same disaster, if you like to call it that. But we do not have to go down to defeat. A bully and a slave never fights like a free man. I will go further than that and say that if you can convince this bully that you intend to fight like a free man, the chances are that you will never have to do so. I think that world war II started not in September of 1939 but at Munich. I hope that world war III has not already started. If it has not already started, I think it is time that all free men stood together and that they make it clear where they stand.
Some hon. members in this chamber have suggested getting out of NORAD. Why get out of NORAD? We cannot get out of NORAD. They say we lose sovereignty by being in NORAD. If we are not in NORAD we lose everything. There is no choice. Those who say we give up our sovereignty should read history as well. Let us go back once more for a lesson from Greek history. Athens, which was the greatest city in Greece, gave up leadership to her hated sister city Sparta in the war because she thought Sparta could carry arms better than she could. Victory was won again because Athens put freedom ahead of pride. As a Canadian I put freedom ahead of the pride of Canadians and say that if our great neighbour the U.S.A. has the armed

strength to deter nuclear war and the conventional strength to fight a conventional war, then I am going to be morally strong enough to stand beside them and for a short time share sovereignty with them. I am not afraid to share sovereignty with people who have never waged an aggressive war. Slow as they were to come into two wars which they did not start, they helped us in a magnificent fashion to finish them. I am not one who is afraid that even in a nuclear war or in a conventional war the slave nation which is Russia can whip the nation which is with us in our struggle to remain free.
To get down to hardware, may I say this. I have always stood for Canada being strong at home and generous abroad. She cannot be strong at home without the hardware. However, there is a limit to the price we can pay for the hardware. Those who argue about the value of the CF-105 and the CF-104 might well consider that when you are buying a child a rattle, if the rattle is made of diamonds and gold it cannot be afforded by a middle sized nation like us. I think the 104 aircraft is equal to if not superior in many ways to the 105. I have taken the trouble to go and see it. Our airmen have tested it. The airmen are glad to have it and I am proud to have some small part in providing them with this magnificent weapon. This weapon will also be built in Canada. It will be built by Canadair in Montreal. I would urge hon. members to go down there and see it being made. It is a magnificent weapon.
To those hon. members who say that this government has no defence policy, I say they are not abreast of the times. This government has and has always had a defence policy. That policy is to provide our people morally and physically with the weapons with which to defend freedom. However, we must do it within our economic structure. We are also going to build training planes in Canada. This is going to help our economy. It is going to balance our economy and add payroll to our working force. It is a proper and well thought out policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I know where I stand, I know where my government stands, and I know where the great majority of the people of Canada stand.
I welcome what has been done as far as the government has gone. I can only hope that we expand our idea of national service and tell the young people of Canada and the old people also what it means to be a Canadian and that the price of freedom cannot come too high.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had since I have come to this house to enter a debate on Canada's
Supply-National Defence national defence policy. I value this opportunity although, as do most other modest members, I shrink from it as I come to the responsibility of criticizing the defence policy of the government with little in the way of formal preparation. I make no apology, however, for the fact that my service during the last war was in a women's service and that it was only as an enlisted woman. Perhaps it may seem peculiar to those who sit in this chamber and who had high rank to know that a sergeant also thinks about what may happen in the future of her country. But I make no apology, Mr. Chairman, because, as have most people in Canada, I have been spending the past several years in particular with an increasing awareness of the discussions in the popular press of what was happening through the Department of National Defence in an effort to maintain a defence of Canada. May I say that in the past four years it has been a record indeed worth watching. I think it has indicated, as did the announcement this morning by the Minister of National Defence who has been unkindly called the minister of national pretence, the almost pathological penchant of this government for guessing wrong. We have seen what happened less than a year ago where a spokesman of the Department of Labour and indeed the Prime Minister announced to the country that unemployment was not a problem because it would go with the snow. Through 1961 we watched a deepening recession. We watched the growing number of unemployed. We found that finally the government came to acknowledge that there was in fact an unemployment problem in Canada and feeble efforts were then made to right the situation.
Perhaps even more important was something heard by hon. members who were in this chamber a year ago, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget. The minister said it would be a tremendous gamble for Canada to be involved in any program of devaluing the dollar. Then we saw him completely swallow his tail a few months ago and come out with a program for the devaluation of the dollar.


Mr. Hicks:: A successful one too.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That remains to be seen. In defence as well we had the Prime Minister on February 20, 1959, announcing to this house, as reported at page 1221 of Hansard, that because the experts-nameless then, as now-had indicated that the day of the modern, long range bomber was over, the proudest achievement which Canada had ever made, the production of the Avro Arrow, was to cease at once and would be no more.
The government then launched upon probably its most ineffective policy, the defence

Supply-National Defence of Canada through two Bomarc installations. It was incredible to me then, as it is now, being out in the country, to read in the press of this murder most foul. This involved not only the destruction of the jobs of the people then employed at that plant, the almost desolating of the area and the loss to Canada of a magnificently trained team, but also the destruction of a weapon into which a great deal of money had gone and which at that time appeared superior to anything elsewhere in the world.
Perhaps even more incredible was the cutting of the body into small pieces and the burying of it deep. But in this as in other matters, as William Shakespeare once said, "Murder will out". The Arrow will come back to fly again and to show the people of Canada that what this government has done again has been to take the wrong path. I do not suggest that this particular aircraft can be resurrected. The plant and the personnel are gone. The government in this one particular, at least, did a complete job.
That was an aircraft which meant more than just a piece of hardware not only to the pilots who might be flying it but to the people of Canada. It was an aircraft which was specifically designed for the needs of our forces. This was a crown corporation set up to create a piece of weaponry to the specifications of the department. It was an allweather aircraft. It had a speed which, with the completed engine, would have been 1,500 miles an hour. It was able to climb and to operate at 75,000 feet.


Egan Chambers: How long could it stay in the air?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not as long as the parliamentary secretary will.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was a weapon which would have made Canada at this particular date more capable of defending herself than she is today. The Globe and Mail, which is not always a supporter of this government, published an editorial on February 21, 1959 called "The Beginning-and the End". The editorial was with reference to the demise of the Arrow program and the writer said what everyone in Canada then said:
We are in no position to judge the exact merits or life of the Arrow; on that subject, there is a welter of conflicting opinions. But this Canadian-developed airplane is not the important thing- it might as well have been a Canadian-developed locomotive or automobile. The important thing, the only important thing, is the future of the engineering, technical and research establishment that brought the Arrow into being.
That, of course, was dissipated by this government. It was dissipated to the United

States, whence we now must draw our weapons. In any event, at that time all hon. members of parliament and many people in the country were stunned at the government's decision to do away with this program. No one knew exactly what information the government was acting upon, whether it had some particular information which led it to believe that missiles and missiles alone were to be used in any possible assault upon Canada. Thus, the country stunned, waited to see what this government would produce in the way of defence.
I think one of the most important things was that those weapons, the Avro Arrow, were produced in Canada by Canadian workmen who received wages and paid taxes to this country. Since that time it has been necessary for us to rely upon weapons which are produced in other countries, which do not produce the same taxes but which must be paid for out of Canadian taxes.
The Arrow was made to order for the geographical facts and the climatic conditions of northern Canada. It was the only one prepared with those specifications. When the government decided it would be no more, it launched itself upon a program in which our defence reduced itself to two Bomarc installations. These of course were part of a chain of Bomarc installations. I think there is probably no one in Canada who is at this moment a resident of an area closer than I am to a Bomarc installation which is already armed with nuclear warheads. In Niagara Falls, New York, which is a few miles from my home across the river from my constituency, a weapon is ready. There are, in addition, Nike Zeus installations which are armed with nuclear warheads.
The Bomarc was wanted by this minister's predecessor and by government spokesmen, to be a sort of Maginot line. First it was wanted as a protection of Canada and second as a protection for the nuclear deterrent in the United States. Such pretence has already been exploded. It defends nothing. Its range is so limited, and its speed is-


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Its
range is longer than that of the Arrow.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That, of course, is not correct. The flying range of the Arrow was some 2,500 miles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Ferguson Browne: You
had better read it again.


An hon. Member:: Smarten up.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have to refer to the Vancouver Sun of June 14, 1961, which reads as follows:


An hon. Member:: That is not very accurate.


An hon. Member:: Don't believe all you read.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This article in the Vancouver Sun contains the following:
The Arrow was expensive. It was also a lot of airplane. It flew 1,400 miles an hour. It had an operational ceiling of 75,000 feet. It could break the sound barrier while climbing. Its range was officially stated to be considerably more than 2,500 miles.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Three hundred.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: From this I take my information. In any event, what we have now is the Bomarc with a 200 mile range, and the Bomarc-


John Ferguson Browne: Four hundred.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Yes, 400.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry. I must accept it has a 400 mile range. I take this again from the Globe and Mail of May 4, 1961. This editorial is entitled "Ban the A-Bomarc". The editorial continues:
The Bomarc has been the object of expert controversy, and even the claims made for it are poor enough to raise serious doubts. It has a 400-mile radius of action, which makes nonsense of the story that the two Bomarc bases at North Bay and Mount Laurier are essential to Canadian defence. Those bases belong to a chain of 10 launching sites designed for the protection of U.S. cities. Even supposing the Bomarc did intercept an enemy bomber (and its published score so far-
And this was in May of this year:
-is nine failures out of 22 trial interceptions) the resultant explosion would be so close to Canada's major population centres as to endanger-by radiation fall-out if nothing worse-the greater part of our population. In fact, the Bomarc is incapable of intercepting the only major weapon of intercontinental attack today, the ballistic missile.
And yet, that was the purpose for which the government introduced the Bomarc as Canada's defence. It appeared that this would be the weapon of defence which the government was to provide for Canada. The Russians have warned that the day of the manned bomber was not over. According to an article in the Montreal Star of July 28, 1961 the Russians have produced a bomber called the Bounder which is said to be capable of speeds as high as 1,600 miles an hour or more than twice the speed of sound. The Bounder was revealed at the Moscow air show. The government and its advisers then for the first time appeared to be aware that there was in fact a manned bomber threat and that what they had counted upon as providing defence for Canada would be insufficient. They then had to make the about face to which I referred earlier.
I was amused to note a number of editorial comments about whether the government had
Supply-National Defence been improperly advised in the first instance. I wish to draw to the attention of the committee a comment made by Livingston Merchant, United States ambassador, at the time the latest aircraft was introduced in Canada. I think this comment is most apt.
I	refer to an article in the Ottawa Journal of July 25, 1961 under the signature of Gordon Dewar. The ambassador, speaking for those who felt the manned fighter was out of date:
-recalled "Hobbes' observation that hell Is truth seen too late".
I suggest that this is the position in which the government finds itself today. After months of delay the government entered into negotiations with the United States and has now accepted for use by our air force the Voodoo aircraft. This has been compared with the Arrow, obviously. It appears to fall short of it in performance. It is, of course, a design that is ten years old. It is an aircraft that is no longer being produced in the United States. We will be accepting this aircraft from some Californian bases. It is unlikely that it will last even as long as the aircraft which it is now replacing. Its fastest recorded speed is 1,200 miles an hour, although as I pointed out the Bounder is alleged to have a speed of 1,600 miles an hour. Its ceiling is, I think, 52,000; its range, 2,800 miles. I wonder if the government will try to justify the Voodoo on the basis that it is inexpensive, since it cannot in any way be a weapon which will defend Canada. We have the word of the Prime Minister and of the former minister of national defence to the effect that the manned bomber is no longer a threat, although the present minister has today changed his mind on this subject.
Are these to be the only weapons upon which we rely? Will we rely upon them together with the Bomarc? We have now received or are to receive in Canada four weapons including the Bomarc-there are two installations shortly to be armed with something-the Starfighter which is to be delivered to our NATO troops, the Honest John and the Voodoo.
Numerous statements have been made by the present Minister of National Defence and by the Prime Minister with respect to at least one of these weapons to the effect that they will not fulfil their capabilities without nuclear warheads.
Throughout this country there has been raging for many months, and indeed since the death of the Arrow, a controversy about whether or not Canada will become a nuclear power. We have waited now some ten or
II	months in this session of parliament to ascertain what is the government's intention. It depends upon whose statements you read

Supply-National Defence and at what time they were made, whether you listen to the Minister of National Defence, whether you listen to the Prime Minister- and on what occasion-or whether you listen to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On one hand we see pressure for disarmament. On the other hand we see pressure to enter the nuclear club. As yet, there is no decision. I ask, Mr. Chairman, how any intelligent decision can be made as to how this country can be armed and defended unless the government will make up its mind and will make clear its policy concerning what it intends to use to defend us. Is the Bomarc, an expensive installation, to be used with nonnuclear warheads? Is the Honest John to be used with non-nuclear warheads? Is the Voodoo to be equipped with the Genie or is the Voodoo to be equipped with non-nuclear warheads? This, of course, is at the crux of the question of the defence policy or lack of defence policy of this government. The whole country has been awaiting the defence debate in order to ascertain what the policy of the government will be.
The policy of my party has been clear for some time, with respect to the acceptance of nuclear weapons here. It has been repeated again and again. We do not accept at this time nuclear weapons on our soil. We have nothing to gain from accepting such weapons. Although it is not impossible that there may be in the future, there is not at the moment any weapon which will defend against missiles. There is the Nike Zeus which has a limited range and certain defects because it cannot ascertain whether it is heading for a missile or some of the debris that falls away from the missile.
There is at this time no weapon which Canada can acquire which will necessarily constitute a defence against missiles. It appears that we are now turning back to acquiring a type of fighter which is supposed to be a defence against manned bombers and yet, in fact, even from the latest information available in the press it appears that the weapon we are to adopt, if not already obsolete, will shortly become obsolete. Are we to be left without defence while this government casts about from one side to another and again waits until it is driven into a corner before making up its mind?
This country requires a policy of defence. We have for this purpose a minister of defence and an associate minister. I charge, Mr. Chairman, that unless they have a clear answer to the question of whether or not we will use nuclear weapons this country will not be convinced that we have in fact any policy of defence for Canada. I would hope that before the debate concludes the

minister will find it possible to decide that he will not accept nuclear weapons, that that being the case he will then review the decision as to what weapons Canada intends to use and will perhaps discard some of them. After all, this government has destroyed the Arrow despite the money put into it. The government has already shown itself capable of making a complete about face in the space of a few years. This perhaps is the most important thing the government could ever do, to make a right about face in the minister's apparently deliberate approach to the use of nuclear weapons.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, after the other hon. members who wish to participate in this debate have made their contribution I intend to cover the various points that have been made. However, I do not think I should let any time pass at all in clearing up the complete inaccuracies and misapprehensions which we have just been subjected to, particularly in connection with the Arrow, the F-101 and the Bomarc. To begin with, the opinion so-called which the hon. lady has given to the committee is based chiefly on editorials in Liberal papers-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Globe and Mail.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and are completely inaccurate editorials; in most cases written also chiefly for political purposes. I saw one of those editorials in the Toronto Star not very long ago, in which they stated inaccurately that the F-101, which we have just secured had about half the performance that the Avro Arrow would have had. There are various statements along this line, which are completely false.
In connection with the Avro Arrow, I should like to say first of all that there is no question at all that the decision to go ahead with building the Avro Arrow was the greatest single mistake ever made by any government in Canada in connection with defence equipment matters or in connection with defence production.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister permit a question at this point? It is entirely up to him. Having said that, will the minister agree that it was the single greatest mistake ever perpetrated by a Canadian government to carry on the project for two years after the government changed in 1957?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I would not. I will deal with that particular point.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is when the change in technology came about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know the hon. gentleman knows that he is on a very sticky wicket in

connection with the Arrow, and when anybody attempts to make any statement on it he always interrupts. However, the actual situation with respect to the Arrow is this. The previous government took the decision to produce the Arrow without having any idea what the cost was going to be and without having any idea whether any other nation would buy any of those Avro aircraft. In spite of that fact they went ahead; they spent a large amount of money, running into hundreds of millions, in starting production of this aircraft, and when we came into power we found that this program was there. A lot of money had been spent on it, and we made the greatest possible efforts to try and interest other countries in buying this airplane.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You did not, you wrote a few letters. You never put it in production so it would have a chance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hon. gentlemen across the way are so sensitive on this Arrow point that they will not even allow anyone to try to explain the situation. As I say we tried, and tried very hard. I must say the company tried hard also to sell this aircraft to other countries. We were unsuccessful; they were unsuccessful, and eventually we got from them very definite estimates of what the cost was going to be for this airplane. What was the cost going to be, Mr. Chairman? Here it is. This is to be found in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the defence expenditures committee for 1958 and 1959 at pages 89 and 90. The total cost, as given to the committee at that time, was going to be $2,289 million for 169 aircraft, plus 37 pre-production models, some of which may have been serviceable and could have been used. But the actual number of aircraft that were to come off the line were 169 at $2,289 million. This meant that those aircraft were going to cost per copy the sum of $12.5 million each. This was just completely out of line; it was completely out of reason. If we had proceeded with that program it would have meant that we would have had to devote most of the defence budget, as it was at that time and as it has been since, to pay for those aircraft for some two or three years. In other words, it was just completely out of reason from a financial point of view for Canada to go ahead with the Arrow program. As a result, we took the only course we could take and cancelled that contract.
As I say, it was the worst single mistake any government ever made as far as defence equipment matters are concerned and as far as placing a defence order is concerned.
The hon. lady made a lot of comparisons, on the basis of those newspaper editorials, between the F-101B, which we have just secured,
Supply-National Defence and the Arrow. The actual fact is that the performance of those two aircraft is very comparable indeed. Furthermore, rather than being an indeed. Furthermore, rather than being an old, obsolete aircraft, which is the impression hon. members opposite are trying to convey and have been trying to convey for some time past for purely political reasons, this aircraft is the best two-seater, two-engine interceptor aircraft in operation on this continent at the present time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Is it still being produced? Will the minister answer the question? Is it not true that this aircraft is now out of production in the United States?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is true that they have come to the end of the production line and they have produced all of those aircraft that they are going to produce at the present time. This does not make it an obsolete aircraft. As I say, it is the best two-seater, two-engine interceptor aircraft which the United States or any other of the western nations has in operation for intercontinental defence-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: An American hand-me-down.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. lady says "An American hand-me-down." If she wants to call the best aircraft of its kind in existence and flying an American hand-me-down that is perfectly all right with me. But she has demonstrated in the speech she made that she does not know what the situation is in regard to this aircraft. She does not know what the situation is in regard to the Arrow and she does not know what the situation is in regard to the Bomarc and the other things she has been mentioning.
As I understood her, I think she made the statement that we were getting the Bomarc in order to have a defence against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nobody ever said that at any time. That is a statement which is completely inaccurate. This statement has been mentioned by one or two other people here today. It has been said here that the Bomarc will not shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles, and to try to bring that statement into a debate on defence is merely an attempt to confuse the issue. There is no relationship between the Bomarc and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The two Bomarc squadrons which we are putting and will put into operation in Canada are, as has been stated, part of a chain of ten which protect all of the eastern part of this continent from bomber attack. They were designed against bomber attack. This is their purpose. All of the people who are expert on

Supply-National Defence this have looked into the thing carefully and are convinced that this chain is a very effective defence against manned bombers; and the manned bomber is still the chief threat as far as attack on this continent is concerned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not intend to reply in detail or at length to this intervention which the minister has just made. However, there are two or three points which must be repudiated immediately. First of all, the former administration did have estimates of the cost of the aircraft before it was put into preproduction. Like most other developmental projects, the cost increased as production went along. This is quite natural. The minister will find this when he comes to pay the bills for some of the things he has been talking about in the last few days. They will exceed by several times the estimates that he has given this house.
Now, the thing that I object to most is the fact that the government has tried to mislead both the house and the country on any information it has ever put out in respect of the Avro Arrow.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has taken advantage of the fact that the hon. member for Niagara Falls was misled by a misprint in a newspaper editorial. But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that after the government had poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this project for two years through 1957 until the end of 1958 and finally decided peremptorily to cancel it without putting anything in its place, resulting in 25,000 or 30,000 men being thrown out on the street, the information on the range of the Avro Arrow which was made public for political purposes by the government was 100 per cent wrong. It was subsequently corrected by the Minister of National Defence himself before the special select committee on defence expenditures, where he revised the range estimates 50 per cent from what they had been previously.
Neither the house nor the country can have any reliance on the figures given by the government in circumstances like these. Not only that, but every man who has ever had anything to do with the development of aircraft knows that pre-production models can have their range increased very substantially as the later marks come along. The Voodoo itself in its earlier models only had half the range it now has in the model which will be used by the Royal Canadian Air Force. The minister knows that and his officials know it, but he is trying to mislead the house and the country by distorting the picture.
Tonight he did the same thing. He got up in the committee and deliberately said that

if 200 models of the Avro Arrow had been produced the cost would have been $12 point something million per copy. He knows as well as I do that this is on the basis of the original Canadian designed fire control system. He also knows that that fire control system had been cancelled and the Hughes fire control system substituted for it months before cancellation. He also knows that the substitution of the Hughes fire control system made a difference in the ultimate cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, or millions of dollars per copy. Yet tonight he has the audacity to get up in the committee and once again try to mislead the house and the country in respect of the record with regard to the Avro Arrow. I think this should be deplored, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister will not try to do it again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to say just a word or two. There has been no attempt on my part to mislead the committee and there never has been that I am aware of. I did not go into all of the various complications of the Arrow. I simply said that we found that the Arrow would have cost this amount of money as it had been planned and projected and was being produced under the plans of the previous government. We did get the company to change the fire control system and so forth and they eventually came up with a price of $7,800,000 a copy. It was still an enormous price-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is only a difference of $5 million a copy from what you said ten minutes ago.


Henry Frank Jones: You said your Arrow had been cancelled, and your Arrow was to cost $12 million a copy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and the cost would still
have been astronomical and completely unrealistic. The hon. member is very sensitive on this matter of the Arrow because he knows that the previous government made a terrible error in ever starting it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nothing comparable to you.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the remarks of the hon. member for Niagara Falls have been very well answered by the minister but there was one suggestion in her speech with which I should like to deal very briefly. She said that the industrial and technical capacity of the Malton area had been very much reduced by the cancellation of the Arrow. I do not think that the facts or statistics will bear this out. One only has to drive along highway 400 or 401 or through the Malton area to see the great number of new factories involving

highly technical operations that have been built there since the Arrow was cancelled. I think statistics will prove that the industrial and technical capacity of that area have increased greatly from the time the Arrow was being built.
I should like to deal very briefly with two matters concerning national defence. We are living under a very imminent threat of war. If war does come we can be sure that it will not result from any provocative act of any Canadian government nor will it be because of lack of effort on the part of any responsible Canadian to prevent war. Some might argue with a certain amount of logic that if the Russian tests of atomic bombs in the atmosphere continue we are already under attack because of the unmeasured and unknown damage that may be done to future generations by atomic fall-out. If war comes it will not be by accident but by a deliberate act and Canada, if for no other reason than her geographical position, will be involved. Therefore if we have any true faith in democratic principles and if we are a Christian country as we claim to be, we must take all steps necessary to survive. We will do this, not through piecemeal surrender of principles but by our determination to hold on to those things that in our way of life have real value.
For these reasons we cannot overemphasize the need and importance of every Canadian supporting to the fullest the civil defence program, the survival programs of the militia and the emergency measures organization. If these efforts are not worth our physical and material support, then perhaps we should surrender in craven fear to alien philosophies. This is not the course for me and I do not think it is the course for most Canadians.
I should like to turn to another matter of less immediate urgency but of great importance. All Canadians today are worrying about the education and training of our youth for the rigorous times in which they will live their adult lives. We are preoccupied with the lack of schools, teachers and training facilities. We question whether or not we can provide them in the meantime to preserve our way of life. Certain experiences I had this summer have made me think there is in the Department of National Defence a competent and largely unused teaching capacity. This summer I saw three groups of cadets, air cadets, officer training cadets at Camp Borden and militia cadets at Barrie. No one who saw these young men would deny that they are better prepared and adjusted for adult life as a
Supply-National Defence result of their training; nor could anyone honestly say that they had been made militaristic by this training.
As a country lawyer I come into contact in my practice with many young people who have not made a successful adjustment to adult life. As I watched these fine young cadets I could not help but regret that cadet training was not available to far more young Canadians. I hope that the minister and his department will make every effort to extend this excellent youth training to many more thousands of our young people.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention to speak at any length in this debate, but I want to express a few ideas with regard to some comments we have heard during this discussion.
Everyone, including the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has voiced his ideas on the war threat.
For my part, I believe that in some cases, everyone of those hon. gentleman has exaggerated the danger of war better to justify some steps they are about to take in the field of employment or with regard to increasing our armed forces.
I do not expect a war, but this is my very humble opinion. I do not expect war, in the ordinary sense of the term.
Those who are closely following the speeches and actions of the Soviet leader know that he is mainly interested in two kinds of warfare-first of all economic and then psychological warfare; he is out to fight ideas, and more particularly the ideas of those who do not share his way of life and his way of thinking.
The free world should, none the less, prepare its defence. But it should not go beyond preparedness with regard to defence, because it could then be accused of wanting to be an eventual aggressor. We must indeed build up our defence, keeping in mind the old Latin proverb:
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I think we should not play into the hand of the Soviets who would have the free world and all nations in the world stand idly by and live in peaceful coexistence with the communist world.
Without trying to teach anyone a lesson,
I think we Canadians and the free world in general must not forget that a primary duty of any human being is to avoid doing unto others what we do not want to be done unto us.

Supply-National Defence
If all would obey this rule, there would be no war and NATO would no longer be necessary, any more than NORAD or the United Nations.
We would be united in brotherly understanding, which in itself would ensure peace.
But such is not the case, unfortunately. We all suffer from our downfall and every nation has its ambitions of material as well as spiritual conquest. This is why the free world must not stand idle in the face of the threats levelled against it at this time.
I am inclined to share the views of some hon. members who would want us to withdraw from NORAD. Not so long ago, those same hon. members changed their views a little, since a certain convention; they would even have wanted us to withdraw from NATO. This is an association of free countries which has prevented Soviet leaders from making territorial gains in central Europe, in eastern Europe and in Europe generally, since its foundation in 1949.
I do not recall exactly the number of bilateral agreements the communist world has entered into with several countries since the end of the war; and yet Russia had long given us the assurance of its peaceful intentions.
The free world must wake up at all costs, not only by preparing its defence, but by not remaining idle in the battle undertaken for the conquest of minds by the Soviet world- here I mean its leaders, because there are many millions of Russians who are bowed down under the yoke-and we must not stand idle, I say, in the face of this dreadful threat hovering over our heads.
While we answer through speeches and press releases the leaders of the Soviet state or of a few other satellite countries, the Russian world-I mean its leaders-take action and we retreat. They do things like this for instance: they establish the international friendship university in Moscow which opened last fall. That university will receive the most brilliant students from the continents of Asia and Africa and from Latin American countries. Their travelling expenses will be paid by the Soviet union. Those people will spend four, five or six years at the international friendship university where they will not only receive an academic or technical training but will also be educated in the line of thought of the Soviet leaders and the communist philosophy.
While we are talking, they are building vocational schools, like they did two years ago in Addis Ababa, they are also building hospitals, as they have done as well in Africa, still in Addis Ababa, to give only another ex-

ample. Africans admitted into these institutions are charged ridiculously low fees or nothing at all, and their minds are infiltrated with the way of thinking of those teachers of atheism and of materialism.
In order also to distract the free world's attention from the actions of the Soviet leaders, the forum of the United Nations is used as well as all the international organizations, where attacks are directed against the free world, with the result that we are constantly on the defensive. For instance, when the Russian world or more specifically Mr. Khrushchev, speaks about the colonialism of capitalistic countries, why not get up with statistics and names of countries and why not give details to show the entire world that the greatest colonial empire today is the Soviet empire, where millions of human beings are subjected to the tyranny of those bosses who are constantly abusing the words "people" and "democracy". It might also be wise to try to get this information through into the Soviet countries and their satellites.
When we see all this, we are inclined to ask ourselves a question. We wonder if today, in 1961, men with warped minds are not attacking the conduct of honest people only to make them waste their time and make them assume the onus of proving that they are not guilty.
This reminds me of something I have read saying that the sons of darkness are much more crafty than the sons of light. My hon. colleague from Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh), a few minutes ago, asked the Minister of National Defence to tell the country and the house what policy the Canadian government has adopted concerning nuclear weapons.
During a C.B.C. interview, the Minister of National Defence stated-and I want him to correct me if I am misquoting him-that nuclear weapons were necessary. That is not quite what he has told us nor what was stated by the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since the business of the house was resumed.
The radio commentator questioning the minister said: "When do you think we shall have nuclear weapons on Canadian soil?" The Minister of National Defence for Canada answered that he had nothing else to add.
I feel that the man who, with his colleagues, is responsible for determining our stand on that most important issue, which has a tremendously deep influence on world peace, should at least be in a position to advise the house as to the steps the Canadian government intends to take in connection with nuclear weapons.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Hear, hear. And before the end of the session too.


Augustin Brassard: Above all before
the next general election.
Mr. Chairman,' I should like for a moment to come back on certain ideas expressed on NATO by some of my colleagues who sit at my extreme right. I have not heard in this house many comments unfavourable to NATO, particularly since a certain convention. We heard quite a bit though, before the great convention held at the end of July.
Ideas have changed since then, but it seemed, at the time at least, that there was a tendency to promote the idea that Canada should withdraw from NATO. Now, everyone knows that this international organization has been set up thanks to the intelligence and creative imagination of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), who was then secretary of state for external affairs of the former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and thanks also to the very close co-operation of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who, at that time, was following Canada's foreign policy closely.
I feel it is belittling our country's role in the field of peace to promote the idea that we should now withdraw from an organization whose development we have facilitated, and which has proven, since 1949, that it was not only necessary but essential to peace in Europe and throughout the world in general.
We also have an obligation of solidarity towards our allies, whether they be in Europe or in America. We cannot ignore our southern neighbours, nor can we ignore our friends in Africa, in Asia or in Europe.
We have responsibilities towards them and in carrying out those responsibilities we look after ourselves at the same time.
The idea that we should remain neutral makes me smile. I do not believe in neutrality any more than I believe that any man can belong to no church at all. In 1961, I believe in people who commit themselves, who fight for an ideal and for their ideas; I believe in those who fight for peace and for the welfare of humanity. We are just as responsible for our friends in Asia and Africa as for our fellow citizens. In fact, what good would it be to live in a country whose economy is flourishing, if at any one time events occurring on another continent could jeopardize our security?
90205-6-522
In my opinion, we have a serious moral obligation towards all our compatriots, and today our compatriots are not only the people of Canada but every citizen of the world. I hope the government understands that and that they will act accordingly.
Let us take at least one example concerning the Russians and when I speak of the Russians, I mean their leaders especially. We do not share the same faith nor the same ideals but one of the great differences between the Soviet leaders and those of the free world is that the former live according to their beliefs and, in saying that, I fully realize that I, for one, am far from being true to my ideals. I am of the opinion that before calling for a change in the world, before saying that everybody wants peace, we should first seek peace ourselves and act in such a way that we are living testimonies of peace.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the committee, but if the Minister of National Defence speaks again a little later, I would ask him to give us some information about the very vague statement he made in a televised interview, and like hon. members who spoke before me, I wish that my fellow Canadians and all the people of the free world advise those who want war, whether it be ideological or economic war, those who wish to enlarge their possessions, briefly, those who do not want the welfare of their neighbour, to think twice before going into action. I wish that we, Canadians, should set the example and give proof by our action that we really want peace.
(Text):


Mr. MacLellan:: I should like to preface my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by offering my congratulations to the Minister of National Defence who, as he himself has said, is presenting his estimates to the house for the first time today. I should like to congratulate him upon the record he has shown in the very short time during which he has been Minister of National Defence. He has done a great deal to try to clear up a good many of the misapprehensions that exist in the country about problems respecting the defence of the nation and of the free world generally. In my view it is extremely important that this has been done. Perhaps in some way this debate will further help to clear the air in this regard.
I myself have found that there is more confusion in the minds of many Canadians concerning the matter of national defence than
8274	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence about any other single item of national import. One of the most obvious confusions I find is one that I have seen exemplified here during this debate, namely the confusion of the three fronts upon which the communist world advances upon us. As I see it, the communists challenge us on three separate sectors. First of all, as has been mentioned by many who have spoken, there is the ideological war in which they try to shape men's minds to accept the proposition that the communist form of government and the communist system of world order, in which all the nations would be brought under one dictatorship would provide the best future for the world. Second, there is the economic front. Many of those who have spoken here today have said that they think the most important fronts the communists have opened have been the ideological and economic ones. I feel that just as important as, or perhaps more important than either one of those attacks, and just as important as or more important than the hammer and sickle, the symbol of the communist ideology, is the red star, the symbol of the Russian army.
If we look at the record of accomplishments of the Russians in advancing in the world since 1945 we see they have accomplished much more by force of arms than by economic war or ideology. In 1945, when the rest of Russia's allies had disbanded their armies in the hope that freedom was safe for many centuries after the Nazis were defeated, the Russian army kept at full war strength. Despite their undertakings at Yalta in February, 1945, to allow the people in the countries over which their armies had run to have free elections, they forced upon a hundred million people in eastern Europe the slavery of communism.
I think it is very important to note that this was not done with ideology; it was done with the Russian army. Their stand there has been maintained not with ideology but under the red star of the Russian war machine. Communism is dangerous because it attacks men's minds. It is just as dangerous, or perhaps more directly dangerous, as the vehicle upon which Russian imperialism marches, supported always, everywhere in the world, by force of arms.
After 1945 the Russians kept 200 divisions under arms and with these divisions they gobbled up Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Albania and Finland. Since that time, as I have said, their most important successes have been with armies. They occupied North Korea while at the same time the southern

part of Korea was occupied by the armies of our allies. An agreement was reached that Korea would be vacated as soon as the country seemed able to look after itself. The Russians took advantage of their time there to build up a communist army in North Korea, and when South Korea was vacated by the forces of freedom they engineered an attack upon that country. In the Berlin blockade of 1948 they sought to force their way upon the people of that city with armies, not with ideology. Their present threat to free Berlin is a simple threat of force.
While we must always be ready to defend democracy and to push forward our ideals and spiritual beliefs in the world, on the ideological and economic fronts, I think it is a great mistake, and one under which many people labour, that we can with ideological and economical warfare alone meet the Russian threat.
Until NATO was formed in 1949 we had no chance in Europe. I am sure that if NATO had not been formed at that time and developed since then into the very powerful force it is today, all Europe would be under the Russian heel.
I talked very recently to a senior diplomat from a European country which has had some experience with the communist army. He told me that from his 30 years in diplomacy and from his observations of wars and rivalries between countries he was convinced that if we had not the armed strength we now have the Russians would have no hesitation in attacking us. He said the Russians would knock this nation and any other free nation flat to accomplish their aims if they were not afraid to do so.
I think it is from that point of view that we must face any question of national defence of Canada and the part we play with our allies to marshal the NATO nations and the other unconquered nations of the world against this Soviet threat. When NATO was taken over by General Eisenhower as Supreme Allied European Commander in 1950 it was very weak indeed. All that was left of allied forces in Europe were some 12 divisions, mostly administrative and occupation forces, some 400 aircraft, 400 ships and a few airfields. Yet, as I have said, the Russian army was at full strength. Since then, by acting together in NATO and by realizing that only by standing together can we stand at all, we have built up an army in Europe that is considered quite capable of stopping any advance by the Russian army with conventional arms in Europe.
It is true that it is not of the strength of the Russian conventional force, but when it is considered that many more times the force or power will be needed to attack than to

defend, it is felt by most people informed in military affairs that the NATO force in Europe would be successful in stopping a Russian advance.
However, the NATO shield has to be further built up. It will cost us money to do so, but I am one of those who feel that we must spend to develop our conventional forces as well as to assist where we can in the nuclear deterrent, if our nation is not to be seared by atomic war. No one can tell me that in weakness there is hope of avoiding war. That was the mistake of 1914 and of 1939.
I feel that the chief hope for safety in our country, and in the other nations of the free world with whom we are allied, is the great nuclear deterrent force we have at the present time. I feel it is incumbent upon us as members of NATO and in partnership with the United States of America to maintain that striking force where we can and to do everything possible to see we are not at the mercy of Russian military nuclear might by default.
Many people ask me why Canada does not develop its own deterrent force and why it must rely upon nations like the United States. Or perhaps they have read books like Mr. Minifie's "Peacemaker or Powder Monkey" and have been led to subscribe to the thought that we would be better off to go it alone as a neutralist in the world. We might thereby pick up leadership and prestige which otherwise we would not have. It seems to me if, as Mr. Minifie and other people suggest, we spend our money to assist other nations to fight only the ideological and economic war, we would leave ourselves open very soon to the devasting attack of the Russian military force. It is recognized by all hon. members in this house that we Canadians cannot afford to contribute to or to maintain any sort of deterrent force. I suppose if we could and if we had the capacity to do that as has the United States of America, it would be our moral obligation to try to equip and maintain a deterrent force of our own since only behind such a force is there protection for the free world.
We cannot afford to do that. We have been told today by the Minister of National Defence that it would have cost over $2 billion to put the Avro Arrow aircraft into squadron production, and when we hear of the prices paid by the United States to develop missiles and so on, it is obvious that we cannot afford to be in the big race; we cannot maintain direct deterrent forces. We can, however, do something to help protect that deterrent so it is available for retaliation in case it is needed. We can do something to make sure the deterrent force is there to discourage an 90205-6-522J
Supply-National Defence enemy from daring to launch the weapons of atomic war upon the free world.
With our radar system in this country we are now assisting in the warning of a missile or bomber attack. We can with interceptors and with the Bomarc missile help stop an attack on this nation or this continent. The argument has been put forward that the Bomarc and interceptors are not the final answer to an attack by Russia, and therefore we should make no attempt at all to meet the threat from that quarter. It has been said that the manned bomber is disappearing, and indeed I believe it is, and therefore we are wasting money if we cannot stop both missiles and bombers with weapons of the nature of the Bomarc or present day interceptors. It seems to me that the Hawker Hurricane and the Spitfire were not the final answer either to the defence of England in 1940, but they helped. The Bomarc anti-bomber missile and the interceptor will help defend us and the day may come when we will require all the defensive fire power we can find. It also seems to me that if we did not try to defend against the manned bomber we would be inviting an enemy to attack us with a very much cheaper and more readily available weapon than the intercontinental ballistic missile.
I should like to read an excerpt from a speech made by Dr. J. E. Keyston, vicechairman, defence research board, which I think very neatly sets forth Canada's position with regard to the Bomarc and interceptor defence against the manned bomber. Dr. Keyston said:
Let me now turn from broad defence policy considerations to a specific point of controversy that springs up when any reference is made to our defences against bomber aircraft.
It seems that everyone knows we are rushing rapidly into the missile age, and that in the next decade Russia is more likely to be producing intercontinental ballistic missiles than long range bombers. So why put any more money into defences against bombers? I am not going to involve myself in all the facets of this question and their answer, but I would make the following observation. If we are to deter Russia from attacking, NATO must provide a deterrent that is balanced. I can think of no better way of encouraging Russia to use missiles as the threat and bombers for the actual surprise attack, than by our deciding she will not use bombers and our allowing NATO's bomber defences to decay.
So long as the military game remains that of frightening Russia as much as she frightens us, the NATO alliance has to keep as up to date as Russia does in capacity for attack and capacity for defence in relation to all modem weapons. This is why, unhopeful as solution may appear, scientific research toward finding a defence against missiles must go on, and why research toward improvement of more conventional defence-and attack-must not be dropped. The Russians are not only very good scientists and engineers but they are outstanding chess players. Many a man, playing against the expert at chess, has kept his eye on his opponent's

Supply-National Defence pieces, only to suffer the humiliation of a checkmate by a miserable pawn that has been pushed through the defence.
It is also in the nature of a deterrent that it must not only be balanced but continuous. At any moment of time, one has to deter attack by the bombers, missiles, or other weapons available to the enemy at that time.
I submit that if the weapon sought by both the free and communist world is an antimissile missile the Bomarc "B" is at least a long step in that direction from the manned interceptor. If the defence of tomorrow is the anti-missile missile it seems reasonable that Canada should attempt to find out as much as she can about missile warfare and about defence against an enemy attack by missiles. Perhaps the great cost of an anti-missile missile may mean it will never be developed. However some day there might well be a defence against nuclear attack by missile and it is more likely to be by anti-missile missile than by any other means. With the Bomarc our forces are being trained in the use of the weapons of today against manned bombers; some more advanced version of the Bomarc may be tomorrow a weapon against missiles that might attack from over the Arctic circle. Moreover if we are to maintain defensive installations in this country to protect our soil, purely defensive weapons that have no purpose but that of defence, I think they should carry all the punch they possibly can. The Bomarc is purely a defensive weapon. It has no offensive purpose whatever. It has a range of from 400 to 500 miles. There is no way it can be used to attack any other nation on our borders except, of course, technically the United States one might say. It cannot be used to launch an attack against the Soviet union. It is solely designed as a defensive weapon to knock down a bomber that might swoop down some night from high over the Arctic circle to attack our cities or the defence bases which house our deterrent force. If that time ever comes the weapons we send up to protect us should pack all the punch, nuclear or otherwise, that is available to us.
If we are equipping the Canadian forces with interceptors that are designed to meet, attack and destroy enemy bombers that are destined to turn our cities into ashes or to burn our countryside with nuclear blast, the aircraft should be armed with the most force that modern science can devise.
The argument is raised that if nuclear weapons are on our soil even for defensive purposes we must lose some of our sovereignty in having them here, in that they must be under the joint command of our nation and the United States. If the night ever comes when we wish to send a Bomarc missile or a Voodoo interceptor high into the 
sky to defend us, it would be a poor answer to the citizens of Canada to say that we were not properly armed because we feared some loss of sovereignty in so doing.
It is important to realize that for a generation we may be in the present stalemate. As long as there is no defence against nuclear attack it may well be that there will be no major war. Never in the history of humankind has a weapon been used in war, such as that available today, to which there is no defence, when both sides had this weapon. That is the present situation in world affairs. There is no complete defence to a nuclear attack except the threat of instant massive retaliation.
In the years ahead we have to be prepared to meet the challenge that Russia presents in terms of ideology and economic pressure. We must make the greatest sacrifices we can afford to make to counter this. We must do as much as we can to aid the underdeveloped nations in raising their standards of living and assuring them of their share of the world's blessings. We must harness our resources and square our shoulders to the burden of this quarter century. We must face the fact that we are confronted with a direct challenge from an enemy who knows no law and who will pull no punches in an effort to destroy us in his attempt to achieve world domination. While this situation confronts us we must be prepared as a first call upon our resources to defend our nation with modern arms, as modern arms threaten us. We should do more in terms of marshalling the will of the nation to that end. We have so many people who are willing to do what they can to assist nations that are not yet as highly developed as they should be and who are nevertheless highly confused with respect to defence. We must make every effort to make clear to them that the enemy is without, that some day we may need every resource at our command to defend our soil. It must be made clear that while we have no intention of attacking anybody, while we will make every effort to negotiate world problems and find peaceful solutions yet at the same time we are prepared to arm ourselves in kind against the force arrayed against us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I ask my question because I did not hear the news today. Would the hon. member tell us when the news broke that the red army had gobbled up Yugoslavia?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, Yugoslavia was conquered by force of arms and is kept

in a suppressed state not necessarily by Russian arms but by communist arms.


An hon. Member:: He means Czechoslovakia.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have outlined in clear and unequivocal terms the position of the government with respect to defence policy and therefore I do not need to elaborate very much on my own views. However, I feel that the matter is of such importance that the people of this country are entitled to have placed on the record the views of the individual members of the committee.
One thing has become clear in the debate. I refer to the fact that the renewed threat of Soviet aggression has brought about on the question of defence policy a greater degree of unanimity than we have seen heretofore in this chamber. There was on the part of hon. members of the opposition a noticeable absence of statements such as were made by them not long ago to the effect that we should weaken our defence efforts in one way or another.
We have heard some statements of that kind coming, of course, from the C.C.F.-New party group. This is typical. I noticed this afternoon that the hon. member for Peterborough told us that we had nothing to learn from history. I do not know how many times we have to go over that, or how he expects us to learn in any other way than by looking back and seeing what has happened in the past. We do not need to look very far back through the pages of history to realize that if we are to survive in the world today we are going to have to be able to defend ourselves properly.
It has been said in the past that those who ignore the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them. As I say, we do not need to look very far back through the pages of history to see what happens when we are not prepared to defend ourselves.
It has been said that sometimes we blunder into war because we have not had the proper international machinery for negotiations and, second, that we have not had a proper system of collective security. Well, since 1958 we have had both of those to a very great extent and I think the policy we have pursued since that time has been a very successful one. It was going along very successfully until we had spokesmen in various countries thinking it was going along so well that we could afford to weaken it. I am not at all convinced that it was not statements of this kind which have put us back in the position where we are now facing Soviet aggression once more.
Supply-National Defence
It has been pointed out by many speakers in this debate that at the end of the second world war-one could go back further and learn the same lesson over again but we need to go back only that far to discover what happened-the western nations immediately disarmed, as we had done on previous occasions. We soon found out that the Soviet union had taken over the Baltic countries, parts of Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Germany. Then, they went on to bring pressure to bear on Turkey and Iran when they did not want to take their troops out of there. Then, subversion was put on Hungary, Burgaria, Rumania, Poland and Czechoslovakia.
All of this happened when we were not in a position to defend ourselves; we did have international machinery for negotiation at that time. The United Nations had been formed but it became quite clear at that time that the United Nations alone was not able to give us security in the world. This situation obviously has not changed because we need to look back only to the time of Korea to see how useless the United Nations was at that time, or would have been, except for the fact that Russia had walked out and was not there to apply the veto which it did on every other occasion. In that particular instance the United Nations was able to take action, as I say, simply because of the fact that Russia had walked out of the meeting. Therefore, it becomes quite clear that if we are to survive we must have a collective system of security.
As I say, since the formation of NATO we have had that and it has been very successful. Therefore, when we come to discuss Canadian defence policy, in my opinion we can only discuss it in so far as we are a part of that system of collective security. It would be absolutely senseless to try to isolate it and I think far too much of this debate has been taken up in getting down to a very local level and a discussion of particular weapons which I do not think members of parliament are able to assess adequately. Surely, this is a matter for technical experts and for the government to decide, based on the advice given by those people who are in a position to make decisions of this kind.
We had a very good example in the speech made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls who read from newspaper editorials, and we learned how many ridiculous statements were made which were shown to be absolutely and completely unfounded. Statements of this kind which mislead the people of the country are very dangerous because if we are to succeed in our defence policy that policy must be freely understood and supported by all the people of this country.
8278	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has the facts and he misled the people.


John Ferguson Browne: Nonsense. Of course, the defence policy of the west is to maintain peace. This has been pretty generally agreed upon in the house, but I think what we might add to that is that we want to maintain peace on honourable terms. I add this because some of the speeches which have been made in the house would lead us to believe that we should accept peace on any terms. Those countries in Europe which have been swallowed up by the Soviet union have found that you do not need to have a hydrogen bomb dropped on you to lose human freedom and dignity. Therefore, I add these words because if there is any difference of opinion amongst members perhaps it may be in that regard.
I noticed a statement which appeared today in a paper called the Outlook, which was dealing with some of the statements made by members of the New Democratic party, and ones that we heard in this house today. I am going to read this rather short article. It is headed, "How to Surrender" and reads:
"The Commonwealth", the official weekly organ of the C.C.F., published at Regina, Saskatchewan, devoted the main editorial of its issue of July 5 to a plea for "a peace department" of government to replace the department of defence. This proposal was made by the left-wing organization "The Voice of Women" at its first annual meeting held at Toronto in June. "The Commonwealth" recommends that the replacement of the defence department by a department of peace be made a major plank in the program of the New Democratic party.
Perhaps this has been accepted and is a major plank in the program. I take it the member for Peterborough would be speaking for the New Democratic party. The article continues:
If the attitude of the "Voice of Women" were to be adopted by the federal government through a so-called "department of peace" replacing the defence department the result in practice would be to surrender to the communists, whose main concern is world conquest by irresistible military power. That the free world should be disarmed by internal agitation on the lines of "The Voice of Women" policies is a cardinal part of communist policy. When an organ of the C.C.F. comes out for a "peace department" it is in effect advocating surrender to the reds. If such a policy is adopted by the New Democratic party, it will earn and deserve the reputation of being an effective Soviet agency.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Will the hon. member permit a question? Apparently he is prepared to accept Gladstone Murray as an authority on the New Democratic party. If so, will he also accept the New Democratic party's description of Gladstone Murray as being equally authentic?


Mr. Ricard:: There is no relation whatsoever.


John Ferguson Browne: I have reason to have a little more confidence in Gladstone Murray than in anything I have heard coming from that corner.
As I was saying, when we consider where these statements come from they may not appear to be too harmful because this is a rather small group and does not represent the view of a large number of people of this country.


Murdo William Martin: I do not think Gladstone Murray does either.


John Ferguson Browne: However, as I say, it is important that the majority of Canadians understand the defence policy of the country, and what we are trying to do so that it will be fully supported and we shall not have statements of this kind made and the public misled as to exactly where we are going in our defence policy.
We have seen what has happened. I pointed out that in 1945, at the end of the second world war, we saw what happened when the Soviet union made the great advance it did because we had no collective security. Now NATO has provided that. As I say, we were going along very nicely. In fact we got going along too well and everybody started saying, "Now we can afford to weaken things a little bit, we have done so well." If the Soviet threat that is facing us now has done anything, surely at least it has awakened us again to the danger, and perhaps in the long run it may be a benefit to us, because I feel sure it will bring those nations closer together than they have been in the last two or three years.
I believe we are going to have to expand the deterrent weapons that we have, and have had during the past number of years. The policy has been, of course, to deter the Soviet union from attacking any of the North Atlantic treaty countries, or indeed any other country in the world, by having those forces necessary to be able to restrain them. I have some misgivings about the talk going on now with respect to building up conventional forces because it seems to me that if the Soviet union thought for one moment that we would be willing to fight what is now being referred to as a conventional war they probably would have no hesitation in starting one. I do not think there is any doubt that we would not be able to compete with them on those terms and would not be able to keep an army in the field in Europe that would fight with conventional weapons in order to deter them from aggression.
It has been the nuclear deterrent, mainly the strategic air command of the United States, that has in my opinion prevented the Soviet union from starting anything over the

past few years. I believe we would be making a mistake in giving the Soviet union any indication whatever that we are prepared to see them go into any country in the free world today and take it by force of arms if they can.
There has been a good deal of controversy over what are conventional weapons, because it is obvious that the Soviet forces .would have tactical nuclear weapons as they are called. Surely we would not want to put our men in the field to oppose them with so-called conventional weapons. On the other hand, if we equipped our forces with tactical weapons we obviously would not be able to fight a limited or conventional war. It is interesting to look at what the historians have to say about the last war when we talk about fighting a limited or conventional war. I came across a rather interesting statement today in a book by Stephen King-Hall entitled, "Our Times, 1900-1960". He discusses the aims of Hitler in 1939 and I should like to read one short sentence from page 190:
His immediate purpose in 1939 was to seize the western half of Poland in a short, limited war.
That war did not turn out to be very limited and I do not imagine that if a war should start now it would turn out to be very limited either. In any event, I do not see why we should give any consideration whatever to turning away from a policy which has been sound and successful over the past ten years. One would think the fact that it has been sound and successful in the past ten years would make us want to strengthen the concept under which we have been working. When John Foster Dulles was on the scene he made it quite clear that we were not going to accept aggression, that if the Soviet union attacked any free country in the world they were going to be subjected to a nuclear attack.
I am convinced that policy has worked and will continue to work provided we remain united, keep up to date and secure the proper weapons that are required. For that reason, before we start any campaign to build up conventional forces I think we should take a very careful look at the idea of suggesting to the enemy that we are willing to accept a conventional or any other kind of war. Surely that is only going to lead to trouble. It cannot have any other result. It is quite clear that a nuclear war means destruction for the entire world. It does not make any difference whether we want to call it a conventional war or a limited war. If the major powers become involved in the fighting then sooner or later tactical weapons are bound
Supply-National Defence to be introduced and then strategic weapons, if there is any differentiation between those two types of weapons.
For that reason I believe that if we are going to defend ourselves at all it is going to be by means of the nuclear deterrent and I believe that the nuclear deterrent must be spread among the NATO countries in so far as it is possible and that we cannot continue to rely mainly on the strategic air command of the United States. I am not saying that is all we have. There is a very large dispersal of armaments throughout the world now, but I think Canada is going to have to give consideration to whether the United States should have missile bases in this country. After all, we are on the side of the United States. There can be no mistake about that. I for one certainly reject any idea of placing Canada in any position of neutrality or trying to place the United States and the Soviet union in the same category. We can only be on the side of the United States. There is no other place for us to be.
If we are going to defend this country, then we must do so with every possible means at our disposal. It has already been pointed out that so far as nuclear weapons for Canada are concerned there may be some argument whether we should have strategic weapons of a missile nature in this country to act as a deterrent against Russia, but if the policy of deterrence is what we are going to follow then surely it is neither right nor reasonable for us to expect the United States to carry the brunt of such a policy and for us to sit back and say that it is all right for the United States to undertake everything and we will sit back and hope that they are going to be able to look after things. There may be an argument about whether or not we want to have weapons of this kind but, as has been said previously with regard to the Bomarc missile and weapons of that nature, weapons which cannot shoot beyond the borders of Canada, weapons which can do only one thing, shoot down an attacking airplane flying over our country, if we are going to antagonize by having nuclear warheads on these weapons I can only say that we are in such serious danger that it is not going to make any difference. If we are going to antagonize somebody by defending ourselves, I do not see what purpose there is in discussing the matter any further. Surely we are entitled to do that much. It will not harm anybody else for us to have that weapon on Canadian soil and I do not think we should have any hesitation whatever in making that decision.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You have had nearly four years to do that.
8280	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence


John Ferguson Browne: These warheads cannot be used until the weapons are installed. When they are installed that will be the time when we have to make that decision. During the course of the remarks of the hon. member who is interrupting I did not hear any suggestions. I heard some rather idiotic criticism without many facts to support it. I did not hear her refer to many of the statements that were made by her party previously. The hon. lady got up and attacked the government's defence policy.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Or lack of it.


John Ferguson Browne: I did
not hear her refer to the remarks that were being made by the Liberal party some time ago about weakening our defence efforts, such as withdrawing from NORAD, having another look at NATO and perhaps considering whether we would be better off red than dead.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is a deliberate misstatement.


John Ferguson Browne: It is
statements of this kind that have put us in the position that we find ourselves today. However, they may not have been a bad thing because perhaps they will make us realize that there is only one way to survive in this world and that is to prepare to defend ourselves. I suggest that we should look at these matters in a realistic way rather than from the political point of view of saying those things which we think are going to appeal to our constituents at any given time. Some of the positions that have been taken by the Liberal party as they have jumped from one side of the field to the other have been rather remarkable. I can recall the Leader of the Opposition speaking in 1959 and talking about conventional wars. Then he dealt with tactical nuclear weapons. As found at page 7756 of Hansard, it will be seen that he was in favour of them. He thought they were a great thing, that our army should have them and that we should not expect our men to fight without them. However, by August 5, 1960 he had changed his mind and decided that we should not have them. I do not know whether that is political expediency but I want to say that I believe every hon. member has an obligation to put his views on the record because we may not have a second chance. If we make a mistake in what we are doing in trying to defend the free world today, we might not get another chance. In previous wars we have been able to blunder at the start and then, after the war was started, we have been able to build up our forces and eventually succeed. If there is another war, we are certainly not going to have that opportunity. When we consider this


question of defence, therefore, we want to make sure we do not make any mistakes.
Well, I am satisfied with the policy as outlined by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. I think the vast majority of Canadians are. However, I believe that it is the responsibility of all the members of the house to make sure that policy is spread across the country and that the people of this country understand it because misunderstanding and dissension can do a great deal of harm. There certainly is no room for political bickering. We have got to arrive at a common policy and with that policy we have got to stick. It is quite obvious if we are going to be a part of collective security, then we have at least got to have unanimity in our own country. For that reason, there is no sense in political bickering, especially when we are agreed on the broad general policies to be followed as was evident from the external affairs debate.
However, when we come to debate defence policy, then we find there are differences of opinion, mostly of a mind and nature as I pointed out, such as those concerning the individual weapons that are going to be used. Well, to put on a front of that kind does not help us very much when a united front, a determined front is one that is very important. The psychology of deterring the enemy is perhaps just as important as the weapons we have. We have many groups in the country that oppose a policy of deterrence. They are not large groups, but they can do nothing but aid and comfort the enemy and cause him to believe that perhaps we are not united enough to follow up the policy we have set. If the policy we have set is going to succeed, any potential aggressor has to be convinced we are going to carry out that policy; that we are not going to settle for something less or we are not going to back down at the last minute.
Many people have said that wars have started in the past because one side did not know what the other's intentions were. It has even been argued that if the United Kingdom had made its position clear earlier in 1939 we might not have had the second world war. We have to make sure there is no mistake about what our intentions are at the present time.
I have heard a number of members get up in this house and make that statement, but then by the time they finished speaking I was not quite sure what their intentions were. I do not know why we cannot get our intentions set out in plain terms so that not only we understand them but the other side understands them as well.
I suggest our policy has got to be, as it has been successfully for the past ten years,

that of a nuclear deterrent. We are not going to accept aggression on the part of the Soviet union. They have got to understand that we are not going to accept that aggression. They have to understand if there is going to be a war at all, it is going to mean destruction for them as well as ourselves and, therefore, war is absolutely unthinkable. In my view, that is the only policy that can succeed because it has been shown that negotiation alone cannot succeed. I doubt very much whether or not the United Nations would even be in existence today if it were not for NATO. The so-called uncommitted countries would not be in a position then to make the kind of statements they are making now. I am sure that Mr. Nehru would not have dared go to Moscow and say anything to Mr. Khrushchev if it were not for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization because he simply would not have been in the position to do so.
We want to continue to negotiate. We are not going to be able to negotiate from a policy of weakness. If we have a chance for survival at all in this world today it is by maintaining a nuclear deterrent of the utmost possible strength on the part of every country in NATO and to make sure the other side knows what that policy is.
(Translation):


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, our genial colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) just gave us a rather confused overall picture of the international situation at this time. I have a feeling that his speech will not have much effect on Mr. Khrushchev's or Mr. Kennedy's attitude. At all events, I should like to leave for a few minutes the subject of Nehru, Khrushchev, Kasavubu and Mobutu, and deal with a problem which is of closer concern to me, i.e. the serious problem faced by the employees serving the present government in military quarters throughout the province of Quebec and elsewhere, and more particularly in my riding of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, where we have an R.C.A.F. base, as well as the royal military college at St. John.
Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the house to the treatment received by employees of the Department of National Defence who do not come under the civil service commission. I trust the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) will personally look into those cases which are really deplorable.
In 1961, for instance, we find that employees of the Royal Military College or of the R.C.A.F. station get an hourly wage of 87 or, perhaps, 89 cents. I need not add that those
90205-6-523
Supply-National Defence wages are entirely inadequate, more particularly when it is well known that in the mines, for instance, a labourer gets a minimum wage of $1.90 an hour. In comparison, the wages paid to those employees in the Department of National Defence are too low and I think it is really revolting to see that in 1961 wages of 87 or 89 cents an hour are still being paid.
Moreover, I should like to point out to hon. members that before 1957, i.e. before the Conservative party came to power-I do not know whether this is a coincidence but that is the fact-national defence employees received regular yearly increases. But since 1957 for some and 1958 for others, there have been no increase whatsoever. I do want to point out this entirely abnormal situation to the minister.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is going on elsewhere but I have put on the order paper this week questions about the wages paid particularly in North Bay, Ont., St. Hubert, Quebec, Comox, B.C., and at the military colleges of Royal Roads and Kingston. When the minister has given me the information, I will be able to make comparisons, but in any case, one bad situation is no excuse for another.
At the R.C.A.F. base as well as at the military college in my constituency, waitresses, assistant cooks, kitchen labourers, truck drivers and others, are paid absolutely inadequate wages that do not allow them to provide a decent living or even bare necessities for their families.
In the past, that is before 1957, those employees who were not under the civil service had the opportunity to work overtime; they then earned much higher salaries.
In fact, a truck driver told me that in 1955, for instance, he made $1,500 more than he does in 1961.
Furthermore, before 1957, employees who worked on Saturdays and Sundays were getting more, since they were paid time and a half and double time, whereas today they are paid regular salaries as low as 70 cents, 90 cents or a dollar an hour.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest this situation cannot go on any longer especially if we consider that the unemployed get $36 a week from the unemployment insurance fund, while fulltime workers in national defence only get $40 a week. We should reconsider those salaries and give those employees who are devoted servants of the Department of National Defence salaries which should really compare with those of other workers in other fields.
8282	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that lower salaries are being paid in some areas. For instance, salaries are lower in St. John than in St. Hubert or Quebec City. I wonder why kitchen hands should get less if they work in another area. Yet, the same rate is paid to civil servants, regardless of the area where they work, as well as to servicemen, regardless of the camp where they are posted.
Therefore, I stress that point, and I would like the minister to tell us in his remarks what he intends to do to improve the lot of those honest workers who are forced to work hard without reasonable pay.
Tonight, I wanted to point out that anomaly to the house. I know it is very important during the examination of the estimates of the Department of National Defence to talk about missiles, threats of nuclear warfare and all those troubling things we read about in the newspapers every day, but it is also important, I think, to talk about the fate of those devoted servants of the Department of National Defence. They are often treated as slaves. I am also thinking of the rather sizeable estimates of the Department of National Defence, and of the extravagant expenditures on military hardware and nuclear testing, but I am convinced the government should consider first the situation of the Canadian

citizens who suffer really inferior treatment and I should like the minister to intervene in order to remedy that anomalous situation.
(Text):


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be permissible to call it 10.30 or whether the committee would like me to proceed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that we call it 10.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraith:: I should like to ask the house leader what business will be laid before the house tomorrow and Thursday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will start off with the estimates of the privy council, followed by the estimates of the Department of National Defence. That business carrying over until Thursday would be followed by the Department of Defence Production.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Wednesday, September 13, 1961