1963-12-05

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House 5th December, 1963
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable J. R. Cartwright, judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 5th December, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General PRIVILEGE



MR. THOMPSON  SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. A question was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra of the Prime Minister in these words:
In view of persistent rumours that an election will be called in the near future, can the Prime Minister indicate if it is his intention to call an early election?
The Prime Minister answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, contrary to some reports that have been made, we intend to proceed with our program for this parliament, and if an election is called before the end of this parliament it will be the responsibility of those on the other side of the house.
The reference, of course, is to the opposition. If the legislative program to which the Prime Minister referred means that he intends to complete and put into legislative form those things which will permit full employment for all Canadians; introduce the Canada pension plan as agreed to by the provinces; the extension of family allowances to include student age groups; the Canadian flag and national anthem; and the redistribution program, we in the Social Credit party want to assure the Canadian people that we will not stop the government as long as it
really intends to carry through to completion these highly desirable items of legislation. We do not want the government to accuse us of planning to block its legislative program.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question of privilege. My point of privilege is that we should not be subjected to these phony points of privilege.



MR. CAOUETTE    INCOMPLETE ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
tTranslation]
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to rise on a question of privilege.
Last November 26 I put question No. 1,751 on the order paper, to which only a partial reply was given yesterday.
For instance, no reply was given to that part of the question dealing with the value of consumer goods and services produced in Canada during the last five years. Neither have I received any information concerning the value of goods and services consumed in Canada during the same period.
Mr. Speaker, I say that the manner in which the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) replied to my questions is further proof of the government's arrogance toward members of this house and the people of Canada.
I also submit that the minister is or should be capable of answering such questions. Otherwise, how could he determine what he calls the gross national product when he prepares his budget? If the minister is unable to answer those questions, it is not surprising that our economy is drifting, that the country is badly administered and that the government is constantly in the red.
On the other hand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -if the minister knows the answers to the various parts of my question, I would ask for a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is quite evident that there is no point of privilege. There is no prima facie case. This is in the nature of a complaint. If there were more supply motions I presume the hon. member could raise his complaint at that time. However, I am

Inquiries of the Ministry advised it is possible that we will be on the estimates before very long, and if the question relates to any of the estimates" under discussion the complaint can be raised at that time. I understand that today we are beginning the estimates of the Department of National Defence, and if they are finished we will then take transport, labour, public works and northern affairs, all of which should give hon. members an opportunity for raising matters of complaint, if there are any. Obviously it is altogether out of order to raise that type of complaint at this time.



RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF SESSIONAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. Richard (Otiawa Easi) presented the second report of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: If I may
speak to this motion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate that unanimous consent is not given. I believe that it is wrong that we should be reducing the quorum for this particular committee, and I wanted to make it quite clear that the motion did not have the unanimous consent of this house.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, as I am the one who moved that the quorum be reduced from 14 to 10, I must state that we had to wait three quarters of an hour this morning before we had the required number of members so that the committee could proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must realize by now that matters affecting committees and the proceedings before committees should be dealt with during the sessions of those committees and not brought up on the floor of the house.
Unanimous consent being refused, the motion will not be put.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Press reports indicate that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has suggested in British Columbia that the federal government will make an offer to the provinces that half the pension reserve

fund will be used to purchase provincial or municipal securities. I wonder if the Prime Minister could ' tell the house if such an offer has been made to the provinces or will be made in the near future.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, no such offer has been made in those terms. However, in the discussions which took place at the conference last week this was put forward as one way of reassuring the provinces on this matter, and dividing any surplus funds. But there were other methods put forward, too, and no definite offer in any particular terms has yet been submitted.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: As a supplementary question, does this mean that the further scheme to be put forward will be a funded scheme, rather than the plan which is indicated on the order paper at present?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in that respect. There will be a contingency reserve and there will be an element of funding in the national plan, but it could not be looked upon as a funded plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not a fact that since the $10 a month to old age security pensioners will not be paid out of the fund, this will result in some accumulation of funds not previously anticipated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question, but I will be glad to look into it.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES OFFER OF SUD-AVIATION TO BUILD CARAVELLE PLANES IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Defence Production. Has the minister received from General Puget, president of Sud-Aviation, a letter referring to the possibility of building in Canada the Caravelle aircraft that Trans-Canada Air Lines could eventually require?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my recollection, yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry and Defence Production. When he took that request into consideration, did he consider that it could help reduce unemployment in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, naturally the representations made in the letter were taken into consideration, but I can assure the hon. member that in so far as the proposals contained in the letter were concerned in relation to their effect on unemployment in Canada, the decision of the government in respect of the purchase of aircraft would have a more beneficial effect on unemployment than those proposals.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport?
In view of the contradictory statements made and of the confusion which exists in the Canadian public, does the minister intend to recommend to the cabinet the setting up of a royal commission to clear up the T.C.A. matter concerning the choice of the DC-9?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, I addressed a specific question to the minister and I ask the hon. gentleman to answer yes or no. That is all.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: I am sorry if I am not as capable as I should be of hearing questions in both languages. I would prefer to take the hon. member's question as notice because I am not sure that the translation represented exactly what the hon. member meant.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I will put my question in English.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be very good training for the minister to read it in French.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he agrees with Mr. McGregor's statement that future purchases of airplanes should no longer be submitted to the government for approval.


George James McIlraith: I do not agree with the hon. member's interpretation of what was said. I think he should take the record and read it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is it the intention of the minister to recommend that a royal commission inquire into this question?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



PROSPECTIVE LAY-OFFS IN CANADIAN SHIPYARDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the house of the steps taken to prevent the lay-off of 10,000 workers in Canadian shipyards, as reported a few days ago by Mr. Ted Payne, an official of the metal trades federation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise on which that question was based, but in any event I would have to look into it, and I could not answer it at this time on orders of the day.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that Mr. Jacques Hebert published a rather contentious book, where the efficiency of the judicial system of Canada is questioned, and where unkind things are said about a former minister of justice, Mr. Garson, does the present Minister of Justice intend to make a statement or to take any particular measures on that matter?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I read this morning in the papers the statement mentioned by my hon. friend. As I often had occasion to say to this house, it is to the provinces that the Canadian constitution grants jurisdiction in the field of justice; consequently, the provinces have the prime responsibility of maintaining law and order on their own territory. The same opinion prevailed in the Coffin case.
As for the reference to the former minister of justice, I do not think that it affects him in any way, as it was not he, but rather the solicitor general who, at the time, was responsible for that question. In any case, it is a question which does not hold today.
I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere for having given me notice of his question and, if need be, I shall convey it to the attorney general of the province.
5446	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Scoff:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Since doubts have been cast upon the Criminal Code in this case and the code comes under federal jurisdiction, is the minister not of the opinion that the matter should be investigated?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my answer is no because, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Lapointe said, in the preamble to his question, the constitution specifies quite clearly that the administration of justice is under provincial jurisdiction.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: There is a supplementary question.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that it was a decision of the federal cabinet in declining to commute Mr. Coffin's sentence of death which resulted in his execution, does the minister still not feel there is any obligation on the federal cabinet to investigate these charges of what amounts to a conspiracy to murder Mr. Coffin?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to the answer I gave the hon. member for Lotbiniere, which I think deals amply with the situation as I understand it.


Mr. Peters:: Parliament might like to hear it.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF ONTARIO POLICE COMMISSION CHAIRMAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is it true that the federal Department of Justice have asked for the resignation of Judge Bruce MacDonald as chairman of the Ontario police commission? The reason I ask this is that this gentleman has been asked to visit Sudbury in the near future to comment on his report on the Sudbury police commission investigation.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. On the contrary, the former government early in 1962


gave leave of absence for 18 months to His Honour Judge MacDonald to serve as chairman of the Ontario police commission. That leave expired at the end of September and I was asked for further leave, which I recommended to the governor in council on September 30. That leave was granted, and it does not expire until the end of this year. If a request is made for still further leave of absence, it will be given consideration at the time.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that a bridge is being built in Three Rivers at the present time; and if so, what is he going to do about it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and I am not sure whether it should be directed to the Minister of Fisheries or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, as they are both in the house, having returned from their trip to Washington, I wonder if one or the other would give the house a report on the negotiations with the United States regarding the 12 mile limit and its implications for United States and Canadian fishermen.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and I yesterday attended in Washington the second meeting with representatives of the United States government following the announcement by the Prime Minister on June 4 last that it was the decision of the government of Canada to establish a 12 mile fishing zone to be effective some time in the month of May, 1964.
When this announcement was made following his statement of intention to the President of the United States, the Prime Minister intimated that Canada would take into consideration the historic fishing rights of certain countries, including the United States. As the United States had a very

definite interest in this matter, it was decided that the negotiations with the United States and as well other countries should be pursued. These began, my hon. friend will recall, in the month of August of this year in Ottawa.
The second meeting took place in Washington yesterday. There will be a third meeting in Ottawa some time in January, which I believe and trust will conclude this phase of discussions. I may say that the discussions yesterday marked considerable progress in the positions of the two countries. There was an acknowledgment of the position of Canada, and we have taken careful note of the position put forward by the United States in these talks. I can go no further at this time because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: You are still standing still.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can go no further, as my hon. friend will understand, until these negotiations have been completed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs imply that United States fishermen will still be permitted within three miles of the coast of Canada, while Canadian fishermen must still remain 12 miles outside Canada's fishing boundaries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I gather that my hon. friend is basing his question on a newspaper report. The newspaper correspondents were not present at the discussions, and I do not propose to reveal any discussions except to say that these newspaper reports do not represent the full situation.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the minister of external affairs. Is it the intention of the minister of external affairs and the Minister of Fisheries to visit Spain, Portugal, France and the U.K. before they let the house know exactly what the position is in this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps my hon. friend may not be pleased to know that there is no such intention.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries which is related to the matter just raised about the visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries to Washington. I would ask the Minister of Fisheries, now that we have had that answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he would tell us what really happened in Washington.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of
Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, I have very little to add to what has been said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs except that the meeting held yesterday was most satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the statement made by the Quebec minister of natural resources, Mr. Rene Levesque, to the effect that the concessions the federal government made at the last federal-provincial conference were but an appetizer and that the meal will come later, can the Prime Minister now tell the house what he intends to serve to the provinces as the main dish?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make. Indeed, it would be improper for me to make any comment on a statement of that kind reported to have been made by a provincial cabinet minister.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a rather pertinent question to the Prime Minister. In view of opinions being expressed by some of the Prime Minister's associates, particularly the hon. member for Lotbiniere, can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the Queen of Canada is bilingual in the best Canadian tradition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. Mr. Speaker, and I am happy to say that that is in the true Canadian tradition.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What is the plan of the government in financing the $180 million capital cost of the lock twinning on the Welland canal?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Replacing the tolls.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. McMillan: Will any part of this amount to indicate approximately when we might be be recovered through tolls?	able to get some information along those


George James McIlraith: I would like to take that question as Mr. Laing:	I hope very quickly, Mr. notice, Mr. Speaker.	Speaker.



RICHELIEU WATERWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs. What stage have the proceedings of the boundary waters commission reached concerning the Richelieu river canalization project? I should like a definite answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I must say that last June the commission visited the Albany to Sorel area as well as the Valleyfield and Laprairie basins. In September it held its first public hearings in Canada and in the United States. The comprehensive information brought before the commission during that public inquiry is now under consideration. Of course, that information will be subject to an examination by the board in the context of its general investigation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. When does the minister expect that a final report will be made public?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I could not say at
this time.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house whether his department is planning to establish school facilities for a large number of Eskimo children at the present site of the military camp at Fort Churchill.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy and will be announced in due course.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would be able



HAINES ROAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: On Tuesday last the hon. member for Yukon asked if I would make a statement in respect of the agreement which has been reached with the state of Alaska for keeping open the Haines cut-off highway. As he knows, this originated out of the sending of a group of senior officials from various departments to study the entire communications system in that area, which is becoming so important to northwest Canada.
I wish to inform the hon. member now that a senior official of my colleague the Minister of Public Works has proceeded to Alaska and has concluded an agreement with the state of Alaska to keep open our portion of the Haines cut-off road in British Columbia this winter at a cost of $127,050 payable in United States funds, for which the state of Alaska will furnish the equipment and the operators for the tractors, snowplows and so on. The government of Canada in the person of the Minister of Public Works will be providing the supervisory personnel.
When Mr. Williams of the Department of Public Works was there he also saw the minister of highways for British Columbia, Mr. Gaglardi, who had indicated prior to September 30 that his government would contribute toward the maintenance of the highway. However, he has indicated now that he would prefer to wait until after this experimental season is over, and if the operation is successful his government will be glad to contribute in the coming years.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the minister has said in his announcement, am I to understand that the agreement that has been arranged has been concluded on the basis that the Canadian government is going to pay $127,050 for the rental of United States equipment and the wages of United States labour to maintain a Canadian road?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that my hon. friend, who took full credit for the success of this project some time ago, should now find fault with it. As he well knows, and as I am sure many members of the house do not know, because of the particular and highly unusual nature of the geography of the area it would cost

many times more than the amount I have referred to if Canadian equipment were made available. And I want to tell him that, as I think he probably knows, this type of equipment is not available at the present time on the northwest highway system. Any alternative involving the provision of Canadian workmen or Canadian machinery for this experimental period of one year would cost us infinitely more money.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my remaining remarks for the minister's estimates.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT OF 1962-63 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister report to the house whether any final payments will be made on the 1962-63 crop year and when such payments will be forthcoming, since it is approximately six months ago that the crop year ended?
Kon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, my answer to the first question is yes; to the second, as soon as possible.



DURUM WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We are pleased that western hard spring wheat is moving in increasing volume, although delivery quotas are not as high as they were at this time last year. Has the minister received inquiries regarding Durum wheat, and can he give any indication of Durum delivery prospects for the remainder of this crop year?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I would have to take part of that question as notice. I can assure the hon. member there has been a very active demand for Durum wheat throughout the year. However, I am not sure about delivery prospects, and I should like to take that part of his question as notice.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Justice. In view of the fact that the department has received, I believe, a petition of right filed on behalf of several Indians in the Driftpile area of my constituency in regard to an alleged assault by a member of the R.C.M.P., will the minister, in collaboration with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, give the most careful and exhaustive study to this matter before instructing his department as to whether a defence is to be filed?


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure the hon. member that I will, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the urgent request of the metropolitan council of Toronto, and the fact that there is a critical shortage of after-treatment beds in hospitals, requiring an early start on construction, a matter which depends on the government's answer to that request, would the Prime Minister tell us now or announce shortly the policy of the government with respect to the requested increase in federal grants for hospital construction?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I cannot answer that question without notice, but I will be glad to take it as notice and discuss it with my colleague the minister of health and welfare, who will be in the house later today.



USE OF CHILDREN'S TEETH AS RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT CHECK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of health and welfare a question, but in her absence I will address it to her parliamentary secretary, who may want to take it as notice. My question is based on a newspaper report in which the minister threw doubt on the efficacy of experiments being carried out at the University of Toronto, a matter reported in the Toronto Telegram as follows:
The usefulness of a University of Toronto experiment on babies' teeth as a check on radioactive fallout was questioned yesterday by health minister LaMarsh.
She said some broad conclusions could possibly be drawn from such an experiment but too many questions could not be answered. The university, with assistance from the Voice of Women, have appealed to parents to send in their children's baby teeth when they are removed.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Miss LaMarsh said information such as diet, parentage, where the child lived and so on were required before tests could be conclusive.
My question is, on what scientific basis does the minister question the experimental work being done at the University of Toronto?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is ready, or can tell us when he will be ready, to give us that policy announcement or statement with regard to Canadian publications as he promised, which publications are being grieviously affected, as I think he agreed, by certain kinds of competition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did tell my hon. friend that I hoped to be in a position to make a statement on this matter this week, but there have been certain developments which may require the postponement of that statement for a few days. I will be glad to explain those developments to the hon. gentleman.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIVY COUNCIL PRESIDENT RESPECTING CANADIAN NATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council a question?
Following a statement attributed by various newspapers, among which Le Devoir and the Gazette, to the President of the Privy Council does the hon. gentleman still deny the existence of two nations in Canada and reject the French Canadian nation?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Presidenl of fhe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must state that I never said such a thing. It is just an inaccurate press report.
I said, rather, that the word "nation" has two very definite meanings. First of all, a political one, and, from that angle, there is, under our confederation as it exists only one Canadian nation. Then, there is a cultural meaning, and, in that respect, it is perfectly admissible to speak of a French Canadian nation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Has the minister received a communication from Mr. Rene Levesque, blaming the minister for calling him a cryptoseparatist?



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been drawn to a report that Mr. James A. Renwick, a member of the Canadian board of the Norwich Union insurance societies has been asked to resign by the chairman, Mr. Henry Borden, because of his affiliation with the New Democratic party. I want to ask the Minister of Justice what steps the government can take to protect people in this country against political discrimination by firms owned and controlled outside Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: While I read the Globe and Mail rather hurriedly this morning, after several other papers, I am sorry to say that apart from having seen the picture of the person to whom the hon. member has referred I am not familiar with the details, and I will have to look at the article in order to inquire into the situation. I would think if there is any remedy it would lie in a statute passed by this house, one with which I am sure the hon. member is familiar. It is known as the bill of rights.


Reid Scott: If in the course of his investigation the minister finds this allegation to be true, would he consider the possibility of cancelling the licence under which this company operates, in protest against this disgraceful piece of political discrimination?



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: want to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It was reported in at least one Calgary newspaper that the hon. gentleman's department is anticipating abolishing the leases governing the tenure of land situated in the national parks and instituting a system of land taxes. I might add that the newspaper said the
[Mr. Rynard.l

minister himself made that statement. Would the hon. gentleman care to comment on the accuracy of that report?


Arthur Laing: We are embarking on some studies with reference to the entire leasehold structure within the national parks.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works?
Could the Minister of Public Works tell me whether an order in council has been passed to authorize the building of a deep-water harbour in Gros Cacouna?


Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker, but we are giving serious consideration to that project.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What would be the approximate date on which the minister feels he will be able to take appropriate action concerning the project?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: As soon as we receive reports from our engineers as regards a possible site at Riviere du Loup; then the cost will have been determined and I will be pleased to advise the house as to it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: How can the minister say that this project will be carried out when he is not sure yet of the engineers' approval?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In answer to a question on November 21 the minister said he was looking into the arrangements at the new Winnipeg airport for international air line passengers who have to stop over there between flights. Has he been able to look into this matter, and has he any report to make regarding an improvement in these arrangements?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I have looked into the matter and some changes have been made. I am not yet able to give a report, but I will bring forward a report for the hon. member's information.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



PORTUGAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Yesterday the hon. member for Royal inquired about the relationship between my criticism of Portugal's colonial policy in my statement on November 28 and Canada's abstention in the vote on the resolution on Portuguese territories passed by the general assembly on December 3.
In an explanation of our vote in the fourth committee on Friday, November 29, the Canadian representative said that the Canadian government had strong sympathy for the aspirations of the African people in Portuguese territories and viewed with deep regret the failure of the government of Portugal to acknowledge its obligations under the charter and to apply the principle of self determination in its overseas territories.
Canada fully supports those parts of the resolution calling upon Portugal once again to co-operate with the United Nations. We do not, however, consider that the present situation warrants a recommendation for action under chapter VII of the charter which deals with situations threatening to the peace. We believe that under the charter of the United Nations this is a matter for the security council to decide.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree that to express sympathy for the colonial peoples who are under Portuguese subjection and then at the same time to lack the courage to vote in condemnation of the imperialistic exploitation of these people borders on hypocrisy?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may have established in his own mind a foundation for his conclusion, but the fact is that this government, as well as the preceding government, has expressed its condemnation of certain aspects of colonial policy as practised by Portugal. The government believes, however, that it is consistent with the procedural and constitutional requirements of the charter to oppose particular policies practised by certain powers with regard to colonial administration. We believe that the future integrity and usefulness of the United Nations depends upon respect for the charter by all members of the United Nations, those that may be subject to criticism and those who feel they should level that criticism.


Mr. Korchinski:: May we have that last statement in English?

Inquiries of the Ministry STORMS



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has a report on the heavy storm damage to lobster fishermen's traps in southern New Brunswick over the past week end.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the lobster fishermen of Grand Manan, Mace's Bay, Dipper Harbour and Chance Harbour suffered heavy loss of gear in a severe storm earlier this week. I am asking my officials to report at the earliest possible date as to the extent of the damage. I might point out to the hon. member that a fishermen's indemnity plan has been established to cover loss and damage of this nature.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question. Inasmuch as this is the height of the lobster season, may I ask how an appeal for federal assistance should go forward?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sure the fishermen concerned are aware of the existence of the fishermen's indemnity plan, a federal insurance scheme which covers losses of lobster gear. If they have not taken advantage of this insurance which is available to them there is very little that the department can do.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister assure us that consideration of assistance will be accelerated in every possible way, inasmuch as the lobster season is just beginning in these areas?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If an official request is received from the fishermen concerned it will be given consideration.



MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS INVITATION TO SECRETARY OF STATE TO APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State been invited to appear at nine o'clock tomorrow morning before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters to explain the formal commitments he made to the house?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Frankly, sir, I do not know.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to ask the Secretary of State


how it is, when his word is being questioned by the members of this house, he does not know today whether he has been invited to appear tomorrow before the committee where he can explain himself?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I can explain to the committee that I am very careful in the answers I give in the house. I have not visited my office since one o'clock, and I cannot say what may have reached my office since I was last there. But I believe the committee has not met since the incident yesterday, and I do not see how I could be invited to the committee until the committee had met and decided to invite me.


Mr. Pugh:: Have you ever heard of a steering committee?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If it is on the same question, we have had enough.



STEPS TO ENSURE DELIVERIES TO RED CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question, if I may, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Canadian wheat board has announced the second sale of wheat to mainland China as part of the second long term agreement, will the minister indicate to the house whether he plans calling together all those interested in the handling of grain through west coast ports in order to rebuild the co-operative efforts to achieve maximum efficiency through these ports? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons; first, to ensure that the permanent market now available in the Orient will not be hurt by such events as those which endangered our market to the east, and which occurred within recent months on the St. Lawrence system; second, my information is that certain bad habits that we eliminated in 1961 on the west coast are beginning to creep in again.


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is very much aware, as is the hon. gentleman, of the necessity for achieving the maximum movement of grain through the west coast, and I personally am very much aware of some of the

difficulties that have arisen recently. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are doing everything we possibly can to achieve the necessary co-operation of the handling agencies concerned. Whether we shall follow his example I am not certain, but I can assure him, I think, that it will be just as effective.



INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES TO INCREASE EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was tempted to call him the minister of wheat and commerce because of all the announcements he has made in the house recently. In addition to exports of oats, barley and wheat, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house what other form of exports is considered by the present government to alleviate the present slump in other areas of Canadian activity and to combat existing unemployment?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to inform the hon. gentleman, who should already know it, that there has been a very rapid increase in Canadian exports of all kinds and this will indeed, apart altogether from exports of grain, be the greatest export year in our history.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question. For the sake of clarity, can the minister give an example in view of what he has just said in order to illustrate his policy?


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think he should have said "continuous increase"?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have no objection to the use of the words.



CHICKENS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. In view of the fact that the European economic community has imposed a very high tariff on United States chickens entering those countries, and in view of the fact that the Americans will be looking for a market for this product close to home, what steps does the government propose to take to protect Canadian chicken producers?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.
Supply-National Defence AGRICULTURE



INQUIRY AS TO PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us how soon legislation will be presented to parliament to provide milk for children in schools?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any definite information on that matter.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,529,570,600 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $978,136,600 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $3,432,000.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: In presenting the estimates of the Department of National Defence to the committee for the first time, I should like, at the outset, to make reference to the ministers who were responsible in recent years for presenting the estimates of the department when I myself was sitting on the other side of the chamber.
I am sure members will recall the outstanding services performed by Major-General Pearkes, now His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, and in the more immediate past, those of the hon. member for Calgary North.
Both of these gentlemen carried out their duties as ministers of national defence with distinction and I am sure that in so far as the hon. member for Calgary North is concerned, members will join with me in the hope that he will have an opportunity to take part in our discussions, since with his experience in office and notwithstanding any criticism he may feel obliged to make, his views on the important subject of defence will be greatly appreciated. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that normally in view of the large sums of money involved and of the significance of the subject matter, concerning as it does our national security, the house would expect a detailed
5454	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence statement from me at this time. However, in so far as these estimates are concerned, special conditions apply.
In the first place, they were prepared by the previous administration, and although some changes in detail have been made, to which I will refer later, they are in concept essentially those put forward by the previous government. Second, as hon. members know, we are now in the ninth month of this fiscal year and, in consequence, a large part of the money allocated to the department has already been spent.
A third consideration, and I think a very important one, is the fact that a special committee on defence has been established by parliament and since June of this year has been actively considering various aspects of defence. The committee has received statements from the service chiefs, from the chairman of the defence research board, from myself and, in addition, has called witnesses, both in Canada and abroad, from outside the department. Minutes of the defence committee, of course, have been available to all members and I do not want to take up the time of this committee in repeating information which is already on record in those minutes. The 1963-64 estimates which you are now being asked to approve, are required to carry out our present defence obligations.
Wherever members of our forces are involved in implementing these obligations, whether it be in the Congo or the Middle East in support of the United Nations, in Europe, on the high seas on behalf of NATO, or elsewhere here at home and overseas, they are carrying out their duties in the highest traditions of those who have served in the Canadian forces throughout our history in peace and in war. I am proud, indeed honoured, to be associated with the men and women of our navy, army and air force, who I feel are second to none in the world.
The members of this house, particularly those who have visited the forces serving abroad, who have observed their work and who have had the opportunity of talking with the international commanders with whom these forces are associated, will know at first hand of the high regard in which they are held. In Europe, they have quite rightly earned the reputation as "The Elite Corps" of the NATO forces, and the same high standard applies wherever they serve, in Canada and around the world. I am sure that all members of the house would wish me to say these few words of tribute to the men and women who serve Canada so well in our armed forces.
One of the reasons for the high calibre of our forces is the training received by young officer cadets in our service colleges. As hon.


members know, the Glassco commission had something to say about these colleges and, in fact, recommended closing Royal Roads. The advisory board of the colleges has carefully considered this recommendation of the commission and has submitted the opinion, with which I am heartily in accord, that the colleges are performing a necessary function having regard to the special nature of education and training required, the needs of the armed services and the current competitive situation in Canadian universities.
Royal Roads is an integral part of the Canadian service college system and the advisory board of the colleges, in expressing their views, recognized this fact. An educational institution is only as good as its teaching staff. At the end of the last academic year 56 per cent of the arts and science faculty at Royal Roads held doctorates, and this percentage will have increased to about 62 per cent by the end of the current academic year. This staff is active in research, in professional societies in Canada and abroad. Among other awards, one of the faculty was the only Canadian to receive a NATO research scholarship this year and another was the first Canadian in several years to receive a major award from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. The quality of the teaching staff has been reflected in a reducing failure rate: The rate for first year students is down from 20 per cent to 17 per cent, and the record of Royal Roads students in the third year at the Royal Military College is down from 17 per cent to 11 per cent. This is a very good record of achievement, and in recognition of the importance of this establishment, I state here that I agree with the opinion of the advisory board. Therefore, Royal Roads will not be closed.
Wherever our forces are serving, it is our concern to give them adequate equipment to carry out the assignments to which they have been committed. That has been the undertaking of successive governments over the years and, in general, Canadian servicemen on active service have been furnished with such equipment. There is one area, however, which is of immediate concern: This is the requirement to convert the truck-mounted motorized units of our brigade in Europe to armoured carrier-mounted, mechanized units.
To meet this requirement, a vehicle known as the Bobcat has been under development in Canada since 1954. At that time there were no competing United States or British developments and it was hoped that successful completion of the Bobcat development would result in a wide export market for the manufactured vehicle. Now, nearly 10 years later we find that the development

of the Bobcat has not yet reached a stage where the vehicle could go into production.
The contract for the manufacture of 20 pilot-production vehicles required the contractor to subject the first carrier produced to a 2,000 mile endurance trial. The vehicle failed to complete this trial successfully. As a result, further redesign work is required so that we are now faced with the fact that, even if no further delays occur, delivery of production vehicles could not commence before late 1965 nor be completed before the spring of 1967. I might add here that the foreign produced content of the Bobcat is approximately 28 per cent of the total, and the estimated production cost per model has increased to a very considerable extent over the original estimate.
In the meantime, the M-113 armoured personnel carrier similar to the Bobcat, has been developed in the United States. The M-113 has been in service for three years and has been adopted by several of our NATO partners including Denmark, Greece, Italy and Germany, as well as a number of other countries outside NATO. From the logistic point of view, this is of considerable importance. Important too is the fact that the Bobcat would cost per unit close to double that of the M-113.
In view of all these circumstances, and bearing in mind the urgent requirement of the brigade, the government has decided to terminate work on the Bobcat program and to meet the brigade requirements by procurement of the M-113 carrier.
Parts of the M-113 for the United States production are already being manufactured by Canadian sub-contractors, and through the production sharing arrangement with the United States, further sub-contracting in Canada of a variety of equipment can be anticipated.
As hon. members, especially members of the special defence committee who are here today know, a review has been under way within the Department of National Defence to determine the best and most effective contribution we can make to the collective defence of the free world and to the maintenance of peace in the years ahead. This review is proceeding and some preliminary decisions have been made, following studies in particular fields; relating to equipment programs which, if proceeded with, would seriously limit the determination of what our policy may be in the future. With rapidly changing concepts of warfare and improvements in weapons technology, I think most hon. members will agree that such a review is not only desirable but essential.
In addition to the work we are carrying out, I am looking forward to receiving the
Supply-National Dejence interim report of the special committee on defence which, I understand, will be submitted to the house later this month. As I have stated previously, I expect to be in a position to table in the house a white paper on defence next year, prior to the consideration of the 1964-65 estimates.
In so far as the estimates for the current fiscal year are concerned, these, as shown in the blue book, amounted to $1,590,006,537 and I think it would be of interest to hon. members to give some breakdown of this amount in addition to the details contained in the blue book. Personnel, operating and maintenance costs account for 77.3 per cent of the total; major equipment 16.6 per cent; construction 3.1 per cent; development 1.0 per cent; mutual aid 2.0 per cent.
The ratio between maintenance and capital costs is a matter of concern which has been, and is being given serious study within the department. Our aim is to find ways and means of reducing overhead, and by cutting operations and maintenance costs, achieve a re-direction of expenditures to improve our defensive capability. This is not a simple task. It requires an intensive study of alternative ways to achieve our purpose, and careful cost-effectiveness analysis of the components of the defence programs. This is clearly a process requiring continuous and constant attention.
Without this careful attention-call it judicious pruning, if you will-our defence budget would soon top the $2 billion mark if we were to maintain our present establishment, with all its ramifications, and at the same time furnish our forces with adequate equipment and weapons. It is our intention to keep defence expenditures within reasonable bounds, without affecting the true operational effectiveness of our contribution to collective security.
Our end objective is to get the best result for each defence dollar spent. To do this, it is essential to examine critically each element of the defence program in terms of its cost and its contribution to effective defence.
Over the last several months a thorough examination has been made in a determined effort to appraise whether the dollars going into the various components of our defence organization are producing appropriate results. We have now reached a number of conclusions which will result in reductions in expenditures for maintenance of the defence establishment. This is an essential first step towards providing, in the longer run, a more effective contribution to the national security of our country from the resources that can be made available for this purpose.
These changes do not materially affect the estimates you are being asked to approve
5456	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence today, as it will take time to implement them. Also, it is inevitable that there will be substantial one-time costs associated initially in the process of bringing about these changes that are designed, over the long run, to save money.
There is no way of accomplishing these worth-while re-adjustments without causing some individual and community problems. We are therefore anxious to give the maximum advance notice of changes in order to minimize these problems of re-adjustment.
Speaking first of all of the Royal Canadian Navy, our examination has shown us that costs can be reduced in some areas. The navy now operates about 160 auxiliary vessels of various kinds such as tugs, supply ships, harbour craft, and so on. We find that we can take 10 of these vessels out of service, the majority by March 31, 1964, and continue to support the operation of the fleet adequately.
We have also examined the utility aircraft squadrons on the east and west coasts and we propose to reduce these by six fixed-wing aircraft and two helicopters before the end of this fiscal year. These squadrons are engaged in support functions such as target towing, transportation of personnel and so on.
An examination of the ammunition storage depots has led us to the conclusion that the naval ammunition depot at Kamloops, British Columbia, can be closed, and the ammunition stored there re-distributed to other depots.
We propose as well to close the naval supply depot at Lynn Creek, British Columbia. This is a stores depot that has been used by the navy and also in part by the army. The functions can be re-distributed to other units with a saving in overhead costs.
The naval armament depot at Longueuil, Quebec, is to be closed as the essential functions of this depot can be carried out at the naval establishment at Ville Lasalle at a considerable saving in costs. The navy has maintained a naval repair facility at Point Edward naval base in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and this repair facility will be discontinued but the navy will continue to operate the stores depot and record centre at this location.
It is also the intention to discontinue the naval activities at Fort Pepperrell, Newfoundland. The navy has provided the housekeeping of this establishment and this has been a costly activity in terms of its present defence capabilities.
It is anticipated that most of these changes will be completed by March 31, 1964. However, it is not planned to have any of the reductions in ship repair work at the Point Edward naval base take place until after the beginning of the new fiscal year on April 1, 1964. This will ensure that operations at the naval base are gradually reduced after that


date in relation to the development of alternative opportunities for employment. There will be adjustments involved for some of those now employed at this base. In order to assist, efforts will be made to organize training and re-training programs in co-operation with the provincial government wherever these will be suitable. Other measures will also be introduced as appropriate in the circumstances. These changes should produce in a full year, once they have been implemented, savings estimated at $7,750,000.
Turning to the army, an announcement has already been made regarding the transfer of the northwest highway system, effective April 1, 1964, to the Department of Public Works. At that time the Department of Public Works will assume responsibility for employment and it is expected that the majority of the present civilian employees will be retained.
Also, as I have intimated to the house, we intend to withdraw personnel from Fort Churchill, Manitoba, in 1964 at which time administrative responsibility will be taken over by other government departments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All army personnel?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All army personnel. It is expected that most of the civilian personnel, numbering 346, will be taken over by other government departments assuming responsibility for administration at Churchill. The rocket responsibility facilities at Fort Churchill will be continued. It is also intended to close the army vehicle depot at Hagersville, Ontario. Dispersal of vehicles to meet command and national survival requirements is now under way and should be completed by April, 1964. The balance of the vehicles will be moved to other army units, including London, Ontario, during the period May to October, 1964. Civilian personnel now at Hagersville will not be released until the vehicle movement program has been completed. These changes, when fully implemented, will result in an annual saving in operating costs to the army approximately $16 million.
As far as the Royal Canadian Air Force is concerned, adjustments include the withdrawal from Churchill, which I have already mentioned, and Resolute Bay, where in both cases responsibility for airfields will be transferred to the Department of Transport; the cessation of fixed-wing aircraft activities at Rockcliffe airport; the transfer of the electronic warfare unit from St. Hubert to Uplands; and the transfer of responsibility for St. Hubert airfield to the Department of Transport. These changes will be effected in the spring of 1964.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about Penhold?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The R.C.A.F. station, Calgary and No. 10 repair depot, Calgary, will be closed as early as possible in 1964; the buildings will be declared surplus to Royal Canadian Air Force requirements. The disbandment of No. 107 search and rescue unit, Torbay, Newfoundland, and the closing of R.C.A.F. station Torbay will be completed by the spring of 1964, although the R.C.A.F. radio station will remain. The deletion of one band by the spring of 1965 has already been announced. The air photographic section of the R.C.A.F. photographic establishment, Rockcliffe, will be transferred to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. Royal Canadian Air Force stations Vancouver, Saskatoon and Hamilton will be closed early in 1964, with the search and rescue school and composite unit, now at Vancouver, being transferred to Comox. In a full year these changes are expected to reduce operating costs by about $8 million.
A review has also been made of the requirement for the reserve forces. The reserve forces of Canada have traditionally been maintained as a mobilization base for active service formations, for providing reinforcements for regular force units, and for filling positions not required except in an emergency. In recent years they have had the added role of assisting in civil survival in the event of a nuclear attack on this country. We have looked at the reserve force organization as it now stands, with the object of determining realistically the support which reserve formations can provide in an age when combat readiness is a key-note of defence power. This has led to the conclusion that the reserve forces of all three services can be reduced from the present levels.
The reserves of the Royal Canadian Navy now comprise 21 divisions and two reserve air squadrons with a current strength of approximately 4,000. To meet those needs of the Royal Canadian Navy in an emergency which could be, we believe, satisfactorily met by reserve forces, it has been concluded that a strength of approximately 2,700 is required. As a result it is proposed to close out seven naval divisions and the two air reserve squadrons. The reserve air squadrons are located at Toronto and Victoria. The reserve divisions which are to be closed are those at Prince Rupert, Victoria, Edmonton, Regina, London, Charlottetown and Halifax. I should add that the Charlottetown division will not be closed out next year because of the centennial celebrations taking place in that province.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Politically unsound, is it?
Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The tender at Kitchener will also be closed. It is planned to reduce the militia to a strength of approximately 30,000. The militia now has a strength of 51,000. This will necessitate a major re-organization of the militia. The militia is now organized on the basis of a very large number of units in the various army corps essentially, as I have said, based on the traditional concept of a substantial mobilization base. This organization for example includes 26 regiments of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, 29 field regiments, six medium regiments and a number of independent batteries of various types in the Royal Canadian Artillery, seven field regiments in the Royal Canadian Engineers, and so on. Hon. members will agree that a re-organization of this magnitude is both important and complicated and must necessarily take account of the regional interests across this country taking part in and supporting the militia. We will be appointing shortly a select group of militia officers from across Canada who will be asked to examine this problem and to make recommendations as to the way in which this re-organization should be brought about.
The R.C.A.F. maintains a reserve with a current strength of approximately 2,200. The air force, by the nature of its responsibilities, must be maintained constantly in a state of immediate readiness and there are few areas in which support from the reserves would be necessary in an emergency. It is planned to reduce the R.C.A.F. reserves to a strength of approximately 860. This will retain in the reserves six auxiliary flying squadrons and their associated wing headquarters. The auxiliary squadrons at Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon and Hamilton will be closed out early in 1964. The six squadrons that are being retained are located at bases which serve other R.C.A.F. purposes and the costs associated with these are consequently very much less than those at the squadrons which are to be closed.
The changes in the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force reserves are expected to result, when they have been fully taken into effect, in savings in operating costs of about $5,250,000 a year. The savings resulting from the re-organization of the militia are expected to be very considerably in excess of this, but until the details have been worked out I am not in a position to give a figure. It would, however, be of the order of magnitude of about one third of the total now spent on the militia. The total now spent is about $45 million a year. Some changes are proposed in our regular force structures. As these involve consultation with our allies I am not in a position to announce
5458	HOUSE OF
Supply

National Defence them at this moment. They will, however, result in substantial savings of money and military personnel.
The changes I have mentioned today will result in a reduction of both military and civilian staffs. The military strength reduction will for the most part be brought about by attrition. Every effort will be made to ease the impact on civilian staffs affected to the extent that it is possible by transferring them to vacant positions in other civil establishments in the government service and including full consultation with the Department of Labour.
This year's estimates provide for an average regular force strength of 124,054; consisting of Royal Canadian Navy, 21,620; army, 50,000; Royal Canadian Air Force, 52,434. The actual strength as of September of this year was 123,246, made up of R.C.N., 21,593; army, 49,381; R.C.A.F., 52,272. The estimated average strength of civilian employees on which the estimates are based came to 43,885, which was 1,203 below the average strength in 1962-63. The current strength is 43,377.
It is the capital votes that have been largely affected in recent months. These include the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program and the decision to reduce the number of additional CF-104 dual aircraft to be procured from 24 to 16. On the other hand, preliminary funding is now included for the purchase of three Oberon class submarines and for the construction of storage facilities for nuclear warheads required to make effective weapons systems previously obtained. There is one other item which is not reflected in the estimates of the department, but is of some importance, and that relates to the decision of the government to increase armed services pay and allowances and the salaries of class "D" employees retroactive to October 1, 1962.
The estimated cost of these revisions for the 18-month period ending March 31, 1964, amount to just over $43 million, but since no provision was made for this expenditure in the 1963-64 defence estimates, this is being financed by means of allotments from the Department of Finance general salaries vote. In addition, there was a supplementary estimate of $827,000 for the defence research board satellite program.
In these brief remarks it has not been possible to discuss wide areas of our activities. As I stated earlier, the special committee has studied many of these at some length. My remarks today have dealt with current housekeeping changes. In each case careful thought has been given to the possible effect on future policy, and in each case it has been concluded that the proposals do not limit the range of possible policy options which might


be considered by the government. I am sure hon. members will prefer to leave the policy discussion until the special committee has reported and the government has had a chance to study that report. However, if there are any specific questions which would aid hon. gentlemen in their deliberations, either the associate minister or myself will note them and provide the information requested at a later stage in the debate.
At this point I would like to pay tribute to the associate minister. On the basis of an understanding between us, he has been carrying the bulk of the administrative load in the department. He is one of the hardest working members of the administration, and without his assistance a general review of the kind we have undertaken would have been impossible. I do hope that his invaluable contribution will be fully recognized. I would not like to conclude without saying that the associate minister and I are both appreciative of the wonderful co-operation we have had from all members of the department since we took office.
Finally, may I say that it is a matter of some regret that these announcements must be made now in advance of the tabling of the white paper and the presentation of the government's defence policy. As a result an incomplete picture is available which can only be completed at a future date. Decisions had to be taken in order to permit the preparation of estimates for next year, and on careful reflection it was considered that the interests of the people affected overrode other considerations, and with this in mind, immediate announcements should be made in order to give maximum notice and opportunity for readjustment. Consequently, we have decided in favour of human considerations and followed the course which provides the maximum notice possible under the circumstances.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, before I commence my brief remarks I wonder whether the minister would complete his answer to the question I asked him yesterday, and the answer to the question asked the Prime Minister as to whether or not the Bomarcs are now equipped with nuclear weapons.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the Bomarcs are not yet equipped with nuclear weapons. I have forgotten the question asked yesterday; could I be reminded?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The question asked yesterday was based on a newspaper article quoting informed sources in the Department of National Defence, and concerned the lopping



19B3

[Stage Direction]
off of $74 million and a reduction in the armed forces of 10 per cent, and other matters like that.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is a speculative story. An amount of $74 million would not be too far off the mark, by the time all of these considerations have been taken into account. The reduction in the size of the armed forces strength is speculative.


Mr. Smith:: What about the reduction in the 14 radar stations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it will be more satisfactory for me to take note of these questions and answer them later on. As I stated earlier in the session however, we have been reviewing radar establishments to determine whether some reductions can be made without affecting unduly the effectiveness of the whole system. These changes or proposed changes require consultation with our allies, and for that reason I am not in a position to make an announcement at this moment.


Robert Simpson: May I just ask one question.


The Chairman:: Order. May I bring to the attention of the committee that the minister's time has expired, so that we would need unanimous consent of the committee before questions could be asked. I understand that these questions are asked of the minister as part of his speech. I just bring this matter to the attention of the committee, as I think I should.


Robert Simpson: I just want clarification on one matter.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Simpson: In relation to taking a look at the radar stations, does it include both the mid-Canada line and the Pine Tree line, or just the Pine Tree line?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The whole system has been under review, because it is interrelated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I said my remarks would be brief. I say that partly for the reasons advanced by the minister, that nine twelfths of the estimates of this department for this fiscal year have already been appropriated and I expect spent; partly because these estimates were prepared by the former government and naturally we support them; and partly because the session is drawing, we hope, to a close. But in the time available to us-and I want to give plenty of opportunity to other members of the committee to speak-I want to state my disappointment at the half hour discourse of the Minister of National Defence. He had to
Supply-National Defence admit that he was dealing largely with current housekeeping problems, and he said that they might have some effect on future policy. Some of them are minor housekeeping matters and some are major, but he did not indicate their effect on future policy.
I thought, Mr. Chairman, that at this stage, after eight months in office, the Minister of National Defence would have given us, as former ministers of national defence have done under similar circumstances, a statement of the policy of the government. This government was to be the government of decision, the government that was to tell us what was wrong with the past and what they were going to do for the future. Eight months have now gone by and all we get is a housekeeping account from the Minister of National Defence. I think he should turn in his housekeeping keys and hand the job over to somebody else. Surely we should have had at this stage some statement of general policy on the part of this government. We heard from these people sitting opposite us that no statements of policy were made while we were in office. I have gone to the trouble to look back and see the statements made in the past, statements published by General Pearkes in 1960 and by the hon. member for Calgary North when he was minister of national defence. Yet here we are faced with this minister who, in the course of his eight months in office, has made no statement of policy in this house on the part of this government with regard to national defence. That is a shocking neglect of duty.
A great deal was made by the minister earlier this year when the session opened in May, and again when it was resumed in the fall, about the question of nuclear arms, the so-called commitments which our government, he alleged, had entered into and how they were going to deal with these matters, and deal with them promptly. The minister has just been asked: Where are the nuclear weapons for the Bomarcs? As I say, eight months have gone by and there is nothing in position. What about the protection of Toronto and Montreal which we heard so much about last winter? They are neglected cities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said he was not aware whether he had them or not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We said that these Bomarc sites were intended for the protection of the strategic air component, the deterrent of the United States; and a secondary effect might be, in the case of a prolonged bomber attack, some defence for industrial areas. But members opposite said, supported by a notorious press realease from south of the border, that the Bomarcs were for the defence of Toronto

Supply-National Defence and Montreal. Now, what is the situation? Not a weapon in place, eight months after taking office. This was to be done within three weeks or six weeks. They said: "Sign an agreement; get the materials here; do not wait until a crisis is upon us; we must be ready." And here we are in a state of unpreparedness which is simply shattering, in the light of the statements made by the Minister of National Defence and by the Prime Minister in those days. Not a weapon is in place and eight months have gone by since they took office.
What about the Voodoo planes? They were to have been armed with nuclear weapons. The minister can correct me, now, if he wishes, but I say they are not armed at the moment with nuclear weapons.
Not a word from the minister. I am, therefore, correct in my statement.
These planes were to have been armed immediately so that they could play their part in the defence of the North American continent. Again, I point this out: eight months have gone by and not one step has been taken to correct this so-called deficiency.
How do we stand with regard to our air division in Europe, the force which has been called the elite among our defence forces as far as the air is concerned and I accept that description? Is it ready to take action if war should break out today or tomorrow or next week? Is one single plane of the air division ready for action? Is one single plane of that division, on the quick reaction alert station, in position, with a nuclear bomb attached to the undercarriage? Let the minister answer if one single plane is thus equipped. He will have to say, first, that the air division is not yet complete and that it will not be complete as to the total number of planes, until the spring of next year. He will have to admit he has done nothing about the squadrons which either are, or may be, stationed in France, without any nuclear equipment. And he will have to admit that the squadrons presently in Germany have no nuclear bombs available immediately for action at the present time. Eight months have gone by and nothing has been done by the Minister of National Defence in this regard.
I suggest there has been no occasion since the days of the Liberal government in 1939 when the Canadian air force has been less able to take action in war than at the present moment. Members opposite talked about unpreparedness. This is a shining example of unpreparedness, and it is typical of the Liberal regime in that period of the 'thirties, in 1939 and 1940. Here we see the same crowd, or their successors, carrying on the same attitude as was shown then. Our great air division


in Europe is unable to do a thing. Last May I asked the Prime Minister how many planes were then ready for action and how many were ready in April of this year. The Prime Minister replied-and this answer will be found in Hansard on page 114: "Not one, because they need ammunition". I say, now, to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of National Defence, that not one is ready today -because they need ammunition. Except for the period up to 1939 I do not know of any period in Canadian history when we have been less prepared for action in the event of an emergency. This is a shocking state of affairs.
Let me ask the minister this question: Why did he discontinue that part of the air division in Europe which was equipped with interceptor planes and which had been active for a number of years? Why did he discontinue all of this force before he was ready with the Starfighters equipped for action. He wiped them out. Only two or three weeks ago I was at Murviel in France. There was not a fighting plane in action there. This was not the case for years, previously. We had effective interceptor forces, the elite of the air force in Europe. But at the present moment there is not a fighting plane at Murviel and Starfighters elsewhere are not equipped for an active role.
The Minister of National Defence cannot excuse himself. He carries a heavy responsibility. The people of Canada are relying on his assurance that our defence forces are ready at a moment's notice to take action. But that is not the situation at the present time. As to taking effective action, we are in worse shape than we were a year ago, because the air division in Europe then was equipped with interceptors; the changeover was just commencing. Now the hon. gentleman has let the whole thing collapse and there will be a lapse of several months yet before the air division is ready to fight. Even then, unless he makes some arrangement with regard to the bases in France, he will not be able to equip a full half of that air division.
This is not good enough. We have given this government an opportunity. We have given it a chance. People have said: Let them get on with the job and demonstrate what they can do. Well, how long do they need? I suppose, a year, or a year and a half. We are to have a white paper some time in January or February. We do not know when the house will meet again. I will hazard a guess that we shall not see that white paper until late in February. Then we shall have a statement on defence policy. Perhaps.

This is not enough. The people of Canada have, up to this moment, been relying on the Minister of National Defence to provide adequate defence for this country. The people of Canada have, up to this moment, considered that our forces were now ready to fight. Well, the air division in Europe is not ready to fight, and the Bomarc sites in Canada are not ready for an emergency, and the Voodoo planes in Canada are not equipped with the nuclear missiles which the present minister said were so essential if they were to fulfil their role. How many months does the government need? Eight months have gone by. The minister has been making housekeeping arrangements- arrangements which will be subject to criticism when other hon. members speak because they, like myself, think that some of those arrangements are wrong.
The other day I asked a question of the minister with regard to Canada's role in the NATO alliance. I thought he would deal with it this afternoon, but he did not. I wanted to know whether, within the NATO alliance, we could be assured that the nations within that alliance possessing nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic, would not use them without the concurrence of their NATO allies. The minister said this question was improper. The Secretary of State for External Affairs gave one of his tortuous, winding answers. He started from nowhere and ended nowhere.


An hon. Member:: And said nothing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: *-and said nothing that was effective in the reply. But this is a vital matter for the people of Canada. Can we be plunged into a nuclear war? Will our forces in Europe, the brigade and the air division, be plunged into a nuclear war by the unilateral action of a member of the NATO alliance, without any consultation with Canada? This question has to be cleared up. I thought this would have been one of the subjects that would have been discussed and settled at the NATO conference last May.
That is why we talked about what Canada's role is. We said: Let NATO determine what is Canada's role; and this was part of it. At that time we could not disclose this particular aspect of it publicly, but the Minister of National Defence in a speech just a few days ago publicly stated that this is a problem facing NATO, and that he could not answer our question in the house. But there the problem is, and it was there last May. What has this government done about it since? I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what is he going to do at the NATO meeting which occurs this month? What is the Minister of National Defence going to do at the NATO meeting this month to settle this important problem within the NATO alliance; or 28902-5-348
Supply-National Defence are we just committed without any answer at all? Are we not to be consulted? This is a problem we have raised with the United States with regard to NORAD and our commitment in NATO. Are we or are we not to be consulted? We are allies. We should be consulted. Within NATO are we to be consulted or are we just to tag along? If somebody in NATO who has possession of nuclear weapons wants to start a nuclear war, what is our position?
These are problems that I thought the minister would deal with this afternoon, but he did not deal with policy. Again he has just given us promises that we will have a white paper and that there will be a statement of policy next spring. He has simply said: Just be good little boys and wait until we get around to it. I suggest that this is simply not good enough. The position of Minister of National Defence is of vital importance to the people of Canada, and we expect the minister to carry out his duties. He has failed and is failing to provide for Canadian defence along the lines I have pointed out. I do not know of any failure in the Department of National Defence since the second world war to equal his failure in this regard. There was a failure before the second world war, but not since.
This is a failure on the part of the Minister of National Defence and a failure on the part of the government. I am sorry the Prime Minister is otherwise engaged because he has to take full responsibility. The Prime Minister is too prone to give the reins to his cabinet ministers. They are running all over the country developing policies of their own, and there is no controlling hand from the Prime Minister's office, as there should be. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence are the three leading ministers with regard to national defence, and the Prime Minister cannot evade his responsibility in this matter.
Depending on the developing of the debate and the time that is available, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal later with the proposed reduction in the militia. I simply give warning now that this is one field in which I think a most serious error is being made. After a good 15 years experience in the militia I can speak with some knowledge of that organization. However, as we move along we will perhaps come to an appropriate moment when we may discuss the proposed reductions in the army establishment and I will reserve my remarks on that particular phase until that time. I conclude my remarks now at this point in our discussion with a condemnation of the unannounced policy, the non-existent policy of the present government, and the

Supply-National Defence ineffectiveness of the Minister of National Defence in performing his proper function of protecting Canada.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the introductory remarks of the Minister of National Defence and the concluding remarks of the previous speaker I wish I had an hour in which to speak instead of only 30 minutes. May I say only one thing about the defence critic of the official opposition. I think it is too bad, in the interest of Canada and in the interest of parliament, that in condemning the government for having no defence policy after a period of eight months in office he did not explain why there was no Canadian defence policy in the years when the Conservatives were in power.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was a defence policy, and you know it.


Harold Edward Winch: There was none at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Harold Edward Winch: If you do not mind, I have only got 30 minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can take 30 minutes. I am raising a point of order. The hon. member has made a statement which is false and it must be corrected immediately. He says-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. This is not a point of order that the hon. member is raising.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, false statements made in this house must be corrected immediately.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I raise a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am on a point of order now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for a ruling.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps we should hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre first.


Gordon Minto Churchill: False statements made in this house must be corrected. They must be withdrawn if they are false. The hon. member's statement is false, because defence policy was announced and published by our government. Here are copies of our defence policy as announced in 1959, 1960 and again in 1961.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to follow through by saying that Canada has never had a defence policy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is nonsense.


Mr. MacEwan:: That you agree with.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If anyone had listened to you back in the 'thirties we would have had no policy.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I hope you are taking note of the interruptions so that I will not lose any of my 30 minutes. I hope that in some ways I may be considered a little bit different from the previous speaker.


An hon. Member:: You are.


Harold Edward Winch: I would have liked to have longer time to speak than I am allowed. I want to say at once that although I sit in the opposition 1 think there are two grounds on which the government and the Minister of National Defence should be commended. The first is that for this subject, a most important one to parliament and to Canada, two consecutive days have been allocated for the discussion of these estimates. Second, although there are other points on which we may criticize the minister, I think we should commend him for having the courage after eight months in office to make announcements on these estimates regarding housekeeping which should have been made a long time ago, and which if it had been done before would have saved millions of dollars of the Canadian taxpayers' money.


An hon. Member:: It is only peanuts for them.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend says "peanuts", but it runs into millions of dollars. I am prepared to commend the minister for his courage in announcing the housekeeping arrangements which he has under contemplation.
It is impossible in the time allotted to me to comment on all the various aspects of defence raised by the minister. I shall have to proceed, therefore, as speedily as possible with what I had in mind, and which I believe deals with defence policy.
In that connection I must say first of all, as is well known, there are 24 members of this house who are members of the special committee on defence. We have been meeting since last June, sometimes in camera, not only here in Ottawa but also in Colorado Springs and in Europe. Whenever we had a special meeting in camera the chairman of the committee always opened the in camera meeting with one statement, that we could always use the information as long as it was not attributed to the particular source. I want to make that clear because in discussing defence policy one must use some information.
I want to say, and I say it on behalf of the New Democratic party, that in our estimation there has never been a Canadian defence policy under any government in peacetime which took into consideration the part that Canada could or should most efficiently play in the military world on behalf of the democratic countries. I want to go even beyond that, Mr. Chairman, and say that we strongly feel that

the defence policies of all governments in the past in peacetime have been governed by political expediencies and economic pressures, rather than by an understanding of the part that Canada could or should play. To that, sir, I add my third point, that Canadian defence policy has been based on misinformation supplied by civilian and military authorities, not only in Canada but in NATO and in SHAPE. This is something of vital concern to Canada.
I only want to give one illustration of what I mean by "misinformation". Over the past few weeks many of us in this house have been hearing how policy in Canada, NATO, SHAPE and various countries, is based on the Soviet threat, on the fact that within a matter of weeks the Soviets could have between 165 and 174 divisions in the field. Right up until November 23, we in the defence committee of this house were being told that by civilian and military authorities. However, we find that on November 18, while SHAPE or other ministers were giving us that information, the United States secretary of defence, Robert McNamara made a statement in New York. I am not quoting from a newspaper; I am quoting from a copy supplied by the United States information service, supplied to me by the embassy here in Ottawa. What is this statement? I quote:
Recent intensive investigation has shown that the number of active Soviet divisions that are maintained at manning levels anywhere close to combat readiness is less than half of the 165 and the 175.
We have the United States secretary of defence making a statement like this on November 18, and one week earlier and later we were being told by the military people in Europe that it is 165 to 170. You understand now why I say I am afraid there is flim-flam, balderdash and misleading statements being given to the members of NATO, SHAPE and Canada.
I should like also to raise a matter which I believe is of major importance to all members of this house. I am not going to do this on a partisan basis; but, I am going to remind all members that in the early days of this session there were many counterchallenges and charges between the Prime Minister of today and the Leader of the Opposition of today, as to whether or not Canada had made a commitment on nuclear warheads and nuclear weapons. In recent weeks I think we have found the answer. Both are right and both are wrong. The information is now available and it can be found on the records of our special committee, to the effect that the NATO council has never at any time discussed what a commitment is as it concerns the 15 member nations of NATO. I quote the answer, because I asked the question:
28902-5-348J
Supply-National Defence
A commitment starts with plans submitted by military authorities to governments. Ministerial meetings give approval. This constitutes a commitment, but is not a binding contract. The exact meaning of a commitment has never yet been discussed in the NATO council.
I think that information should have been given to this house in the early days of the discussion at this session as to whether or not Canada was committed by a binding contract to nuclear weapons and to nuclear warheads. I should like to put a question in this way. It is time for honesty in Canada, NATO and SHAPE as to what defence policy is in Europe, what defence policy is in Canada. May I just remind the members of this house that we are in NATO. We have 6,500, approximately, in our brigade and we have 6,500 in our air force. In the last five years we have paid, for these 13,000 armed personnel under NATO in Europe, no less than $350 million a year and as high as $436 million-that is for these 13,000 active Canadian personnel. Why is this so? It is my belief that it is mostly from a psychological point of view. However, they are there.
They are called the elite, and I believe it. Everybody told us how wonderful and, sir, if you want to check the report you will find it complete. I cannot mention names, but included are NATO, SHAPE, and our own representative. I will just give one quotation, "It is conceivably true that Canadian forces in Europe are short on mobility." You find in the records from NATO and SHAPE over-emphasis on nuclear tactical weapons and under-emphasis on conventional.
You will find, sir, if you check the record, and it is an official record, that Canada is in a strange situation. We have 6,500 men in a brigade which is not mobile. I ask why?
I was at the NATO meeting in 1961 and was a member of the scientific and technical committee. We put forward a unanimous recommendation that we all get together and stop wasting money on duplication of research and production. Some 24 of us were in Europe two weeks ago, and we were told on the highest authority that in many cases, in the absence of political expediency and economic pressure, military equipment could be produced for less than one third of what NATO had to pay for its military equipment.
This brings us to the situation in Canada where we have got to face it too, politically and economically, whether we are interested in a Canadian defence policy and Canadian defence purchases, or whether we are interested in political and economic pressures, and to hell with what it costs the taxpayers of Canada. If we in Canada are not prepared

Supply-National Defence to face up to that issue, how do we expect that the NATO council is going to face up to it?
We in this party continuously and consistently have opposed Canada becoming a part of a nuclear club, with the acquisition of nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads. Anyone who reads the entire text of the speech made by secretary of defence Robert S. McNamara, on November 18 in New York, will find paragraph after paragraph of evidence of the need for building up conventional forces, highly mobile, and he also made a most important statement to the effect that he does not anticipate a war will break out in Europe.
War might break out in African or Asian countries, and if it does then comes the need, not for a NATO force with nuclear, tactical weapons, but for highly trained, fully mobile forces, which will answer one request, that is, the suppression of brushfire wars throughout the world; and this can only come under the United Nations.
I see my time is drawing to a close, so in conclusion I wish to say I regret we have not seen any publicity in our Canadian press during the past year concerning the fact that three Scandinavian countries have got together and have reached agreement on highly trained, mobile forces to be placed at the disposal of the United Nations as a police force for the world. Only three days ago I found out that in two of these Scandinavian countries this policy is going to he referred to their parliaments for adoption, following which an official offer will be made to the United Nations.
Surely Canada should have given the lead in this regard? Even though we are late now, I believe we should get together with these three Scandinavian countries who have this enlightenment and understanding, and then have a real Canadian defence policy that will enable us to play our part on behalf of maintaining peace throughout the world. This demands that we have an idealistic and factual Canadian defence policy so we can play our proper role for the peace of the world.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of participating in the debate on the estimates of the Department of National Defence. There is an increasing interest in the importance of this subject, and this is both healthy and understandable when viewed from a number of points; first, the tremendous amount of money involved in the carrying through of the responsibilities of the department, second, the fact that it involves the welfare of thousands of Canadian servicemen and servicewomen and,

third, it is something that has to do with the very survival of Canada and the free world.
At the beginning of my remarks I would like to refer to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence, which has been characterized as a housekeeping report. I believe it does indicate the fact that serious attention has been given to a number of items, sometimes of lesser or greater significance, but items that should receive attention. With regard to the statement made by the spokesman of the official opposition that he expected the minister to make a statement of government policy, may I point out that the minister has been considerably kicked around in past weeks because of the fact that he has been anticipating the report of the special committee on defence. Therefore it is rather unusual that on an occasion like this he should be criticized if he fails to come out and make definite defence policy statements.
I. prefer to confine my remarks to general statements because I do not want to anticipate the report that will be brought in by the defence committee, of which I have the privilege and honour to be a member. There is widespread questioning of the adequacy of our defence program, and I believe a general feeling that we are not getting our money's worth as far as this essential program is concerned. While sympathizing with the minister and his officials in the task of trying to plan effectively in a field where changes are so rapid and far reaching, we hope the minister's program of rethinking and reviewing defence policy will result in some basic and much needed dynamic reforms.
A statement appeared in a periodical some time ago. I am not going to quote it because unfortunately it was just a sheet taken out of a periodical and I have not on the sheet the name of the periodical or the date. But it was very critical of the defence department because, instead of getting down to it and facing realistically the problems of the present day this article suggests the department is made up of those who are writing or rewriting United States and British defence reports. If that has been true in the past, and if it is true today, then surely we must come to the point of recognizing the need for a new look at and a facing up to the changing situations that exist in this particular field.
The Minister of National Defence himself was apparently very unhappy with certain aspects of the defence program. He called attention to the fact that as far as our NATO commitments and our forces overseas are concerned he was not satisfied that we were

in a position to discharge effectively the tasks to which we have been committed. I think one of the most significant moves to meet the situations in the realm of defence was pointed up in the appointments of the special parliamentary committee on defence. We are very happy about this; it was something we had anticipated, and the leader of our group suggested that this particular defence committee be set up. It is a matter of record that we presented this suggestion in certain campaigns. We were therefore very happy that the Prime Minister saw fit to introduce legislation setting up this defence committee, because I believe it has fulfilled and will fulfil a very important task in this particular field of activity and study.
I believe there are several aspects of our defence program that must be covered and will be covered by the inquiries conducted by the defence committee. I know that sceptics belittled the proposal, and in fact I remember one of my opponents pointing out that it was inconceivable that a group of politicians would be able to sit down and work out, in a spirit of harmony and co-operation, a policy that was adequate for Canadian needs and present day conditions. I think the activities of this committee have indicated that it is possible for a committee to work in this particular way, and as we look back over the work of the committee I believe it will prove eminently worth while in the setting up of proposals relative to national defence. As has been pointed out by other speakers, we have made a number of inquiries here in Canada. Our inquiries have also taken us to Colorado Springs and North Bay, and we have had a great many sittings right here in Ottawa. We spent two weeks overseas visiting defence establishments, listening to briefings by government leaders of the various nations comprising NATO, and we have been briefed by the military authorities of those nations as well as by the leaders of the collective defence organizations of the free world.
The work of this committee is still incomplete; there is still a great deal to be done. But I believe, as I have said, it will accomplish a great deal in the setting out of worth-while guide lines for the minister's information as he endeavours to set a course with regard to national defence for this country. One of the encouraging aspects of the work of the committee was, I might say, the complete absence of political partisanship. I am hoping this particular attitude will prevail not only as far as the committee is concerned but as far as parliament is concerned as we endeavour to set out what we believe to be adequate defence policy for
Union Trusteeship Correspondence this country. I have said before, and I say again, that this is too important an issue to be dealt with in the political, partisan arena. This was kept in mind in the setting up of the committee. The view was that it could be lifted above political partisanship and we could arrive collectively at some policy that would be adequate to meet the need in this field.
I would suggest it is highly improbable that the government, having had this committee set up, would consider lightly or would ignore the recommendations that without question will be forthcoming. As has been stated, the work of this committee has been carried on conscientiously and diligently with an almost complete lack of political consideration. We are expecting the government in turn to accept the recommendations that are given, in the spirit in which they have been formulated and will be formulated, and will give very careful consideration to those recommendations that will be forthcoming.
I have promoted among the members of the committee, and perhaps among the public generally, the idea that the committee work should not be confined to just this one particular session but should become something more permanent, in order that the valuable information secured and the work carried out will be able to assume a degree of continuity that will be of assistance to the minister and his department in this vital field.
Canada's defence policy must cover three very important areas; first of all, our own national territory-and what a stupendous task this is.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions for papers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martineau:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications and other documents and replies thereto between the government of the United States of America, or any of its departments, and
[Stage Direction]
Union Trusteeship Correspondence the government of Canada, or any of its departments, concerning the great lakes shipping situation and the proposed trusteeship of Canadian maritime unions since the 6th of July 1963.
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the wink of an eye or the brief flash of a second in which I had the opportunity to speak when this matter was first brought up for discussion some weeks ago I indicated to the house that I should like to enter into a discussion of the principles involved in connection with the production of diplomatic correspondence such as that called for by the notice of motion presently before the house. I also indicated that I should like to make specific reference to certain precedents which had been cited to the house, and make a few observations on parliamentary practice in general. The position I should like to take is not exclusively related to the particular correspondence or the particular diplomatic negotiations between Canada and the United States concerning the great lakes; it is related to the status of diplomatic correspondence generally.
My first argument is that a compulsory revelation of diplomatic correspondence in response to a private member's notice of motion for production of papers would have an adverse effect on the good conduct of Canada's diplomatic relations. My position would be that not only would such a motion embarrass Canadian diplomats and the Department of External Affairs in its negotiations with foreign parties, but it would have an adverse effect on the country as a whole.
The first argument to which I would direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that above all it is desirable to have complete candour of discussion in diplomatic intercourse and correspondence. Indeed, if the art of diplomacy and the conduct of diplomats have been the subject of any criticism in this century it is because in the public's eye, at least, there has been a lack of candour. I suggest that it is desirable, in international negotiations and relations generally, that the diplomats representing various nations be able to deal with each other with the same candour as any two contracting parties in a commercial transaction-perhaps even with a greater degree of candour if that is possible.
At the same time I would point out that the private candour which diplomats might show in such negotiations between themselves may frequently be too blunt for public discussion. What I mean to suggest is that the field of discussion between diplomats may prove to be too strong meat if it is to be unreservedly placed before the public. Direct embarrassment in international diplomacy
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
might result if at any particular time negotiations with foreign parties or, extending the principle even further, discussions between the foreign offices of two particular nations, should at any time be forcibly revealed to public gaze under the compulsion of a motion such as this. I think the reasons for that are quite clear to all hon. members. I think it is quite clear that the publication of communications from a foreign country to this country, and this country's replies to such communications, and vice versa, may well embarrass the foreign country concerned in its dealings with its own citizens.
I do not think it requires much by way of example to indicate that there may be times when a foreign government might be prepared to discuss a particular position, or a particular move or treaty, for which it might not have prepared its own subjects. The compulsory disclosure of such negotiations, or even the suggestion that that particular country should make such correspondence available for its own citizens, might well result in a political storm in the country concerned. Equally, I submit that undue exposure of diplomatic correspondence might embarrass such foreign country in its dealings with third parties or its allies.
May I take an extreme example merely for purposes of illustration and remind hon. members of the adverse effect to the country concerned of the accidental disclosure of the Zimmerman telegram in 1917, which, perhaps more than any single incident in that particular spring, became a direct factor resulting in a state of war between the kingdom of Germany and the United States. It is quite clear that, as in the case of the Zimmerman telegram, if communications between party A and party B which make reference to their relations with party C are forced out onto the open, a step which the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) is taking in moving a motion such as this-although I am not suggesting here that any third parties are involved- then, embarrassment, although not on the scale of that resulting from the disclosure of the Zimmerman telegram but which nevertheless would be considerable, could injure the foreign country concerned in its dealings with other contracting parties and allies.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly.


Reid Scott: Is he suggesting that disclosure of the papers in question would prove highly embarrassing to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am talking in terms of the general principle that the disclosure of

diplomatic correspondence might prove highly embarrassing to any country involved in diplomatic negotiations with Canada. Therefore, I point out to hon. members to whom this fairly obvious fact does not seem to have occurred, that motions of this kind, which would provide essentially the means of forcing into the public record these particular communications, would have the inevitable result of making foreign powers less candid in their dealings with this country as well as in their international negotiations. We are fortunate internationally in having a great many allies; there is a very friendly demeanour toward Canada in international circles. It would therefore be a great pity if those friendly relations were to be put in jeopardy, and the candour one would expect from friendly nations prejudiced, as a result of action taken by members of this parliament to disclose to the public diplomatic negotiations which might thereby result in embarrassment to the particular country involved.
Nor, I suggest, contrary to what some hon. members have indicated, is this a matter, as it is with regard to the provinces, of merely asking for foreign consent to the disclosure of these documents. I know that on occasions it has been done, but I believe even this procedure entails distinct diplomatic disadvantages which could inconvenience Canada in its foreign relations. For one thing, the mere act of withholding consent by a foreign power could be misconstrued and result in suspicion as to the motives for withholding that consent. It could, indeed, result in suspicions which might go far beyond the merits of the particular question involved. These are reasons, I submit, why the house should continue to recognize the long established principle that confidential diplomatic correspondence should not be made available in response to motions of this kind.
I should like to refer in this connection to the views of an outstanding foreign diplomat, Mr. Jules Cambon, a distinguished member of the French academy in his monograph "The Diplomatist". He observes at page 27 of the English version:
Last of all, a negotiator must observe discretion, and indeed it is no more than his bounden duty to do so, not only for the sake of his chief but of his fellow-negotiator as well. Negotiations partake of the nature of a conversation, and neither of the principals is at liberty to make even the smallest disclosure without a grave dereliction of duty towards the other. You can make things very awkward for your opponent by showing up his hesitations, his offers, and his various twists and turns; but you will often defeat your own ends by doing so and almost certainly ensure the breakdown of negotiations.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the hon. member a question? What does he think of the impact on the discussions when one of the negotiators
Union Trusteeship Correspondence issues statements to the press on the very subject which is being discussed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am prepared to agree that from time to time international relations are certainly not helped by actions such as that, but I would remind him, as I was tempted to do while he was advancing the same proposition earlier, that two wrongs in this regard do not make one right. If it is felt that the other contracting party is in dereliction of duty, matters are not necessarily improved by engaging in a similar practice oneself. But, to continue the quotation, this time from page 29:
As, however, human nature never changes, mischievous interference in negotiations on the part of intriguers can never altogether be avoided: it is they who by bruiting abroad whatever information they succeed in obtaining-


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, I wonder whether the hon. member would get down to the subject matter of the motion. As was pointed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when this matter was debated on October 31, the scope of the debate is very limited. So far, the hon. member has been engaging in generalities far removed from the subject matter and I think he should return to the subject under discussion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was evident to those who were in the house when the hon. member originally made his presentation that he was not very clear on the question of relevancy, and his intervention now makes this lack of clarity even more apparent. We are discussing the principle whether or not diplomatic correspondence should be made available to the house and whether it is in the public interest to do so. In the course of considering this matter I am putting on record statements made by a distinguished member of the diplomatic profession establishing the fact that great embarrassment in international negotiations could arise as a result of anything which is done to make negotiations public. I was referring to intriguers, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would follow your own ruling of October 31 and ask the hon. member who now has the floor to return to the subject matter.


Mr. Gray:: May I speak to the point of order? I suggest the point raised by the hon. gentleman is not well taken. I believe my hon. friend from Rosedale is addressing himself to the subject matter of the motion in attempting to answer the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue in favour of these documents being produced. All that the hon. member for Pon-

Union Trusteeship Correspondence tiac-Temiscamingue is doing is this: he is complaining about the manner in which my hon. friend from Rosedale is making his argument. I do not think that is a valid point of order. Unless he transgresses the rules I do not think the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue can complain about the particular type of approach-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Chapleau.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member for Chapleau?-no, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. My apologies to the hon. member for not properly citing the name of his riding. One of my hon. friends whispered in my ear. I apologize to the hon. member for Chapleau, for putting another member in his place. I am sorry my colleague whispered.
To return to the point of order. I do not believe it is valid to complain about the particular approach made by an hon. member toward the subject under discussion, as long as it remains within the bounds of the subject matter of the motion. If the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue finds the arguments of the hon. member for Rosedale to be painful, or unhelpful to his own contention, it is not proper for him to complain about them by raising a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the house recognizes that ever since this procedure was admitted the Chair has taken the view that the resulting debate must take place within very narrow limits. The only thing we are discussing here at the moment is whether or not the documents mentioned in this motion should be tabled. At the moment I am inclined to agree that the hon. member for Rosedale is not too far out of order, because he is explaining why, in his view, diplomatic papers should not be made public. But I would advise the hon. member to remain as closely as he can within the limits of this particular type of debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. friend from Essex West for the opportunity of putting some of these principles before the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue who appears never to have heard of them before. But to continue my quotation-we are referring to intriguers:
It is they who by bruiting abroad whatever information they succeed in obtaining undermine the authority of those in charge of the negotiations and impugn the good faith of the government they claim to be serving.
I am submitting that it would be against the interest of the Canadian government to hamper Canadian diplomatic negotiations by accepting a motion of the type put forward by the hon. gentleman. I should like to refer

to a number of outstanding authorities who would support this proposition. I suggest, in particular, that the proper view of these circumstances is that the executive, in other words, the government, must retain the power to decide in any particular case whether confidential documents such as these would, if revealed, result in harm being done to the public interest. If the government does so decide, then the house should recognize the need for taking such a decision and the issue should not be pressed. In support of this contention I should like to refer to the second edition of Todd on Parliamentary Government in England. As hon. members will recall, the learned author was the distinguished librarian of the parliamentary library of this house. He observes, at page 356:
It Is unquestionably of immense advantage to the country that the diplomatic transactions and proceedings of government abroad should be freely communicated to parliament. .. .But a certain amount of discretion must always be allowed to the government in respect to communicating or withholding documents and official correspondence which may be asked for by either house of parliament. While it is necessary that parliament should be informed of all matters which are essential to explain or defend the policy of government, it is equally necessary that a minister should be able, upon his own responsibility, to withhold from the public such information as he may judge could not be afforded without detriment to the public service. Ministers are sometimes obliged to give "extracts'' only from official papers, in certain cases; but parliament is bound to receive what is communicated upon the faith and credit of the administration in whom their general confidence is reposed, unless they are prepared to question the personal integrity of ministers, or to pronounce a verdict of censure upon their public conduct.
And continuing later:
Thus, it is generally inexpedient, and highly impolitic, to communicate to parliament papers concerning diplomatic negotiations which are still pending; and "nothing is more prejudicial to the action and efficiency of the diplomatic service than the perpetual motions for the production of papers, which are made by a certain class of politicians", who insist upon the fullest information on questions of foreign policy, at unseasonable times.
Then, at page 359:
Any attempt to coerce the government into producing to parliament all the papers they may possess upon a matter of foreign policy, without regard to their being confidential, or unsuitable for general publication, could only result in compelling the agents of government to have recourse to "private correspondence" for the communication of everything but mere ordinary information. This would occasion not only immediate public loss, but also permanent injury to the state.
I would also point out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order I regret I must interrupt the hon. member for Rosedale, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder whether I could seek unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Seek and ye shall not find.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the privilege at this time to rise for the purpose of putting forward reasons for the consideration of my colleagues why this motion should not be adopted. As a month has elapsed since the motion was last considered I think it would be useful at this time to read it again. It is in these words:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, communications and other documents and replies thereto between the government of the United States of America, or any of its departments, and the government of Canada, or any of its departments, concerning the great lakes shipping situation and the proposed trusteeship of Canadian maritime unions since the 6th of July, 1963.
When the hon. member proposed this motion some weeks ago he raised certain arguments in support of its passage. I should like to take this opportunity to comment on them briefly. First, the hon. member referred to certain press reports of comments of officials of the United States government on the issue then concerning the two countries, the United States and Canada. I gathered that he in effect said that, by reason of these officials making these comments to the press, in a sense the privilege ordinarily attached to such documents might be considered to be waived and there was therefore no grounds for withholding the documents from the house on the basis of the arguments of lack of consent, in effect, of the neighbouring government of the United States, and of public policy.
May I suggest to the house that there was no suggestion in the press reports or, more important, in the arguments put forward by the hon. member that the words of these United States officials were in any way quotations or summaries of any of the documents which the hon. member seeks to have produced through his motion. I have read his remarks with some care, looking for some evidence contained in them that the references he made to quotations from the press and, in fact, words of ministers of the crown in this house with respect to these comments were in a sense quotations or extracts made by these officials from documents of the United States government or any of its departments or instrumentalities. Certainly in the remarks of the hon. member on the last occasion this motion was debated we find no such evidence.
I think the principles to be applied here are basically two. One arises out of the fact that 28902-5-349
Union Trusteeship Correspondence the correspondence, tabling of which is requested, has passed between two governments, our own and that of the United States of America. The other is linked to the question of public policy and the public interest. I think the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) has brought forward some valuable and useful precedents to indicate the problems that arise when documents are exchanged in the course of diplomatic negotiations between two sovereign states. I think it is clear that it would certainly be most inappropriate, if the other sovereign state in question should not indicate its consent or desire for the tabling of the documents in question, for this house to pass a motion which would in effect compel the government to table the particular documents. We have no indication that the government of the United States of America would be in the least way willing to have these documents brought before us.
I think the hon. member for Rosedale put before us quite a useful point in directing our attention to the fact that a new and in this case quite unnecessary cause of potential conflict between our two countries might be created, if it should happen that a motion of this type were passed compelling the government to produce the documents in question at a time when the necessary consent of the government of the United States had not been obtained, a consent which they might well consider to be most necessary involving as it does correspondence, documents, state papers, which in their view of the public interest, not only of their own country but the general mutual interest, are such that it would be better that the documents in question not be produced.
In the attempt of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) to bring before us some precedent he referred to the fact that on occasion international air agreements have been tabled in the house. He attempted to show that since these agreements were between two countries, the United States and Canada, and were documents involving two nations, and since they were tabled, this in effect created a precedent for the passing of the motion compelling the tabling of the documents which the hon. member seeks. In my opinion the precedent, if there is such, is not relevant to the situation. In fact, I would go further and suggest it is not really a precedent at all because in discussing the motion before us what we are talking about is not a document involving a final conclusion, a final agreement, the entering into of some type of final accord between

Union Trusteeship Correspondence two nations but rather the preliminary documents that have embodied in them and reflect negotiations that might lead up to some type of final agreement.
I think it is clear it is not the customary practice, especially in matters as delicate as the one out of which this motion has developed, to bring before the house the documents which the hon. member seeks under a motion of this type.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only effect of bringing these documents before us would be to help make more difficult the solution of the problem out of which this particular motion has arisen. In making this comment I am not implying that I have personal knowledge, which I do not, of the contents of these documents. Each side might be referring to bargaining positions taken for the purpose of reaching some ultimate conclusion. The documents might contain certain factual information which, if generally made available to the public, would make it most difficult to reach some appropriate and final conclusion. It can easily be seen, I submit, how the presentation of these documents, which are really only preliminary steps in an attempt to reach some final conclusion, could be a most difficult and harmful thing when we are trying to solve the problem on which this particular motion is based.
Let me, then, turn to the ground of public interest which is relevant in considering whether or not the documents covered by this particular motion are such that their production should be compelled. I think that this is an occasion when, as often happens in assemblies of this type, events have overtaken the particular motion or question under which debate is taking place. If you read the motion you will see that it refers to the proposed trusteeship, and legislation in connection with it was passed many weeks ago. The first time the subject matter of this particular motion arose was October 31. I suggest, sir, that events have certainly overtaken the hon. member's motion. Since that time, the parliament of Canada has passed into law a bill setting up a trusteeship over the maritime union. The trustees have been appointed and have assumed their functions. They have taken over their duties and are carrying out those duties under the powers given to them by the parliament of Canada.
We find, too, that the emergency situation which seemed to be in existence at the time this motion was presented no longer seems to exist. Although we can readily admit there is still a problem of grave seriousness in the United States and Canada, shipping that has not already been halted by the onset of winter is being carried on from Canadian

ports. The wheat shipments we have undertaken to make to Russia and other countries are being carried forward. The problems that faced our Canadian ships in United States ports are not of the same intensity that they were some five or six weeks ago. While I think it is correct, as the hon. member has suggested when he presented this motion, that this is essentially a Canadian problem, it is one that we have to recognize transcends to a certain extent the boundaries of our own nation, since the waterways in question obviously are those through which the international boundary runs.
I think we can readily agree that it would be impossible to come to a final solution of the problem on which this motion is based without the co-operation of the United States government and the leaders of the United States labour movement. I would suggest to this house and to all hon. members, that at this point, when relative calm has descended on the troubled maritime transportation scene, nothing at all could possibly be gained by proceeding with this motion at this time. In fact, I suggest to the hon. member who presented this motion that if he is really as concerned with the public interest, as I am sure he is in respect of this matter, if he still feels, as I am sure he did at the time he moved this motion, that there is a grave question of public interest involved, it would seem to me that the way to serve this public interest at this time would be to withdraw this motion, to remove the opportunity for inadvertently re-opening at an inappropriate time a question which, if it is not closed, is at least not as troublesome as it was.
We had a situation which seemed to be on the verge of explosion. The maritime labour front situation at one time appeared to be likely to halt Canadian shipping and to spill over the boundaries of a friendly nation, thus troubling the labour movement in that country. This situation does not appear to have the same potential violence now. We can recall that there was a situation which appeared to threaten the friendly relationships, the links between the two labour movements in the United States and Canada. It would appear that at least temporarily, and we hope permanently, some type of accord has been reached between the two principals. We hope some understanding has been reached or is on the verge of being reached between our two governments on this important question.
I suggest again to the hon. member who proposed this motion that it would be the highest expression of action in the public interest to withdraw the motion and to remove even this slight risk of opening this question at a time when it is unnecessary. I suggest,

therefore, for a number of reasons this motion should not be supported by this house. First of all, I suggest the action of the United States officials in making comments to the press, and to which the hon. member who moved this motion has referred, were not quotations or summaries of official documents; second, I think it is clear that the public interest cannot possibly be served by revealing documents of this type, documents which as I have already indicated have been exchanged between the United States and Canada; and we have had no indication that the government of the United States has expressed any willingness whatever for these documents to be presented to this house.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I not only suggest that this motion be defeated if it should happen to come to a vote, but that the only appropriate thing for the hon. member to do with this motion at this time is to withdraw it. We would give unanimous consent to that course, since this would be the highest expression of public interest on this very important question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that if the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) rises at this time he will close the debate and there are several other hon. members who would like to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the order which I have, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) was next on the list. I believe this was agreed to by various members of the house. The hon. member for Halifax.


Mr. Nesbitt:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue be now heard.


An hon. Member:: That is closure.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is what you people are doing over there, talking one after another.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened to the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) with great interest but I am advised, both actually and legally, we cannot accede to his request, because if the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue speaks now he will close the debate, and under our rules, if there are other members who wish to talk at this time, they have the privilege of doing so. I regret I cannot accept the point of order.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I have listened with interest to the remarks of the various speakers who preceded me, and indeed because of my very deep interest in the subject upon which the motion is founded, ever since it first appeared I have 28902-5-3491
Union Trusteeship Correspondence taken an interest in it and looked forward to the time when it would come before the house.
I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) and his argument that it would not be in the public interest at this time, in all the surrounding circumstances, for these documents to be produced. Like the hon. member for Essex West I wonder that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, in view of the great improvement in conditions on the great lakes that has come about since the trusteeship went into effect, should insist on going forward with this motion, because at this late date it would not have any beneficial effect on the over-all situation. Indeed it could start up the controversy again. The troubled waters of dissention and strife have receded somewhat, and I think the public interest would appear to indicate that these papers and documents should not be produced at this late stage.
Indeed the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, because of his broad knowledge of matters of this type, is perhaps more aware than many hon. members of the house of the possible very unfortunate developments that-


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the hon. member a question. I wonder, would he not allow the house to decide the points which he is arguing, and let the matter now be put to a vote?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let him have freedom of speech.


Gerald Augustine Regan: With all respect to the hon. member, there are certain remarks on this subject that I would like to put on the record. I feel that in the interest of free speech, and so that the opportunity of hon. members on this side of the house to speak on matters of this type should not be restricted, I should continue my remarks. Perhaps if the hon. member will bear with me he may find that, before I conclude, he will be in full accord with the sentiments I express, though I would be quick to assure him I am not absolutely sure of that possibility.
I note, as reported at page 4229 of Hansard for October 31, 1963, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue was involved in an exchange on a similar question and said:
Concerning precedents, Mr. Speaker, there are a number' of precedents where documents involving two countries have been tabled in the house. The government is continually tabling international air agreements between various countries. The latest I believe was in November, 19S2, when an agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom concerning air traffic was tabled. Last session the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Union Trusteeship Correspondence Knowles) submitted a motion to the house, which was accepted, for the tabling of correspondence with other countries-
I presume the hon. member was referring to international conventions on civil aviation. These international agreements or treaties are essentially law making instruments, since they create international rights or obligations. Further I might point out to the house that under article 102 of the United Nations charter it is required that international agreements of this character and nature be registered with the United Nations, so that the obligations arising therefrom of various countries would be well known.
International agreements differ very much from diplomatic papers and negotiations leading up to them. This is a distinction which the hon. member did not make at that time, and it is one of the fundamental differences between the question of international air agreements and the subject matter of the motion before us.
Turning to the question of other precedents as to why documents of the type should not be produced-other than the public interest argument, which I hope to return to in due course-I would point out that on February 8, 1962, as recorded at page 687 of Hansard for that date, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) moved this motion:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency, department, or branch thereof, and any other government since April 1, 1960, relating to the breadth of the territorial sea and proposals for the widening thereof.
Speaking on that motion the former minister of veterans affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) had these words to say, which I think are pertinent to our consideration of this matter. They are reported as follows at page 683 of Hansard:
There is plenty of evidence to show that over the years it has been the custom for governments, when asked to produce that type of material, to decline to do so and certainly, if prepared to produce the material, to do so only after having received permission to that effect from the governments concerned.
At this point I might interject that, as an earlier speaker said, there is no indication that the United States government has agreed to the production of these papers in. the case we are considering at the moment. Returning to the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre:
In this particular instance we are involved, I would imagine, with a number of governments which are interested in the problem of territorial

waters or the law of the sea. To put the matter briefly, what we are dealing with is diplomatic correspondence.
On May 27, 1931, the prime minister of that day, Mr. R. B. Bennett, in discussing a motion for the production of papers similar to this one, stated as found on page 2020 of Hansard:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Admiralty Act.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
An act to incorporate Allstate Life Insurance Company of Canada.
An act respecting The Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists.
An act respecting The Canadian Equity Insurance Company.
An act respecting The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company.
An act respecting Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock p.m., namely committee of supply.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,529,570,600 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments wifi come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $978,136,600 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $3,432,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: May I advise the house that we are meeting again at seven o'clock. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Alexander Bell Patterson: At five o'clock I was referring to three areas which must be considered when we are thinking of Canada's defence obligations. The first, of course, is our own national territory, and when we consider the geography of this nation, its immense area and the distance of its boundaries in relation to a population of just 19 million people we can appreciate what a tremendous task it would be to defend these shores. In these circumstances we recognize the necessity of forming alliances which would bring others to our assistance in the defence of our national boundaries, just as they would oblige us to help defend the interests of our friends.
The second area to which I referred is, of course, the North American continent as a whole and our obligations in this respect are covered to a large extent by our link with NORAD. There is, in addition, the contribution which Canada must make to the defence of the free world, and this contribution is made most apparent by our part in the NATO alliance. All this is a large order for a nation of 19 million people, but it represents a task we must face realistically and courageously. It may be we shall have to make a choice between providing a small and, possibly, inadequate contribution in many fields, on the one hand, and making an adequate contribution in a selected role on the other. This is a matter to which careful consideration will have to be given.
Canada has never shirked her responsibilities, and her efforts in the past have earned the gratitude of all her friends. The hon. member for Vancouver East has referred to the statements we heard while we were in Europe regarding the quality of Canada's forces and I am sure that those qualities will be recognized in the future, as in the past, by all those with whom we are allied.
I should like to take this opportunity of dealing with the question of our personnel stationed abroad. An article appeared in tonight's Ottawa Citizen entitled: "Hellyer plans to pare military attache posts". It has to do with the attitude of the Minister of National Defence toward certain of our personnel abroad. The article states, in part:
Supply-National Defence
It is reported that defence minister Hellyer was appalled when a manpower study he had ordered showed that Canada's 39 senior military attaches abroad draw annual living and rental allowances totalling $343,200.
Most of these embassy posts are filled by colonels or their equivalent in the navy and air force- captains and group captains.
The article draws attention to the obvious risk of overlapping which occurs, and points out that other officers in various areas could well undertake the responsibilities now carried by these attaches. It states:
A military attache is maintained in Paris, though dozens of Canadian senior officers serve at supreme allied headquarters there. He draws a monthly living allowance of $609 and a rental allowance of $247 on top of a monthly salary of nearly $1,000 excluding marriage and subsistence allowances.
While we were in London a question was raised as to the number of officers and other ranks attached to our missions there. We were told there were 52 officers, 47 other ranks, 348 dependants and 77 civilians. I repeat, there were 52 officers. I do not know, but it seems to me the situation we face overseas is the same as the situation which faces us right here in Canada: We have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. This may explain why our expenditures are so tremendously high in relation to the number of active personnel we have in the forces. It appears that the minister himself is unhappy over this situation, and no doubt he will be taking some action in relation to it.
I should like to return now to a statement to which I referred this afternoon. I refer to another statement made by the Minister of National Defence, this time to the Empire club in Toronto. I should like to quote from a report which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 28:
Defence minister Hellyer today admitted there are "serious problems" in respect of the Canadian army brigade and air division in Europe.
The minister said plainly that the brigade is not properly equipped to hold down its present advanced role with the NATO northern army group in Germany.
He said the situation of the R.C.A.F. air division, with half its strength in France where nuclear ammunition was not available, was simply not satisfactory.
Here again we find the minister very unhappy with the situation of our personnel abroad. Once again, speaking personally I would agree that the minister has some reason to be perturbed about this situation. When we were at Zweibriicken we had the opportunity of meeting the leaders of the third wing of our air division, and in reply to questions and through the contacts we made there we found that the air force was not in any way prepared to meet any kind of emergency that might arise. It seemed as

Supply-National Defence though they were completely without weaponry. They were vulnerable in every sense of the word. When we hear references made to combat readiness they certainly do not appear to apply in that particular respect.
As far as the army brigade group is concerned, some of the factors that were brought to our attention there indicated that they are very ill equipped to fulfil any essential and prominent role in defence. I am not saying anything whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, by way of reflection on the personnel of our armed forces abroad. I believe they are of the highest calibre and they are anxious and ready to do any job that may be assigned to them.
There were a number of officers and men who expressed themselves as being very happy that the defence committee set up so recently had seen fit to come to visit them and to investigate the contribution that they, representing Canada, were making. The particular role assigned to our forces abroad is not the important question to them, as far as I could ascertain. They expect such decisions to be made in Ottawa. But they are extremely anxious that their role be defined and communicated to them so that they can go ahead and be tops in the job with which they are charged. The morale is high but I believe that morale can only be maintained if our service personnel know what the job is and are given the opportunity to maintain peak performance and preparedness in the face of that responsibility. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is absolutely essential that policies must be forthcoming.
Reference has been made to the past months and past years when we have not had an adequate or effective defence policy. I say again that policies must be forthcoming. Decisions must be made. A reassessment is essential and action is imperative to give a sense of direction and to lay down the guidelines for the responsibility that we are accepting in the roles which we intend to fulfil.
As I stated before, I do not intend to anticipate the committee's report. I do not even submit personal views at this time with regard to defence policy. But with the tabling of the report of the committee and the outlining of its recommendations I believe it will be the responsibility of the government to prepare to move quickly and decisively in the adoption of a defence policy that will establish the role of our forces at home and abroad so that uncertainty will be ended and our forces enabled to reach the maximum standard of preparedness to fulfil their tasks.
It is true, as wa were reminded when overseas, that the era when war could be a continuation of foreign policy in another form


is over. War with our present destructive capability is, as we are all aware, too catastrophic to contemplate. However, I believe our defensive capability must be maintained lest any possible aggressor consider our unpreparedness a sign of moral weakness and use the opportunity afforded to further his own objectives. While respecting the minister's hesitancy in acquiring weaponry that might limit operations in the future, I believe it is imperative that no time be lost in defining our roles and then moving quickly to prepare to fulfil those roles to the maximum degree possible.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I pay tribute to those who are serving in the forces abroad, and here at home, of course, but I am sure we all recognize that we must set the objectives and outline the roles. Without question, those in the forces are then prepared to go ahead and make their maximum contribution to the defence of Canada and the free world.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we are considering the estimates of what I believe to be the most important department, namely the Department of National Defence. When you study the estimates for the various departments, you find that 25.6 per cent of the national budget is spent by the Department of National Defence, whereas only 19.1 per cent goes to social security and health, 5.3 per cent to veterans affairs, 4 per cent to transport and 1.4 per cent to unemployment insurance.
There is no need to say that when 25.6 per cent of a national budget is allocated to one department, its expenditures must be scrutinized, not only by the ministers but also by all the members of the house.
The estimates of the Department of National Defence amount to $1,560 million this year, after deducting the $74 million which were to be used for buying CF-104 and Voodoo CF-100 aircraft. And despite that reduction the expenditures will amount to 25 per cent of the national budget, while the estimates for natural resources and industrial development represent only 8 per cent and payments to the provinces, 5 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that this percentage of 5 per cent for the provinces could have been increased by acceding to the requests of the premier of the province of Quebec as well as those of the other provincial premiers.
The estimates of the Department of Agriculture amount only to 2.7 per cent of the whole national budget, while those for the unemployment insurance commission represent only 1.5 per cent, as I said earlier.

Mr. Chairman, among the larger estimates of the Department of National Defence, we see that $291 million are allocated to the Royal Canadian Navy, which is $24 million more than last year. Does this increase include the $30 million we will need to purchase submarines from Great Britain? The estimates do not say.
The estimates for the Canadian army amount to $444 million, that is $7,791,000 more than last year.
As for the Royal Canadian Air Force, its estimates amount to $691 million, that is $38,702,000 less than last year.
The estimates for defence research and development amount to $51,217,000, that is $8 million more than last year.
The estimates concerning mutual aid for NATO amount to $32.1 million, that is $4.8 million more than last year. The estimates for contributions and other allowances have been reduced by $2,720,000.
As I said a while ago, these various amounts make a total of $1,560 million, that is $30 million more than the previous year, despite the decreases announced this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Chairman, what is most surprising to me is the detail of vote No. 1, which reads as follows:
Departmental administration including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,529,570,600-


An hon. Member:: How much?


David Réal Caouette: -$2,529,570,600 for the purposes of Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment-
Now, the Department of National Defence is authorized to spend up to $2,529 million, an authorization that is actually granted, while these expenses will amount to $1,560 million this year.
Mr. Chairman, X wonder how it is that the Department of National Defence, which is authorized to spend up to that amount, does not allow, through a cabinet order, other departments to use that portion of its supply.
For example, why is the natural resources and industrial development division not allowed to use that supply which the Department of National Defence will not be using this year?
They are authorized to spend up to $2,500 million and only 8 per cent of the whole national budget is allotted to industrial development and to the development of our natural resources.
We could also allocate the amounts which will be of no need to the Department of
Supply-National Defence National Defence to other departments, so as to allow a more adequate development of all the riches and physical facilities we have in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the government might, for example, double the family allowances' rate; that would cost $1,040 million, half a billion less than what we are spending at the present time for national defence, and there would be one billion more that would circulate among Canadian families.
If old age pensions were increased by $10 a month, that is by $120 a year, for each of the one million Canadian pensioners, it would cost Canada $120 million. Instead of increasing income tax rates, the government could have used national defence estimates which the minister will not use this year any more than he did last year.
Under its contribution to joint programs, the federal government pays out $50 million: $30 million for old age assistance, $4 million for the blind and $16 million for the disabled. If those federal benefits were doubled, it would cost the government only $50 million. Here again, the necessary funds could be taken out of the estimates of the Department of National Defence which are not used at present.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the minister's attention to those cuts in expenditures as it seems to be done in other countries of the world.
This afternoon the Minister of National Defence gave clearly to understand that some radar stations would be closed in various locations in Canada in order to save the department approximately $74 million.
Some people have been employed in those radar stations for eight, 10 or 11 years and they are very worried following the statements made by the Minister of National Defence. There should be some co-ordination and agreement between the various departments so that when jobs are abolished or there are layoffs in a department, such as that of National Defence, another department would look after the workers deprived of their jobs. In such cases, I suggest that the departments of trade and commerce and industry should look after the matter or that they be authorized to spend the funds which will not be used by the Department of National Defence.
I will now quote an excerpt from La Presse of December 3, 1963:
The budget which will be presented by the Department of National Defence for the next fiscal year, will amount to about $1,560 million.
The $74 million reduction mainly stems from the decisions made by the minister of defence, Mr. Hellyer, not to buy other CF-104 atomic

547G
Supply-National Defence bombers for the air division of the R.C.A.F. in Europe and other Voodoo CF-101B interceptors for the R.C.A.F. air defence command in the country-
-Following those decisions, estimates for weapons and equipment which were supposed to reach $279,441,000 fell to a new low for the decade. On the other hand, expenses for personnel, operations and maintenance continued to go up and reached more than $1,100 million.
That is just for salary increases and ordinary operations.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that some changes could be made in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. The report which was submitted to us last year on the expenses of the Department of National Defence and those of the Department of Defence Production clearly shows that the government and the two departments concerned make extravagant outlays.
I read in the issue of Wednesday, December 4, 1963, of Le Devoir, an article by Paul Sauriol which said:
Three days after the federal-provincial conference, a news report from Ottawa informed us that the Minister of National Defence had cut his budget for the current year by $74 million. The federal treasury thus recovers almost the equivalent of the $87 million it is giving to the provinces. There may not be any direct link between the two occurrences, but it is more than a coincidence, because many people feel that the most efficient and the most logical way to meet the requests of the provinces is to reduce considerably our defence expenditures.
It is true, several provinces, particularly the province of Quebec through Hon. Rene Levesque, suggested to the federal authorities to reduce expenditures for national defence in order to be able to give larger amounts to the provinces.
And he went on to say:
In spite of all that can be said with regard to our commitments to the Atlantic alliance and our share in the defence of North America, our military budget is too big, and it is the part of federal expenses which may be most easily reduced.
Mr. Chairman, when comparing our expenses with those of the United States, the difference is obvious.
And further on:
Those statements were illustrated by some figures:	The United States has more than 500
I.C.B.M. and will have over 1,700 in 1966, whereas the Soviet union only has a fraction of that figure. The United States has more than 500 bombers ready for action, which is twice the number which the Soviets would send as a first wave over North America. The same superiority exists with regard to the hundreds of I.R.B.M. So that, if anything more were to be done in the nuclear field, the point of diminishing returns would be reached...
...There is no more question of the old monopolies, the American nuclear monopoly or the Russian conventional forces monopoly. The west realized the limitations of the nuclear deterrent, and increased its conventional forces, but Moscow

also knows that an aggression with those conventional forces which would endanger the major interests of the west, in Berlin for instance, would bring about retaliation with tactical nuclear warheads. It is therefore a question of balance.
That is all Mr. McNamara said, but those who were listening could read the budgetary implications of his remarks between the lines. It meant that the new balance of forces might result in the reduction of some military expenses, more particularly with regard to nuclear arms; moreover, in order to reduce the deficit in the balance of payments, Washington may progressively decrease the importance of its forces in Europe, the more so as a recent experiment showed that a whole division could be transported by air in two or three days.
Therefore, if the military budget is notably reduced without jeopardizing the security of the country and of the west, the American government will have more ample resources available to stimulate economy, to modernize industry, to give a greater measure of assistance to emerging countries, to be more competitive on world markets, and to make up the deficit in the balance of payments.
In that light, Canada may hope to reduce also its disproportionate military effort, which absorbs one fourth of the federal budget. Even after the reduction which has just been announced, those expenses remain above one billion and a half. An energetic reduction of those exorbitant expenses would allow a better equilibrium between the federal and provincial finances. The hierarchy of needs would be easier to respect.
This amounts to what I stated a minute ago, that all the reductions in the national defence budget should be directed towards other divisions, such as that of the economic expansion of Canada.
If, in order not to weaken the armed forces of the country, we have to maintain our soldiers' pay, their standard of living, their jobs, it would be as easy, I think, to do so through building something in Canada instead of letting them exist in a passive way, as is the case now.
Those fabulous amounts should be devoted to the transfer of several thousand soldiers, if necessary, toward a direction other than that of national defence. So, it would be advisable, it seems to me, that those military men be directed towards the economic expansion of their country, instead of remaining in passivity or in a sort of idleness, as is the case now.
Mr. Chairman, we have here, under the heading of national defence, cases which are presented to us day after day. I feel I should call the attention of the minister to a statement from General Charles Foulkes of Victoria, B.C., who, speaking on national defence expenditures before the special committee on defence, the chairman of which is the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), declared, on October 22, 1963, the following:
I am not convinced that we know really which antisubmarine force is the more effective and the most economical for Canada.

And the Minister of National Defence was announcing at that time the purchase of submarines at a cost of $30 million. General Foulkes said:
We are not convinced, we do not know exactly which would be the most effective and the most economical antisubmarine force for Canada.
There was never, as far as I know, an impartial estimation of the relative value of the aircraft carriers, scouting planes, frigates, submarines, helicopters and long range marine aircraft, to combat nuclear submarines. We have replaced the Magnificent by another aircraft carrier, and wartime frigates by relatively slow escort ships, at a cost of $30 million. (That figure would be obsolete today.) Lancasters have been replaced by Argus marine aircraft, and these will have to be replaced also in 1970. We are right in asking ourselves whether this present combination of an aircraft carrier with scouting planes, frigates, helicopters and long range marine aircraft constitutes the most effective, the most useful, the most economical combination for this job. I consider this combination rather as a conglomeration of plans and ambitions of the navy and air force organizers.
That is a statement by General Foulkes, a Canadian general who said boldly: The present arrangement is rather a collection of plans and ambitions by navy and air force organizers.
And now, here in the parliament of Canada, we are voting $1 billion, possibly $1J billion for national defence or something which amounts to a collection of plans, instead of an effective defence in case of attack, need or necessity.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of National Defence spends 5.6 per cent of the total national budget. Out of those fantastic expenditures, we still see the Department of National Defence treating people in the most arrogant manner you could think of.
I have a case here which dates back to 1951 and was discussed before various ministers of national defence, not necessarily before the present minister, but before the ministers of past administrations.
I am referring to the Senneterre radar station, in the riding of Chapleau, which was established in 1951. At the time of the establishment of that radar station, the government decided to take over claims which properly belonged to a mining prospector of the city of Val d'Or whose name is Joseph Lavoie.
Mr. Joseph Lavoie was the owner, since 1950, of mining claims located on the present site of the Senneterre radar station.
He asked the Department of National Defence for compensation. On several occasions, he was asked to report to the latter, or to send his claim to the Department of Transport, and afterwards to the Department of Industry, and then again to the Department of National Defence, and later still to the Department of Defence Production. He was sent from post to pillar since 1950, without ever getting any compensation though he was
Supply-National Defence the owner of that mining claim which is the present site of the Senneterre radar.
Here is for instance, a letter dated 1957, written by Mr. George Hees, the then minister of transport, to Mr. Andre Begin:

Dear Mr. Begin:
This is further to my letter of November 15 in connection with the effect of crown requirements on property owned by your client, Mr. J. A. Lavoie.
Actually the question of whether or not Mr. Lavoie can work his claims is one for the Department of National Defence to settle, and my department will again take the matter up with national defence to see if arrangements can be made which will enable Mr. Lavoie to develop his claims without interference with the R.C.A.F. installations.
I understand that my real estate officers have informed you that Mr. Lavoie's claim is very similar to the one filed by the Sullivan-Bourlamaque Gold Mines Limited as a result of the establishment of an airport at Val d'Or and that it was understood that you had agreed that negotiations could be held in abeyance, until a judgment is rendered in this case. Unfortunately, although some of the evidence has been heard the date of the final hearing is indefinite, and it may be some time before a judgment is rendered. I am afraid, therefore, that if the Department of National Defence feel that development of the claims cannot be allowed we will have no alternative but to await the completion of the Sullivan-Bourlamaque case.
I will write you further as soon as we have something definite from the Department of National Defence.
This letter is dated December 11, 1957.

Mr. Chairman, that letter was written in 1957 by the minister of transport of Canada Mr. Hees. Since then, Mr. Lavoie went on writing and communicating with the Department of National Defence; and again he was sent from post to pillar, trying to find out whether he was the owner of those claims or not, and whether the Department of National Defence could, without any compensation, expropriate land duly registered as claims with the provincial department in Quebec.
Here are the facts:
Mr. Lavoie has been since 1950 the owner of those mining claims, located on the present site of the Senneterre radar, whereas the building of that radar station only was started in 1951. When construction begun, Mr. Lavoie was formally denied entrance to the site of his claims when he wanted to work.
In 1958, the Department of Transport authorized him to proceed with his work within certain limits, and under entirely impractical conditions. Actually, Mr. Lavoie was refused the right to enter his own property.
By 1958, Mr. Lavoie had spent $51,113 with regard to these claims. At that time, the department concerned still refused to award Mr. Lavoie any damages, under the pretext that a similar case was pending in the exchequer court for the exact site occupied by the Val d'Or airport. That property had been taken over without any compensation being offered.
Therefore, I am asking the Minister of National Defence who could cut down the

Supply-National Defence expenditures in his department by $74 million, if he is now in a position to honour his commitment concerning Mr. Lavoie, in Senneterre, where the radar station is located, or if he intends to open negotiations in order to settle this matter which has remained unsolved for years.
Under the previous regime, Mr. Lavoie was already making trips from Val d'Or to Ottawa to meet the then member for Chapleau, Mr. Martel, the minister of mines and technical surveys and the deputy minister of national defence. The case was never settled under the Conservative regime and the present government does not seem willing to settle it either. I continue:
On November 10, 1960, judgment was rendered concerning the Val d'Or airport and Sullivan Gold Mines, Bourlamaque.
Until November 1961, the authorities had never claimed they had acquired from the province a right to the piece of land in question. On November 1, 1961, the Department of National Defence, in a letter signed by Mr. David McBrown, executive assistant, admitted that, to that date, the land concerned had not been transferred from the provincial to the federal government.
That was in 1961.
A few days after that letter was received, the deputy minister of national defence informed Mr. Claude R. Baillargeon, of Val d'Or, Mr. Lavoie's attorney, that he was ready to meet him to discuss the matter. As a matter of fact, the meeting took place on December 14 and 15, 1961. The compensation suggested then would not have been sufficient to cover the expenses incurred up until that time by Mr. Lavoie in legal fees, engineering fees and others to regain his rights.
On January 4, 1962, Mr. Lavoie indicated in writing the necessary conditions for his operations.
On May 25, 1962, the department of defence proposed a new method of operation under conditions impossible to comply with.
It would be superfluous to mention to you the extremely heavy correspondence at the office of Mr. Baillargeon, at the department concerned and at the department of lands and forests of Quebec about the matter.
The main point at stake now is not the amount of damages, since practically no serious proposal has been made concerning that matter, but the possibility for Mr. Lavoie to develop the mineral resources which he owns.
A fact worthy of notice is that three settlers have received compensation as early as September 1951, when their land or part of their land was transferred to national defence.
Must we therefore conclude that the department in question claims absolute priority without having to compensate the owners of mining claims? In fact, can the Queen in

right of Canada take over a property which was obtained legally from the Queen in right of the province? Perhaps the hypothesis may seem far fetched but facts prove that such an incident can and did happen.
The only way that argument could make any sense, would be to establish that the Department of National Defence had legal title before Mr. Lavoie. Otherwise, the department could offer Mr. Lavoie fair and reasonable compensation.
The last alternative has failed to materialize; as for the first one, official documents of the Quebec department of lands and forests prove the contrary.
A letter sent by the assistant deputy minister of lands and forests on October 15, 1957, bears witness to the fact that there has been no legal transfer yet. A letter dated November 1, 1961, and signed by the executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence reads partly as follows: "We are not yet in a position to give you a complete report, but we are informed that departmental officials are now ready to negotiate with Mr. Lavoie the settlement of his claim as soon as it appears that the Senneterre property was transferred to the department by the provincial department. The necessary steps have been taken to have the transfer made but the proper order has not yet been issued."
Even to this date, it is doubtful that the federal government has acquired legal title to that land where the radar station is located in Senneterre. I wonder if it is right for the government to act that way towards a Canadian citizen. Even if there is only one person involved and regardless of where the situation may arise in Canada, I feel that the Department of National Defence does not have the right to treat a Canadian citizen like that.
In the interest of the government, of human rights and of private property in Canada, I would therefore ask the Minister of National Defence to have the numerous cases like that of Mr. Lavoie settled in the nearest possible future.
Mr. Chairman, as I said a while ago, the Department of National Defence accounts for 25 per cent of the federal budget and its expenditures must be closely scrutinized. I agree that the Minister of National Defence is very competent and that he is an honest man-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


David Réal Caouette: If the committee will bear with me, I just have two sentences left.


An hon. Member:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: There would have to be unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue.


An hon. Member:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: I have heard someone say no; unfortunately I cannot accede to the hon. member's request.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, although I will now speak on the national defence estimates for the fiscal year 1963-64, I do not intend to prolong this debate but rather to bring my humble contribution to that delicate and very important matter which is the defence of our country. As the member from a constituency which along with the Gaspe riding gave to the Canadian armed forces during the last world war 35,000 men and women, many of whom fell on the battlefield, I feel doubly justified to speak.
Kindly allow me, Mr. Chairman, to express my most sincere gratitude and my great admiration to those courageous Canadians for the sacrifices they made in the name of a principle which is dear to us all: liberty.
To speak of defence is to speak of protecting our country against any eventual aggressor. When I say "our country", I mean its human capital as well as its territory. It is to speak of protecting our most cherished rights, our tongue, our faith, our traditions. It is, in short, to speak of safeguarding our democracy and our liberties.
In this framework, I feel that defence must be put above partisanship, because it is impossible for any country to have a true defence policy if it is bound by petty and often selfish interests that might be dictated by such and such a political party. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I intend to remove all traces of partisanship from these few remarks.
I wish to devote the few minutes allotted to me to speak very briefly about the necessity of a good defence system for Canada and its responsibilities as a member of NATO and I will conclude with a few general comments.
In the first place, we, Canadians, should thank divine Providence for having spared our country from the disasters of war which the European countries and other continents have known for centuries. However, with the progress of science, with its effects in the military field as well as in all the others, with the development of the atomic bomb, jets, intercontinental missiles, etc. the enemy is at our doors. And we know some dictators who, if they would now decide to conquer the world, would represent a greater threat to Canada than the danger which existed 15 or 20 years ago.
Faced with such a prospect, no country, including Canada, can afford to disregard its
Supply-National Defence own means of defence. When one thinks that only one mistake, wherever it might be made, can soon degenerate into a world-wide disaster, there should be no hesitation about the necessity for our country to be ready for any emergency in order to protect its own territory. Therefore, I feel that Canada should have an army, an air force and a navy equipped with the most modern and efficient weapons. I will be told that all this would cost huge amounts of money that a country like ours, large in size but rather small in population, cannot afford. To that I reply that in order to protect itself, any country must be willing to make the necessary sacrifices if it is to survive.
To come back to what I was saying at the outset of my remarks, no price is too high to preserve one's freedom and the control over one's territory. After talking with our French, German or British friends who suffered from the disastrous effects of the numerous wars they experienced, it is realized what sacrifices those people made and are still ready to make and the price they are willing to pay in order to protect their freedom and to banish the curse of war which, according to the present outlook, would be a nuclear war.
It would be an overstatement perhaps to suggest that Canada, with its existing possibilities, could eventually hope to beat off alone an attack launched against its territory. That is why it must necessarily rely on the co-operation of its partners, the closest and the most powerful being the United States. This brings me to the second part of my statement, namely the North Atlantic treaty.
Shortly after the second world war, western democracies expected that a new era would begin an era of security. Demobilization was quickly undertaken as our faith was then put in the U.N. However, the Soviet policy very quickly cast a gloom over this fine dream. Before this sad prospect of Russia which had already annexed several countries, namely Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, etc. and wished to extend its rule throughout the world and in view of the inefficiency of the U.N. as a result of the repeated vetoes of Russia, there remained only one possibility for western countries to ensure their security: to unite in order to protect themselves.
Such was the origin of the North Atlantic treaty which was signed on April 4, 1949. This treaty states that the member countries are:
-determined to safeguard the liberty of their people, their common heritage and their civilization established on democratic principles, individual freedom and the rule of law.
Canada was one of the first 12 countries to sign that treaty. On that score, our
5480	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence country, as long as that multilateral agreement lasts, must have the best means of defence which will allow it to take the action that it will deem necessary, in case of any aggression against one or several of the contracting parties to the treaty.
Knowing, at least fairly well, the military might of the Soviet union, and its determination to achieve first place in the field of nuclear energy, and its admitted intention to spread all over the earth its communistic philosophy, by all the means available to it, the NATO members, and Canada among them, cannot afford to neglect looking after their defence, if they want to save the threatened democracy. It is useless to say, in the present context, as long as there is no ban on nuclear arms, that any possible world war would not lead to the use of the atomic bomb. Consequently, if the North Atlantic treaty has any meaning, the signers should be ready to face their obligations by being provided with the best defensive weapons.
However, considering the mutual fear of complete destruction, considering the terrible consequences of an atomic war, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that we will have eventually to suffer the atrocities of such a war. In view of these developments, the members of NATO will be called upon to change their defence policy.
According to information available, our powerful neighbours, the United States, are reputed to have enough nuclear arms to face an atomic war with Russia. If we can realize the rapidity and the destruction capacity of the nuclear weapons which these two countries have, I am of the opinion that it is useless to carry on the making of such a costly weapon which burdens the budget of all the countries involved, since it seems likely that the American reserves are adequate to meet any possible aggression.
This does not mean, however, that Canada, a member of NATO, should discontinue its defence program and cut all its expenses in this field. However, our country must increase its endeavours to equip its three services with the best conventional defence weapons, which are considered as most effective and least expensive, and not hesitate to discard equipment, material and armament which are obsolete or not effective enough.
The progress of science is so fast nowadays that a more serious study of each weapon likely to meet modern military requirements should be made in order to avoid finding ourselves in a situation at least uncertain, with an obsolete equipment, even before it is used.
I also suggest that the Department of National Defence should not be used to settle
[Mr. Bechard.l

the problem of unemployment in this country. Through a carefully conceived economic planning and a genuine Canadian defence policy, in compliance with our commitments in NATO, we would avoid these lay-offs which never fail to happen after the slightest change in our defence policy.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to express the hope that our country, which has always co-operated with its allies in order to establish a genuine and lasting peace in the world, will continue, together with the other western powers, to turn its endeavours toward that ultimate goal, without however yielding to ingeniousness and neglecting its own protection against an artful aggressor whose greatest wish, let us not forget it, is still to spread its totalitarian tenet to the whole world.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Albert Béchard: Definitely, if it is a relevant one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is the hon. member in favour of Canada being equipped with American nuclear warheads?


Mr. Harkness:: I should like to thank the minister for the kindly references he made to myself and to my predecessor in office, the Hon. George Pearkes, at the beginning of his remarks. I appreciate what he said and I know General Pearkes will appreciate it, also.
Before going into the subject matter of the debate I should like to make one comment on the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver East to the effect that there was no defence policy while the Conservatives were in power. On the contrary, we had a very definite defence policy. I stated it in the most explicit terms in presenting the estimates of the department to the House of Commons in September, 1961, which was the first opportunity I had of making such a statement. I expressed it, also, in dozens of speeches across the country. I know the hon. member for Vancouver East is a fair-minded man, so I should just like to ask him to turn up in Hansard the speech I made on September 11, I think it was, 1961, when I made a definite statement on defence policy. I should like him to read that statement and then come to his own conclusions. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, there were definite statements of policy made in white papers and blue papers throughout the period when the Conservative government was in power.
I turn, now, to the remarks made by the minister and to the particular matters under

discussion. To begin with, I must say I was shocked and disappointed by the statement which the Minister of National Defence made to the committee this afternoon. I had expected much more and much better. First of all, I think his statement gave the impression that a program of scrapping right and left was in progress without either a policy or a plan-that is, if we are to accept the statement that the government's review of policy has not yet been completed and that no definite decisions will be reached with regard to these matters until the recommendations of the defence committee have been studied. This is the situation presented to us, and it would appear to be correct. However, I submit that the government cannot have it both ways. Either the reductions announced must relate to a policy, or they make no sense at all. For this reason I think the government is on the horns of a dilemma in this connection. If the reductions announced in the hon. minister's statement are related to a definite defence policy, then the minister has refused to disclose to the house what the policy and the plans are to be. If that is the case, I think we have reached a point at which parliamentary government is not operating properly, and both the minister and the government could not be too strongly condemned for their part in such a situation.
On the other hand, if we accept the general tenor of the statement made, which conveys the impression that the reductions are nothing more than an unplanned, apparently desperate effort to cut defence spending by x million dollars, then I think the government is following an irresponsible and dangerous course. I think the situation should be resolved by a statement on the part of the minister because, otherwise, the committee is in an almost impossible position when it comes to considering these defence matters.
To deal with the actual statement which the minister made, may I say I think the inevitable effect of the long list of reductions which he announced, together with the cancellation of the frigate program and other reductions, will be to reduce the strength and effectiveness of our armed forces-it could not possibly have any other effect-and thus to reduce the contribution which we could make and which we are obligated to make to the joint defence of the western world under NATO and NORAD. I think, too, it will probably reduce our ability to meet any request which might be made of us by the United Nations in connection with its military interventions. In addition, these announcements are bound, in my view, to shake the confidence of our allies in our will and ability to meet the obligations we have assumed. Thus they will weaken our position in the
Supply-National Defence councils of NATO and in the councils of the world generally, and destroy, to some extent at least, our ability to influence decisions in directions we think they should take. This might well be the most dangerous result of widespread reductions such as have been announced, as far as I can gather without consultation with our allies and without there being any plan for replacement or for keeping up the general level of our contribution either to NATO or to NORAD, or to the service of the United Nations, whenever that might be required. At the same time, as far as our own forces are concerned, these announcements will deal an extremely heavy blow to the morale of all our armed forces and particularly to the morale of our reserve forces, and their ability to operate in any effective manner whatever.
I was disappointed that in his remarks the minister gave no indication when the implementation of the announced program to supply nuclear ammunition to the four weapons systems we have secured and which require it in order to be effective would take place. When the minister first assumed office I recall he made a statement that this would be looked after within a month. I have been extremely puzzled why there has been such a long delay in implementing the nuclear policy which I firmly believe in, the policy which I promoted when I was minister of national defence and which I was delighted to see the present administration take over. But I have been extremely puzzled why it has taken the present government so long to implement that policy. The government has given every evidence of dragging its feet in regard to this most important matter.
I think this chamber must and should have a statement from the minister telling us what the reasons for the delay are, and when the program will be implemented. I think we have been kept far too long in the dark in regard to this very important matter. As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre this afternoon, until nuclear ammunition for these four weapons systems is supplied our present defence posture is much weaker and much poorer than at any other period in the past since the second world war, certainly since the Korean war, because of the fact that the effective armament we had then, the interceptor planes and so on, have been phased out and have disappeared while the more effective equipment which was planned to take their place has not yet been brought into operation. Therefore at the present time we are in a bit of a hiatus in that we have got rid of the armament we had, but we have not yet got new armament to take its place. In my opinion this situation constitutes a dereliction

Supply-National Defence as far as our obligations to our allies are concerned and as far as our obligations to the country are concerned in maintaining the security of this nation.
I do not have time tonight to comment on all the reductions announced by the minister, nor has there been time to study and assess them and thus come to some conclusion as to what the result will be. However, I should like to say a few words about some of these matters. The first one I should like to deal with is the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program, which was announced some time ago. I think this is an example of welshing on our naval commitments and our naval obligations as far as NATO is concerned. It amounts to a unilateral decision to reduce our naval contribution to NATO. I would be the last one to argue that the only naval program which is acceptable and which should be put into effect is the construction of the general purpose frigates. There are always alternatives in this regard. However, what I take the strongest possible objection to is the scrapping of a program decided upon after long study as being probably the best, looking ahead for the next 20 years and putting nothing in its place. If something had been put in its place I would say all right. People's ideas on these matters differ. We would at least be living up to obligations we have assumed, but to just scrap the program without having any replacement plan means that in effect we have taken a unilateral decision to reduce our naval contribution to NATO.
I asked the minister and the government a question whether a decision had been made to reduce our naval contribution to NATO and the answer was no, but the cancellation of the frigate program means that in effect that decision has been taken. Something is really being done here by indirection which I think the government perhaps dared not do openly and boldly. I think this is just as serious a dereliction with regard to our obligations and commitments as anything that could be instanced in respect of Canada or any other member of NATO.


Harold Edward Winch: I wonder whether the hon. member would answer a question on this point?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: When the hon. member was minister of national defence did he make any commitment to NATO for the building of these general purpose frigates?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I did not make any specific commitment in regard to the building of the general purpose frigates. The point is that many years before we had agreed to supply a certain number of ships
[Mr. Harkness.!
to NATO. I do not say for a minute that our commitment should not be negotiated down or up. As a matter of fact, I would think most of the members of NATO would perhaps be insistent that it should be negotiated up rather than down. But as long as we are in that situation I think this cancellation is a very bad piece of business and causes a loss of confidence on the part of our NATO allies if, simply by allowing obsolescence to reduce the effectiveness of our NATO contribution, we thereby reduce the effort we are making on behalf of the alliance as a whole.


Harold Edward Winch: But you had no commitment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there is no use dealing in semantics with regard to whether you have a commitment or have not, whether you have a written contract or whether you have not. In NATO these things are arrived at as a result of long periods of conferences involving the permanent NATO council and at the NATO ministerial meetings. In many cases it is a matter of an agreement or a commitment by word of mouth being made at a NATO ministerial meeting. To try to pin this thing down to a matter of a written contract completely ignores what the realities of the situation happen to be.
To return to some of the particular matters that the minister mentioned, I must say that the termination of the Bobcat program fills me with a great deal of sadness. I do not for a moment absolve myself from all responsibility in connection with the failure of this program. As the minister said, it was started in 1954. We were the first nation really to get into the field of an armoured personnel carrier, and we should have been able to carry the program through and produce a carrier before anybody else. Instead we have had a long series of delays. To me the whole thing has been completely inexplicable and extremely frustrating. It was one of the most frustrating things I dealt with during the time I was minister, and I am still at a loss to understand why we failed in the way we did to carry this program through to completion.
It may well be, as the minister stated, that since the program has been so long delayed and as there is no possibility of anybody else buying the equipment with the result that the cost would be twice that for which we could buy somewhat similar equipment from somebody else, the wisest thing to do is to cancel the program. But I must say that when we embark on programs of this sort in the future I think there will have to be time limits placed on the commercial companies carrying on the work, and if the time-tables are not met, then that is the time to cancel the program, not years later after a great deal of money has been spent on it. In other words,

we have got to be much tougher in connection with development programs of this kind. Otherwise we are not going to get any place with them, and at the same time they are going to cost us a good deal of money.
There is quite a considerable list of reductions as far as the navy is concerned in the various reductions announced by the minister. With regard to the 10 auxiliary vessels which are going to be retired, all I can say is I do not know what vessels they are. Nobody else in this chamber, except perhaps the minister and associate minister, knows what they are. We are not, therefore, in a good position to say what the effect of this move will be.
Then, there is the reduction in the air squadrons. If you are going to continue to have an air arm in the navy, I think this is an error. If you are going to wipe out the air arm of the navy altogether, then the move may be justified. However, the mere reduction of the air squadron as a means of saving a few hundred thousand dollars, unless there is a definite plan behind it, is not defensible in my opinion.
I understand the Kamloops ammunition depot is to be closed. I think there are other members who will have something to say about that. However, there has been a lot of money spent on this depot-this applies to a lot of these other installations that are being closed-and it was put there for a definite purpose. I feel that pretty good reasons have to be produced for closing these various installations before it is possible for the members of this committee to accept their closing in this way. The same thing applies to Lon-gueuil, to the repair facilities at Sydney, to the installation in Newfoundland, and so on. Until we have had an opportunity to find out definitely what is being done, and particularly until the minister produces reasons which are acceptable for the closing of these installations, we have to look at this process with a very hard eye indeed.
Now, we come to the army. The turning of the northwest highway system to public works is something with which I would thoroughly agree. I must say that I attempted to do that during the time I was minister of defence. I did not believe it was a commitment the army should continue any longer. In fact, we probably should have given up some time ago. However, this brings up a question with which I think the committee ought to concern itself, and that is how much of the $40 million or $50 million of savings, which the minister is alleging in these reductions, are going to be actual savings and how much are merely transfers to some other department. I think a close examination will reveal that there is a great deal of what is represented as savings
Supply-National Defence which are not really savings at all but merely transfers to some other department.
In addition to the northwest highway system, there were certain airports and other installations which were being turned over for operation to another department. Then, there was the closing of Fort Churchill. So far as the army and R.C.A.F. are concerned, this appears to me to herald the end of cold weather training and research. I regret this move from that point of view. I think we have made a very distinct contribution to the entire NATO alliance by maintaining the facilities at Fort Churchill, particularly for research under cold weather conditions, and to determine what military personnel and equipment can do under these cold weather conditions. I feel that the closing of this installation is probably a very shortsighted policy in view of the great amount that is still to be learned, and needs to be learned, so far as operating under extremely cold weather conditions is concerned. This action is something which I believe needs a very good explanation before it can be accepted by this committee.
Now, I see that my time is getting rather short so I will go over some of the other matters rather quickly. I should like to protest particularly the closing of the repair depot at Calgary and also the closing of the auxiliary squadron there. This action will remove the R.C.A.F. entirely from a city which has been one of the great supports of the R.C.A.F. before the war, during the war and following the war. I can say nothing more than that I think it is a serious error and I protest against it. Once more, I should like to see reasons produced for this action.
I believe that the most serious criticism that can be made of the reductions the minister has announced relates to the reduction in the reserve force. So far as I can see, these reductions are designed to cut the reserve force by about 50 per cent. This is going to destroy this force which throughout our history has been the basis for our military build-up in time of emergency. I completely fail to understand the reason for destroying the reserve force in this country. I think there is no question but that this move indicates a definite change in policy, and I think the minister should announce that this is the case.
The cutting down of the army reserve to a maximum of 30,000 men, which I understand is the objective, means that the policy of using the reserve force for survival operations has to a large extent been thrown out the window. In other words, the whole emergency measures organization set-up, on which a large amount of money has been spent, has been

Supply-National Defence abandoned. This must be the policy or otherwise there would not have been such a serious reduction so far as the militia is concerned. As I have said, throughout our history, our military build-up has always been dependant upon the militia. So far as the immediate defence of Canada is concerned, the existence of a militia reserve is essential in order to get a sufficient number of men and units who are trained or semi-trained in the event of an attack on this continent. This is particularly true in the event that there should be a nuclear attack on this continent and there is a need for survival operations. Instead of reducing the number of the militia, the minister should be increasing the number.
I take particular objection to the reduction in the reserve force because during the time I was minister I made every effort possible to build up the morale, the spirit and the strength of the reserve force. I believe we had considerable success in that regard. I think there is no question about it, the comparatively small amount of money spent on the reserve force in comparison with the total military budget, is the best value we get for our defence dollar. I suggest to the minister that in cutting the reserve force to such a serious extent he has begun to make cuts, in an attempt to cut down defence expenditures, in the very worst way he could possibly have gone about it. I believe the minister said a total of about $5,250,000 would be saved in this way so far as the naval and R.C.A.F. reserve forces are concerned. I would estimate that about $5 million to $10 million would be saved by the reduction in the army reserve force. In comparison with the total budget of $1,500 million, that is a comparatively small amount and it destroys morale to such an extent, not only in the reserve force but in all the military forces, that it cuts down the ability to recruit and to build up rapidly in the face of emergency. I believe this is a completely unacceptable method of cutting defence expenditures. I plead most earnestly with the minister and with the government to wipe out this part of the program and to maintain the reserve forces, at least at the level that they have been during the past several years.
As the debate progresses I expect there will be a number of other matters on which I will wish to make comments, but at this particular time in closing I would like to point out that I have not dealt with general policy. However, if the debate develops along that line I should certainly like to present my views in that regard.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I am one of the newcomers to this house. Up until just recently

I spent my life as a sailor in the Royal Canadian Navy, and let me say before anybody else gets a chance to say it, I am still at sea with regard to many of the activities that go on here.
This is the first time I have spoken in this chamber but I have served on a number of committees, and I know you will understand me when I say that, for me, the most interesting one is the defence committee. I should like to talk about this for a moment and, if you would permit me, I would like to take a short while to reminisce. I served as a very young man on a ship, the H.M.S. Hunter, a destroyer in the British Mediterranean fleet. For some 23 years now she has been lying at the bottom of Narvik fiord with most of my former shipmates.
We had a motto in that ship which somehow captured our imaginations and united us as one body. I often remember it. It was "To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield." In my opinion this would be suitable in many ways as a motto for the defence committee, so many members of which I see in the house tonight. So many of us are veterans that I feel we are drawn together by our common experience, and to me there is a very obvious wish to set aside many of the differences that plague us in this house and to get on with the job that a defence committee is supposed to do-to get on with the job that has to be done. We all know that we are facing a most difficult problem, and I think we are generally striving and seeking for the answer.
My riding of Victoria, which contains both a permanent army garrison and the Esquimalt navy base, has long and close military connections. We do most of the shipbuilding on the west coast, and altogether I suppose there is no town in Canada as affected as we are by shifts of defence policy. Not only are the servicemen affected, but our shipyards employ some 4,000 men, and their wages are a major factor in our economy. I must admit that the recent decision to purchase three submarines in Great Britain, which came as it did on the heels of the cancellation of the frigate program, came as an unexpected blow to me and to the people of my riding.
Victoria is going through an anxious time while the government decides what course it is going to take in defence, but the restraint which the people and the press of Victoria have shown so far demonstrates their understanding of the situation and I as their member appreciate this more than I can say. But I cannot stress too strongly that once a decision on defence policy has been made, some speedy and imaginative action on the part of the government will be necessary to

pump new life into the defence industries in Victoria and elsewhere, if they are to be kept alive.
Coming back to the defence committee, Mr. Chairman, I get the feeling that perhaps too much may be expected from it. The developments of science and technology over the past 20 years have made so-called defence experts out of anyone who wants to voice an opinion, for the very understandable reason that there are just not any comprehensible rules of defence and war any more. One is dealing these days with speeds of thousands and tens of thousands of miles an hour, and with hundreds of millions of tons of explosive power, and these are almost beyond ordinary human comprehension.
The point I am getting at is that we on the defence committee, and I certainly include myself, are not experts on military defence and we do not pretend to be. Through our travels and our briefings we can become well informed, but I think that is about as far as it can go, and it would be wrong to expect us to be specific and detailed in our advice or in our observations to the House of Commons. I would suggest that we have, however, a very useful role to play in pointing out some general signposts and some general guidelines for defence policy. I believe that is what we are trying to do.
The committee has not yet presented any report. I do not want to anticipate it, but I did want to point out that there are limitations to what the committee can rightly be expected to produce when it has built-in restrictions on the type of information it can acquire and when it has been in existence only such a short time.
I would like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley that consideration be given to making this a permanent committee of the house, and now I am going to leave that subject because my time is limited.
It may interest some hon. members to know that in recent months I have been twice to Europe with the NATO parliamentarians, and while over there I was fortunate in being one of those who were able to travel from the northernmost tip of Norway to as far south as Turkey, which is the southernmost hinge of NATO. I also visited our Canadian army brigade and R.C.A.F. wing in France and Germany.
As a navy man I naturally went prepared to be critical, but I agree in all sincerity with the remarks the minister has made. We have every reason to be proud of our servicemen. All over Europe, from every quarter, we were complimented on them. They are held in the highest regard by the military and by civilians alike, and we were gratified, but
Supply-National Defence not overly surprised, to hear that their contribution to European defence far outweighs their numbers. I particularly noted how high their morale was. They are giving a good account of themselves and, while this is not news, I want to pay a tribute to them in this house.
While our Canadian forces are playing an important part in Europe, I must confess that in recent times I have felt that perhaps we should be paying greater attention than we have to defence on and around this continent, where I believe we have an even bigger role to play in the future. There is no doubt in my mind, and I think it is generally agreed, that it is what I call, for want of a better term, the weapon and defence equilibrium between the east and the west which provides us with our peace today, and which will continue to do so until some better arrangements can be made.
Today the heart of western defence is on this continent. Where do the nations of Europe look when the chips are down? If this is the case, then it is of vital importance to us all that this equilibrium be maintained at all costs and that our western side of the balance, particularly that major portion of it which lies on this continent, be given special care and attention.
I do not think there is much argument that the two main threats to both the east and the west are the other sides intercontinental ballistic missiles and missile carrying submarines. Against neither of these at the moment does there appear to be a satisfactory defence. But I am convinced, by the evidence of history and by the information we have gathered in committee, that a defence against both of these will be developed some time in the future. Enormous efforts are being put by both the east and the west into finding this solution. It will come, probably discovered by both sides at about the same time, and when it does the defence equilibrium must be quickly re-established. Because of our geographic position, next to the core of the western alliance, we Canadians will most assuredly have an important part to play, and if we are not prepared to take on the job, the United States or even NATO itself will demand the right to do it for us; and I cannot believe that Canadians would want that. I am making this point at some length, Mr. Chairman, because there is a not unnatural disposition on the part of all defence planners to discount forces for which there is no immediate urgency. I can understand this in view of the high costs involved; but security, we all know, is not cheap and efficient military forces, be they navy, army or air forces, just cannot be created or recreated overnight. They are the product

Supply-National Defence of years of training and experience, and if there is a foreseeable need for them in the future, we destroy or debilitate them at our peril.
I believe there is a need, a foreseeable need, for all our armed forces, but I am thinking of the navy particularly at this moment because they have come in for some pretty hard knocks lately and because dealing with half of the problem that I outlined, the missile-carrying submarine part, is their business. We have an admirable navy which is only now beginning to realize its full promise. Our Canadian navy has made a specialty of antisubmarine work-and it is good at it; make no mistake about that. If it is not capable at this moment of coping with fast nuclear powered submarines, I venture to say it is because this is a comparatively new threat and the R.C.N. has never been provided with a means of developing this capability. The threat is there; it is a threat that lies off our coasts perhaps today, and it is a major threat to the entire western alliance both now and increasingly in the future. I suggest that we will be shirking our responsibility if we do not busy ourselves right away with the task of preparing in earnest to meet this threat. I suggest this is no time to cut down the capability of our navy and I am glad to see there is nothing, to my mind, in the minister's statement today to indicate that the navy's capability is being permanently cut back. Bearing in mind the facts of the present and the probabilities of the future, we should in my view provide our navy with the type of naval vessels, equipment and research facilities which it will use, and use well, to meet and beat the threat. I do not think Canadians realize what outstanding men we have in the submarine, antisubmarine and research fields.
As I see it, as parliamentarians our duty to the nation in this regard is quite clear, and I for one have every confidence that this government will act in a responsible and satisfactory manner in facing up to the facts when early next year it reveals its defence plans for the future. I think, Mr. Chairman, we can all see the necessity for change now in the armed forces if we are to make progress in the future. There are some difficult days ahead for the minister, but the job has to be done and I am sure no hon. member of this house envies him the job. After all the talk and advice is over, it is the minister who has to make the decisions, particularly the hard ones. It is he who has to wring the last cent's worth of effectiveness out of the defence dollar, and he
[Mr. Groos.l
has my sympathy and support. We make no contribution to security if as a nation we go broke on defence.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, with reference to the minister's statement this afternoon, I am pleased that Royal Roads will continue as a service college but I am saddened to think that the naval reserve division in Victoria is to be disbanded. I am sure, however, that its past and present members, most of whom I knew so well, will agree to disbandment, if in its passing there will follow a real contribution to the future well-being of the naval service in Canada. The urgent requirement today, surely, is for military forces in being, ready to go at a moment's notice.
I think I am right in saying that the Victoria naval reserve division, now called H.M.C.S. Malahat, was the first to go on active service in world war I, and I have a feeling that we have not heard the last of it yet. This prompts me to end my remarks with a question to the minister, and it is this: Should the former members of the reserve division in Victoria organize themselves into some sort of supplementary reserve or association which would permit them to continue their contact with the naval service, would the minister consider allowing them to use some of the naval facilities now in Esquimalt, provided this can be done at no cost to the crown?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the special committee on national defence, I would like to seize the opportunity afforded by the study of the credits of the Department of National Defence, in order to say a few words about these credits, and about the task of the special committee.
As the members of the committee already know, we have had the privilege of visiting a few European countries which are members of NATO. We saw on the spot the progress accomplished in the defence set-up of the European continent, and we studied the condition and the role of the military forces of the alliance.
Those who have occasion today to visit western Europe, cannot fail to be struck by the revival of countries which were terribly ravaged by the war of 1939-45. They are also able to ascertain that the Atlantic alliance has proved a success, in so far as it prevented western Europe from being drawn into the communist orbit.
I think that the alliance has inspired the fundamental policy of the European members of NATO, and that it should consequently be protected.

By shedding completely all spirit of partisanship, the members of the special committee on defence have become capable to praise on the one hand the success of the alliance, and on the other, the fruitful contribution that our forces in Europe allowed us to make.
Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee have also been impressed by the clear-cut policy of the majority of the European countries in NATO.
This, by contrast, throws sadly into light the lack of firm policies of our country, and more particularly of the present government, concerning our true role in matters of defence.
Mr. Chairman, it is possible of course not to be entirely in agreement with the aims, the policies and the objectives of some of our allies, but we cannot fail to see that they, at least, have a clear and well-defined program, and seem to know where they are going.
Let us look at the situation in France which is one of the main powers of NATO, and which, under the guidance of President de Gaulle, is following a policy of nuclear arms, which she calls her program of "independent deterrent".
There is no doubt that France is today a nuclear power and that, in a few months or at the most in a few years, she will have an independent nuclear deterrent, and will be able to drop nuclear heads on any enemy territory.
In the field of defence, most of the efforts of the French are aimed at this very definite objective. A few allied countries approve that attitude while others condemn it.
And if you go to Germany now, you will find there again a very definite defence policy aimed at the reunification of the German soil, the protection of Berlin against communist aggression, the defence of the German territory, that of West Germany. It favours also the creation of a European nuclear force under direct NATO control, and the German authorities leave no doubt that they intend to pursue that objective.
The members of the committee also went to Denmark and I am of the opinion that the primary aim of that short visit was to see the part that a small country could play within the alliance. With a population of only four or five million people, Denmark does not expect to play a major part within NATO. In view of the strategic importance of its geographical situation in Europe, the Danish government is totally opposed to any form of nuclear armament whether it be the storage of nuclear warheads on its soil or the equipment of the Danish forces with offensive nuclear weapons.
Supply-National Defence
The stand taken by the Danish government is very clear on that matter. It is opposed to all nuclear arms of any kind, as far as the Danish soil or the Danish armed forces may be involved.
And I remember, when a member of the committee asked one of the chiefs of staff what would happen in case of a sudden attack from an enemy nation, the answer was: in case of emergency or attack, do not fear, we will get our nuclear equipment early enough. But until war breaks out we will be unswerving in our determination to oppose any acquisition of nuclear arms for our country.
Mr. Chairman, I make these remarks to indicate that it is possible for some countries, whose interests may be quite divergent, to work out a defence policy consistent with their needs.
As far as our country is concerned unfortunately, I regret that we were not given by the Minister of National Defence a clear and specific statement on the Canadian defence policy.
The minister commented this afternoon on the military situation of Canada, but his remarks were a strange contrast with the things he did not mention.
For example, at a conference in Toronto, he stated-and he repeated the same thing here -that the military requirements of Canada were under study and the military situation was a subject of constant study by himself and his experts.
But he seems unable to derive from his studies the elements that must be selected to work out our defence policy.
As a matter of fact, the minister this afternoon has not given us any idea of the necessary steps to protect the Canadian territory and the rest of North American territory. He said nothing at all about that.
He did not talk either of the most effective part our military forces might play in NATO.
He also ignored a current topic, namely the integration of Canadian armed forces.
And he did not say a word of the future role of the Canadian navy, the air force, and research in military technology.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that instead of laughing during our remarks, the minister should rather listen to them. Since he is introducing his estimates for the first time, he should make an effort to give the committee members and the Canadian people an outline of the way public funds allocated to defence are spent.
The minister stated that 77 per cent of the estimates were for the maintenance of the Canadian armed forces, while only 16 per

Supply

National Defence cent are earmarked for designing and developing new weapons and for supplying our armed forces with the required equipment as well.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. It seems to me that too large sums are spent for the maintenance of the armed forces. In other words, it is much too expensive to train a soldier and to get him ready for action.
And although the estimates of the Department of National Defence account for 25 or 26 per cent of the national budget, I think Canada does not spend enough to keep up to date as regards military technology.
It is recognized today that defence is mostly ensured by technological facilities. Military technology develops constantly, and a country which does not devote the necessary amounts to research in military fields, economic fields and others, will certainly lose its rank among the progressive and industrial powers. And Canada, unfortunately, is in the process of so doing, in military fields as well as in others.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is time the government revise entirely its attitude on defence and give a clear and unequivocal reply to the questions which the Canadian people ask themselves, and rightly so, as concerns their constantly threatened security, should no attention be paid to it.
Mr. Chairman, the committee members have also found other things in the course of their European tour.
For instance, it may be said the morale of the air division is excellent, that it has very well-disciplined troops. In fact, were they provided with the necessary equipment, they would be ready for combat. In brief, they are a credit to Canada.
There is nothing wrong with those troops. Our allies and the members of NATO all agree that the Canadian forces, whether they be the army or air forces, are first class troops in every respect.
But the minister has some problems to settle concerning the air division. He said a few days ago that a situation not very satisfactory existed, that is that half of the air division stationed in France did not have available the aircraft or the equipment required by those aircraft and so was prevented from playing the part which could be expected from it as a member of the NATO armed forces.
It is not enough for the minister to say that an unsound and regrettable situation exists. As a minister, he has the responsibility to settle that situation, and that, first of all, in the interest of the members of our air force, as well as in the interest of the defence of Canada and of the NATO nations.

But the minister gave no indication, neither in his speech the other day nor in his remarks this afternoon, of the steps he intends to take to settle that problem.
Now, as far as our land forces are concerned, no one can question the ability of those soldiers as fighting units. But those soldiers have not yet received the equipment they need to fully play their part and in fact-and the members of the committee had an opportunity to find that out-the equipment available to them more often than not is old, obsolete and in a conflict, could play neither a protection nor a defence role.
Mr. Chairman, that is an intolerable situation which the minister has the responsibility to settle without any delay.
There is also the matter of tactic nuclear weapons which are or would be available to the army and the forces joining that army in case of a conflict.
Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee were a little frightened by the unconstrained manner with which the members of the army use those nuclear weapons during training. In listening to some commanding officers reporting on the situation which would probably exist in case of real attack, you might have thought that those nuclear weapons can be used as any other conventional weapon, that if the enemy should attack in sufficient number, a division commanding officer would only have to give some order and the soldiers included in that division would immediately start using nuclear weapons. It seems to me another philosophy should exist about the hypothetical use of nuclear arms in case of war.
I know that the Minister of National Defence will say: that is impossible because nuclear arms cannot be used without the authorization of the highest authorities, possibly the President of the United States. It is no doubt true in theory but, in practice, the members of the committee got a very clear impression that the order to use those nuclear arms would come from the commanding officer at the brigade or expeditionary force level. Thus the danger of setting up nuclear bases and also the indescribable horror that would result from the start of a nuclear war. The danger is very real and it seems to me that our soldiers show an unconcern that almost shocks the observer with regard to the use and control of those nuclear arms. I would like the minister to give us some detailed information about that.
Personally, I feel that as far as the use of those tactical nuclear weapons is concerned, special units should be established which would be well trained to use those weapons in

case of war, would be aware of the consequences if they were used and would not use them unwisely in the confusion that an attack would create.
It seems to me that, in that regard, military leaders should get very definite orders from political leaders.
Mr. Chairman, we spend a great percentage of our total budget for military purposes. It seems to me that we should try very hard to reduce it, if possible, because a quarter of the total budget going for defence, that is too much. If Canada wants to play an influential part, it should direct its efforts towards the achievement of peace.
The other day, I heard about a project submitted by President de Gaulle to some of the main industrial countries: this project consisted essentially in an appeal to reduce military expenses by one half of one per cent and to use those savings for research on cancer.
I do not know whether Canada has received an invitation to join that group of countries, but I know that others were invited and reacted in a positive way. I have in mind the case of England, for instance, which immediately sent some of its military experts to Paris, as well as some specialists in the cancer field to study the possibilities.
Canada, which is a medium-sized power, should rather direct its efforts to attaining peace.
There seems to be some contradiction between the Minister of National Defence and one of his fellow members of the cabinet, that is, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), with regard to the creation of a mobile force operating under the United Nations.
Indeed, the Minister of National Defence admitted the other day that there did not seem to be much enthusiasm as far as a police force operating under the United Nations was concerned. This very morning, the Secretary of State for External Affairs very categorically stated that he favoured setting up such a force and that he believed Canada could play a useful part in that field. He favoured the immediate setting up of a Canadian force which would be available to the United Nations on request in any situation which would be considered a menace to peace.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it is through such actions that Canada, as a medium-sized power, with rather limited financial resources, will be able to play a useful part. It has often been said that this country is highly respected by all the others and more particularly by the important blocs within the United Nations. A great many of those new countries look to Canada playing a constructive role.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if we want to play a constructive part on the world stage, we
Supply-National Defence should first be in a position to define our objectives, and no other than the minister and the government can do so, and wisely shape our policy.
I therefore ask the minister, before the discussion of his estimates is over, to give the members of this committee a full and unambiguous statement on the part to be played by this country in respect of defence, and to prove that the amounts asked for will be spent to good purpose, for attaining the true objective of this country, which is a durable peace.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, defence is a subject that is currently attracting widespread attention across Canada, and well it might. Defence expenditures consume approximately $1.6 billion annually. This is over 7 per cent of our gross national product. It is nearly one quarter of our national budget. It represents about $90 for every man, woman and child each year in this country.
It is obvious that expenditures of this order have a profound economic effect on our country. But defence is more than just plain economics. Defence is our only protection for our way of life. Defence is a factor that influences our relationships with all countries of the world, both east and west. Our activities in this field affect our strength when we bargain with other countries politically and economically.
Because of the importance of the subject I am particularly glad that the government, parliament and Canadians generally are taking an increasing interest in the problem. I particularly welcome the establishment of the special committee on defence that has been set up to study some of these topics. I think that already, through press coverage of some of our meetings, there is a greater awareness among Canadians generally of some of these problems. Not only is there greater awareness but I think there is probably also greater discussion of these problems. To me the increased interest and discussion are in themselves a pretty worthwhile result.
To deal in any depth with the problems of defence, Mr. Chairman, would require an outline of the threat that is posed against us, the strategy that has been devised to meet that threat, the alliances that have been formed to carry out this strategy and, finally, the part that we might play within these alliances. None of these topics is simple and, as we know, there are widely differing views on many of these things, particularly among some of the nations of NATO.

Supply-National Defence
Some speakers have already given some background information in this area. I believe that at this stage this is as far as we should go. I think that we of the defence committee must first get together as a committee, hammer out our views and prepare our report. I think that a general debate before we do this would not be wise. In my view the report must cover all those topics having to do with strategy, alliances, Canada's part and many other aspects if it is going to be of any benefit.
The minister has promised to issue a white paper on defence early in the next session covering government defence policy. I believe this white paper, plus the report of the defence committee should provide good material for a first class, informed debate on defence policy and I hope that debate takes place early in the next session. Because of this I am going to resist the temptation to expound at length on defence problems, and instead wait until that debate.
Today we are dealing with the defence department estimates and it is not my desire to delay unduly the passing of these estimates. I do have one point, however, that I think is important, and in view of the minister's statement today I believe it is particularly pertinent. My point is that I believe our defence expenditures should be for one purpose only, that of providing the maximum useful defence effort for each dollar spent. I do not think we should confuse defence dollars with social capital. It seems to me that an attempt to solve social problems with defence dollars produces a second rate defence effort and a second rate solution to some of our social problems.
During the last few months there has been discussion in the house concerning the cancellation of the frigate program, the Penhold air base, the base at Churchill and other matters. Undoubtedly as a result of the minister's statement today there is going to be a great deal of discussion about some of the items he mentioned.
Much of the discussion has disturbed me. I have been disturbed because some of those who argue against these changes in our defence program do not argue on the basis of the military necessity of these changes but argue on the basis of the social and economic effects of the changes. In effect their argument is: "You cannot reduce this item, you cannot reduce this program, you cannot cancel this base, not because the particular item is needed, but because the communities surrounding it cannot survive economically without it." This approach of applying social reasoning to military problems is wrong in my opinion. I should like to make it clear, Mr. 

Chairman, that I am not defending or discussing the military reasons for some of these decisions. It is possible some of them might have been wise and some of them might have been foolish. This is not the point at issue so far as I am concerned. What is at issue is the basis we use for judging these decisions.
Canada cannot afford to spend all it wants or all it should on defence; no nation can. It is, therefore, vital that each dollar we spend be spent to the best possible advantage. In my opinion, this means applying the sort of techniques that are now called military cost effectiveness studies. We cannot afford to acquire, maintain or keep in operation an airplane, a ship, a weapon or a base that serves no really useful military purpose.
The government must make military decisions and it must answer for those decisions. I believe that a government must also be aware of the social problems which are raised in making military decisions, and equally a government must answer for the steps it takes to meet these social problems. But a government should not avoid making a military decision in order to prevent facing a social problem.
I hope that in the future governments will not be taken to task for changes in defence expenditures because those changes are going to hurt some section of the country. I hope governments will be taken to task for making a decision that hurts some section of the country, and for not taking some steps to alleviate that hurt. A government should be taken to task also, obviously, for making a wrong military decision. We must accept this split between the military effects of a decision and the social problems it raises. I believe, as a matter of fundamental principle, that failure to do this is going to result in wasted defence dollars and it will result also, I believe, in poor economic conditions because, defence dollars are an inefficient way of providing social capital.
There is a second important reason for accepting this principle and accepting it now. I think all of us in this country, in fact everyone in the world, hopes that some day we will be able to move in the direction of finally achieving disarmament. This is going to have a disastrous disruptive effect on our economy if we have not prepared plans in advance. If we are going to work towards this goal, we have to start now in preparing for its realization. No one knows if it is ever going to be militarily possible to achieve disarmament, but if it is, and if the military situation will allow this, then let us not be in a position where we have to let social problems stand in the way of achieving this goal.

I think if we are going to prepare now to move in this direction, we must first think realistically about the role of our defence expenditures. We must accept the fact that defence spending is for military purposes only. We must learn also to adjust our economy to the change in military demands. We have to learn to use the tools, some of which already exist, such as the economic council, technical retraining and the area development agencies as well as the Department of Industry and other departments of government, to alleviate some of the social problems that are going to result from changes in military spending.
If we do not develop these skills, if we do not develop our thinking along lines which will enable us to accept the fact that our military spending is only for defence purposes, then in the future we are going to be unable to adjust ourselves to the acceptance of any possible decrease that might be militarily possible in the field of armaments. We are going to be unable to develop this thinking and those skills which we will have to develop to accept disarmament, if that ever were possible. In addition to that, if we do not adopt these techniques, if we do not adopt this type of thinking, we are going to continue a course which will waste our current defence dollars and which will, I believe, lead to incorrect solutions of some of our social problems.
In the future, Mr. Chairman, I hope to hear lots of debate, lots of argument and lots of criticism of the defence practices of this and future governments, because the subject is important enough to warrant this. I hope that these debates, these arguments, and these criticisms will be based on sound fundamental principles.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words on the estimates of the Minister of National Defence. At the outset, I should like to say that I am certainly not a defence expert, I do not profess to be one. In fact, I could fill a very large book with all I do not know about defence. However on behalf of my constituents, I should like to say a few words this evening with regard to the minister's statement. He said that the Point Edward naval base would be one of the establishments that would be closed. I was shocked and horrified, Mr. Chairman, by the minister's statement concerning the closure of this base. I wonder if he realizes the economic implications of this decision. The previous speaker dwelt for some time on the social problems connected with these decisions. He took the negative side, and I shall take the positive.
Supply-National Defence
I should like to point out how important this base is to the people of my area. There are between 500 and 600 employees at this base. I understand that when the minister is through with his cutbacks and closures we will probably have only 100 left there. I may be wrong, and perhaps we will have 200. However, what will happen to the other 300 or 400? As I understood the minister's statement, he said that the navy had maintained a naval repair facility at Point Edward naval base in Sydney. In fact, the minister does not even know where the base is. It is not in Sydney at all, but is at Point Edward in the municipality of Cape Breton. He then said that this repair facility would be discontinued, but the navy would continue to operate the stores depot and record centre at this location. According to the minister, it is not planned to have any of the reductions in ship repair work at the Point Edward naval base take place until after the beginning of the new fiscal year on April 1, 1964. He is being very kind in this instance: He is going to allow these employees to have Christmas dinner.
Then, he goes on to say that this will ensure that operations at the naval base are gradually to be reduced after that date in relation to the development of alternative opportunities for employment. I hope the minister will tell us what those alternative opportunities for employment are in the Cape Breton area. I just hope that he will spell them out when he replies.
There will be adjustments involved, according to the minister, for some of those now employed at this base. This is another typically vague Liberal statement. In order to assist, efforts will be made, as the minister has said, to organize training and retraining programs in co-operation with the provincial government, wherever these will be suitable. I know that Bob Stanfield, the premier of Nova Scotia, has done a tremendous job in trying to retrain people and help them. However, I do hope the minister will tell me, after these people are retrained, where they are going to find employment in Cape Breton.
The minister makes another very clear statement when he says that other measures will also be introduced as they appear appropriate in the circumstances. I should like him to tell us what those other measures are and how soon they will be introduced. How soon will he, and the Minister of Labour who is also from Cape Breton, arrange to get these people back to work.
I would like to give the committee an idea of how important this is economically, and in this instance I would like to quote. The department gave me a reply to a question on October 16 indicating that for the last year of the previous Liberal regime the payroll

Supply-National Defence at Point Edward base was $1,856,851. Last year, 1962, it was $2,634,767. The minister should realize what this is going to do to the economy. I suggest that when we came into power in 1957-58 the plan of the previous Liberal administration was to close this base at that time, but the government after 1958 kept the base going and, as I have indicated, the payrolls were increased. The continuance of this base was brought about through the efforts of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and of the very efficient government of that day. I regret to say we do not seem to have an efficient government now.
I am no expert on defence but I do hope I can get through to the minister how important and serious this is to the economy. On June 10 of this year I asked the minister:
What is the planned schedule of refits for Point Edward naval base for the next year?
The answer, which bears his initials P.T.H. on it said:
The refit plan for Point Edward naval base calls for the refit of one frigate or equivalent at any one time making an approximate work load of three frigates per year.
I wonder what has happened to that decision. When the previous administration was in power the navy arranged at that time for a proper schedule of refitting, but I do not know what has happened since.
Again on June 17 this year I asked the minister:
1.	What are the plans for the expansion of the magazine facilities at the Point Edward naval base?
2.	What plans has the government for the expansion of other facilities?
He replied:
1.	It is intended to expand the magazine facilities by constructing four ammunition storehouses, one ammunition laboratory, an access road and improvements to fencing in the magazine area.
2.	It is intended to provide bulk storage for ships' bunker fuel and aviation gas with receiving and dispensing lines.
They went ahead and called a contract. Tenders were submitted; but then they cancelled that tender and did not do anything about the second contract. Today, however, they really did something. They are going to knock everybody out of work-and this, along with all the other cutbacks since this government took over, cutbacks in five or six different departments. In fact there was a cutback in the constituency of the Minister of Labour the other day.
This is the pitiful administration which said, "The Liberals have the answer." What answer are they going to give to these men who will be unemployed, and some of them have ten, 15 and 20 years service? Will the minister tell them, "Take a stand for tomorrow"? How are these people going to stand


for tomorrow? They will not have any jobs, to be able to eat. They will not be able to lie down, far less stand.
I just cannot understand this. Then there is the Secretary of State, and I am sorry he is not present tonight. Speaking at Summer-side, Prince Edward Island on March 26, 1963, he said:
A Liberal government will do everything to give this part of Canada equality in income and employment with the rest of Canada.
Is this the way they are going to do it? Is this the way the Minister of Finance is going to do it with his cutbacks and his crazy budget? The Secretary of State, again speaking at Summerside on March 26, as reported in the Charlottetown Guardian on March 27 said this:
It is the Liberal policy to see that every able person willing to work will have the opportunity to earn a decent living.
This is the way they are doing it. They are just laying the men off without any consideration. Yes, they are going to keep them on for a few months until they recover from the shock and that is the end of it.
Speaking at Toronto on March 23, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 25, 1963, the Secretary of State said:
Canadians have to face three outstanding problems:
-getting work for all Canadians;
-maintaining security and peace in the world;
*-bringing about the unity of Canada with equality of citizenship for all.
Then he said:
The Liberal party has answers to all these problems.
This is the way the Liberal party gets work for Canadians. Again, speaking at Summer-side on March 26, as reported in the Charlottetown Guardian of March 27 he said:
The Liberal program offers the people of Canada work and income security in peace, equality and unity.
My, my, these are wonderful words. I wonder how wonderful these employees will think they are, these employees who are going to be given-let us put it frankly-a kick in the pants by the Minister of National Defence and this inept and arrogant government. Why, Paul on the road to Damascus eventually saw the light, but I doubt if this Paul we are dealing with now will ever see the light.
Let us look at some other words that have been written about some of these illustrious and distinguished members of the cabinet. In the Edmonton Journal of October 1 we find these:
Just what is a politicians' word worth? Judging by the sad performance by Mr. Hellyer, not very much.

Last week the Minister of Labour, who is one of my colleagues from Cape Breton, made a special trip to Cape Breton. He appeared on television, and in his Buddha-like manner he was very glad to try and take some of the kudos and credit for the establishment of a heavy water plant. I regret he is not in his seat tonight, but I suggest he should go down this week end and appear on television, and smilingly announce the closure of the Point Edward naval base. After all, it is only the right thing for him to do.
I would suggest that the minister of defence should go down too, but I doubt if he would be allowed to come back, or even to get across the causeway into Cape Breton island. During the last election the Liberal candidate who ran against me, and other members of his party, made many great, glorious, and as some people thought, honest promises. They were going to do wonderful things for the economy of the maritimes and Cape Breton island, but instead we have this dastardly crime perpetrated on the people of Cape Breton island.
I suggest that the Minister of National Defence is not alone responsible for what has happened today, and let me say to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of National Defence-you certainly have not heard the last of this episode yet. Let me say to the Prime Minister, and I wish he were here tonight, that I invite you, sir, with all your so-called bow-tie diplomacy and your bland little smile, to go to Cape Breton and explain in the most diplomatic manner you can the mess into which you have placed Cape Breton island and this country.
These are the people who tried to do their utmost to assassinate the character and the government of John Diefenbaker. So far as I am concerned, after so much has happened in the last few months, and with today's latest episode, I suggest that some of these persons who are prominent in the Liberal party are not even fit to polish the boots of John Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: I ask the minister to reconsider this decision, to think seriously about what he is doing to the economy of Cape Breton island. As I have said before in this house, on the one hand they give; on the other hand they take twice as much away. There has been a great hullabaloo about the small part they played in the locating of the heavy water plant.


Malcolm MacInnis: A very small part.


Robert Muir: A very small part, as my colleague from Cape Breton South says. Two hundred people
28902-5-350
Supply-National Defence will be employed there, whereas we have between 500 and 600 employed at the base at the present time, on an entirely different type of work, an entirely different type of employment. It is a different situation altogether. I do not think we can replace them, unless the minister has some ideas, which he has not disclosed yet.


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Muir: No, I will not permit a question. I will be rude and discourteous like most of the Liberal party when we ask questions. Talking about courtesy, I should have started my remarks by being rather courteous and extending congratulations to the minister on presenting his estimates for the first time; but I do not feel very courteous tonight-perhaps I am not a very courteous individual-so I do not want to be a hypocrite and extend congratulations, because I do not think the minister or the government deserve congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bigg:: It is time we had some fire.


Malcolm MacInnis: Enthusiasm, at least.


Robert Muir: Let me suggest to Paul, this Paul I am thinking about, that a wise son maketh a glad father, but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother-and indeed the Minister of National Defence is the heaviness of Canada.
I could go on at some length, and I will on another day. Let me assure the minister and the Prime Minister that they have not heard the last of this yet. In fact, Mr. Chairman, Harold Macmillan did not sleep with Christine Keeler; but he had to reply for Profumo and take the responsibility. I say this Prime Minister should go to Cape Breton and reply on behalf of the Minister of National Defence. In conclusion, I hope to see every organization of every type on Cape Breton island join together in a march on Ottawa to show this arrogant minister and this arrogant government what we think of this decision, this minister who replied to me a few weeks ago, when I asked whether there were plans for the expansion of the base, after jumping up in his arrogant, snarly way, and replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any plans for expansion, but I think this is the type of question which might wait until our estimates are before the house.
We have your wonderful reply, fellow. I hope-as I started to say-that every organization on Cape Breton island will join together in a march on Ottawa and show this arrogant government and this arrogant minister the strength of the condemnation we
5494	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence have for the irreparable damage he has wrought on the economy of our area, and the tremendous hardships that will emanate from it. I invite you to come to Cape Breton; I invite the Prime Minister to come down. I will pay for the time you take on television to explain this decision, to explain to these people who are not going to be employed, and where they are going to get other employment. I see the minister listening most intently and I trust he will give every consideration to my request to reconsider the decision with regard to this base, not for my sake but for the sake of the men who are employed there, their wives and children. Let me tell you that when you are in Cape Breton you are not in Toronto or some other area of Canada, as far as employment is concerned. This base means much to the economy of Cape Breton and this decision is a most serious and dastardly blow.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to a number of so-called debates on defence over the last ten years in this chamber, and we do advance. I realized how quickly we are advancing when I was listening to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, because apparently we have now abandoned the pretence that these vast sums of money we spend on so-called defence have anything to do with defence; we realize now they are primarily designed to provide jobs for the people of Canada, which may be-


Sydney John Smith: You mean you didn't know that before?


Colin Cameron: No, I did not know that before. I knew that our Tory friends for five years made the pretence that they were spending the money to defend Canada, and I know that for 22 years before that our Liberal friends made the same pretence, and I know that the present Minister of National Defence is in a position to again start making the same pretence. But, as I say, we do advance, because the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria has come out of the bushes and now we know what is the purpose of defence expenditures.


Robert Muir: The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria was never in the bushes.


Colin Cameron: I see.


Robert Muir: He was never in the bushes on anything.


Colin Cameron: Oh, on anything. In the bushes is quite a good place to be. If I am annoying the hon. member-


Robert Muir: No, I am enjoying it.


Colin Cameron: That is fine. Then I will suggest this is the basis upon which we should discuss these estimates. I sympathize with the hon. member in his concern for his constituents, and I suggest to him that his arguments are almost the same as the arguments that used to be advanced in Great Britain for relieving the aristocracy of that country from heavy taxation, because if they were taxed heavily they would be unable to employ so many footmen and housemaids as they would employ if they had a larger income. Therefore the effect on the economy of Britain would be very bad. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria suggests that we should not reduce our expenditures in this regard and should employ as many footmen and as many housemaids as possible. He does not seem to realize that if we employ these people in more useful ways, perhaps Canada as a whole might benefit.
I, like the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, make no pretensions at being a military expert. I have always been rather suspicious of the estimates of military experts, ever since I lost two horses for the government of Canada. In fact, I was almost before my time. Since my time they have put horses on the payroll: I took two of them off. This was almost 50 years ago, here in Ottawa. This is unveiling part of Canada's history, in what I am about to reveal. On this occasion I was sent with a number of my comrades to bring a number of horses from outlying stations into Lansdowne park. We were all given one horse to ride and another to lead. We were riding them bareback, I might say. The pair of horses that I had were not very well suited in their gait, and the one I was riding was much faster than the one I was leading. For this reason I was dropped off in the middle of the road, in the middle of the night. They vanished in the darkness and I said, "Well, I presume this is the sort of thing for which one gets shot at dawn. I had better get back and face the music." I trudged back to Lansdowne park, and mercifully the sergeant was blind drunk. He would not have known whether I had arrived with two elephants or nothing at all. From that day to this I have never heard of the two horses that I lost. I may say that for months I was in fear and trembling that at any moment I might be summoned before the authorities to answer for the two horses I lost. Ever since

then I have been a little doubtful about military experts and their estimates of costs, because if one can lose two horses 50 years ago I presume that you can lose several squadrons of aircraft now, without causing any more ripple of dismay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But they turned up on the payroll 40 years later.


Colin Cameron: That may be, but I do not think these lived that long. I thought that I did a service to the Canadian economy and that some farmer in the Ottawa valley got a team of horses which he would not otherwise have had. He probably increased his production with the use of these horses instead of their being wasted on useless military exercises. Instead they were set to work producing food.
Our defence policies in this country are, of course, inextricably bound up with our general external affairs or foreign policy. That is understandable because although within three years we are going to be celebrating ostensibly the one hundredth anniversary of Canada as a nation, in actual fact I submit that Canada is really only 50 years old; that it was in the process of the first world war that we first began to have any realization of national identity; that that national identity was underlined some 20 odd years later in the second world war. Therefore it is quite natural that we should always be equating our sense of national identity with a military exercise of some sort.
That, I believe, may be the cause of some of our present diseases and troubles in Canada, that we have been unable to find a military role and have therefore begun to doubt the reality of our national identity. Because we have been trying to find a military role for years. We have been spending countless millions or billions of dollars on an attempt to find a role which does not exist. I say it does not exist because that is the opinion and the advice that has been given to us time and time again both by military and scientific experts, when they tell us there is quite literally no defence in war, that no matter what our vigorous and active young Minister of National Defence may try to do, even he is not going to be able to evolve a means of defence. This is an extremely difficult emotional concept for people to take. Always they think that if they look somewhere else they will find some way of defending us, that there must be some way. It is understandable, because this is the first time in the history of the human race that mankind has had to face the fact that there is no defence, that no matter what man does, no matter how much of his 28902-5-350J
Supply-National Defence treasure and wealth and people's lives he may expend, there is no defence. Because there is no defence, there is, therefore, no real military role. Because there is no military role there is, I think, no sense of national identity in Canada.
I believe the search for this will-o'-the-wisp of a real military defence role is preventing us from really finding the worth-while role that Canada could be playing in the world today. With what tremendous fanfare of trumpets-perhaps that is not right because trumpets would not be wrapped up in quite so much wool-but with what eclat the Minister of National Defence announced the increase in Canada's aid program, to the staggering amount of about one tenth of the money we are spending on military expenditures. There is tremendous heart searching, and head scratching too, before any money is spent abroad, or at home, in developing the civilized aspects of our life. On the other hand, with what gay abandon we throw away a billion and three quarter dollars year after year, and year after year we have to admit to the fact that we get nothing for it if it were spent with the idea for providing defence for this country.
It may be that there is some sort of defence on the basis of the theory of the massive deferent, but if that is so we have played no part in it. I suggest that the speech of Mr. McNamara which my colleague from Vancouver East quoted today, and the speech of his subordinate Mr. Nietze some months ago, indicates quite clearly that if there is any validity in the theory of the massive deterrent it points quite clearly to the fact that the United States has everything which might deter any nation from now until doomsday.
However, I suggest there are other considerations to be taken into account too. History changes very rapidly. I note that, except for the lunatic fringe, practically every authoritative spokesman in the United States of America is now agreeing that we have moved into a new era. Someone remarked shortly after the tragic assassination of President Kennedy that there was one man who very few people seemed to realize had been placed in an extremely dangerous position because of this frightful event and that man was Nikita Khrushchev, who had risked his political life and neck-possibly more than his political neck-to reach a rapprochement with President Kennedy, and now had to do it all over again with the new President, attended by similar risks as in his attempts to reach a rapprochement with the late president. I think these considerations indicate that the situation for which the theory of the massive deterent was evolved no longer exists.

Supply-National Defence
I have repeatedly suggested in this chamber that only an assessment of the leaders of the Soviet union as criminal lunatics would lead anyone to suppose that they would launch an attack on North America, to create in North America a radioactive desert with the certainty that in their own territory a similar radioactive desert would be created. Why we have to go on pretending that the men in the Kremlin are half-witted or imbecile, or that their counterparts in the United States are half-witted or imbecile, is beyond my comprehension. I suggest it is because we are stuck in this absurd situation of trying to find something that does not exist, and that is a valid military role for Canada and a valid defence position for Canada, that we are unable to move into the new world which we might achieve.
I was perhaps rather rudely making fun of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria when I started my speech. He was concerned for his constituents, and I should like to extend that concern to another group we must consider, and that is the young men in our armed services. It is not good enough to advocate, and I for one would not for a moment advocate, that tomorrow morning we heave them all out of the service and put them on the labour market. However, I suggest that there is another role for them in the world today, a role which Canada should be seeking and achieving. That role is helping toward the development of the undeveloped areas of the world. We have in our armed forces a large number of extremely highly trained and intelligent young men whose services could be placed at the disposal of world development today. These young men could play a role in establishing a real foundation for global peace that they can never hope to give us by their present traditional role in a military defence force. I was very much struck with the quality of many of these young men when I was in Europe this autumn. They were young men of definitely extremely superior capabilities, young men who would not only be first class ambassadors for Canada but would also be the very type required to aid the newly-emerging countries in the development of their democratic institutions, their economic institutions, in the development of their whole society to take part in this twentieth century of the modern world. That is the sort of thing we should be doing, not harking back to a situation that is hopelessly banished forever; or perhaps not hopelessly; it is extremely hopeful that it has disappeared completely. I feel very strongly that it is because we are wasting our time, our efforts and our treasure in the pursuit of this will-o'-the-wisp, this foolish chase after 
something which does not exist, that we are allowing a friction to arise in this country which need not arise. If only we could place the economy of Canada at the service of this world development we might be able to forget that we are English Canadians or French Canadians or any other kind of Canadians except plain, ordinary Canadians. We might be able to go even further. We might forget we are Canadians and remember that we are human beings in a world which is daily getting smaller-a world in which the concepts on which defence policy is based today are largely outmoded.
I do hope that the government of Canada will eventually become courageous enough to make the sort of dramatic and useful gesture in the world which would advance the cause of peace much more effectively than the nonsensical expenditure on which we are now engaged, expenditure which gives rise to equally nonsensical debates in this house during which we hear supporters of the previous government denouncing the present government and supporters of the present government denouncing the previous government in turn, neither of the parties being prepared to face up to the real facts of life in a world in which there can be no defence in the military sense of the word.
I hope to live long enough to see the Minister of National Defence transformed so as to carry out a more useful function than his present one, able to apply his energies to the pursuit of peace, not to the pursuit of a nightmare by means which have completely lost their validity. Let us move into the 20th century, not back to a situation which no longer exists. It might be difficult for the minister to face such a concept, but I suggest that within a short time the role he is playing now will appear to him and to every other intelligent person to be as ridiculous as the roles played in the early stage of human history when every part of the earth was divided into warring states whose people fought with their neighbours. Today, we laugh at those people. We say they are primitive folk. Let us not be primitive in our own time. Let us realize that the revolutionaries of the laboratory have been at work, that the world has been reduced to a unit and that we must live together as human beings or be prepared to have no future generations to enjoy the world which could be built if we were to stop playing with our expensive and dangerous lead soldiers today.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Lake St. John.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate this evening, I realize-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order; I know how fair you are in selecting those who are to speak, but may I point out, Mr. Chairman, that up to this moment there have been 12 who have spoken-four from the Liberal party, four from the Conservative party and four from the groups which are in the far left corner, whose total membership is only 41 out of 265 in this house. I think the rotation should now pass to the Liberal party and then back to ourselves.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member will realize it is not too easy in circumstances such as those we have in the committee now, to distribute speakers objectively and fairly. As the member has pointed out, we have had four speakers from each of the major parties. The Chair thought it might be fair to make a round of the small parties at this stage, subject to coming back to two or three, possibly three or four speakers from each of the major parties. That is why the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Lake St. John. Perhaps after he has spoken we shall revert to speakers from the two major parties.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the point of order-and I have no intention of displacing the hon. member whose name has been called-am I to understand the Chair is working from a list?


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair is not working from a list. The Chair is trying to work as fairly as possible without a list. I might say the Chair has received names from the whips of certain of the parties, but this does not constitute a list. There are names received for the assistance of the Chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is what is commonly referred to as a list.


Lucien Lamoureux: I think the hon. member is wrong if he considers this to be a list. They are names which have been given, and there is no commitment.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am not saying there is a commitment. But I say to the Chair that if there is a paper there with any names on it, the statement made by the Speaker that this house does not go according to a list of names is not borne out.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not intend to argue with the hon. member, but I have names before me and the Chair does not consider them to be a list.
Supply-National Defence [Translation]


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, now that this dispute seems to be settled and the hon. members opposite are willing to let us state our views, I must say that I am pleased that we have, as elected members to this house with a fair majority, the right to voice our opinion, all the more as, since the setting up of the committee, I have attended all its meetings and followed its activities with an ever-increasing interest.
In my opinion, I am in a position, as well as any other member of this house, to make a worthwhile contribution to this debate.
Mr. Chairman, when considering the minister's estimates, we realize that this subject can give rise to many controversial discussions. Since this debate began, we saw some members take a rather radical stand against the decisions just announced by the Minister of National Defence.
As the previous speaker said, this enables us to realize to what extent our economy is based on a military organization.
In the course of my remarks, I would like to show to what extent the committee established by this house early in the session was in a position to play a useful part. It will be remembered that the establishment of such a committee was advocated by our group in previous election campaigns. We were very pleased to note that the present government saw fit to set it up as one of the first items of its program. The most satisfying feature was that members of the various parties who sit on the committee succeeded in keeping politics out of their deliberations. In my opinion, the committee's mandate was of such importance that political considerations had to be left out if it wanted the present government to act upon its recommendations.
I feel that the most serious question the committee had to examine was the advisability or importance of Canada's role as a middle power within NATO and in Europe especially.
During our discussions and also during the trip we made, we were able to appreciate how much NATO has done to maintain peace in Europe. That does not mean that NATO will be in a position to continue playing such an important role. However, in view of the stability which prevailed in the countries protected by NATO, we must acknowledge that, for all practical purposes, only the older countries and especially those of Asia, have enjoyed a certain degree of peace and have been able to rebuild their economies. It has been my privilege to realize that Canada has played a useful role in the sense that it has created in the minds of Europeans a spirit
54S8

Supply-National Defence which enabled them to rebuild their economy because they felt truly protected by their allies.
On the other hand, one can ask whether the maintenance cost of these units in Europe is warranted. It would therefore be wise to make a comparison with the one who pays for a fire insurance. Were he sure that no fire would break out, he would not incur such an expense. However, everyone of us is glad to pay a premium in order to have protection against any fire hazards. We make sacrifices in order to feel protected.
Up to now, what we have paid to NATO may have seemed forbidding, but I believe that it has amounted somewhat to an insurance premium which allowed us to live in a state of relative peacefulness, to generate a certain understanding among the peoples of Europe, and to induce at the same time the lessening of tension which we now enjoy.
The role this committee has to play is not to analyse what has been done in the past so much as to supervise what is being done at the present time, and in the light of acquired knowledge, to endeavour to determine what part Canada should play in the military field, in years to come. We have concluded agreements, whether they have been signed or not they are none the less agreements and, as gentlemen, we must honour them as long as conditions upon which they are based remain the same.
I think that we have agreements and that as long as these agreements last it is unlikely that the situation will change.
But we may anticipate that before a few years, perhaps three, four or even five years, the military situation will have changed enough to enable us to depart to a certain extent from the role we now play in Europe.
I do not think I would anticipate the forthcoming report of the committee if I made this remark, since the forces of France, Germany and other European countries are being restored day after day. If we consider that Germany, only in the last few years, set up a military force about 380,000 strong, I feel it is logical to conclude that in future we will play a token role in Europe to show our willingness to participate and our solidarity with our European allies.
However, we noticed that most of our servicemen in Europe seem to be satisfied with their living conditions. We noticed also the high degree of efficiency achieved by our military forces.
However, we were rather alarmed to learn that possible repatriation of our servicemen's dependents who are now in Europe, has not been considered in the event of war. I am of the opinion that the government should give

its attention to this problem and find a solution to safeguard the security of Canadian civilians who are now in Europe with our servicemen.
In the introduction of his department's estimates today, the Minister of National Defence stated that he was contemplating a substantial reduction in the expenditures of his department by closing a great number of auxiliary bases and reducing the military forces.
Referring to his statement, we can conclude that the most affected will be the Royal Canadian Air Force. I do not think the minister is wrong in considering a reduction of amounts assigned to air forces. If we consider the development of arms which are now used, which are a threat to peace, it is sensible to conclude that the part assigned to the air forces will gradually decrease because the future threat seems to lie, for many years to come, in the availability to the two contending camps of nuclear weapons carried by guided missiles and nuclear submarines carrying Polaris missiles.
This, Mr. Chairman, leads me to the conclusion that, if we believe that Canada has a nuclear role to play, I think that it would be more logical if this role were to be a contribution to the cost of the expenditures resulting from the maintenance of the retaliation force that we have at present in the west.
It has been admitted, from all the evidence gathered, that there is no adequate defence system as such, and that our retaliatory power alone has been able up to now to maintain peace.
I am of the opinion, unless I have proof to the contrary and until other armament are produced, that we must stand by this acknowledgement of the facts. I submit that it is of no avail to allocate the nation's credits for military defence establishments which, after all, have no value.
Turning back to the announcement made by the Minister of National Defence to the effect that he will reduce the strength of some military establishments, 1 shall point out to him that all Canadians wish for a reduction of military expenditures. Besides, all members have expressed that wish.
All responsible economic bodies also wish that the government would reduce its military expenditures in order to balance its budget.
But, when the Minister of National Defence announces these reductions, some people seem to be personally affected and they rebel. I think that these people follow the theory by which when others are affected and they are not, they are satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister that I myself and the members of my group, fully agree that we should work together towards reducing the amounts allocated for military purposes. But we must also take into account the fact that if we increase unemployment by reducing the amounts allocated for the defence of our country, we prove beyond any doubt that since the end of the war in 1945 we have maintained, without any good reason, an economic system based too much, unfortunately, on a military economy which, today, plunges us in a small economic crisis which seems to be only starting and which will no doubt be felt in various areas in our country.
It is unfortunate that such a thing should happen, but I think the present government will have to realize that it cannot reduce expenditures, thus creating some unemployment, without putting into effect at the same time a clear program devised to create jobs resulting solely from the industrial and economic growth of our country and from the development of our natural resources, since these are the only areas on which we can safely depend.
As a matter of fact, it is toward those sectors that European countries have directed all their efforts, since the end of the last conflict, and we have been able to appreciate the happy results achieved thereby.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we must consider that military problem in terms of the future, in the light of the changing relations between the various countries of the world.
If we study the economic philosophies which are put forth at the present time throughout the world, we can divide them in three groups.
First, there is the controlled economy of the totalitarian communist states, such as Russia and her satellites.
Then, there is the controlled economy which could be described as a modified socialist economy and which is to be found in central Europe. And we have here, in the west, the capitalist system.
I think those three philosophies will evolve. The two extremes will attract each other, which means that the communist group will evolve in the same direction as the central European group, towards a mitigated socialism. On the other hand, we, in the west, shall evolve in the same way, as, with the passing of the years, a multiplication of contacts, relations and travel between the various nations of the world will tend to erase boundaries.
I think we shall have to take up the challenge of a cold economic war, if we want to keep abreast of our responsibilities and that
Supply-National Defence we shall have to consider a scheme for the development of energizing countries. This scheme should benefit those countries, and not the capitalist colonizing nations, as was the case in the past. We shall do it as a friendly country putting its technological knowledge at the disposal of people who cannot look after themselves.
Moreover, I am of the opinion that the amount of money we proposed to take from military establishment should be, to a certain extent, given to religious organizations, because I always think that in underdeveloped countries, the organizations which are best suited to help those regions are the semireligious organizations that are on the spot and which, with the men at their disposal, can help those people to develop and to take their responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member who preceded me when he said that in the years to come, we shall see the various people in the world united.
In closing my remarks, I want to tell the house my personal impression with regard to that infernal contraption we call nuclear arms: those arms which we have cursed since their creation, that is for the past 18 years, I think, that we shall soon bless them, because they will contribute to restore somewhat the sense of responsibility of national leaders who, nowadays, may not take any uncompromising or irresponsible decision nor plunge their people into wars.
Mr. Chairman, the day is probably not far when we shall thank those who have created that infernal machine because it shall contribute to safeguard us from the blunders of a few invidious, a few proud people, such as others before us have known in the centuries and years past and whose decisions these have dearly paid.
Some pretend we may be able to ban those weapons. I say no, that we shall not be able to ban them because, even if we wanted to, I am sure if there were a conflict in which conventional arms would be used for a few weeks, if not a few months, later on, we would see those weapons reappear. We have them; let us look at them with their power of destruction, let us look at them with that bit of wisdom they are forcing on us, for they make us realize to what extent we are irresponsible when we plunge our peoples into war.
Mr. Chairman, with these last words, I am ready to allow the house to adjourn.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to go on for another half hour in view

Supply-National Defence of the interest in this subject, and in view of our anxiety to complete these estimates tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few speakers on the list. Do we gain anything by sitting another half hour?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we gain a half an hour. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done between now and December 20.
I hope hon. members would accept the excellent suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I dispute the claim we gain a half an hour by sitting another half hour, but once in a while we have to yield to the blandishments of the leader of the house.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Chairman, may I first congratulate the minister on his appointment and wish him well. I should also like to congratulate the previous speaker. I thought his was an excellent presentation, sensible, logical, and at least slightly patriotic. I wish I could say the same for some of the preceding speakers, particularly the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. He mentioned Cape Breton very often, but how few were his references to Canada.
I come from a very small province, probably the poorest, and we need many things. We have not got a $30 million heavy water installation.


Robert Muir: You have Smallwood over there, which is why you don't have anything.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: It is because we have Mr. Smallwood we have what we have. Mr. Chairman, it will be obvious I regret very much the decision of the Department of National Defence, especially with regard to Torbay, Newfoundland. It is particularly hard because this department has never had a very heavy investment in my province, despite the fact that we are right off the Atlantic and are the actual Gibraltar of the continent. Our defence installations were mainly American. But, we are not an unreasonable people. We know that the minister has had to make unpleasant decisions, but surely the Canadian taxpayers generally will be glad to learn that some of the unnecessary defence expenditure will be cut out. This, of course, is a very laudable course of action, if at the same time we do not jeopardize our national security.
We of St. John's have no illusions that money grows on trees. Far from it; we know the government must find the money for equalization payments to the provinces. In this respect, Newfoundland will receive well over an additional $3 million. We know someone must

pay for an increase in the old age pension, in the blind pension, in old age assistance and in the disabled persons' pension.
We know that the federal government is now paying 90 per cent of the cost of completing our sorely needed trans-Canada highway. But the fact remains that the economy of my city cannot help but be affected in some way. St. John's, and indeed all of Newfoundland, asks the federal government to aid us in the development of our city and our province, and we do not ask as a pauper.
It might be of interest to some hon. members to realize that Newfoundland, if you think of it as a separate entity, as it was before 1949, is now Canada's third biggest customer, exceeded only by the United States and Great Britain. So, we ask for development, not for charity. Therefore this temporary setback on defence installation places a greater onus on the government to approach the problem of unemployment with even yet more vigour.
What will happen to the men who lose their jobs-the men who will be out of work? Surely some extra attention and consideration must be paid to them. An extra effort to find them alternative employment must be, and I am quite sure, will be made. Perhaps as a result of this very decision the acute problem of unemployment in my district, and in all Canada, will be brought to the attention of the government more forcefully. Perhaps, too, the Minister of National Defence will understand, if we look to him for sympathy and support when other proposals to assist my province are brought to the government.
Already we have had at least one department of defence ship come to our drydock in St. John's, the first in many years. I wonder if the minister, as a result of his difficult decision today, could not lend his weight to greater use of this drydock by the ships of our Canadian navy, and to a greater use of our harbour by ships of every department? The people of St. John's will understand this decision, but only if they see that the money so saved by the department will be put to other, more worth-while usage.
Indeed we hope the government will soon increase the family allowance, and soon keep our promise that this allowance will be paid so long as students remain at school. If this announcement of the minister will make this decision with regard to family allowance come sooner, then many will applaud.
Surely too, this unfavourable decision puts a greater onus on the federal government to launch an all-out attack to find a solution to the Bell Island problem. There are no doubt numerous valid ways in which the federal government could spend constructively in Newfoundland, and in the other nine

provinces. Therefore, if the experts tell us that we are spending this money uneconomically we are the first to want a change, because in our province as in others, there are many ways in which this money can be spent profitably, and if this cutback will mean this money will be spent more profitably in other ways, then we support it.
I have one last word, and it is that I hope the government is taking every possible step to ease the effects of this decision on the persons actually laid off. I would like to know just what consideration has been given to their investments in pension plans. I would like to know if any consideration has been given to ease any financial problems placed on those who have mortgage payments to meet and who might be required to move elsewhere.
I would also request the Minister of Labour to send a special representative from the national employment service at once, to assist in finding alternative jobs. I suggest that this be an extra assistance over and above that normally given. While we understand, we regret the necessity for this decision and, as a result of it, we will expect some extra effort be made to compensate for its temporary ill effects.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, early in the afternoon when the minister was making his remarks I feel that the Chair more or less jumped the gun when it came to the defence of the minister to halt questions that may have been asked, with the remark that the minister's time is limited. As I understand the rules of the house the minister, as spokesman for the department, has unlimited time at his disposal, and the opportunity to ask-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member does not understand the rules clearly, because the minister was limited to 30 minutes.


Malcolm MacInnis: For that I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but nevertheless by custom, and during the questions that were put this afternoon the following speakers showed every willingness to yield the floor in order that the questions could be put-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member realizes that the Chair is bound by the standing orders.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, again I
apologize. I only hope that in the future this binding will continue. Now, during the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East this afternoon, a remark was made in the committee about defence spending, in the terms of something about peanuts. It was picked up and repeated by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I do not imply 28902-5-351
Supply-National Defence that he meant to be derogatory in any sense, but I would like it clearly understood that the remark passed at that time came from directly behind the speaker and should not be attributed in any way to any member of this party. It will show in the Hansard report tomorrow.
I would like to make reference to the last speaker for a moment and the remark he made about the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. He referred to the fact that he had much to say about Cape Breton. I find no fault with any member of this house who stands up at any time and fights for the welfare of his constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: Whether it is a mass lay-off or whether it boils down to one individual, the rights of the individual are just as important. It does not matter whether he is laid off his job as an individual, or is laid off with another 500 or 1,000 men. It does not matter to him whether he has company in being laid off; the fact remains that when an individual is laid off from a job I think it is the duty of every individual member of this house to make any representations he can on behalf of the individual.
Having made this point about the member from Cape Breton North and Victoria, and saying that he spoke a great deal about Cape Breton and nothing about Canada, he then launched into the subject of Newfoundland and did not get off that island until he sat down, after reading every word of the speech that was prepared for him by somebody else.


Mr. Cashin:: That is what he was sent here for, to fight for Newfoundland.


Malcolm MacInnis: Good for him; I do not deny him that right. But if he wants to do that for Newfoundland there is no reason why he should take exception to another hon. member fighting for Cape Breton. I would ask the hon. gentleman from Newfoundland-


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Malcolm MacInnis: -to look into the remarks of the former member from-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for St. John's East is rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member suggested a moment ago, or stated quite bluntly and unequivocally, that I had read every word of a speech that had been prepared for me by someone else. That is simply not true.

Supply-National Defence


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the rules dictate that I shall have to withdraw that remark. I will withdraw it to the point o 1 whatever integrity I can place on my own remarks, and say that the hon. member for St. John's East was reading every word of the speech he had before him. He never got off the island of Newfoundland, but he criticized the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria for fighting on a local issue affecting the island of Cape Breton. Going along with the wealthy young member for St. John's West, I am not taking exception to the fact that the hon. member for St. John's East was fighting for the people of Newfoundland; but I do take exception to the fact that he criticized the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria for fighting for Cape Breton.
I suggest that in the case where the United States government saw fit to withdraw from Fort Pepperrell, hon. members should read the remarks of the member who represented St. John's at that time and see the effort and concern he showed then for the people of Newfoundland. I might also refer them to the remarks of the premier of Newfoundland and what he had to say when the Americans withdrew from Fort Pepperrell. I would look forward to seeing the same remarks made by the premier of Newfoundland with reference to the withdrawal by this government. I should now like to deal with what the minister himself had to say this afternoon. I would at once remind this committee-


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: We are sitting an extra half hour. The time is very limited tonight. I will have more to say tomorrow. I will have time then, and I will handle whatever questions the wealthy young man wishes to ask at that time.


An hon. Member:: Wealthy in brains; not like yourself.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A party of bureaucrats.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member who made that remark care to rise to his feet and identify himself?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat, please. The remarks being made are not perhaps conducive to the good order of the house and I would ask hon. members on both sides of the house to concentrate on the item that is before the committee at the moment.


Malcolm MacInnis: I appreciate your thinking on the matter, Mr. Chairman, but as I heard that remark it was very personal and I think the hon. member who made it should

rise and withdraw it; or if he cares to repeat it, I will see what I can do about handling it at a later time.
I will continue with my remarks. One of the first remarks made by the Minister of National Defence this afternoon was nothing less than a complete denial of the words his own Prime Minister spoke previously in the house. With regard to the defence committee, everybody is well aware of the fact that when the defence committee was set up the words of the Prime Minister at that time were that the committee was to look into all aspects-I repeat, all aspects-of defence matters. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence referred to the committee as looking into "various matters". This is exactly what has taken place. This committee is unlike committees set up by other allied nations which have defence committees. All such committees working under other governments have the opportunity to examine every bit of evidence that is available, including classified information. But this minister and this government have denied the committee set up by this house-and they made a big noise about setting it up- classified information; and well they might, when they consider what the present minister did while in opposition. This is the minister who I consider individually is the greatest threat to security in this country. And why do I say that?


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Malcolm MacInnis: If you are having trouble, go wash out your ears. I say it because the opportunity to seek classified information was open to him while in opposition. This same minister, with his arrogant attitude, came before this house and is recorded in Hansard as having said he could not understand why it was classified and he was going to take the responsibility of repeating it. If that is not a security risk, I do not know what it is. It is a security risk for which in other free countries he would be placed behind bars.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: They are "oh'ing" and
"ah'ing" over there. It is rather nasty of me to say this, but this is a nasty situation. This afternoon hon. members referred to the minister's decision as brave; they said it was a brave decision. It is a gutless decision; because when he was in opposition he had all the answers and all the cures, and what he has brought forward now is sickening. It is not a cure; it is a sickness. Why do I say it is a sickness? This minister is aware of the situation with our allies in the NATO set-up. I defy any member of the defence committee,

any member of that party or any member on that front bench, to rise and deny that the attitude in defence among the allies today is one of the deterrent, and the deterrent is made up of nothing but tactical weapons, I.C.B.M.'s and the like. In other words, the approach of the allies on the matter of defence boils down to nothing but "a good offence is the best defence." These are all offensive weapons held as deterrents in order to prevent an outbreak of war in any part of the world. I say again, they are offensive weapons.
If the minister wants to make a brave decision, to which he and his government have already committed themselves, why not get rid of the Bomarc? I say that for the reason that the Bomarc is nothing but a defensive weapon with a very short range. Its capabilities have been discussed before the committee, and every capability of the Bomarc has been questioned from one source or another. As a defensive weapon it does not belong in the arsenal of the NATO countries. They are depending upon tactical nuclear weapons, I.C.B.M.'s and the like. In addition to that, the savings-as I followed the minister's remarks this afternoon: I did not have too much opportunity to add up the particular savings-of maintaining the Bomarc I understand will be in the vicinity of $37 million. I should say, of keeping the Bomarc, because after all this was a housekeeping presentation which the minister made. Not counting maintenance and other costs involved I understand it is in the vicinity of $9 million a year. What about the other facilities involved? Owing to the fact that the Bomarc is still not armed with nuclear warheads, why does the minister not make a brave decision? The government had already committed itself to negotiating out of the agreement and doing away with the Bomarc, so possibly we could salvage something from the cut-backs he has made today.
The minister talks about withdrawing ten ships from naval duties. After withdrawing them he then maintains there will still be adequate support for the fleet. I would ask the minister to explain who gave him such advice. He has already announced the scrapping of the frigate program. We have heard the former minister of defence speak about this program and at the time he was minister it was considered a substantial program for the next 20 years. Who is advising the minister to make these cut-backs, and why? It is not the navy which advised the cut-back of the frigate program. Admiral Rayner appeared before the committee and gave his thoughts on the matter. Yet the minister decides to withdraw from the frigate program 28902-5-351}
Supply-National Defence and now says that ten ships are to be withdrawn from the navy. It is very surprising that this minister made that decision in face of this advice from the senior admiral in the navy. It might also surprise the minister to know that this was a program in which the British government were very much interested. I call his attention to the committee reports of what was told us while in Britain by the upper echelons of the British defence department, wherein he will find an indication that the United Kingdom were very much interested in this program. They would not have been interested in the frigate program, Mr. Chairman, unless that particular program had merit, because I cannot imagine the British wasting their time on this program unless it was thought a worth-while one.
So here we have a minister who had failed to advise the committee where he is getting his advice on these matters. The minister said on one occasion that a remark he made before the committee did not show up as such in the committee reports, but the same minister has the audacity, in view of remarks he made when he was on this side of the house, to suggest we forget the remarks which he made in respect of defence. We were supposed to time the matter by the calendar, but I prefer the watch. Since it is the minister's advice that we should forget what he said about defence I will continue to forget it, because in my opinion he does not know very much about what is going on, in view of the fact that he is defying advice of a senior admiral with respect to the frigate program. Now he has branched off on this cut-back program. As I say the government has committed itself to negotiate out of the Bomarc problem-and it is a problem, because it does nothing for the defence of North America.
The hon. member for Vancouver East referred to what Mr. McNamara said about the Bomarcs, and we know what his intentions were. On one occasion he said it was a decoy. This minister is the same hon. member who on many occasions concerned himself about Canada's image abroad. His great slogan was: "Save Canada's image abroad". It appears to me that to save Canada's image abroad today calls for a very big sacrifice. It calls for the sacrifice of the personal image of Canada and Canada's own integrity. The government have considered nothing of their attitudes on defence and other matters in respect to the people of Canada; they only try to continue to pull the wool over people's eyes in respect of matters they consider in the honour of Canada's image abroad.
I would not want it thought for one moment, Mr. Chairman, that we are not grateful

Supply-National Defence for the very small part the federal government has played in announcing the fact that the government will purchase heavy water from Cape Breton. I know this news was gratefully accepted in Cape Breton, and I myself am grateful for it. However, as was said earlier this evening, the government gives you something with one hand and takes away twice as much with the other. While I am at it, I might also say a lot has been said by other hon. members about the heavy water plant going to Nova Scotia. One hon. member said that it cost $13 a ton in Nova Scotia to mine coal whereas it could be mined in his area for $3. There must have been a strong profit motive involved, if heavy water could be produced using coal that much cheaper than in Cape Breton, when they did not underbid Nova Scotia to begin with. I am very grateful that this particular project is coming to Cape Breton, but whatever benefits it may have to Cape Breton or Nova Scotia have been offset by what happened here today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader if we may assume that the estimates of the Department of National Defence will be continued tomorrow, and what would be the stop gap items if we complete them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope they will be more than stop gaps. When we complete national defence I hope we can complete public works and also northern affairs. May I be permitted to say that I think there is an understanding that certain resolutions, of which notice has been given today, might be advanced tomorrow without debate, so that the bills would be available for debate on Monday and Tuesday of next week. Notice was given yesterday and they will be on the order paper tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being one minute after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 6, 1963