1963-12-06

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege. Very briefly, my question of privilege is that the Minister of Fisheries misled the house on August 2, and I should like to make reference to Hansard of that day in order to prove my contention. Incidentally, it was not possible for me to raise this question of privilege earlier. This is the first opportunity I have had because it did not come to light until a document was tabled in the house yesterday pursuant to a motion for the production of papers to which I shall refer. I think it is necessary to read a little more than usual in order to illustrate my point.
The hon. member for New Westminster asked the Minister of Fisheries the following question, as reported at page 2945 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him for what I hope will be a final progress report on the negotiations with the British Columbia fishing industry?
The minister made the following reply:
Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the house yesterday, negotiations resumed on Wednesday between the two parties involved, the union and the fisheries association of British Columbia. I am pleased to inform the house this morning that the situation has improved greatly in the last 24 hours. In fact, with the indulgence of the house may I be permitted to place on record part of a telegram I received at five o'clock from the union, which reads as follows:
"Reurtel our central strike and policy committee decided upon receipt your telegram bearing in mind urgency expressed regarding resumption operation and failure reach agreement upon scope and terms arbitration that we shall immediately recommend to our membership acceptance of appointment by federal and provincial governments of single arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding and that the arbitrator shall decide scope and terms of reference after consultation with both parties to the existing dispute."
The minister then went on to say:
A few hours later I received another telegram from the fisheries association which reads in part as follows:
"-the member companies of this association are prepared to accept the decision of a single arbitrator to be appointed by the Hon. H. J. Robichaud and the Hon. L. R. Peterson as final and binding upon the matter or matters which will be agreed to be referred to him."
The only problem which remains, Mr. Speaker, consists of the details of the terms of reference.
Then there are a few other words which are not germane to this particular point. The key points upon which I rest this question of privilege are, one, the fact that the minister read only a portion of the telegram from the fisheries association; and, two, followed the reading of that portion with the words:
The only problem which remains, Mr. Speaker, consists of the details of the terms of reference.
I make this statement especially in view of the fact that the telegram from the united fisheries and allied workers union made reference to the arbitrator deciding the scope of the terms of reference after consultation with the parties to the existing dispute.
I filed a motion for the production of the telegram from the fisheries association of British Columbia which the minister read in part, and it was tabled yesterday. It is dated Vancouver, B.C., August 1, 4.26 p.m., Pacific daylight time. It is addressed to Hon. H. J. Robichaud, M.P., P.C., Minister of Fisheries, Ottawa, Ontario, and reads as follows:
This is a further letter delivered to Mr. R. G. Clements today quote We refer to Mr. Homer Stevens letter addressed to you dated August one 1963, a copy of which you have made available to us. We repeat that the member companies of this association are prepared to accept the decision of a single arbitrator to be appointed by the Honourable H. J. Robichaud and the Honourable L. R. Peterson as final and binding upon the matter or matters which will be agreed to be referred to him.
Then the telegram goes on to say:
It is our understanding that the only matter in dispute which requires reference to arbitration is that of the minimum price to be paid for pink salmon during the 1963 fishing season. If there is any other question in dispute which the union wishes to have referred to the decision of the arbitrator we would appreciate your asking them to inform us through you immediately so that we may consider whether or not we can agree to such question or questions being so submitted. We are unwilling to agree to arbitration of any matter which has not been referred to arbitration by agreement.
Fisheries Association of B.C.
The principle point here is that the association of B.C. indicated in their telegram to the minister that they were only willing to submit to arbitration one single, solitary question, and that was the matter of the minimum price to be paid for pink salmon caught during the 1963 salmon season. If there is any doubt that this was the case,

B.C. Fisheries Dispute
the fisheries association sent another telegram to the minister; and if he did not mislead the house the first time by reading only parts of the telegram, which I contend he did, then he certainly did on another occasion by not relating to the house something which was made even more clear to him by the fisheries association of B.C.
Again this is a sessional paper, No. 64C, which was filed on November 15, and it contains a telegram from the fisheries association of B.C. to the Minister of Fisheries, dated Vancouver, August 2, 1.05 p.m. Pacific daylight time. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the house sat until 10.56 p.m. that evening, and I suggest this telegram was undoubtedly in the possession of the minister by that time. They say in it, and I only want to quote a part:
That our member companies will agree to arbitration by a single arbitrator to be appointed by the Honourable H. J. Robichaud and the Honourable L. R. Peterson of the minimum price to be paid for pink salmon during the 1963 fishing season and of no other matter whatever.
I submit that when the minister related that information to the house, notwithstanding this second telegram which makes it undoubtedly clear, he misled the house, when he quoted only part of the telegram and when he interpreted that part to say:
The only problem which remains, Mr. Speaker, consists of the details of the terms of reference.
As a result not only was the house placed in the position of not knowing fully what the situation was, but there was an agreement to proceed to arbitration, and that arbitration has not yet been held because the matters to be referred to the arbitrator are still not cleared up; and I submit they are not cleared up primarily because of the information which the minister gave to the house.
I therefore move, based on this question of privilege, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this house regrets the Minister of Fisheries misled the house on August 2 by failing to advise the house fully of the position of the fisheries association of B.C.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to decide whether there is a question of privilege. I would refer to Beauchesne's citation 104, paragraph 5, which reads as follows:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both, first-
The "first" is my own insertion:
-that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity. If he is not so satisfied he may allow the member to make a statement with a view to ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case can be made out.

It seems to me that the long explanation given by the hon. member, working up to the presentation of this motion which he asks the Speaker to accept, is really in the nature of a grievance. I do not believe that the minister, if a misstatement was made, intended to make any misstatement. With regard to the allegation that a false statement was made, I do not believe that has been proved by the facts alleged by the hon. member this morning. In my opinion this is really in the nature of a grievance, and a prima facie question of privilege has not been made out. Therefore in my opinion the motion should not be accepted.


Frank Howard: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I do not believe a matter of privilege involves whether or not the minister intended to do something. The fact is that he did.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Howard: Second, there is no allegation that it was a false statement. I say it was a misleading statement, and the silence on the government benches proves it.



STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I said I would make a statement on the government's plans for the business for the rest of the session. On Monday, I think it was, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I undertook to say whether there had been any changes in those plans since my statement on this matter on November 4.
On that date I stated that the most urgent business was to complete the consideration of the estimates, and that remains the case. Of the legislation I mentioned then the first three items have been dealt with by the house, the income tax bill, the surcharge on imports bills, and the amendment of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
The house has also been dealing with the next major item on the list, redistribution, about which I will say a word in a minute.

However, I can no longer be hopeful of the house going on before Christmas to the items which were next on my November 4 list, the National Housing Act amendment and the major railway legislation arising out of the MacPherson royal commission, though a resolution to precede that measure is now on the order paper. These matters will probably have to stand over till next session.
The government considers it essential to have the house deal in this session with the following items on the order paper and which have been on the order paper now for some time: first, the amendment to the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act; second, the amendment to the National Centennial Act; third, the resolution and bill respecting C.N.R. finances.
In addition there are the following items on today's order paper which the government desires to have dealt with in the present session: first, the amendment to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disability Allowance Act and the Blind Persons Act; second, the amendment to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; third, the amendment to the Small Businesses Loans Act; fourth, the amendment to the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act; fifth, a bill to appoint auditors for the national railways. There will also be a measure introduced next week respecting statutory salaries which the government would like to have dealt with.
With respect to redistribution, Mr. Speaker, the government would like to have the resolution and the bill to set up the office of representation commissioner passed during this session. However, it is prepared to hold over the boundaries bill until the next session. Perhaps there could be discussions among the representatives of the parties on the procedure to be followed in respect of that matter, and perhaps some informal discussions in between the sessions concerning it.
Other measures on the order paper which the government would like to have dealt with in this session, and I do not believe these are very contentious items, are first, the Newfoundland savings bank bill; second, the bill approving the Ontario harbour agreement; third, the amendment to the National Harbours Board Act; fourth, the amendment to the Carriage by Air Act; fifth, the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, which I believe is now in committee. A resolution preceding a measure respecting payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations appears on the order paper today which it would be desirable to deal with. There is also a bill respecting what is called the Blue Water bridge at Sarnia which is still to be introduced and which the house might wish to dispose of in this session.
Business of the House
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, subject to any emergencies arising, this is all the legislation the government intends to seek to have completed this session. A resolution respecting Indian claims will be put on the order paper, but the government does not expect the house to complete consideration of this measure. I believe there is general agreement to adopt, without debate, the resolutions preceding the bills which have not yet been placed on the order paper-though I think they are on this morning's order paper-on the understanding that the debate would take place on second reading and in committee on the bills in question. If there are any considerations arising out of this statement which require consultation among representatives of the parties, I am sure that can be arranged without delay.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I thank the Prime Minister for setting out the menu. All I can say on this, the 105th day of the session, is that his contemplation that so many other matters can be dealt with in a few days, while expressive of a hopeful desire, in the light of the experience during the years I have been in the house would be difficult of attainment before Christmas. There has been excellent progress made. The other day I was glad to hear the Secretary of State, a wise parliamentarian who understands parliament, expressing himself so clearly and definitely that since September there has been no suggestion of obstruction whatsoever, though the fullest debate has taken place; and with that he was in full agreement.
I agree with the Prime Minister that the estimates must be passed, because they cannot be delayed and postponed indefinitely. There are, of course, one or two departments -defence, whose estimates are now being discussed, and agriculture, when the Minister of Agriculture is available-which will require consideration. I think the suggestion made regarding redistribution is a proper one. We shall give every co-operation in the passage of the legislation setting up the representation commissioner and, of course, during the recess we shall be able to meet with representatives of the government and of other groups in the house to discuss this important matter of redistribution legislation.
There is also the question of the resolutions. The Prime Minister referred to this. While preserving and maintaining our rights, and without prejudice to them, we shall not debate these resolutions.
I was surprised, however, that amidst the somewhat unusual collection of legislation mentioned by the right hon. gentleman nothing was said regarding the serious situation which has arisen with respect to foreign

Business of the House
investment in our country. Only yesterday the Minister of Finance, speaking in Chicago, emphasized that Canada needs a large influx of capital. The latest returns given by the dominion bureau of statistics indicates that in the last three months there has been a reduction, on an average, of $100 million per month in foreign investment in Canada.
That is a serious situation and one which I feel deserves the earliest consideration on the part of parliament. I think when one considers what has happened during the last three months in the field of foreign investment, one can only conclude that some of the tinkering which was done in the budget has brought about a reaction in the United States, necessitating the taking of action now in this regard in preference to proceeding with several measures which, I am sure, are of lesser importance.
I think these are all the observations I intend to make at this time. Certainly this situation which was spoken of outside the house yesterday by the Minister of Finance deserves and demands action at the earliest possible date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of what the right hon. gentleman has said perhaps I should add a word, if only in clarification. If I did not make any statement on the question of foreign investment in Canada it was because I would have been entirely out of order in doing so. The right hon. gentleman knows that this important matter can be discussed as thoroughly as he desires to discuss it when the estimates of the minister are up for consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: We need action, though.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman said it was his view, in the light of past experience, that the items I have mentioned could not be passed within a few days. That might well be the case, but there is no reason why-and it would be the intention of the government to suggest this course-if they cannot be passed within a few days we should not come back after Christmas and see that they do pass, and not allow any desire for a holiday to interfere with our duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: The Prime Minister has given us what is virtually a second speech from the throne.


Mr. Churchill:: And an ultimatum.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is a very heavy agenda of legislation, much of which has been added since the right hon. gentleman made his previous statement on November 4.
I think the government has placed the house in a fairly awkward position. Some of this proposed legislation could not have been

introduced earlier. I refer in particular to the measures concerning old age assistance pensions, blind pensions and disabled persons allowances, which had to be left until the federal-provincial conference had concluded. But there are a number of other items which could have been introduced at any time in the last several weeks. The Canadian National Railways auditors legislation, the gold mines assistance legislation, statutory increases, surely these things have not just come up since November 4. It seems to me it is an indication of very poor planning of the business of the house when we find a heavy agenda like this suddenly placed before parliament.
I want to make the position of this party abundantly clear. I think it is essential that most of the legislation which the Prime Minister has announced this morning should be passed this session. There are one or two measures whose urgency is less apparent, but in my opinion most of them should be passed now. As far as we are concerned we are prepared to expedite the passage of the legislation by giving up, as we have already agreed to do, debate on the resolution stage of certain measures. But we are not, of course, prepared to rush the legislation through without giving it proper consideration. As far as we are concerned we are prepared to have a very short Christmas recess of a few days and come back so this legislation can be given the proper and full consideration which it deserves. We shall be most insistent that this session of parliament be not prorogued until at least the legislation having to do with old age pensions, blind pensions, disabled persons allowances, gold mining assistance and other essential matters has been dealt with.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: We
appreciate the announcement made by the Prime Minister this morning with respect to the program of legislation for the days ahead. I agree with those who have spoken on behalf of the other opposition parties that it does look as though we have a formidable array of legislative items before us.
However, certain discussions have been going on in the usual way and tacit agreement, at least, has been given to certain proposals. I believe it is the desire of every member of the house to proceed as expeditiously as possible in the carrying through of this legislative program. As far as the Social Credit party is concerned we are ready to co-operate to the fullest extent, though reserving our right to criticize and set forth our views with regard to the controversial subjects which may be brought before the house. We intend to exercise that privilege, but to do so with the least possible extension of debate.

As I say, we appreciate this announcement. We will do our best to co-operate, but at the same time we want to express our views with regard to some of the very important issues mentioned this morning, including the increases in various pensions and other matters.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister, the government and all other members, we wish to reach Christmas at the same time as everyone else. The announcement made by the Prime Minister this morning as to the legislation to be passed before the Christmas recess is certainly of a kind to interest this house and especially the Canadian people.
However, I wonder why these measures were not introduced earlier in this house, since we have been sitting for almost three months. The resolutions and notices of motion could have been introduced a long time ago, right after the last elections, even at the very beginning of the session on May 16, 1963.
We are all anxious to see the Small Businesses Loans Act extended. We would have liked also to have the resolution introduced concerning the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, but especially regarding the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act, so as to increase their monthly allowances to $75.
When the Prime Minister serves us an ultimatum and threatens us to have the house sit between Christmas and New Year's, if necessary, we are willing to return to the house in order that those measures may be passed by parliament as soon as possible.
On the other hand, why wait until Christmas is only a fortnight away to present those resolutions? That is what we are asking ourselves in this corner of the house. At the very last minute the government introduces a whole lot of bills that could have been presented much earlier. We are given a great deal of legislation to consider, with the implication that we are to pass it in haste, without even discussing it, so that the session may end before December 20.
We are ready to co-operate with the government but we would ask the government to co-operate a little more with the opposition and all hon. members and to submit its bills and resolutions earlier so that we may examine them adequately and enact legislation which will benefit the Canadian people as a whole.
Introduction of Bills



DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS OF GRADE EXCESS AND OVERAGE

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-119, to provide for the restitution and distribution of the proceeds of grade excess and overage unlawfully confiscated and converted in 1955 and continuously thereafter under an act intituled an act to amend the Canada Grain Act to the use and purposes of the governor in council.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that earlier this session I introduced Bill No. C-8 to provide for the construction of a grain terminal at Tisdale. Your Honour ruled it out of order on the ground that it involved an unlawful expenditure of public money.
The bill I am now introducing provides again for the construction of a grain terminal at Tisdale but out of the proceeds of grade excess and grain overage belonging to the western grain farmers but held in trust by the board of grain commissioners. Mr. Speaker, we farmers lay claim to these moneys which rightfully belong to us so that we can have a grain terminal built at Tisdale for the benefit of all grain producers. Even though we had to bring in Magna Carta to make our point, I can assure Your Honour that everything is on the level now.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WORLD EXHIBITION CORPORATION ACT


Lester Bowles Pearson: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-120, to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a legal basis for the proposed site for the world exhibition, to enlarge the board of directors and to deal with one or two other minor amendments.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-121, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, before you call government notices of motions, pursuant to the statement made by the Prime Minister I wonder whether the first, third and fourth motions could be put in the form "later this day". It might then be agreed to go into committee as soon as orders of the day are reached, pursuant to the understanding, so the bills could be introduced today in order to be available for debate early next week.
In the case of the other two motions, if the house were disposed to treat the second one having to do with provincial taxes on crown corporations in the same way I would be grateful, but it was not part of the agreement. In the case of the one concerning the Railway Act I am not asking that it be treated in this way at all.



SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act to extend until December 31, 1966 the time during which guaranteed business improvement loans may be made under the act; to provide for the establishment of a new loan period during which business improvement loans made by banks may be guaranteed by the Minister of Finance; to provide that the minister is not liable in respect of losses sustained by banks for business improvement loans made during the new loan period after the aggregate principal amount of such loans made by all banks during the period exceeds $300 million; and to make certain clarifying amendments to the securities provisions of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations on or after the 1st day of April, 1962.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1964, 1963, 1966 and 1967; and to provide also for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act to increase to seventy five dollars per month the maximum amount of assistance or allowance, as the case may be, in respect of which payment may, subject to such action as may be necessary by the appropriate provincial authorities, be made to the provinces under the provisions of those acts and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of assistance or allowance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person, the said measure to be effective the 1st day of December, 1963.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George James McIlraith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the implementation of certain recommendations of the royal commission on transportation with respect to the rationalization of branch lines of railways and passenger train services and the fixing of freight rates under and consistent with a national transportation policy suited to modern transportation conditions; to establish a branch line rationalization authority and a branch line rationalization fund to be continued for fifteen years to assist in the establishment of an orderly, rational and planned program of abandonment of uneconomic branch lines; to provide authority for public funds to be used where assistance of a type similar to that provided by the branch line rationalization fund may be required after such

15-year period; to provide for payments out of the consolidated revenue fund on a reducing scale for a period of five years commencing with 1964 to compensate the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for passenger train deficits of their systems in Canada during such period; to authorize payments to maintain freight rates on western grain and grain products moving by rail to export positions at the level of rates prevailing on the first day of July, 1963; to permit the lapsing of the subsidy (known as the "bridge" subsidy) now provided for the maintenance of trackage of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Sudbury and Fort William and the corresponding trackage of the Canadian National Railway Company between Capreol and Fort William and between Cochrane and Armstrong; to authorize agreements relating to the carriage by rail of Her Majesty's mail, and members of the Canadian forces and police travelling on Her Majesty's service and to provide further for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has anything to report regarding his investigation into the Penhold jet base. Has there been any advance made over and above what he said earlier, and is there any possibility of any alteration in the decision earlier made that this base, for safety reasons, should not be used as a jet training base?


George James McIlraith: There has been no alteration in the decision, Mr. Speaker. For reasons of safety, it is quite impossible to use that base for ab initio jet training.


John George Diefenbaker: And that is the final decision?


George James McIlraith: Yes.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding rail line abandonment. My information is that the Canadian National Railway has supplied to those interested a complete outline of its plans for rail line abandonment, and that so far the Canadian Pacific Railway has not supplied such information. Would it be possible for the minister, if it is not yet available, to ask the Canadian Pacific to make this
Inquiries of the Ministry information available to the board of transport commissioners and consequently to the general public?


George James McIlraith: I might say that what Canadian National Railways have supplied is in application form. There is a list of those lines on which the railway might ask for abandonment, and that is dealing with the prairie provinces only. It is not to be taken that the railway will necessarily apply for rail line abandonment on any of the lines indicated. I want to clear that up because there has been some misapprehension on it.
The Canadian Pacific has not followed the same course of action, and has not seen fit to disclose what its plans are in this connection.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the uncertainty for grain companies which are building elevators on railway lines, and the large expenditures involved, would the minister consider asking Canadian Pacific Railway to make this information available so that persons who live or do business in those areas can make their plans accordingly?


George James McIlraith: I think there is no difficulty in so far as companies building grain elevators are concerned, because they can get that information, I am quite sure, in relation to a particular line at any time. I have made a request that an indication be given of any line which the railway company proposes to abandon, but the railway company has not seen fit to give that information since it is regarded as part of its own responsibility.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the Reston-Wolseley line was abandoned just a year after a grain elevator had been built on it?


George James McIlraith: That may well be, but I am aware also that the railway companies have undertaken not to proceed with any of these abandonment applications on the grain lines in the three western provinces, and none has been proceeded with for quite some time. This undertaking was originally given to the former government, and it has been very carefully followed since.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Does the minister have a list of the applications for abandonment by the Canadian National, and will he make it available to the members of the house?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a list. I want to repeat something that I have been trying to make clear in answering these questions. I deplore the constant
5512	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry reference to this list as a list of abandonments. In cases where there are two closely related lines, one of which may be abandoned, both are indicated as possible lines for abandonment. All this information has been filed with the board of transport commissioners. If it is not readily available there I would be glad to look into the question of getting some kind of list into a form that could be made available to all hon. members.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: I wonder if the minister would mind telling us why he is reluctant to ask the Canadian Pacific to reveal their plans for abandonment?


George James McIlraith: I regret that the hon. member apparently did not hear my answer to an earlier question on that point.



SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW ENGLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister tell the house the results of any discussions he may have held with the premier of Nova Scotia during his recent visit, with regard to any decisions that may be reached relative to establishing a second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to advise the house that on my recent visit to Nova Scotia I did not meet with the premier of that province. There must be some misunderstanding.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As a supplementary question, I meant during the recent visit of the premier of Nova Scotia to Ottawa for the dominion-provincial conference. 'Will the minister tell the house when he plans to carry out his commitment that he made to me on June 25 and look into this matter, which is of paramount importance to the people of Nova Scotia and the tourist industry there?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I can tell the hon. member that this subject is under study now, and in addition there has been some correspondence with the premier on subjects that are directly related to it. These are getting quite active consideration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In
[Mr. Mcllraith.)

view of this morning's announcement by the dominion bureau of statistics of the startling rise in the cost of living during the last month or so, what steps does the government intend to take to counteract this dangerous trend?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Every step possible, Mr. Speaker.



INCREASE IN U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN MADE TRUCKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker I will draw the Prime Minister's attention to this question, although I have some doubt whether it is the kind of question that is normally asked on orders of the day."]
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the house whether the Canadian government has been advised by the United States of their decision to raise the tariff on trucks built in Canada and exported to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question requires detailed information and should be put on the order paper, unless the minister wishes to reply.


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minisler of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I could answer the question. The answer is yes.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Did the Canadian government protest to the American government? If so, in what terms were those protests made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we inquired very carefully as to the consequences of this change in the United States tariff which arose out of the so-called chicken war, and the inquiries did not elicit much response from anybody in Canada. There seemed to be a very minor interest in this item.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminsfer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to address to the Minister of Fisheries or the minister of external affairs. It has to do with the matter we discussed briefly here yesterday, the 12 mile fishing limit. Would the minister care to comment informatively on current press reports that Canada has now surrendered the point upon which it insisted at the previous

law of the sea conferences, the point being that the United States fishing rights within 12 miles of Canada's coasts cannot be maintained unlimited and in perpetuity?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot comment on the press reports referred to, as I have not seen such reports. However, I want to assure the house and the hon. member that no surrender has been made by Canada in its negotiations with the United States on the 12 mile limit.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompfion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to contact the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, Mr. McGregor, to authorize him to spend, or to suggest that he do so, the sum required to have the name "Air-Canada" placed on the aircraft of that crown corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better read the transcript of the hearings first and find out exactly what Mr. McGregor said.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of Mr. McGregor who refuses to adopt the designation "Air-Canada" for financial reasons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am required to comment on opinions of this kind expressed by a private citizen.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Take your responsibility. You are the Prime Minister; the Canadian people elected you for that.


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: I have a supplementary question to ask the Prime Minister in this regard. I had intended to ask him another question but I will go to the supplementary question first. Does the Prime Minister intend to bring in an amendment to the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act to make it legally possible for Mr. McGregor to change the wording on the aircraft, "Trans-Canada Air Lines", to the wording "Air-Canada", as was proposed by Mr. McGregor?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already given the list of legislation to be put before parliament this
Inquiries of the Ministry session, which seems to be considered already too long by hon. members opposite.


Georges-J. Valade: Does this mean no by the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It means what it says.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I intended my question for the Prime Minister, but in his absence perhaps the house leader would take it as notice. In view of the statement made by Mr. McGregor before the sessional committee on air lines, railways and shipping to the effect that as many as 200 employees may be transferred from the Winnipeg overhaul and maintenance base prior to 1973, how can the Prime Minister justify his statement as reported at page 5055 of Hansard for November 22, 1963 that the level of employment at that base may be increased during that period?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker I will draw the Prime Minister's attention to this question, although I have some doubt whether it is the kind of question that is normally asked on orders of the day.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a question I put to the Prime Minister yesterday, and of which I gave notice to the minister some days ago. Does the government propose to increase hospital grants in accordance with the urgent request of the metro council of Toronto?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform my hon. friend that this matter is under active consideration.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Justice. Is the government aware of the story which appeared in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, December 4, to the effect

Inquiries of the Ministry that charges were made by the student council at the University of Saskatchewan, Regina campus, that a student was approached by the R.C.M.P. and requested to co-operate in an investigation by the R.C.M.P. on the campus in Regina? If so, can the Prime Minister make a statement on the veracity of this charge?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I saw the report and inquiries are being made about it.


David Orlikow: As a supplementary question, I wonder would the Prime Minister take steps to investigate the truth of this charge by some agency other than the R.C.M.P., through inquiries from the student council and the principal of the Regina campus, Dr. Riddell, in the light of the discussions with the university students and C.A.U.T. and the assurances of the Prime Minister to the house on this issue on an earlier occasion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that we are making inquiries.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his overriding responsibility for the defence of Canada and the protection of the Canadian people, does the Prime Minister approve of the proposals of the Minister of Defence for the partial annihilation of the militia and the reserve forces of the navy and air force, and the consequent crippling effect that the proposed reductions will have on survival operations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman himself once served in another cabinet, and ought to know something about the principle of cabinet responsibility, and also about the proper way to ask questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will suggest to the minister of defence that the proposed major change in policy be referred to-


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -the special committee on defence before a conclusion is reached?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, are not both the question and the answer out of order? Is this not a debate on a matter that is before the house today?


Mr. Speaker:: I must agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It was due to the prestige the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has that too much leeway was given.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, like the Prime Minister, likes to lecture the house, but this is not a subject for debate today. The questions I asked the Prime Minister refer to his responsibility as Prime Minister of Canada, and he is responsible for the safety of the people of Canada and for the defence of this country. That does not enter into questions that may be asked of the minister of defence on his estimates. Consequently I claim that my question is perfectly in order, and the Prime Minister should give an adequate and satisfactory reply.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose and brought up the point that both the question and the answer were out of order. The Chair, in dealing with that point of order, told the house that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was given too much leeway in his question. What about your ruling on the answer that was also declared out of order?


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Was it the intention of the Prime Minister, when he asked the house to set up a special committee on national defence, to have that committee examine proposed changes in policy and report to the Minister of National Defence before the changes were introduced or promulgated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand, from reading the hon. gentleman's statement of yesterday, that he was complaining that the minister had not announced policy yesterday, before the committee on defence had completed its work. The minister said yesterday, and I am glad to repeat it, that one of the reasons a policy statement was not possible at this time was that we wanted to get the report of the committee on defence and study it before a statement was made on behalf of the government.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that before the defence committee the Minister of National Defence said that certain steps would be taken regardless of whether the committee dealt with them? Is he aware of that statement by the Minister of National Defence, who in effect said "We will do it, whether you like it or not"?


Some hon. Members:: Arrogance.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the special committee on defence of the House of Commons will only be able to present an interim report before the end of the year, and having in mind the terms of reference of the committee which call for a long term policy report, if there is a new session early in the new year will the Prime Minister make a recommendation as to the reinstatement of the committee and the reappointment of the same personnel?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to give consideration to that matter and make an announcement before the end of the present session.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I may not have the prestige of the hon. member who asked the previous question, but, the Minister of Justice being absent, I shall put my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Coffin case, is the Prime Minister not of the opinion that now it should be up to the Minister of Justice instead to make such an investigation in order to put the public quite straight on the circumstances surrounding that case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Justice said yesterday, but I would like to reassure the hon. gentleman who asked the question and tell him he enjoys exactly the same prestige as the hon. member who preceded him.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who has the floor?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe rising on a supplementary question.


Gilles Grégoire: Since the Minister of Justice has decided that this case did not come under federal jurisdiction, does the Prime Minister feel it proper for a crown corporation such as the C.B.C., to conduct an investigation into this matter, considering especially the way it is doing it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not see the relevancy of those two matters, but I will be glad to discuss that aspect of it with the Minister of Justice.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the bill introduced this morning by the Prime Minister to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether this bill will give us the details of the salaries which will be paid to the commissioner general and his associates, and also how many new commissioners will be appointed and how many members there will be under this amendment, so we may discuss the bill having before us complete information on this subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that I asked a question of the Prime Minister. Your Honour ruled my question out of order and said it was a question for the order paper. I question this, because we need the information before the bill amending the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act is discussed. I do not think my question is out of order, because it does not ask for statistics; it requires just a simple answer as to whether in this amendment we will know what salaries will be paid to the commissioner general and how many other members are to be appointed, so we can discuss the bill having complete information on it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the bill has been printed. It is available. My hon. friend can read it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If he can read.


Georges-J. Valade: Arrogance from the Liberal party again.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He cannot read.


Georges-J. Valade: Arrogance from the Prime Minister.



INQUIRY AS TO RECEIPT OP COMPLETE PLAN OF PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works?
When will the world fair authorities submit to the Minister of Public Works a complete plan of the site, including related services concerning the fair?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we will receive within ten days and surely before December 20 the complete plans of all development projects which are considered necessary by the fair authorities to achieve their objectives, as well as the budget for the coming fiscal year.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister intend to apply in his department the policy that was put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Edmonton, when she stated that she was in favour of the "pay as you go" policy?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am not one of the bilingual members of the house. My machine is out of order, and I did not get the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monieilh:: Your whole financial machine is out of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question to the Minister of Finance. Does he intend to apply in his department the policy put forward by his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who stated in Edmonton that she was in favour of the "pay as you go" policy?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare before giving a specific answer to that question.



REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. RESPECTING MODIFICATION OF TAX PROPOSED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of a statement made in Chicago last night that the inflow of foreign capital was necessary for Canada's economy, and in view of the sharp drop in such inflow in the last quarter, could he tell the house whether he intends to make any further representations to the United States government in regard to the equalization of interest act; and does he also intend to modify his stand on the withholding tax in order to encourage a greater inflow of foreign capital to this country?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on the second part of the question, I understand that the income tax bill was given royal assent last night. On the other part of the question, perhaps I might refer to reports in the press this morning of the findings of the ways and means committee of the house of representatives in connection with the equalization of interest tax. I have not seen a transcript of the evidence, or the report, but according to newspaper accounts it seems clear that the exemptions for new issues of securities which the United States administration intends to apply to Canada have been confirmed by the house of representatives ways and means committee.
In addition the committee, in consultation with the administration, has been further responsive to the requests of the Canadian government. Three examples of this responsiveness emerge from the newspaper reports. First, some adjustment of the legislation which may prove to be of considerable importance has been recommended in the direction of exempting from tax the investments of U.S. insurance companies operating in Canada, up to 110 per cent of their reserves. Second, the head offices of international trade unions and fraternal organizations will apparently be able to invest in Canada, if the report is accepted, free of tax in respect of the dues they collect in this country. Third, it is apparently proposed to exempt from tax, trading in the outstanding securities of certain Canadian corporations which are owned to a substantial extent in the United States.
While this latter point does not fully meet our requests for complete exemption to be granted to Canada-U.S. trade in outstanding securities of such Canadian corporations, it would appear to involve a very substantial step in this direction. I can assure the hon. member that we shall be keeping in the closest touch with what is going on in

Washington and will continue to make representations to obtain full exemption.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's answer seems to indicate that the equalization of interest act is not a cause for the sharp drop in the inflow of foreign capital. Must we therefore conclude that the main reasons are the provisions of his June 13 budget?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, that interpretation is of course completely wrong and it is quite contrary to everything I have said. It is also quite contrary to an answer I gave the Leader of the Opposition just two or three days ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And it is contrary to the facts.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is known and appreciated,
I think, by everybody in financial and industrial circles that the reason for the drop in the inflow of capital from the United States in the last quarter was due to the uncertainties surrounding the interest equalization tax.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says it is known to everybody. I ask him whether it was known to Mr. Kier-ans. I should also like to ask the minister this question. Did he receive the information he has given us from Washington, or is he just making an observation on a press dispatch which he has before him?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In answer to the last part of the right hon. gentleman's question, I prefaced my remarks by saying that this information was based on a fairly full press report. I also said, if I recall, that I had not yet obtained the report from Washington but that we were proceeding to get it. I have nothing further to add to what I said the other day about Mr. Kierans.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister saying that he is approaching this matter with that seriousness which it deserves when all he places before the house is what he has read this morning from a newspaper?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think I am approaching this question with the utmost seriousness, which it deserves. I have been doing so ever since last July.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question. The minister has just asserted that the drop was due to the uncertain-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would rephrase his question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Raymond Martineau: My question to the minister is, is that uncertainty which prevails due to some of the actions of the present government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would not think so, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Everyone else does.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister whether he knows if this exemption will extend to provincial and municipal securities?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That was the intention. That was recommended by the administration. That is the implication of the press report, but I will have to wait until I get the report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has it been confirmed by the house of representatives?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: According to the press it has, but as I said earlier I have not got the report of the ways and means committee.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in connection with his announcement of priorities this morning. Does the government intend to give a place in its list of priorities to Bill No. C-5, respecting the position of primary producers under the Bankruptcy Act, if this bill is reported back from the committee next week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is, of course, a private member's bill, and there has been no report from the committee concerning it. I was dealing with public legislation this morning.



DURUM WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre asked me about Durum wheat. As he knows, there are no longer special quota arrangements for the delivery of Durum wheat, which can be delivered on the specified acreage quota itself. As for the general situation regarding Durum wheat, stocks in the elevators are fairly large. At November 27 there were 26.6 million bushels compared with 15.6 million bushels at this date a year ago. On the other hand, exports at November 27 were up from 9.1 million bushels last

Inquiries of the Ministry year to 11.8 million bushels. I am informed by the wheat board that they expect that exports will be larger this year than last.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I place a request before the Secretary of State. Will he look at the motion for the production of papers No. 105 passed on October 23, under which the house ordered the tabling of correspondence with life insurance and other companies regarding the Canada pension plan. Six weeks having gone by, perhaps this return could be brought down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very glad to inquire into this matter, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Industry?
Is there any ground for the report to the effect that Canadair authorities objected to the construction of the Caravelle because of the prohibitive cost of the equipment necessary to build this aircraft?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the administration of Trans-Canada Air Lines did object to the construction of the Caravelle.


David Réal Caouette: I did not say Trans-Canada; I said Canadair in Montreal.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I was not aware, either, that the administration of Canadair objected to the construction of the Caravelle.


Mr. Speaker:: Special order No. 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interrupt to suggest that all four resolutions be called, or all three, depending on the wish of the house; that is to say, the first one, the third one and the fourth one. If the house would be agreeable to the second one respecting the payment of certain provincial taxes and dues, we could take them all in committee at once and have all the bills introduced when we get out of committee.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the Secretary of State a question. I am particularly interested in the resolution standing in the name

of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Do I understand that this is being done on the understanding that whatever debate might be relevant at the resolution stage would be relevant on second reading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That applies to all these measures. I think there was an understanding among the representatives of all parties in debate, so that anything which would have been relevant at the resolution stage would not be objected to from this side of the house at the subsequent stage of debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the understanding, and as far as we are concerned we would take the four resolutions now.



SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act to extend until December 31, 1966 the time during which guaranteed business improvement loans may be made under the act; to provide for the establishment of a new loan period during which business improvement loans made by banks may be guaranteed by the Minister of Finance; to provide that the minister is not liable in respect of losses sustained by banks for business improvement loans made during the new loan period after the aggregate principal amount of such loans made by all banks during the period exceeds $300,000,000; and to make certain clarifying amendments to the securities provisions of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-122, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations on or after the 1st day of April, 1962.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-123, respecting the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


William Moore Benidickson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967; and to provide also for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benidickson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-124, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSIONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act to increase to seventy five dollars per month the maximum amount of assistance or allowance, as the case may be, in respect of which payment may, subject to such action as may be necessary by the appropriate provincial authorities, be made to the provinces under the provisions of those acts and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of assistance or allowance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person, the said measure to be effective the 1st day of December, 1963.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Miss LaMarsh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-125, to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Supply-National Defence SUPPLY
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.
Me. Maclnnis: At the conclusion of my remarks last night I was referring to the attitude of the present government and the action which has recently been taken. I would like to repeat, with regard to this so-called brave decision of the Minister of National Defence and the cutbacks announced yesterday, that it would be much better if he had followed the commitment undertaken by his government to cancel the Bomarc program. There was a definite commitment by the government to renegotiate the Bomarc program. I repeat, in the light of my experience on the defence committee and in the light of my experience in the various allied nations we had an opportunity to visit, that those nations have placed the emphasis for their defence on tactical and strategic weapons, both of which are offensive weapons. Never is emphasis placed on defensive weapons. Considering the fact that this government promised to renegotiate the Bomarc program, I would point out that this is a defensive weapons which is not in line with any theory of defence based on the deterrent and the use of offensive weapons both tactical and strategic. There is no doubt that the cancellation of the Bomarc program-*
The Chairman:: Could we have some order?


Malcolm MacInnis: I was not sure whether the minister of defence was on his feet or not. A little order will be required here, especially from the minister who is responsible for these matters. He has no intention of paying attention to what I have been saying on the subject of defence. This is a very pertinent matter at this time, and there is not much sense in my carrying on with the debate-


Mr. Byrne:: Not much attention is being paid on that side.


Malcolm MacInnis: There seems to be quite an effort on the part of members opposite to

Supply-National Defence represent Cape Breton South. I have been given the floor. I must warn them that there are certain procedures they have to go through, and since they have not gone through them, I have the recognition of the Chair and the least I can expect is order from the other side. Members on the other side will have an opportunity to refute what I have to say, if they will get on their feet and say it later. But while I have the floor I would appreciate a little quiet, especially from the member from British Columbia, whatever his constituency is.
I say the attitude of the government has been hypocritical throughout, and the hypocrisy shown yesterday by the minister of defence was such that it should turn the stomachs of everybody in the services. He got up and complimented the services on their ability. We had a good example of that overseas. I do not question that for a moment. The men and women in our services deserve every compliment that can be paid to them. But while complimenting them on their service, the same minister has defied the wishes expressed by the senior officers in the navy; he has defied the opinions expressed by officers holding high positions in the upper echelon of the army and he has ignored their representations. Again, I ask the question: where is he getting his advice from? He has completely ignored the advice which has been given him.
The minister has gone before the defence committee and said: Forget what I have said about defence. And, really, we should. Here the opportunity was taken to save a certain amount of money. As far as I can calculate the savings from the cuts announced yesterday, they will amount to about $37 million. I say: get rid of the useless Bomarcs and perhaps these cuts can be restored. The minister has, in the past, talked a great deal about commitments. What about the commitments made by the previous government? What is he doing about the commitment of the government to maintain the operations of the naval base? As the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria said yesterday, these operations were not only maintained but they were increased under the previous government. The minister has now gone into Cape Breton and cancelled out these gains. We are grateful for the heavy water plant, but he has now taken more employment away from us than we derived through the benefits of the heavy water project. Cancellation of the operation of this base amounts to the betrayal of a commitment. The former government had undertaken to maintain this base and increase its operation. Now the present minister, who was so concerned about
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

commitments has gone back on that undertaking and does not consider it to be a national commitment, important, in every way, shape or form, hypocritical, every step.
The cut-back affecting the naval base will bring a grievous problem to the people of Cape Breton. What about the contracts under the Department of National Defence? Contracts for the naval base at Point Edward have been either cancelled or postponed. A tracking station which was on the planning board and which was to have been placed at the north end of Cape Breton has also been cancelled. Everywhere we look, across the board, we see cancellations, withdrawals or delays. Even in the constituency of the Minister of Labour contracts have been cancelled. As I understand it, no consideration whatever was given to the contractors who, at great expense to themselves, had estimated the cost of these programs. I understand that one particular contractor has been the successful bidder for three of these contracts and that not one of them has been activated. I have no axe to grind in this respect. None of the contracts involved are in my constituency. But it only underlines the attitude taken by the government toward these matters.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Do not take yourself too seriously.


Malcolm MacInnis: Here we go again; "too seriously", someone says.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I said so.


Malcolm MacInnis: Well, get on your feet and say it. I am not going to be standing here and taking those remarks from a man who has not the guts to get on his feet and say it. Put him in his place.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May we have some order? It is difficult to follow the remarks of the hon. member if there are these interruptions. At the same time, I would suggest to the hon. member who has the floor that he kindly address the Chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the difficulties under which you are working, but in a case where order has to be called with reference to any particular member I think it was your place, Mr. Chairman, to identify the Minister of Public Works who did not have the guts to get up and repeat what he had said.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman


Malcolm MacInnis: I will say one more thing before I resume my seat.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member said I have not got the guts to repeat what I said. I am going to repeat what I said.


Malcolm MacInnis: This is not a point of order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I said that the hon. member should not take himself too seriously.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps I should be given the opportunity to hear what the minister has to say.


Malcolm MacInnis: Provided he has a proper question of privilege. My remark was that the Chair should have identified the Minister of Public Works.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I suggested that the minister should have been identified.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat. 1 would think it is for the Chair to decide whether there is a question of privilege and not for the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I am sorry, but with the interruptions I did not hear what the minister said. Perhaps he would like to repeat it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I said that the hon. member should not take himself too seriously.


Lucien Lamoureux: That, of course, is not a question of privilege. I recognize that.


Malcolm MacInnis: I hope the Minister of Public Works will also say the same thing to the Minister of National Defence. I will say one more thing before I resume my seat. I disagree with the remark made by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria when he referred to the shoes of the Leader of the Opposition. He made a remark which I am not going to repeat. But I will say that I disagree for the very reason that I believe the record of the Minister of National Defence in the last war would indicate otherwise, and that possibly the minister is only qualified to do what the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria suggested yesterday he was not fit to do.
Since the Liberal backbenchers seem to want to place the Minister of National Defence in the hero role, I should like to suggest that he return to that role for which he was well suited during the war years when he got his headlines because of driving a motorcycle from California to his home town, a very dangerous mission. Since this is the role best suited to this hero, why does he not get back on that motorcycle and return to California?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Malcolm MacInnis: As is suggested, shame.
Supply-National Defence [Translation]


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with the utmost attention to the speeches made during this debate on national defence. All these speeches, with one or two exceptions-and more particularly with the exception of the speech we have just heard, and which clearly does not deserve any comments-have been serious and well documented; they proved that the essential problem of our national defence is taken seriously.
On the other hand, I feel that many members do not fully realize the magnitude and the necessity of the review which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has undertaken a few months ago.
Naturally, the minister cannot very well speak himself of what he has accomplished in that field; however, as I have been indirectly connected with that review, I feel that I must inform this house of what is understood by a survey of national defence policy.
May I tell the committee that I feel very happy to have been able to bring my small contribution to that survey. I also wish to stress the fact that my colleague the Minister of National Defence and myself are jointly responsible, and that I accept my share of responsibility for any serious decisions which have already been taken, or which might be taken later.
That survey, which started sometime ago, and which is unprecedented, requires considerable amount of work. The Minister of National Defence had to draw upon his resources of courage, determination and initiative in order to undertake such a review.
Last April, not long after having been appointed Minister of National Defence, he started a series of surveys on the three armed services and throughout the national defence department. I must say that the employees of the department not only offered their cooperation, but were quite enthusiastic, because they realized, as did many others in the country, that it was time to look more closely into our national defence set-up.
Some might ask why we should deem it necessary to proceed with an extensive survey of our national defence system. Well, there were two reasons for it in mind: the first one was that we are living in a new era, where scientific and technical progress controls our way of life. But it is mainly since the first atomic bomb was dropped that we had to undergo those changes, and today's strategy and art of war are very different from what they were before.
It is hardly probable that we should now be called upon to fight a war similar to those in which we took part in 1914 and 1939.

Supply-National Defence
Yet, in spite of those changes in the international and armament fields, there did not seem to be any comparative transformation within the national defence department; we were still preparing to fight a war according to the standards of 1939, or 1914.
Mr. Chairman, some things have changed now, while others have not, which means the necessity for Canada to participate, with the other western countries, in security and collective defence organizations like NATO.
Russia has still the same objective, it is only by having a collective force to face any possible aggression that we will be able to maintain peace.
Now, I heard somebody say yesterday that there was no possible defence against nuclear arms. Probably not. Yet, if we proceed to arm ourselves it is not so much to fight a war, but to safeguard peace. That is the very reason for which we have troops in NATO, that is, to be able to maintain peace in Europe.
If we had to take our forces out of NATO, we would be in the very same position as in 1939, and Russia would again start its aggressive policy against the west European countries as it did a few years ago with regard to east European countries. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it is our responsibility to contribute to organizations grouping collective defence forces.
We must also make available to that collective force the best we have, the most effective equipment we can find and what we can afford as a country with a population of 19 million people.
The second reason which justified a complete review of the expenditures of the Department of National Defence is that those expenditures were going up at a staggering pace, to the point that if that situation had continued, the expenditures of the Department of National Defence would have exceeded the $2 billion mark by 1970, and that, without having any more assurance that the weapons and equipment available could be adequate to face the conflicts which might arise in the next 10, 15, or 20 years.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that during this debate, some hon. members tried to indulge in petty politics. Surely, the matter of national defence and all the problems involved call for the good will of everyone.
I have listened to the speeches made yesterday and today by members of this house on the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Some of them were very good. Constructive suggestions were made and take my word, they will be given serious consideration.


At the very beginning of his remarks, the Minister of National Defence stated his two-stage plan to cut down expenditures.
As he stated himself, the first phase consisted of a general house cleaning, that is, the expenditures were fully looked into. Attempts were made to avoid duplication, to eliminate wasteful and excessive expenditures and also to cope with uneconomic operations.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) that cuts in expenditures were not made lightly and in a haphazard way and without due consideration. On the contrary, nothing has been cut out before one, two or even three studies have been made into such matters, so as to ensure the general efficiency of our armed forces, both in Canada and in Europe, while curtailing those expenses that could be reduced.
I am convinced that most responsible people will admit that we had tremendous difficulties in deciding to cut certain expenses made by the Department of National Defence. It was not easy to decide to curtail the expenses on such and such an item as, for example, the frigate or aircraft program. It is not easy, moreover, to eliminate radar stations throughout the country.
Since such steps were so difficult to take and so unpopular, I feel it should be recognized that we took them because we thought we were justified in doing so in the common interest.
We are not indifferent to the difficulties that decision might create in the country; we are not indifferent to the fact that people will be laid off. We want to do everything possible to help retrain them. We will, as much as possible, stagger those lay-offs over a period of a few months.
We will work in co-operation with the Departments of Labour and Industry to put these people back to work in industry, if possible. We do not feel some uneconomic stations should be maintained just to keep men at work. In my opinion, we cannot accept that principle. I feel it is a matter of finding for these people another job that will enable them to earn a living.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the second stage of that plan, the Minister of National Defence has intimated that it would be made public at the beginning of next year. That second stage is related to what we have done already. On the other hand, much research remains to be done before that program is completed and put into force.
That is what we are doing now. We are trying to create a military force that will meet our requirements in Canada as well as in Europe. We want to set up, in the next ten

or 15 years, a well-balanced mobile force equipped with the latest weapons and equipment.
Of course some complain because it took us eight months to formulate a complete plan. Well, I sincerely feel that there are not three members in this house who have any idea of the work involved in the preparation of national defence estimates. And I fail to understand how the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Martineau) can criticize the government and the Minister of National Defence for not revealing their defence policy.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What is that policy?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Those two hon. members sit on the special defence committee and have been given all the information they requested. There is a reason why we cannot reveal what our defence policy will be.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister permit a question?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister has just said that the people on the defence committee had all the required information. Not one word of the proposed annihilation of the militia was given to that committee. We have had no information about the reduction of the reserve force. What does the minister mean, therefore, by saying that information has been given to that committee?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: What I meant, Mr. Chairman, was that there are no precedents for the information that has been given to the special committee on defence. It has been given all possible help in order to arrive at some kind of policy. The committee has been free to call any witness. It has been allowed to go to NORAD, overseas and anywhere it desired. It was allowed to call anyone. The minister was there and offered to appear before the committee at any time that the committee might want him to do so. If the members of the committee did not do this, then it is not our fault.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are doing things behind the back of the committee, and that is what I object to.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I know how the hon. member feels. However, we have given the committee all the powers that could be given. I do not believe the committee can replace the government, and the decisions that have to be taken will be taken.
Supply-National Defence [Translation]


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the minister another question?
Would the associate minister agree that when the Minister of National Defence appeared before the special defence committee he gave no inkling of the changes in the military expenditures he announced yesterday?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Chairman, he may not have said anything and, in my opinion, it was not up to him to do so.

At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago I had the pleasure and the privilege of visiting our troops in Europe, and like most hon. members of the house who had that opportunity I came away with a feeling of pride in both the brigade and the air division. I have been told by General Stockwell of SHAPE, the British general, that our brigade are the best troops, best trained and best disciplined in Europe. They enjoy an excellent reputation among the countries of Europe and they have been given an assignment that shows the confidence that is placed in them. We can all be justly proud of our Canadians overseas.
The same thing can equally be said of the air division. I have also been told that most of the air forces in NATO look up to our air division, and the members of it are doing an exceptionally fine job under conditions that are not always very easy. They should have our support and our appreciation for their work.
I find it very regrettable that one of our Canadian magazine writers who visited our air division thought it necessary to write a most deprecative article. I have often wondered what prompts a writer to turn out that type of article. All I can say here is that I believe the article was uncalled for, unfair, unjust and untrue. I only wish that the people who may have read it could have the opportunity of visiting the air division in Germany to find out for themselves that we can be justly proud of it and that we need not in any way take for granted what this writer has written.


Mr. Fisher:: Would the associate minister at least identify the magazine so that we could get some idea what he is talking about?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I would, if it were not for the fact that in doing so I would give more

Supply-National Defence publicity to the article than I wish. I will tell the hon. member personally, if he wants to hear it.
Mr. Fair weather: I would like to hear it, too.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You come and see me, too. During the course of the debate it has been said that our forces in Europe are ill equipped and they do not have a definite role. Of course this is unfounded. As far as the brigade is concerned the equipment is good, except for one weakness and that is the armoured personnel carrier which we are going to change as soon as it is feasible. So far as the role is concerned, the Canadian brigade has been given a definite role and an important role in the whole set-up of NATO forces in Europe.
So far as the air division is concerned, it too has an important role to play, a role that was accepted by the previous government. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the same people who gave this role to our air division asking questions about arming our four weapon systems with nuclear warheads.
I can understand the concern of the hon. member for Calgary North who was in favour of them, and who felt there was nothing else to do but to arm the Bomarc, the Voodoo, the CF-104 and the Honest John with nuclear weapons. I can understand that, but I cannot understand the anxiety that was displayed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who, during his term of office, even as minister of national defence could not see his way clear to provide nuclear weapons for these four missile systems.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Were there nuclear warheads available during the term I served as minister of national defence?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, perhaps there were not-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are they available now?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -because the hon. member at that time was not even willing to sign the agreement with the United States for the procurement of these weapons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask another question? Are missile dumps for nuclear weapons for the air division in Germany completed? Have the missiles been placed in those dumps by the Americans?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the hon. member will let me go on I think I have the answer for him right here. But it seems strange for the hon. member, who was so silent and reticent about

these nuclear weapons, that he should now be exhorting this government to acquire these weapons in a relatively short space of time. He has even accused us of not having fulfilled our duty-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right; you have not.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -because the weapons were not provided with these missile systems. I am sure the hon. member knows quite well that there were several procedures that had to be carried out before the weapons could be acquired. One of those was the basic government-to-government agreement, which was signed on August 16, 1963. Then there were also the technical agreements that had to follow with respect to the Voodoo and Bomarc. These were completed on October 18, 1963. The agreement concerning the CF-104's is expected to be completed shortly.
To answer the question the hon. member asked with regard to the construction of the necessary storage sites and other facilities for nuclear weapons, these facilities for the air division are provided under the infrastructure arrangements and it is expected they will be completed about the spring of 1964. In Canada it was considered prudent not to commence construction of these facilities in so far as the interceptor squadrons are concerned until a nuclear agreement had been signed and the technical agreements completed. Contracts for the construction of these facilities are now being awarded, but they will not be completed until the late summer or fall of 1964. The facilities for the acceptance of these weapons for the Bomarc are available and we anticipate the delivery of the weapons in the very near future. I might add that the authorization for delivery of the weapons must be given by the President personally, and President Kennedy's untimely death has caused some delay.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Calgary North posed questions as to why we phased out the interceptors, the F-86's, before having acquired nuclear weapons for the CF-104's. I am sure both hon. members must know that the conversion of the overseas squadrons to their new role is being undertaken in accordance with SACEUR's plans. There is no alternative to making a conversion of this kind than to discontinue flying the F-86 aircraft because the crews and all the facilities at the bases must be used in converting the crews to their new operational role.
It was earlier expected that the conversion of the R.C.A.F. air division squadrons to CF-104 aircraft would be completed before the end of 1963. Due to technical difficulties with these very complex aircraft it was not possible to train the pilots for the air division

squadrons in their new role at the operational training unit at Cold Lake, Alberta, as quickly as would have been required to meet this schedule. There will, therefore, be a few months delay in getting the last squadron formed in Europe. This will be accomplished early in 1964.
If the hon. member was justified in claiming that we did not do our duty because we were unable to furnish these weapons in a period of eight months, I wonder how he can excuse the procrastination of the previous government, which in that time were not even willing to sign the agreements with the United States for the procurement of these weapons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit another question, or would he prefer me to speak later on this subject? He has just said it is under SACEUR's arrangements that the changeover was effected from Sabre jets to 104's. He has just said it was under the infrastructure of NATO that the missile dumps were to be constructed. If that is the case-and it was the case- what could have been done by the previous government to provide the nuclear weapons for those 'planes?


Mr. Woolliams:: That will take some consultation again.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, my colleague informs me that the infrastructure that was being built was held up because of the fact that the government had not agreed to sign any agreement with the United States.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret that I cannot accept that statement.


Mr. Hellyer:: It is true, whether you accept it or not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not true.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly it is.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The hon. member for Cape Breton South-I think he may have corrected this statement earlier today; I am not sure- yesterday claimed that the cost of maintaining the Bomarc sites was $9 million a year. Actually the cost of maintaining the two Bomarc sites is approximately $3 million a year. Of course, the hon. member-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, if the minister would permit it, I can clarify this matter. If the minister checks my remarks he will see I made a correction. I was referring to the expense saved in the cut-back. There was an interchange of the remarks in Hansard, and if the minister will examine what was said he will find I was referring to just the keeping, the holding of the Bomarcs as being 28902-5-352
Supply-National Defence in the vicinity of $9 million a year. It had nothing to do with the maintenance or the capital cost.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I accept the hon. member's correction as valid, Mr. Chairman. However, the cost of maintaining the two Bomarc sites is approximately $3 million a year. The hon. member thought we should scrap the Bomarc and he based those remarks on statements purportedly made by Mr. McNamara. I understand that the hon. member is going to Washington very shortly with the special committee on defence, and I would invite him to try to get further information as to that aspect. As far as I know, the Bomarc "B" will be required for several years to come, and indeed Mr. McNamara pointed out that for the protection obtained from the Bomarc he did not believe the annual operating cost to the United States of $20 million was an unreasonable amount. So there is, I am quite sure, ample proof to show that the Bomarc "B" has a very useful life for several more years.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit another question? Will he indicate to this committee where in the NATO group of countries there is a defensive nuclear weapon other than those, as we were informed in Europe, of a tactical and strategic nature, which are of course offensive weapons. Their defence is based on the deterrent power of these weapons.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I think we could have a long debate on that question. But I would say that you cannot quite compare any of the NATO countries with our geographic situation here with the United States; and the Bomarcs, of course, are exclusively for the defence of the North American continent. The hon. member for Calgary North asked some questions pertaining to the auxiliary vessels that were to be taken out of service, and reductions to the fleet. These reductions comprise two small stores ships; two 46-feet harbour ferries; two 75-feet harbour ferries; one fire tug; two Glen class tugs, and one Saint class tug. The one Saint class tug is to be put in reserve. However, the other nine vessels were constructed during the second world war and would be due for disposal very shortly.
The hon. member for Calgary North, I think it was, was also worried about the possibility of holding winter training if we should withdraw from Churchill. I would like to tell the hon. member that the present garrison is basically an administrative one, supporting a small Canadian army training establishment, the establishments of the other services and D.R.B., and the Churchill research range. The Canadian army and

Supply-National Defence R.C.A.F. will continue to plan on using Fort Churchill as an advanced or staging base for defence operations or exercises in the eastern Arctic. Such exercises are also carried out at other locations. There is, for example, a joint exercise with the United States to be held in the Yukon and Alaska this year. Arrangements are being made with the Department of Transport regarding space for and maintenance of the stand-by communications equipment required for this purpose. Similar arrangements have been in effect for some time at other locations-for example, Fort Nelson, British Columbia-and have proven to be quite satisfactory.
The hon. member for Calgary North also inquired about the savings which were to be made, and he was making a comparison-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Go on.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will take only a minute to answer this question, Mr. Chairman. The savings to be accomplished by transfers to other departments of government as distinct from savings due to abandonment of operations are as follows. First, the navy will transfer its housekeeping responsibilities at Fort Pepperrell to the Department of Public Works. Second, the army functions in connection with the northwest highway system are being transferred to the Department of Public Works. Third, the airfields at Resolute Bay, St. Hubert and Torbay are being transferred to the Department of Transport. Fourth, the R.C.A.F. air photographic section, Rockcliffe, is being transferred to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. As the hon. member will appreciate, it is difficult to estimate the exact change in cost to the government in operating and maintenance costs that will result from these transfers, but the total is expected to be in the vicinity of $10 million.
The Minister of National Defence and others of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, will answer questions as they arise. May I, in conclusion, say that I am very much convinced that the decisions made by the Minister of National Defence are a right step in the right direction at the right time, and that as a result of this review not only will we have a clear and positive national defence policy but we will have more balanced, effective and versatile armed forces.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Chairman, it would have been very useful at this time if we could have had a general debate on policy, and it is to be earnestly hoped that such a debate will be held before the white paper is published. Because after the white paper is brought down government policy is fixed. So far as the

timetable goes, I am quite sure we will have plenty of time to debate policy before it is published, because I can see the early flowers of spring blooming before we get the white paper here. However, in the meantime I commend to the minister the speech of the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, on naval policy. I am sure the minister can find a great deal of help from that speech when he is dealing with naval affairs.
The minister said in his opening remarks that our end objective is to get the best result for each defence dollar spent. I am sure every hon. member of the house and every Canadian agrees with that very worthy objective. However, I think we would have a lot more confidence in what the minister said yesterday if we were assured that the economies he talked about were real, and that they would not impair the efficiency of the services. I have the feeling that perhaps the Minister of Finance ought to be in the committee today, or at least his parliamentary secretary, because these changes and chops in the services were dictated more by the necessity of the Department of Finance, in its recovery from some of the worst mistakes made in the last budget and in its getting ready for the next budget, than from the point of view of military realities. It seems another case of the bright promise of April fading into the false dawn of winter.
I did agree with the minister on one matter, although not for the reasons he gave. I am very pleased to note that he is not proposing to close the military college at Royal Roads. I am much persuaded by the arguments of some former serving officers who suggest that it would be better for the services, for the officers and for the country generally, when it is necessary to give higher education to cadets and officers, to provide it in civilian universities, where the men would live in a civilian atmosphere rather than the narrow atmosphere of serving life. However, I realize that such a course is not possible at this time, because of the great shortage of universities and teachers, and as long as that shortage continues I should hope that such institutions as Royal Roads would be kept open. Indeed, one of the things which is most often overlooked in the discussion of defence expenditures generally is the great value derived from technical training, discipline, and the various courses of education given serving personnel while in the services. I think that is probably the most real dividend that we get from our expenditure on national defence.
I should like to say a few words later about the cuts in the militia. The minister was silent on this particular aspect but I hope he is not contemplating any cut in or curtailment of the training of army cadets, air cadets or

naval cadets. That training is also a most worth-while and necessary branch of military training and it has a value far beyond the short term needs of the moment, which at this particular time appear to one sitting here to be the need to help the Minister of Finance.
The minister said that his was a housekeeping statement. I have been wondering since last night who is going to keep house while the minister is making up his mind. There are many instances where he has not made up his mind, and this gives a rather disquieting feeling to one. I think it is disturbing and feel that we should have further reassurance beyond that given to us by the Associate Minister of National Defence just a few minutes ago. The minister was talking about the reduction of ten auxiliary naval vessels. It seems to me he was trying to come down on both sides of the fence. In one breath he said that the saving was very small, and in the next breath said: "Well, we are doing this to save money". It has always been my understanding that these surface craft and the few helicopters and planes in the navy formed a very small part of the strength of our naval forces, yet added a disproportionately high percentage to the efficiency of the force. In other words, the better served the more efficient are our naval vessels. I think we should have more assurance on this point.
Another matter I should like the minister to assure us on concerns a rumour current today-although a large number of "rumours" have subsequently proved true, as evidenced this week in relation to the Department of National Defence-that there is going to be a further cut in the establishment of our naval vessels. That matter was mentioned on the radio this morning.
There is another matter on which we should have some reassurance. We should know what alternative arrangements, if any, have been made following the decision to close the rescue station at Torbay, Newfoundland. Is the same degree of service to be provided? How are these necessary activities to be continued. Proposals have also been made to close down certain airfields. I think the savings which will follow are purely illusory. We regret the transfer of jurisdiction over the airfields at Resolute Bay, Churchill and, possibly, St. Hubert, though I am mainly concerned about the two in the north. I think this is a mistake. I do not think there will be any real saving and I believe it would be far better to allow those northern airfields to continue to be occupied and run by our armed forces.
There is another so-called economy which the minister has talked about and which causes us on this side of the committee some
28902-5-352J
Supply-National Defence concern. It involves the transfer to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys of work done by the photographic section of the R.C.A.F. It would seem to me that this branch of the R.C.A.F. should have been kept in being, not scrapped in response to some short term economic need.
We should like to hear some explanation from the minister, particularly in the light of what has been said by the associate minister, as to the probable date by which the Starfighters will be armed. We should also like to hear his views on whether it was wise or unwise to withdraw all our interceptors from their bases in Europe at a time when the Starfighters were a long way from being operational.
The minister has given his explanation of the cancellation of the frigate program. He has not said what is to become of our shipyards if the number of our naval vessels is to be reduced. Fewer vessels would be requiring repair and the result would be that shipyards which specialize in naval work would be unable to keep their staffs together. Attention should have been given to this problem earlier. Indeed, that should have been done before the destroyer escort frigate plan was cancelled.
I should also be interested to hear the minister tell us something about Canada's plans in connection with antisubmarine warfare. We know that under NATO there is an antisubmarine warfare research centre. We should like to know what part Canada is taking in the work of this centre and whether enough research work has been done to set some guide-lines so that we can start on a naval policy again before our naval shipyards have been completely destroyed.
The minister talked about savings-illusory savings, I think they are, for the most part, though I hope some of them are real. He has been talking about transferring various jobs from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport. I should like to suggest a job that we could transfer from one department to the other, and we could get on with it quickly, because the plans are already made. I refer to the rebuilding of a merchant navy, a task which would help shipyards all over Canada. Everywhere we go, in the defence committee and elsewhere, we hear talk about the need for mobility, the need to be able to move men and equipment rapidly. The United States is building a large fleet of specialized merchant ships. The British have a new merchant ship which can be easily converted to troop transportation. If we wish to shift some of the burdens which the Department of National Defence is now carrying, why not tell the Department of Transport to go ahead and

Supply-National Defence provide Canada with ten modern merchant vessels which could be easily converted to use in time of war and which could supply our northern stations in summer? Why not do this? It is a positive plan of action and it would save us foreign exchange because we would not have to pay so much out on foreign charters.
The minister spoke of giving those whose jobs will become redundant as much warning as possible. I suggest that his statement with regard to the radar station, leaving it in doubt whether it would be closed or not, is hound to have a most unsettling effect on those directly concerned. If the minister is not yet ready to make an announcement it is unfortunate that the news was allowed to get out. The same applies to the reduction in our naval forces, which he foreshadowed.
The minister based his programs on ability to obtain worth-while economies. I suggest he could have found other fields for economies during the eight months in which he has held office. He could have found some of them by reading parts of the Glassco report. I would be interested to hear him tell the committee what progress was being made in the co-ordination of specialized services within the department. I have in mind the training which is common to those who serve in all arms-vehicle driving and mechanical skills, for example. I believe a much more worth-while saving could be made in this area than may be expected from some of the minister's proposals.
The part of the armed services most severely shaken by the minister's announcement yesterday will be the militia. Out of every ten men now serving in the militia, four are unnecessary-they can get out as quickly as possible. Maybe it works out to nine out of every 20-I did not calculate the percentage too carefully. I would like to remind the minister that the volunteer is the basis of our armed forces. We have never had conscription in time of peace, and even in time of war we have not had more than limited conscription. Frankly, I hope we shall always be able to get enough volunteers to satisfy our requirements for the armed services. We must have a certain facility or knowledge or friendliness with the armed services The minister may quote statistics to show that very few people serve in the militia and then go on to active service. I do not know. Statistics can be used in many ways. But I suggest the fact that we have a good militia and have always had a dedicated and interested militia has made it easier for us to get the soldiers we need for our armed forces on a volunteer basis. I hope that these and related matters will be taken into consideration before these cuts are made. Again, 

as hon. members know, militia has played a central part, in the last few years, in the operations of the emergency measures organization. Has proper consideration been given to the effect the minister's proposals could have on these arrangements, or is the emergency measures organization going to be abandoned? I think we should have a fairly full and detailed explanation of that point from the minister.
It would also be nice if the minister would give us a little of his thinking on future policy. We do not expect him to give the complete policy at this time but he has been fairly free and open at various meetings in expressing his views. I am an avid reader of the Globe and Mail and the Hamilton papers and I have noted that he has made some very interesting disclosures on policy. I should like him to make a few of his random thoughts available to us here in the house, so that we may get some idea of what our future policy is going to be.
In the associate minister's last remarks there was a somewhat disturbing note, because I got the impression that he was speaking of the Honest John and the weapon that will go on the Starfighter in a rather positive sense and more or less saying: You made the arrangements whereby they would be accepted, and therefore we have to accept them. Military history is strewn with discarded armaments, and I would hope that the decision to retain the Starfighter or not to retain the Starfighter and to retain the Honest John or not to retain the Honest John is made on a better and sounder basis than the fact that the previous government in 1959 or 1960 made a commitment. I trust that there is more logic and reason to the basis of the government's policy than is contained in the intimation we got from the associate minister. He looks a little concerned. I may have read something into his remarks that he did not think was there, but that is the impression I got from his final words.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention in taking part in the debate this afternoon to try to cover the waterfront with regard to the Department of National Defence. I thought I might confine my remarks to a subject with which I have had the occasion to become fairly familiar in the last year and that is the Canadian role in NATO and, more particularly, the Canadian role in the NATO parliamentary association.
I had the honour of being the only member of the house who attended the NATO meeting last year, visited the NATO countries from Turkey through to Norway and again attended the NATO conference in Paris this fall. I

should like to give some of the observations I made and the opinions I gathered during these trips.
First of all, may I say it appeared to me that the Canadian NATO parliamentary delegation this year was able to make a much better impression at the conference than the delegation last year. This is not for the reason that was noised about so much in the newspapers approximately a year ago, but in my view came about because of the cooperation shown by the delegates who attended the conference this year. As I say, this is contrary to what happened last year. Unfortunately, some of the delegates last year seemed to be more intent on making political capital than they were in representing Canada at an international conference. I might add that some of those delegates now hold cabinet positions in the government.
I am very pleased to say that this year this was not apparent. The members of the delegation co-operated very well and I think the results at the conference showed that this is the proper way for a Canadian delegation to act when attending an international conference. In fact, the co-operation that was shown by the delegates who attended the conference in Paris this year could very well be followed in this house sometimes, and if it was I think we could accomplish much more than we seem to have over the last three or four months.
With regard to the visit in September to the various NATO countries, I cannot emphasize too much the importance of a trip of this kind from the point of view of its educational value to people who are interested in NATO. The trip, while a very hurried one, enabled the delegates to visit all these countries and to see at first hand things that before they had only heard about in speeches or read about in books. It also enabled us to see just what NATO means to these various countries. It is all very well for us to sit back some 3,000 miles away and debate the obvious shortcomings of NATO, but when you visit these countries and places and talk to both elected representatives and people from every walk of life you get a much better picture of just what NATO means to the various NATO countries.
There is something else that in my opinion we can and should learn, if we really want to take our proper role in NATO. We can learn about some of the things that are going on in some of these countries. We know that only 20 years ago many of these European countries were desolated and completely smashed. They had been overrun and completely subjugated. I should like hon. members to stop and think for a moment just what that does
Supply-National Defence to the morale and pride of a country. Yet we find that in the short span of 20 years these countries have picked themselves up and have raised themselves to the point where today they have a higher standard of living than we have in Canada, which has had none of the problems to overcome that many of these countries have had.
We find, for example, that in a period of three years West Germany had to import over 800,000 Italian workers to fill jobs. We find that West Germany has a government agency whose task is to recruit workers in various countries to try to fill the jobs that industry is providing in that country today. Now that Italy is booming and the source of supply is dried up there, this agency has had to go to such countries as Turkey, Greece, Spain and Portugal, and according to the last information I have the agency was still running some 50,000 workers behind the demands of industry in West Germany. These are some of the things we can learn, bring back to this country and discuss in order to find out where we are falling short.
For example, let me take Norway, a country which had a political crisis while we were there. Some hon. members may recall reading in the newspapers that the government of Norway was defeated about the end of August or the first of September, but contrary to what happens in this country this did not force a general election. The leader of the opposition there was called upon to form a government but his government only lasted for three weeks. The leader of the previous government was then called upon again to form a government. The point I am trying to make is that if we would take a leaf out of their book we would not find ourselves, as we have far too often since I have been a member of the house, fighting the next election on the floor of the house instead of getting on with the business of the country. In Norway elections take place about every four years and in the meantime government continues in the manner I have outlined. In my opinion there are things we can learn from some of these countries.
We can learn from Sweden, Denmark, Italy and Norway how countries can get along very well with coalition governments. We should get away from the idea we have always had in this country that minority governments are a tragic thing, and that no country can operate properly with them.
As I say, when you look at these countries, when you see the standards of living they have and you see the manner in which they have recovered in the last 20 years, you realize that not one of these countries has had a government with a big majority such as we have had during this same length of
5530	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence time. The problem is not whether we have a majority or minority government. The problem is what the government does with regard to the needs of the country. For example, we could see evidence all the way through the NATO conference this year of the almost overwhelming opinion that in the near future Harold Wilson would be forming the next government in Britain and Willy Brandt would head the democratic socialist government of Germany. In so far as Harold Wilson was concerned, this view was expressed by some of the Conservative delegates as well.
If these events occur, then it will mean there will be almost a solid front of democratic socialist governments from Sweden and Norway in the north clear through to the southern part of the NATO alliance, with one or two rare exceptions. Perhaps we will be able to learn whether or not there is any connection between the high standard of living and the obvious prosperity in these various countries, and the form of government that they have. We might then turn to democratic socialism in this country, instead of making it the bugaboo that the old parties and the newspapers of this country try to make it.
It is not enough, Mr. Chairman, merely to learn what we can do. If we are going to participate in NATO, to play our proper role, we must make our own contribution to this alliance. I must say that so far our contributions, other than a very minor military contribution, have not been great. Judging from what has happened in the past, if the Canadian delegates to NATO are wise, they will keep their mouths shut and their ears open in order that they may learn something. If they are not wise, they will open their mouths and display to all and sundry how little they know about this whole situation.
Why is this so, Mr. Chairman? I maintain that the reason for this situation is that we have a wrong attitude towards our participation in this alliance. We have sent new men every year to this conference. We have taken a stand that this is not a serious conference to be dealt with seriously. It is more of a junket by means of which we reward the faithful of the various parties. When it comes time to choose our delegates we look around to ascertain who has not yet had a trip.
I should like to give you two brief examples to illustrate my point. I refer to the hon member for Victoria (B.C.), a man who has a very distinguished background in the naval service of Canada, a man of unquestioned ability. In September he attended one of these conferences and visited the NATO countries from Turkey through to Norway. This year he was chairman of the Canadian military committee


to the NATO conference. This hon. member was a member of the parliamentary defence committee, but was told when we were leaving Paris that he was being removed temporarily from the defence committee to make room for somebody else who wanted to go to Europe for a trip. I might add, too, that the hon. member has one other qualification in that he is a supporter of the present government of this country. My point is that if there was one man in this whole delegation who should have stayed with this tour by the Canadian military committee, it was the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.). However, that is not the way we run our business.
I will give you another illustration. Last year the hon. member for Edmonton East was chairman of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to NATO, and again was a member of the tour in September from Turkey through to Norway. This year he was not sent to participate, so no use was made of the knowledge he may have gained last year.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what can we, as Canadians, contribute to this conference? I say that we are truly well suited to make a contribution. All we need is men of high calibre who have gained the necessary experience to enable them to make that contribution. We have, traditionally, had a role which we have carried out for the last 100 years of interpreting the United States to the United Kingdom and, in turn, interpreting the United Kingdom to the United States. This should be a land of born diplomats. We have the experience of trying to carry on the government of a vast country made up of two distinct national groups. Possibly this is a poor time to mention this fact, because we do not seem to be doing too good a job of it at the moment. However, I would suggest that if the newspapers of the country would pay a little more attention to the cool heads on both sides and a little less attention to the crackpots, we might not be approaching the crisis we appear to be at the moment.
We have something else, Mr. Chairman, Canada has an excellent reputation abroad. This was brought about, in the main, by the conduct of Canadian troops during two world wars. It has been brought about also, as has been mentioned by several hon. members, by the deportment of the Canadian troops who are abroad at the moment as Canadian representatives in the NATO forces, and other places. We met many people, both in military circles and civilian life, who had only the highest praise for the Canadian personnel who are carrying out Canada's commitment to NATO at the present time. These other countries are looking for something more from Canadian representatives than they have had so far. I should like to

give another illustration, Mr. Chairman. We have, in the person of Senator Connolly, a man who has had great experience and who has shown tremendous interest in the NATO alliance. He is well qualified to be chairman of the whole NATO conference, but this will never be brought about until we have delegates behind him who can carry their proper role in the NATO conference. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these are some of the things we should think about the next time we send delegates.
First, we should choose people who are really interested in the NATO alliance. We should choose people who have recognized stability. We should appoint them for the duration of this parliament, and not just for one trip, be it to Paris, Berlin or any other place. They should continue their interest in this alliance the year around, and not just in the fall when the annual NATO conference is held. In fact, I would like them to hold monthly meetings in order to keep themselves posted on the latest developments in NATO. We should insist upon reports, both to the various caucuses and, by the chairman, to parliament itself, concerning what has been done by our representatives there. We should not hesitate to change any representative if we find he is not carrying out his duties properly. If we want to carry on as we have in the past, just rewarding the faithful with trips to Europe, then let us not make those trips to the NATO conference. Once we recognize the importance of this alliance, once we recognize what we could contribute to NATO and what we can contribute to this country by knowledge gained by NATO, then, and only then, can we play our proper role in NATO, make our proper contribution and make a greater contribution to the service of Canada itself.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Chairman, members of parliament are frequently asked why we should place the emphasis we do on this matter of defence. Many members today have had phone calls from militiamen in their areas who have very strong views with respect to the service they have given to Canada and they, of course, regret it has been found necessary to cut back the amount that will be allotted for their own service.
We have other people, good people, who wonder why Canada is spending as much money as it is on defence. I think at the outset I should say the answer I see is that there is in existence a red army of 2.5 million men, highly mobile, well trained, fully equipped with nuclear as well as conventional weapons; an air force which is judged to be considerably over 12,000 aircraft; and a greatly strengthened navy of formidable submarine strength the like
Supply-National Defence of which the world has never seen before. Those are the reasons that we have to look most earnestly at what we are doing in the area of national defence.
I remember back 40 years and have impressions of the military of that day. I was a little boy at that time, but I remember going down regularly to listen to the spritely music of the Royal 22nd band on the esplanade in Quebec, and visiting Repulse, Renown and maybe old Hood whenever they came into port. There was also the summer training at Petawawa and Valcartier, and all this represented the military effort of those days. It was pretty symbolic; but today we have an armoured brigade in Europe which is characterized as the best in the world. I do not think there is any dispute about that. I spent some time with the R.C.H.A. in Soest and I knew this regiment and its state of training in 1941, 1942 and 1943 when its quality and spirit was comparable in many respects to what is demonstrated today at Soest.
We find components of our army, navy and air force in Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam. We find components of our army and air force in the Congo, and components of the navy and army operating in the Yemen. I mention these only as illustrations of the kind of extensive operation undertaken by our armed services today.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, defence is just one aspect of Canada's external policy, Canada looking out at the world, and here there is something of a contrast that we must face. I think we have three external departments, defence, external affairs, and trade and commerce, and ideally we would be very happy if these three branches of our government, our extrovert reaction to the world, would move in generally parallel directions. But we find they do not, and we deplore this.
The external affairs department takes the somewhat urbane and sophisticated view that we have got to live with everybody, that everybody is reasonably decent, that we want to extend our relations with them and communicate with them, that we want to understand people everywhere, and that the world is not made up of good guys and bad guys, cops and robbers. It is not like that at all. Today it is a case of where we must adjust, influence, make compromises, with the hope of extending the ring of friendship wherever we can.
Trade and commerce has quite a different point of view. There has been an aggressiveness displayed, particularly during post-war history, by both administrations, which shows that it is quite proper in the field of trade and commerce to trade zealously with our ideological enemies and be as good customers

Supply-National Defence as we can with them. We want to give them our wheat in good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, and we deplore anything like bottles or glass in shipments to them. We are proud of the fact that we are able to move forward with the China Resources Company to important new contracts, and we have new extensive contracts with the U.S.S.R. providing for the sale of some 247 million bushels of wheat and flour. On October 8 Bulgaria signed a contract to buy 3.7 million bushels; on October 29 Czechoslovakia signed a contract to purchase 44 million bushels, and on November 5 Poland signed a contract to buy another 44 million bushels.
I am just mentioning these details because they demonstrate on this side of our external policy, that of trade and commerce, that we have come to regard these people as our very good customers and business friends. There is something paradoxical about the fact that we now regard these people as our good customers, and not as our enemies. I am sure that Canada is in the position of wishing that her external policies, involving trade and commerce and defence, could move along more generally parallel lines. Maybe one day they will.
Why is it we find ourselves in the particular defence posture that we do today? I submit, sir, that if we look at the pattern of the defence structure in Canada we find the only thing we are doing in defence is living up to alliances with our allies, and these alliances have been formed because we consider they are in the best interests of Canada, the free world, and the world at large. Perhaps it would be proper to list them chronologically, in a somewhat different way.
On June 26, 1945, the United Nations was formed, and there are a number of distinguished senior members in this house who actually were there and who can attest to the fact that the purpose of the United Nations was to maintain international peace and security, and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. That was the purpose why so many countries gathered together and entered into the United Nations organization. We remember that this did not work out, and because of the failure of the United Nations to do the things that were its declared objectives, there was formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was established on April 4, 1949. What are the objectives of the NATO allies?
They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.


The parties to the agreement undertake to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack, and there was this most important undertaking that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America was to be considered as an attack on them all.
Then on May 12, 1958, we entered into the NORAD contract, and there we find essentially the same philosophy but of course on a more local basis. In the documents covering NORAD we find this:
It was essential, therefore, to have in existence in peacetime an organization, including the weapons, facilities and command structure which could operate at the outset of hostilities in accordance with a single air defence plan approved in advance by national authorities.
I think this was expressed most felicitously by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, on February 20, 1959, when he was prime minister, as recorded at page 1223 of Hansard for that day. He said:
Under the irresistible dictates of geography the defence of North America has become a joint enterprise of both Canada and the United States.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege to be a member of the special committee on defence, and I have tried to be critical, to discover why it was that we are involved in the relationships and commitments in which we now find ourselves. Looking over the whole pattern of NORAD and its defence structure I cannot see a place where I feel there was a decision taken that was not very well considered, very thoughtfully considered from the standpoint of the best advice available at the time, and taken in the interests of Canada and the alliance. The particular alliance I am referring to here is our special military alliance with the United States. It seems to me it is proper I say this because many of us have asked whether these alliances we entered into were in the best interests of Canada.
In terms of actual material and personnel, Canada's contribution to NORAD may not be very outstanding, but what an amazing thing it is to be part of this tremendous defence complex of scientific and mechanical devices, defensive weapon systems, and dedicated personnel. The fact that our Air Marshal Slemon has been able to serve as deputy to three NORAD commanders shows the respect in which this country has been held.
Looking at NATO now, Mr. Chairman: NATO has been under fire at different times and by different people. I have not seen all the NATO countries but I have been in several of them this summer. In particular as a member of the defence committee, I have asked one question in every NATO country that we visited on this recent trip to Europe.

The question was this: In the event that Canada should feel, perhaps politically, that it was in her interests not to be involved in this particular role, the strike reconnaissance role, the CF-104 Starfighter role, delivering nuclear bombs, if we wished to get out of this role would we be doing a disservice to the alliance? I want to tell the committee, Mr. Chairman, that in every country in which I asked that question I received a very categorical and frank answer-and the answer was yes. This may not be an answer for all time, perhaps, but it seems perfectly clear that this role is an important one, probably dictated by military considerations at a very high level in the alliance.
We wondered, of course-particularly the members belonging to my party-why we got into the business of the delivery of these very offensive bombs. The answer appears clear. First of all, for five out of six years we have won both the team and individual competitions in Europe as flyers of interceptor aircraft. Our boys are just the best flyers there are in Europe. This is recognized. Also this country has had a tradition of political stability and it is appreciated even among our enemies, that we do not want to perform a disservice to anyone or take offensive action against anybody anywhere. I asked this question in the neutralist part of NATO, in Denmark. I asked it in France, with its considerations of force de frappe. What answer did I get-"Yes, this role is significant; it is important". The members of this committee asked this question in Germany and the answer by a responsible German was, "If you withdraw from that particular role, someone has to take it over"-probably Germany. Do you want Germany to take on this role?
If you ask this question in the Nordic countries, what is the answer? It is, "We have recognized it is an unattractive role. We do not have that role ourselves. We do not want it. But if you relinquish this role the fact is that someone else has to take it on; and it is a necessary role". And so say they about the role of our forward brigade. Why is it that one little Canadian brigade, that Alastair Buchan says costs the equivalent of two European divisions, and not even very magnificently equipped, I might say, is so important in that forward position? It is because it is a symbol of the integrity of the alliance, of the strength of the alliance. It is a symbol that North America cares.
Particularly after the ramifications, pub-licitywise, of operation Big Lift, this is highly important. At this time, it seems to me, we cannot countenance for a moment the withdrawal of this forward brigade from its present role. We know that a brigade cannot stop anything very much; we know that our 28902-5-353
Supply-National Defence brigade is right on the front line facing all this Russian strength; but the Russians know there is no offensive intent in a Canadian brigade. I am leaving aside questions of military hardware, questions of tactics, and so on. To me they are secondary to the continued location at the front of our brigade. We cannot fail to recognize the importance of our NATO relationship and particularly at a time of strains and stresses. We may be the factor to change, to alter, to shift NATO's strategy or even to reverse NATO's strategy with regard to the importance of tactical nuclear arms. I believe there will be this kind of shift; at least, I hope there will be.
The heavy reliance on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe I believe has been a mistake. There will have to be shifts to the conventional but they will have to come cautiously at the proper time. The way for these shifts to take place is collectively with leadership from a good ally that does its job superlatively, and Canada is the country that in my judgment can provide precisely that leadership within the NATO family.
I have touched on two of these alliances, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to weary the committee, but I think I must refer briefly, because this is so important, it seems to me, to the direction in which we are moving in the universal alliance known as the United Nations. This trend is highly significant. The U.N. was our first hope in defence. If that alliance could have been successful after 1945, as we all hoped it might, these two and a half million Russian troops would never have been maintained with expensive armour, guns and ultimately nuclear weapons. Had we been able to dispense with the costly defence of Europe, how much richer a world we would have been; how much richer a world in every important sphere. But unfortunately this hope has not materialized. We are still struggling with the hope that the United Nations will one day take over and move into this area which NATO has been compelled to fill, and which in its own sphere NORAD has been compelled to fill.
Our Prime Minister, in his speech to the general assembly on September 19, 1963, gave positive leadership to this principle of universal security with a proposal that could lead to a pooling of available resources and the development in a co-ordinated way of trained and equipped collective forces for United Nations' service to meet possible future demands for action under the blue flag of the United Nations. This was not just a casual speech. We find the then secretary of state for foreign affairs of the United Kingdom, Lord Home, on October 1, 1963, after discussions on this proposal saying:

Supply-National Defence
I want to see the element of Improvisation removed from such policing operations, and in particular a start made to strengthen on a permanent basis the chain of command at the disposal of the Secretary General;
The matter was pursued further by our Secretary of State for External Affairs, who on October 18, 1963, said before the first committee of the United Nations general assembly:
The Prime Minister of Canada urged others to adopt similar arrangements and he proposed that there should be an examination by interested governments of the problems and techniques of peacekeeping operations with a view to the development in a co-ordinated way of trained and equipped collective forces for United Nations service.
The Canadian Prime Minister was not advocating a standing United Nations army but rather the more modest objective of co-ordinated national preparations to meet the sort of United Nations requests a number of us have already repeatedly been called upon to fulfil.
We know this is technically and constitutionally difficult, but we know also that there are strong movements in this direction. The Nordic countries which have been happily able to stay out of this nuclear involvement altogether are able to present a nucleus for such a military force. We had the assurance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the external affairs committee last night that there was a collective interest in this recommendation. We should move along the lines suggested by Lieutenant General Guy Simonds when he said before the defence committee:
I believe that a role which Is suited to a country of our size and having regard to the financial burdens possible to be borne over a lengthy term, would be a tri-service force whose main objective was peacekeeping. I believe its organization should be very much like that of the United States marine corps which is a mobile force complete with all its ancillaries and able to meet what are commonly called brushfire situations.
I think that is what the associate minister of defence means when he speaks of the objective of more balanced, more effective and more versatile armed forces. John Strachey puts forward this view:
The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons to redress the balance between the ground forces in Europe was a wholly unsuccessful move. But this is not to say that they could now be abandoned.
If Canada could play a part in the role of practical nuclear disarmament when such proves possible we would be bringing our defence policy more nearly into line with our other external policy of trade and commerce.
I listened with interest to my hon. friend representing the island of Cape Breton when he went after my colleague, the member from the bigger island of Newfoundland last night. As he was talking I was reminded of the minister in Little Cumbrae on the Clyde, who

always prayed for the people of Little Cumbrae, then for the people of Great Cumbrae, and finally for the people of the adjoining islands of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus in our defence policy in Canada we must have regard for the defence of the North American continent under NORAD, and our common defence under NATO, these being our closest and most trusted allies. The democratic alliance of these NATO nations must be kept strong if it is to survive. But we must always bear in mind the ultimate purposes of the United Nations.
I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, with only one comment. Throughout the period of the sittings of our defence committee I personally have been disturbed and concerned with the fact that the proportion of our navy dollar, our army dollar and our air dollar devoted to equipment has declined each year since the Korean war. This decline has been rapid. This has happened under both administrations and it seems inevitable that as we proceed costs tend to increase. The cost of living is going up and we have been on a fixed budget with the result that we have been living on equipment capital in the army, navy and air force to a progressive degree for the last five to ten years.
I do not know what the proper proportion or balance should be. I have asked this question in a number of other countries. In some I have been told that the proportion of each dollar spent on the army, navy or air force should be 50 cents as to equipment and 50 cents as to the rest. In other countries I have been told that it should be something in the order of 30 cents on the dollar for equipment and 70 cents for the rest. But obviously we are compelled to make adjustments, there cannot be a progressive paring of equipment costs without specific displacement of our forces. Our brigade in Europe speaks of two great needs, that of armour and carriers on the one hand and adequate artillery on the other. Our guns at the present time are outgunned by equivalent German or Russian guns by 3,000 metres, and that is too serious a matter to leave unremedied. I know we must look at the whole matter of the militia again. One thing I deplore is that in all these statements which have come down from our service chiefs very little emphasis has been placed on the useful part the militia has played in any of its activities. Perhaps we in the committee have been negligent in not asking specifically for greater information on this question. A number of us have asked questions on the point, but perhaps not with the concentration which was necessary.



B, 1963

[Stage Direction]
I know there are many who wish to contribute to this debate so I will conclude my remarks.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question. With regard to his last statement, had the committee had any advance information that the militia was to be so seriously curtailed, would the committee not have taken this under consideration?


Mr. Matheson:: I may say that I am not a member of the steering committee, although the hon. member who asked the question is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I am not.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I am sorry, I thought he was.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am under the thumb of you people.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I regard the hon. gentleman as one of the important leaders in our committee. I think it is fair to say that as a result of the committee sitting so regularly and having gone to so many places and interviewed so many people it may be that this matter of militia has been overlooked. I am sure we have not yet covered all the ground necessary to give a complete report, and I feel personally neglectful on the matter. I asked questions relating to militia of a number of witnesses, and I know that the hon. gentleman who asked me this question has as well. He has demonstrated the same concern. All I am saying, and I am sure he will agree with me, is that the evidence on the record to date does not give a very compelling argument in favour of the role of the militia. That is certainly the case with respect to the briefs presented by the service chiefs. I think the matter should be re-examined.


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


An hon. Member:: He is not a minister.


Henry P. Latulippe: In view of the threats caused by nuclear weapons, is the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson)) not of the opinion that it would be better for us to engage in peaceful pursuits instead of preparations for war, and that our efforts should be directed towards the setting up of peaceful undertakings?


Neil Alexander Matheson: In answer to this question, Mr. Chairman, no person more than the members of the defence committee is concerned about peace. Everything Canada has done in defence is designed only to prevent war breaking out. If I may take an extreme view of this defence thinking, it is that 28902-5-353J
Supply-National Defence expressed by the French people we interviewed, with their idea of force de frappe. When we questioned them about their independent nuclear force as to whether or not it was adding to the dangers, they said no, because it was their insurance that if there is any trouble anywhere in Europe nuclear war would be involved at once and it accordingly followed that this made war absurd. I am not saying that their logic is my logic. It is not. It seems to me that there has been leadership given by the late President Kennedy and Mr. McNamara with respect to the need for balanced response, which perhaps was not quite as clear under the former United States administration. But it was precisely because some Europeans were concerned that the Kennedy administration was soft on making real nuclear war on Russia if necessary-this was the argument made both in France and in Germany- that there has been this proliferation of nuclear arms. I hope ultimately we can get out of this impasse.


Henry P. Latulippe: With the hon. member's permission, I should like to ask him a supplementary question. Is he not of the opinion that the first people to benefit from the huge amounts spent on national defence are not the Canadian people, nor those who work for defence production, but rather the moneylenders who, with millions, finance military expenditures.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I agree with something said by my hon. friend for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, that if we could put the same brains, capital and energy into other activities than the manufacture of war implements we would be immensely further ahead. I think ultimately that is what we are all working for.


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure you that originally it was not my intention to take part in this debate. However, in view of some of the points raised in the minister's speech yesterday I think it might be appropriate for me to mention one or two items in this report. My association with the army and the militia for many years has taught me the importance of these departments, but I want to assure you that it does not qualify me as an expert. I appreciate the importance of his department and recognize that world conditions demand that our defence must be maintained at a very high standard. I recognize that world conditions demand that we be also prepared to assist our allies, particularly in the maintenance of


Mr. Lloyd:: In recent weeks, as a member of the defence committee, I have been exposed to a variety of terms which have been strange to me. I do not intend to employ them in this debate on defence estimates today. It might be wise to avoid the use of the term "posture" on this occasion. I shall not detain the committee by employing the various adjectives used to qualify the word "deterrent"-active, minimum, negative and passive. We have heard much about a force de frappe nationale, forestalling blows, cost effectiveness, and similar mysteries. I have also become familiar with Corporals, Honest Johns, Hound Dogs and Davy Crocketts, in addition to such specialized expressions as I.C.B.M., logistics, interdiction and hard bases.
I apologize, if after all this work in the defence committee, I refrain from using these most informative words which have been added to my vocabulary and try to examine, perhaps in a simpler form, the position in which we find ourselves today.
Only three months remain of the current 1963-64 fiscal period. A review of the defence estimates in December precludes any meaningful revisions of the projected expenditures. Our normal calendar of events has been upset by an April election and a change of government. The current year's estimates reflecting the policies of the previous government will not, therefore, produce the usual sharp criticism of the official opposition.
Supply-National Defence
On the other hand, the minister of defence is now engaged with defence policy considerations preliminary to his submission of the 1964-65 estimates. It is a commitment of the present government to revise Canada's defence policy. It has already taken steps in that direction. We are aware of the urgent need to review and revise our defence policy. It arises from serious problems with our balance of payments-current deficit financing, increasing the already heavy burden of interest charges; the needs of the provinces and municipalities for resources with which effectively to perform their responsibilities; the pressing need to remove the tragedy of unemployment, particularly in areas such as Bell Island in Newfoundland and Cape Breton in Nova Scotia. Steps have been taken in this direction in recent months.
We are grateful to the previous government for having established an oceanographic station in my constituency. Likewise, we appreciate what the present government has done in this direction. Some mention has been made during this debate of developments in Cape Breton in connection with the supply of heavy water. Here again, we must recognize an example of the kind of thing that happens to the economy when you start adjusting defence expenditures within provinces, and other provinces engage actively in promoting economic development within those provinces. As an example, I might cite steel in Quebec and steel in Cape Breton. The problem, therefore, stands as one of varied complexity for the government at federal-provincial and municipal levels.
Apart from these considerations, the fantastic cost of defence hardware in this nuclear age compels drastic steps to remove every item of waste, inefficiency and obsolescence within our military forces. It is vital to our national existence, Mr. Chairman, that we contribute to the deterrents within NATO and NORAD to prevent an all-out nuclear war. Under the umbrella of such deterrents we must make our contribution to the police force services of the United Nations. Economic problems in our domestic affairs cannot be neglected. An effective military contribution in alliances with the western world democracies, our trading friends and neighbours, cannot under any circumstances be avoided. Government measures to combat our economic and social problems cannot be undertaken in isolation from defence policy. Changes in defence measures cannot be accomplished without consideration of the far reaching effects on the economic and social affairs of our nation.

Supply-National Defence
Major changes in the character of defence expenditures will, without doubt, shift economic benefits to some areas and subtract from others. Subtraction of the import dollars to cities, towns and regions by this process will vary from minor adjustments to major hazards to their economic base. Despite this, no government can avoid responsibility for combatting the conditions I have described. No government is worthy of the compliments of Canadians that fails to comprehend the realities of our position, and thus shirk its responsibilities.
To clear the decks for action, we require new tools with which to perform our tasks. We need them to meet the social-economic conditions at home. We need them to perform our contributions to the alliances we make with other nations. We have already undertaken measures to that end. There is the economic council, to provide government with advice on economic matters independent of narrow partisan consideration. In the light of that advice and information, we need the Department of Industry with its areas development agencies organized to encourage or establish a stable economic base either in the servicing or manufacturing fields in cities, towns or regions suffering from chronic unemployment and, in particular, those areas that must withstand, now that we have come to grips with this problem of a new defence policy, the shock of changes in defence expenditures.
We need, and are gratified to have, the all-party defence committee to spread among all members and all parties in this house the harsh realities of our necessary contribution to the common defence of the western democracies against the threat of communism. Without doubt, that committee report should be filed with the minister before the issuance of a white paper on defence policy. This procedure is essential if we expect to achieve an acceptable policy without delay and with a maximum of co-operative effort on the part of all members of this house. We need it, to have less than a minimum of goading and gloating over past policies that disrupt and confuse our national sense of direction.
Without the tools of government I have described, without an all-party defence committee in this house of minority government, lacking that prior organization of this house for the important task, any major change in defence expenditures would be disastrous and only compound our present difficulties. Parliament has seen fit to approve of this direction of preparations and of the necessary measures to provide us with the means of a proper approach to our defence policies. Full use of these measures will certainly be

the constant concern of every member of this house. We on this side, who are not members of the cabinet, will be aware of the existence of these measures and will apply them ceaselessly through the party caucus and through other means of consultation, to maintain that awareness of the great urgency which exists when you undertake a major change of defence policy. We will do so with good will, because we know that our government's policy is oriented to do just that, but they also need constant awareness from the constituency level. We will welcome the constructive efforts and criticisms of any member of the opposition, like-minded and concerned with the defence of Canada and the objectives we seek.
It is not my purpose at this time to present final conclusions reached from my work as a member of the defence committee. They include an awareness for Canada to stay out of membership in the nuclear club for the production of thermonuclear strategic weapons; the need to participate in the military control of the air space and the ocean waters of the North American continent. The conclusions I have reached on those and other matters of defence policy should be objectively presented first to the all-party defence committee. I can, however, declare that the studies shared with all my colleagues on the defence committee deepen my awareness of one inescapable fact, namely that our nation must share with its friends and allies the heavy responsibility of deterring the ambitions of the U.S.S.R. to force its ideology throughout the world. In that role we are not fighting only for the technological or economic perfection of our free enterprise economic system, we are fighting for the right to continue our efforts to establish the maximum of social justice for our people, in our nation, in our time. We are fighting to preserve the right of self-determination of individuals and people.
It is our duty, Mr. Chairman, to fully grasp the over-all prospect for the decade ahead of us. If we do, we will agree with that distinguished late president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, who stated:
We are confronted by the challenge of the century. We have no alternative but to take up the challenge.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I shared with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) who has just spoken, and other members, the experience of being on the special defence committee and going to Europe. As all members know, that committee has not yet made its report and I will reserve, with the degree of self-restraint that other members of the committee have, my detailed comments on defence policy until that committee has had

a chance to discuss its conclusions and tries to justify its existence by making a worthwhile report to the house.
I hope it is going to be able to achieve that. If good will, hard work and a nonpartisan approach to our task can achieve that, then I think it will in fact be achieved, but of course I do not want to underestimate the difficulty of the task we have to face, and no doubt we shall have disagreements and draw different conclusions from the same facts.
I would, however, like to make a few observations in this debate. First of all, having had the advantage of this trip I would like to join with the minister and the associate minister, and others who have spoken, and tell the committee of the very excellent impression that our forces in Europe-and I think I should include as well those at Colorado Springs-are making upon those with whom they have to work. In my judgment and from what I saw, we have every reason in Canada to be proud of the high morale and efficiency with which our services are doing the tasks assigned to them.
But, Mr. Chairman, having said that I would like to go on to express my very grave sense of disquiet at the tasks which are in fact being assigned to our forces. I want to address, not only to the members of the special committee, but to this committee and the minister, a plea for a radical review of our basic military policy and military doctrine, on which all we do in defence must be based.
In introducing his estimates the minister has announced, as he calls them, a number of housekeeping items. I do not propose to comment on those. We have also been told, and no doubt quite accurately, that a general review of policy is under way. I hope this review will be pursued and the conclusions which emerge from it will be firmly and courageously put into execution. I think we have already seen from the changes already made-and I do not want to call them minor changes because they are important to a lot of people-some of the difficulties that pursue any government in doing its duty, which is to use as efficiently as it can the limited resources it has for the purpose of acquiring the best possible defence and security measures that can be taken, without regard too much to local or political pressures, however necessary or important those pressures may be. I hope the minister will not be in any way deterred from carrying through whatever conclusions this review leads him to.
In my view the military role of Canada has been based on certain fundamental misconceptions, and I do not mean just in the past. I mean those misconceptions are still to some
Supply-National Defence extent with us. On June 18 last the minister appeared before the special defence committee at its initial meeting and gave us a public statement on the basis of Canadian policy. He said:
At the same time that the free world has an adequate or better capacity in strategic forces, there remains demonstrable deficiencies in its conventional and tactical capacity in Europe.
Again, as recorded at page 15 of the committee proceedings he said:
The dependence upon nuclear weapons against both strategic and tactical targets has been brought about for two basic reasons:-the marked superiority in Soviet manpower vis-a-vis NATO forces in being, and the knowledge that the Soviets have similar weapons in operation.
I may say that this observation of the minister was repeated by him at other times and by other witnesses as a basis for Canada's continued acceptance of the so-called tactical nuclear role, both for our strike reconnaissance force and for our army division in Europe.
We are told of the supposed deficiency in tactical nuclear weapons available to allied forces. I asked the minister what these deficiencies were and he quite properly, I presume pleaded that the security consideration made it impossible for him to enlarge on what these deficiencies were.
He also referred, and we were referred to it again and again, to the supposedly vastly superior Soviet conventional force as related to the particular role and effort we should make.
Both of these points turn out to be myths, and policies based on myths are apt to be useless, expensive, and indeed dangerous. Why do I say they are myths? Again I want to refer to the speech that was made in New York on November 18 by defence secretary McNamara. What he said then was not new, but he collected together an account of the development of strategic doctrine and a re-assessment of some of the military facts upon which that strategy had been based. I do not wish to go into all he said in detail. I want to confine myself to those references which are essential to the point I am making, and which I think destroy the very basis upon which the minister told the defence committee that our defence policy rests.
Secretary McNamara, after referring to the tremendous superiority of the strategic nuclear power of the United States, proceeded to say:
In the field of tactical nuclear weapons, the picture is in important respects similar. The U.S. at present has in stockpile or planned for stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear explosives for tactical use on the battlefield, in antisubmarine warfare and against aircraft. They include warheads for artillery, battlefield missiles, demolition munitions, bombs, depth charges, air-to-air missies
5540	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and surface-to-air missiles. The consensus is that the U.S. is presently substantially superior in design, diversity and numbers in this class of weapons.
I ask the minister, what becomes of his statement on which he based our policy in Canada-that there was alleged deficiency on our side in tactical nuclear weapons?
Mr. McNamara went on to deal with the other myth, the myth of the so-called massive hordes of Soviet forces in Europe, which requires our dependence on the strategy of the almost immediate capability of tactical nuclear weapons. He pointed out that in fact the some 160 divisions were in fact half that number, that the divisions available were half as large as divisions measured in American terms. He went on to point out that the contingencies which would most likely have to be met were not contingencies of the-and although the hon. member for Halifax has warned us of the danger of using these expressions-dangers of warfare at what are called the lower end of the spectrum, and not in a massive attack to be repelled by the tactical nuclear response, which in itself will assure a holocaust and world destruction.
He added that what we have to deal with, what we have to have a force with mobility and the capability of dealing with, are the troubles at the so-called lower end of the spectrum, the end where relatively minor troubles occur. I suggest that we, in rethinking our policy, have to rid our minds of the myths that have prevailed in the strategic doctrine, and which are no longer the basis of the real facts of the situation.
I want to refer to one other passage in the speech of defence secretary McNamara. He says this:
The fact is that at every level of force, the alliance in general, and the U.S. armed forces in particular, have greater and more effective strength than we are in the habit of thinking we have-and with reasonable continued effort we can have whatever strength we need. I have spoken already of strategic weapons, where the great superiority of the United States is the superiority also of the alliance. In tactical nuclear weapons a parallel superiority exists-and while many of our allies share with us in manning the systems which would use these tactical warheads in the hour of need, it is not unfair to point out that, even more than in the strategic field, the tactical nuclear strength of the alliance is a contribution of the United States. That strength has been increased, on the ground in Europe, by more than 60 per cent in the last two years. Today the thousands of U.S. warheads deployed on the continent for the immediate defence of Europe have a combined explosive strength more than 10,000 times the force of the nuclear weapons used to end the second war.
So I think it is a myth that we have to worry about the need to meet deficiencies in the tactical nuclear field. We belong to an alliance. If we are to have any significance at all in the defence of the world today, it


must be as partners in a concerted and dependant effort; but it must be one that gives us a certain freedom to choose that role which makes sense, not to supplement what is already a vast and overwhelming superiority of force; to do those things that are needed, rather than those things that are not needed.
I suggest that nothing could be more foolish than a country like Canada, with relatively limited and small resources, trying to supplement this tremendous mass of power which is deployed in Europe to such an extent that its deterrent effect makes any attempt to use those forces insanity on either side. All the evidence seems to point to the need for conventional, highly mobile troops. One of the things we have learned in our defence committee is that a great many of our planned forces and our forces in being, efficient and able as they may be, cannot be transported to the scene of trouble in time to do any good in the sort of hostility that is likely to break out. We should be hearing about this area and what is needed in it. Our present strike reconnaissance force-and this is something the defence committee will have to consider -seems rapidly to be becoming obsolete. It is highly vulnerable. Unless it were used in a first strike it would probably be destroyed before it could be used at all.
Even in Europe within NATO our real danger is on the fringes, on the flanks, perhaps in Denmark, Norway, Turkey or Greece. There is an urgent need that if some force is to be contributed by Canada to NATO, it should be in the nature of a force that can be moved quickly to where there are trouble spots, to prevent these trouble stops expanding into a full scale war in Europe. I believe that is the sort of thing we should be considering and it is in that sort of field we would make the maximum contribution within the alliance. It surely makes sense to look over the whole field of possible contribution and pick out that which is needed, rather than contribute to that of which there is already a tremendous surplus. We should pick out that field in which Canadian capacity, experience and ability makes it likely that we can make a most important and indeed a very worth-while contribution.
We must learn to relate our defence policies to our international policies. I was at a committee meeting yesterday which was addressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He told us about his desire to enter into discussions with-I think he had already started the process-Scandinavian countries, and with one other unnamed country, to provide standby forces for the United Nations for peacekeeping, for a fire extinguisher sort of role. If we were to concentrate on a highly

mobile, versatile, tri-service force that could be moved to any part of the world quickly, we would be fulfilling that major political objective, which is to help to build up not only the regional alliance of NATO but the forces of law and peace throughout the world as a whole.
How can we do this? We are told we have a force earmarked for this purpose. But what sort of a force is it? I think it would take a minimum of 30 days to get it quickly to where it is likely to be able to be used. By that time the trouble would be over or the fire would be long past extinguishment, and peacekeeping activities would be meaningless. We have to concentrate on doing those things which are required and which coincide with the policies we adopt in international affairs. I suggest it is possible for us to do that. We cannot do it overnight, but we must look very, very closely at it. At the present time it seems to me-I was going to say "we were prepared" but in the interest of accuracy I should say we are half prepared, and I adapt the words of a famous United States general, to fight the wrong war, at the wrong place and with the wrong weapons as far as Canada is concerned.
I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver East who complained earlier in this debate that we had never had a defence policy in Canada. Considerable objection was taken to that remark by a good many people, including the former minister of national defence. He said, "Of course we had a policy", and he said he had announced it. I think what was meant was that we had never had a made in Canada defence policy. We have been told this by witnesses who appeared before our committee. We were perfectly agreeable and content at one stage of our history to be part of the British commonwealth of nations, or the British empire, and to fit in with its defence plans. That is the role we were called upon to play. Of late we have been part of an alliance in which the United States of America has been the major and predominant force. I suggest that our policy has been to adopt, almost uncritically, the strategic doctrines and theories current within that alliance. It seems to me that Canada has made and is making a first-rate contribution to the actual execution of military policy within the alliance, and it is high time we started to make a contribution in the thinking-out of the military policy within the alliance.
I believe that if Canadians are able, and undoubtedly they are, to make a major contribution in the execution of policy-an important contribution-it is about time they started making a Canadian independent policy, thought out in Canada, dealing with
Supply-National Defence the whole strategy of the alliance and our part in the alliance. This is what I mean when I say we have not had a Canadian defence doctrine or policy, and we urgently need it. I do not blame the minister for not announcing it at this time. I am sure I would have criticized the minister, as would other hon. members, if he had attempted to give us at this stage a detailed outline of defence policy. But I do believe that growing interest in this country in defence-evidenced I would suggest, if not by the attendance in this debate, by the anxiety of hon. members who speak in this debate-and the fact that at long last we have a defence committee which has been studying these matters, and the review the minister is making, all lead to the position where we are going to develop a policy made in Canada which will involve a role for Canada, suited to Canada, within the alliance. I have no doubt whatever that this is necessary if we are to talk meaningfully at all about defence or security. I believe we are moving toward that end. I would like to finish as I began, Mr. Chairman, by saying to the minister that he should not be deterred from taking a radical and firm view about what is required to be done in this field, in Canada's interest.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, the remarks I have to make on the minister's estimates will not be at all lengthy, but I do want to express my views on defence policy since the minister, in introducing his estimates, saw fit not to do so. Perhaps my views, together with those of other hon. members, as far as defence policy is concerned might assist him when he is preparing his white paper for whenever that might be tabled in the house.
I think there is certainly a vagueness about the defence policy, or lack of policy, which exists in Canada. I believe we should be defining the issues before speaking about what specific forces are required for Canadian defence and how these forces are to be employed. I was very impressed, in the short time I was listening to the evidence given before the committee, and sitting on the committee itself-I refer to the special committee on defence-by the evidence of several witnesses, one of whom I recall saying that Canada had no real defence policy and that the tendency was to slavishly follow -I believe these were his words-the policies advocated and set down in the United States. He separated the defence objective by saying there should be a truly national defence policy and, of course, on the other hand we must also shape our policy to discharge our political commitments with regard to such

Supply-National Defence alliances as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Then, of course, there is the third field that our policies should be directed to, and that is the United Nations and the requirements of that organization with regard to international peacekeeping operations.
From the evidence I have studied in the special committee on defence it seems that what we should be striving to do with respect to the first aspect of our policy, namely our truly national policy, is to provide security for our national boundaries and the seas surrounding them, as well as the air space above our national territories. I think this objective must be established before we can determine what force is necessary to bring about that security of our national boundaries, our waters and air space. From there we can proceed to decide how that force is going to be used; but as politicians at the policy level it seems that our job is to establish the national objective in the first place. Once that has been established the requirements can then be determined in a logical fashion, and then the experts in the defence of our country can use that force in order to provide that security in the best military fashion possible.
I have referred to the second aspect of our national defence policy as our political commitments. I feel that our commitments to NATO are indeed political. What we are doing in supplying forces to NATO is making a contribution to maintain Canadian prestige and having a voice in international affairs. Because as the previous speaker pointed out, a nation of our limited means cannot make any substantial contribution which is going to have any great effect in any international conflict. I believe in that school of thought that concludes that there is no possibility of a limited nuclear war, and that any nuclear holocaust is going to be all out and unlimited. Therefore, the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me are very much in point when it comes to determining the precise extent of Canada's contribution to the international effort through organizations such as NATO.
With regard to the United Nations and our obligations to that organization, as far back as 1945 the right hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested that Canada could effectively contribute to a United Nations police force; and after the passage of almost 20 years it seems perhaps that we should be directing more attention toward promoting the establishment of a permanent United Nations police force to assist in the keeping of world peace.
With those remarks on the over-all defence policies of the government, which I take it will be established sooner or later,

I will leave that subject. Certainly we anticipate that the minister will bring down his white paper in short order. The usual procedure as I have been accustomed to it is that before or at the time the minister's estimates are brought before the house we have either studied or are given the opportunity to study the white paper before engaging in debate on it.
The remarks now following will be devoted to the specific announcement the minister made last night in committee with regard to certain housekeeping arrangements, as he styled them, in order to save the national treasury money so far as defence is concerned. The bulk of my remarks are directed toward the air force, because I am more familiar in that area, having spent ten years in that service. I know something of its wartime operations as well as its peacetime operations.
The first observation I have to make concerns the decision of the minister with regard to the auxiliary squadrons. I feel quite strongly that the defence of Canada is going to be primarily an air defence; that any attack Canada would experience will be an attack from the air; that any move by the minister to reduce or diminish the effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Air Force is a move in the opposite direction to that which we are taking. I feel that the transport role of the air force should be enlarged so that it can provide that mobility which so many members have spoken of in these estimates thus far; so that it can provide mobility for all our forces in meeting any threat to our security, whether it comes from the air or from the ground.
The transport arm of the air force has been enlarged in the last few years, but in my view it is far from reaching that stage which provides the degree of mobility which I think essential in order to ensure the standard of security to our national boundaries for which we should be striving. Therefore, I believe the minister's decision with respect to the auxiliary squadrons is wrong. The cut is quite a substantial one. The personnel is cut from 2,200 to 860. It is the intention to retain in the reserve only six auxiliary flying squadrons and their associated wing headquarters, the auxiliary wing squadrons at Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon and Hamilton being disbanded. I take the implication from the minister's remarks in Hansard that the reason for this is because these locations at Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon and Hamilton do not have other air force services on the units, that it is uneconomic to retain them.
However, I suggest that it is foolhardy to disband them. Not only must Canada's air

force be in a position to react immediately to any threat which may come to our national boundaries and the air spaces above them, but it seems to me it is vital for Canadian defence to maintain an effectively trained air force reserve. If we start slowly eroding the foundations of our auxiliary forces in Canada, particularly the air force, we are going to disband completely the effective trained force which would, I feel, make a substantial contribution to any defence effort that the air force might be called upon to make in an emergency.
I believe that the minister's decision to disregard the possibility of jet training at Penhold-although this decision may not have been the sole responsibility of the minister- is wrong. I think the minister will agree that the training facilities in the air force, particularly the quality of personnel performing those training functions, are top line. I do not think that anywhere in the world would be found instructors, officers and men more dedicated to their task. But I think the morale of these forces is deteriorating. One of the reasons, judging from my conversations with air force personnel, is that these people do not know what is happening. They do not know whether they are going to be called upon to continue performing a training role for staffing a nuclear strike force in Europe or for performing a transport role. They are rather vague as to the direction they will be taking in the future.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: 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.
Progress reported.



QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Restigouche-Mada-waska) moved: the third reading of Bill No. S-46, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. T. S. Barnelt (Comox-Alberni) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-34, to amend the Indian Act (liquor rights).
He said: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have this opportunity at long last to move second reading of this bill which has been
Indian Act
on the order paper, now, for some considerable time. The purpose of this bill is to remove one of the existing restrictions on the full citizenship rights of the native Indian peoples of Canada.


Mr. Clancy:: Explain.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am often thankful that the attention of the peoples of the world is not focused upon the situation which exists here in Canada with respect to our native Indians as it is upon the southern states of the United States or on South Africa. It is obvious to me-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: On a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Yorkton wish to rise on a point of order?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Yes, I do. I have listened to enough nonsense today. This is a provincial matter and the hon. member knows it is a provincial matter. Let him fight it out in his provincial riding.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would be glad if this were a provincial matter, but unless something has happened of which I am not aware there is still on the statute books of Canada an act known as the Indian Act. As long as it remains there, I believe the subject matter of my bill is very much of concern to members of this house.
This measure, as I need hardly point out, is one which proposes an amendment to the Indian Act. It deals with a minor matter, in a relative sense. Nevertheless, I think it is a subject which calls for action and I do not think much difference of opinion could really arise among members of this house, in this day and age, as to its merits. If hon. members will look at the explanatory notes set out with the bill they will see that this measure seeks to carry out a recommendation which was made to both houses of parliament by a joint committee on Indian affairs presented on July 8, 1961. I think it will be agreed that scarcely any of the recommendations of that committee have yet been implemented.
In relation to some of the other recommendations which have to do with health, welfare, education and the development of human resources, the measure before us today sets out to deal with a topic of minor importance, perhaps; but, in my view, progress along the lines I suggest would represent a further step in enabling our native Indians to enjoy the full rights of Canadian citizenship. The purpose, here, is to make provision for Indian people to enjoy, within a province, the same rights as any other Canadian citizens in respect to liquor laws which are

Indian Act
drafted from time to time and put into effect by provincial legislatures. In that respect, this is a provincial matter.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: On a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yorkton rising on a question of privilege?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Privilege. This is a provincial privilege. He knows it, as well as I do, under section 92 of the act. All right, if he wants to change the B.N.A. Act, change it now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not sure whether that was a point of order or a question. I might say, in answer to the hon. member, that the purpose of my bill is, really, to place this matter where it belongs, that is, entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has the floor and perhaps he might be allowed to continue without interruption.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As I was saying, this would place the responsibility for the use made of alcoholic beverages by the Indian people where it properly belongs, namely in the hands of the provinces. It would make Indians entirely subject to the ordinary laws of the province in that respect, except that it would substantially preserve the rights of the Indian people to the use of the local option idea as far as the consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages within their reserves is concerned. The bill is completely in line with the recommendations of the committee. It is something which, so far as my knowledge of the situation goes as a result of discussions with the Indian people, meets with their approval and desires. I think perhaps that the actions that are being taken by the Indians in regard to holding plebescites on their own reserves, show that they are interested and concerned in this matter. I think the sooner we get on with the job of implementing the recommendations of this joint committee, not only in this connection but in a number of others, the better it will be.
I was not a member of the house at the time this report was introduced. I do know that the presentation of this report and its acceptance by the house was hailed with a great deal of delight by many Indian people, certainly in my area. They assumed that the approval of the recommendations in the report practically made them law. I felt constrained, as a matter of fact, on several occasions to point out to them that the mere adoption of the committee's recommendations in the house did not mean that

the committee's proposals had become the law of the land. I tried to give them some warning, and events certainly have proven me to be right, that it might be some time before the changes which they hailed would become law.
Certainly, I suppose one would have to admit that political events since 1961 might have had something to do with the delay. I suggest, however, that the passage of this bill at this time would constitute a small crumb of acceptance of the committee's report and would, in some respects, be a vindication of the Indian people in this parliament of Canada. I urge, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the speedy adoption of second reading of this bill.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I should like to suggest that this bill be referred to the committee on citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs.


An hon. Member:: And provincial rights, too?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: It is my right to stand up here and ask for directions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has proposed in Bill No. C-34 that sections 93 through to 96A of the Indian Act be amended, and he has proposed that sections 93 and 94 of the present Indian Act be amended to make them applicable only to persons on reserves. The present Indian Act makes it illegal for any Indian in Canada, even off a reserve, to have liquor in his possession or to be intoxicated. The act makes it illegal for a person to give or sell liquor to an Indian off a reserve. I think everyone in this house is in accord that this is a pure anachronism. I think it is one of the many statutes we have on our law books that are neither enforced nor enforceable.
In addition, in Bill No. C-34, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni seeks to repeal sections 95, 96 and 96A of the original Indian Act and replace them with a new section 94 which removes the necessity for the lieutenant governor in council of a province, through the governor in council, proclaiming that subparagraph (a) of section 93, which relates to selling liquor to Indians off a reserve and paragraph (a) of section 94, which relates to an Indian having liquor in his possession off a reserve, so that they are no longer in force. I think all members will agree, that this is a welcome change. Moreover, this amended section 94 proposed in Bill No. C-34, retains the right of the governor in council to make regulations respecting votes and referendums

and defining a reserve, as outlined in paragraph 4 of the present section 96A, and also maintains the requirements outlined in section 96A, paragraphs 3 and 5, conditioning the proclamation of the governor in council on a resolution of a band council and upon a referendum of the band in question.
Bill C-34 also eliminates the necessity for a request by the council to the attorney general of the province in which the reserve is situated. This, too, is a needed change and I have no quarrel with the amendments offered by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni so far as they go. I believe the bill is a step forward. I submit, however, Mr. Speaker, that the bill does not go far enough. It is a step forward but it retains, and I do not think this was the intention of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, discrimination, in that members of Indian bands who live on a reserve will continue to be in a position where it is illegal for them to have liquor in their possession on the reserve.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt? I should like an answer to the question which I asked ten minutes ago. It is your duty to advise me if I am out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, I might say that at this point the hon. member is out of order because-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Well, I come back to my original question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that he resume his seat. The hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie has the floor.


Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: In order for me to illustrate what I mean by saying that the discriminatory effect would remain in our laws governing the use of liquor by Indians, even if Bill No. C-34 were adopted, I think I should run through the present circumstances of the Canadian Indian. I am going to start with the Indians in my own riding. I have more Indians in my riding than there are in the whole of the Northwest Territories. The Caughnawaga Indians and the St. Regis Indians have been located on reserves since 1680. I think I am correct in saying that the Indian affairs department was originally set up in 1774 for the Indians who were living on those two reserves. Initially, it was under civil control and in 1816 it came under military control, and then in 1830 it went back under civilian control.
Eventually the present Indian affairs department evolved out of this original Indian department that was created for the Indians in my constituency. Now, the Indians living
Indian Act
on the two reserves of my constituency are not faced with the problems that confront many of the bands who live on reserves in the northern areas of our provinces. I think the average wage of Indians living on the Caughnawaga and St. Regis reserves is probably higher than that of any other group of workers in the province of Quebec. The reason for this, of course, is that these men are experts in high steel work and earn a rate of pay that corresponds to the very dangerous work at which they are so expert.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, these Indians who are living in Caughnawaga and St. Regis have a number of problems. These problems exist, I think, perhaps only because of the lack of good will between the Indian affairs department and the Indians living on these reserves. There are no economic reasons for serious problems on the two reserves I have mentioned, yet problems exist, misunderstandings exist and mistrust exists to the extent that during the last federal election only eight people out of over 3,000 electors voted. This, I submit, is a clear indication of the mistrust that has built up on perhaps the two most prosperous reserves in Canada.
Now, if this problem exists in the two most prosperous reserves in the country, surely the situation in those areas that are just emerging from a hunting and fishing economy must be worse. As a matter of fact, indications are that the problems are far more serious for the people in the northern tier of our provinces from Quebec to British Columbia where most of our Indian population resides.
The Caughnawaga situation holds out hope for the rest of the Indians in the country. The Caughnawaga people and the St. Regis people have adapted themselves to our economic system. They have found areas of work in which they can become experts second to none. As a result, and because of a long history of extremely well known representatives from their own bands, and because of their proximity to Montreal and Cornwall, these Indians have developed a very real pride of race, a pride in their achievements and a pride in their Indian way of life. These are some of the reasons that they have been so successful in finding a part to play in our mid-twentieth century economy.
The Indian living on the reserves further east in Quebec and in New Brunswick tend to be in somewhat similar positions to those Indians who are presently emerging from the hunting-fishing type of life along the northern tier of all the provinces. This emergence has become very rapid since the war, and in their new life they are confronted

Indian Act
daily with problems of integrating into mining communities and acquiring skills in order to take part in the many industries opening in our northland.
This evolution that has taken place in the last few years has brought our Indian population to a point where, unless we rid ourselves of the archaic Indian Act and-though I do not like to use the word but it is justified in this instance-the archaic administration of Indian affairs, unless we rid ourselves of this antique apparatus then very quickly we will find that Canada will be in a most embarrassing position, although I do not consider this the reason that we should do something about the present circumstances of the Canadian Indian.
As conscientious Canadians we must recognize that our Indian brothers have rights to the same type of livelihood, standard of living, jobs and educational opportunities that all other Canadians have. The Indian affairs department has made giant strides in the last few years towards making educational facilities available to our younger Indian population, but this has resulted in accentuating the problem which exists in the northern part of our provinces of adapting our Indian people to the social standards of the areas in our northland where their future lies.
I can give an example of this. In Chibou-gamou the local Cree population is emerging very rapidly from the hunting and fishing economy, and yet with few exceptions the local corporations have failed to take on Indian personnel. This is not the fault of the local corporations in Chibougamou, because four years ago an association was set up there called the northern citizens guidance association, composed of members and heads of practically all the mining companies in the area. For four years these people have worked towards meshing the local Cree population with the local mining population. They have achieved some degree of success, but that success has not been the result of any help from the Indian affairs department.
As a matter of fact, they have been unable to make progress in the last two years with efforts to acquire housing for these Crees who are moving in from the Mistassini reserve into the Chibougamou and Chapleau areas. They have been unable to move the Indian affairs department in the direction of supporting the Indians in obtaining national housing loans for the erection of individual homes. The national housing people have indicated they are quite willing to listen to any proposals that may be brought forward. It has been two years now since this proposition was brought to the attention of the Indian affairs department and the national housing 
people, but so far not a house has been started. This is just an example of the thinking that has been behind the actions of the department over the past few years.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that a fresh wind is now blowing through the department. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has an extremely broad and open mind on the subject, and there have been some changes made in the department which augur extremely well for the future. In fact I am confident the necessary changes will be made in the administration of the department as well as in the act itself. But at the moment, although changes are absolutely necessary in the act and in these archaic regulations, which we are discussing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Ian Watson: I wonder, could I have the permission of all hon. members to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence E. Watson: I want to outline my three main objections to Bill C-34, which I have not reached.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, normally no one would disagree, but the hon. member has spent his entire time talking about everything else but the bill, and it would be unfair to the rest of the hon. members who wish to speak.


Lawrence E. Watson: I understood I had started at 5.20, and I was watching the clock and thought I had until 5.40.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Watson: Bill C-34, although considerably more flexible than sections 93 to 96 of the Indian Act, is considerably less flexible than what is needed in 1963. I think we are all prepared to admit that the abuse of liquor increases at a rate proportional to the number of restrictions placed upon its use. This was amply demonstrated during the days of American prohibition, and this truism is no less applicable to our Canadian Indians. There is no question that the Indian Act regulations governing liquor must be amended, as must many other sections of the Indian Act to keep abreast of the rapidly changing circumstances of the Canadian Indian.

I am hopeful, as I said earlier, that the present government will decide in the near future to alter the existing liquor regulations applicable to Indians in a manner that will allow Indians throughout Canada to be subject only to the liquor regulations of the province within which their reserve is situated. In order that the transition from stringent liquor regulations to the normal existing provincial regulations should not result in excesses in northern areas of our provinces where liquor regulations have to date been rigorously enforced, I think the minister should be given discretion to maintain certain of the existing regulations in specified reserves, only with the approval of the local band council or in reserves where he was requested to do so by the local band council.
I would submit this is the type of flexibility that is necessary and which is not afforded by Bill No. C-34. Bill No. C-34 would retain the anachronisms that I mentioned earlier. In Caughnawaga, which is a suburb of Montreal, an Indian would still be breaking the law if he invited me into his house and served me a drink.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Has the Caughnawaga band not conducted a plebiscite?


Ian Watson: They have not. This is the result of the fund of mistrust that has been built up in Caughnawaga over many years through the lack of a proper approach to Indian affairs. The paternalism that has characterised our Indian affairs department ever since it was initiated has sown the seeds of the very situation that exists. The Indians in Caughnawaga are against voting on any question; it has reached that point. I think it will improve but this is really the reason they have not voted in a plebiscite in favour of liquor, because at the moment they are against voting in general.
I would submit that any regulation which reaffirms the theory behind the Indian Act liquor regulations, which theory really says that the Canadian Indian is not equal to his fellow Canadian, that he does not possess the qualities of self-control and self-regulation which the remainder of the population possesses, is, I am sure everyone in this house will agree, a regulation based on a theory which is without foundation and has encouraged, as it would in any group of people, the very excesses it was designed to curb.
The third major objection to Bill No. C-34 is that it is a piecemeal approach to remedying the anachronisms of the Indian Act and is not what is needed today. We need a general overhaul of both the Indian Act and,
Indian Act
as I said earlier, its administration, and I am confident that this general overhaul will be made soon.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill I wish to say that I think its intent is very good. In the explanatory notes it says the intention is that the same rights extended to non-Indian citizens of the various provinces shall be applicable to Indians. I think it is quite fit and proper that Indians should be allowed to have liquor on the reserve, and by "liquor" I mean any form of intoxicant. But if under this bill, as I read it, we allow them these rights, then of course they come within sections of the various acts of the provinces. I seriously question whether we are doing any great service to the Indians of, let us say, the province of Ontario, from which I come, by putting them under the liquor control act. This act is a pretty tough piece of legislation. In the liquor control act practically all the presumptions are against the individual. Nowhere else in our Criminal Code, with the exception of certain offences such as the possession of stolen goods, do we find this presumption of guilt if a prima facie case is shown against the individual.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Anthony Robert Temple: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the hon. member trying to suggest that the Indians who reside in the province of Ontario do not come under the provisions of the Ontario liquor control act as well as the provisions of the Indian Act?


Anthony Robert Temple: They only come under the provisions of the liquor control act while they are off the reservation. While they are on the reservation they come under the provisions of the Indian Act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If that is true, this bill would not alter that situation.


Anthony Robert Temple: To this extent it will, and I was coming to this point. I think I can show that the bill would alter this situation to some extent. I should like to deal further with the presumptions under the liquor control act which apply to the Indian on the reserve as well as to the Indian off the reserve. If you have a bottle and it bears a label saying "Dow ale", as long as a police officer finds you with such a bottle, even an empty bottle or one with very little in it, because of the label on the outside the presumption is that you have a bottle of beer. Then the accused person must rebut this and prove that it was not a bottle of beer.
What is even more serious, I submit, with regard to the liquor control act-and this is

Indian Act
something to which Indians on the reserve would be subject and I think it is a disgraceful thing-is the practice in Ontario of having a blanket search warrant. If someone is suspected of being a criminal, under the Criminal Code a police officer or officers must go to the appropriate justice of the peace and obtain a search warrant. But this is not the case under the liquor control act. If any police officer has what he thinks is a reasonable suspicion that liquor of any kind is being held or kept illegally in any residence, officers of the provincial police force of Ontario can go to that home, without having to go to a justice, and can demand entry under this blanket search warrant.
We pride ourselves, and rightly so, on our criminal law and the fact that the individual is innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under our criminal law there is no question about this, and it is fit, right and proper that it should be so. But we do not do this under the liquor control act. All the presumptions are there; this blanket search warrant is there. The idea of this bill is excellent, but by its implementation we would be further extending what I consider to be a grave abuse. Another question I have in connection with this bill concerns the provisions for voting. It is good that a vote should be taken on any reserve. But what is it to be? Will one vote of more than 50 per cent carry it; or does it require 60 per cent, as is the case in the province of Ontario? As I have already stated, the presumptions under the liquor control act makes it very, very difficult for the individual. The previous speaker stated, and I think correctly, that intoxication increases in proportion to the number of restrictions. It flashed through my mind, of course, that it also increases in proportion to the amount of liquor consumed.
In the constituency of Hastings South, which I have the honour to represent, there is a very ancient and proud band of Mohawks on the Tyendinaga Indian reserve. They settled there many years ago and they have produced some outstanding citizens of Canada. They have produced doctors and engineers, and as a matter of fact one of the medical doctors from that reserve founded the Indian order of foresters and was exceptionally well known in North America.
This concludes my few remarks. The reason I rose to my feet stems from the dislike I have for the provisions of the liquor control act. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we go along with provisions of an act such as this, which we would not go along with so far as criminal offences are concerned.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, somehow or other this bill has only recently come to my attention. I think I

understand the details of it. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and I are not exactly in adjoining ridings but there are many similarities between the two.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Blood brothers.


David Walter Groos: Blood brothers of a sort. There is a great deal in this act which to my mind is commendable. There are a number of Indians both in my riding and the adjoining riding. I have a great number of Indian friends. As some hon. members may know, I served in the service of this country with a number of Indians whom I got to know very well. There is little indication in my opinion that, given the chance, the Indians cannot handle their own affairs just as well as anybody else. It seems to me peculiar that if we can accept the fact that Indians as individuals are no different from any individual in other groups, why is it that we cannot accept the idea that Indians as a group are no different from other groups on the matter of liquor? If there is a difference then I think we have only ourselves to blame in that we have in the past taken patronizing attitudes towards them.
Although one point which I like about the bill is that it is a step in the direction of sweeping away these anachronisms, I agree with the opinions expressed by a couple of previous speakers that it does not go far enough. It seems odd to me that we lay so much emphasis on this aspect of liquor. I think more attention should be paid to the other problems Indians have, such as problems of education, employment and housing, which I think are every bit as important, if not more so, as this matter of liquor.
There are some features of the bill which I do not quite understand. I see in the explanatory notes there is a note which says, if I may be forgiven for reading it at length:
The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs, in its second and final report presented on the 8th July, 1961, under paragraph (b) of heading VII, recommended as follows:
"Liquor
(b) In view of the fact that the possession and consumption of intoxicants off reserves by Indians is dependant on a request by the province, your committee recommends that all existing liquor restrictions in the Indian Act be deleted; and that the same rights extended to non-Indian citizens of the various provinces be applicable to Indians"-
-and this is the important part-
"-except that the right of possession and consumption on the reserve be granted only after the approval by a majority vote of the band".
This matter of the majority vote brings to my mind the question whether this is to be a simple majority, in which case I do not think it would solve the problem, or-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the fact that under the regulations as presently drafted by the governor in council the provision is for a simple majority vote? That is the actual procedure which is currently being followed with respect to votes being held on a great many reserves in British Columbia.


David Walter Groos: Then this is one of the things to which I object. I do not think a simple majority vote would solve very much on a reservation in a matter of this kind. The problems which would be introduced by a very close narrow vote would outweigh some of the advantages it is hoped to gain from the bill.
I should like to repeat the point made by one of the previous speakers that the members of this parliament will be able to assist the government and that in the near future the government will decide to bring in a more comprehensive bill covering the liquor regulations as far as they apply to Indians; and that at that time they will sweep away all restrictions completely as far as liquor and Indians are concerned.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, just a word or two before my hon. friend talks the bill out. What this bill seeks to do, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure all three members who have spoken so far will be very appreciative of it-is to undo the damage which the previous Liberal government did when it enacted the present sections in the Indian Act with regard to liquor.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this subject of Indian affairs perhaps, as a member from a metropolitan riding, I owe to my hon. friends in the house an explanation of my direct interest in Indians. Perhaps I should explain that in representing a riding which covers much of the downtown core area of Toronto I estimate that there are between 500 and
1,000	North American Indians resident within my constituency. The agency under the united appeal in metropolitan Toronto which deals with this question is principally the central neighbourhood house, which is a settlement house covering both the area represented by my hon. friend for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) and myself. That house has devoted itself, through Miss Sutcliffe of the central neighbourhood house, to trying to assist North American Indians in the constituency who are suffering particularly from a very low standard of living. Central neighbourhood house has calculated that there are approximately 1,000 Indians within the ambit of its particular area.
Supply-National Defence
It has become very evident to me from listening to reports and from my own observations concerning the conditions of North American Indians in my constituency, that any efforts which may take place in downtown Toronto with regard to these Indians are essentially efforts merely to right a wrong already conferred upon them, to try and correct a situation which should not have been permitted to occur in the first place. It seems to me that in our discussion of Indian affairs in this house one should be concerning oneself about trying to establish conditions in Indian reserves-I think particularly of the reserves from which so many of my constituents have come-whereby these people can be trained and enabled to integrate into our modern industrial civilization. One of the reasons why so many North American Indians in my constituency have been suffering from a low economic standard is because they have inadequate training. In some cases they are unfamiliar with some of the things which to city bred people may seem the most elementary practices of our lives. They are unaccustomed to dealing in a supermarket-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock I must advise the house that the hour for private members' business has expired. The house will now revert to that business interrupted at five o'clock.

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 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.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: At five o'clock, when we proceeded to the consideration of public bills, I was speaking about the cut-backs proposed by the minister in air force training and I
5550	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence was making particular reference to the decision of the government in reference to the jet training program at Penhold.
There must be confusion in the government's policy here, particularly with regard to the course being followed by the Department of Transport and by the Department of National Defence in connection with Penhold. As I was saying before the committee rose,
I feel it is essential to the defence of this country that we should maintain a healthy and viable training program and a high standard of training for the R.C.A.F. I do not think we can do this if we close down our training establishment and training programs. I have suggested to the Minister of Transport that there is no good technical reason why Penhold could not continue to be used as a jet training base. I suggested to him, and I am sure he has discussed this with the Minister of National Defence, that it would be possible to re-route the three converging radio ranges so as to allow an area of 20 miles around this base in order to permit the training program to continue in this area. I am convinced it is technically possible, if the government is prepared to go ahead with this scheme.
There is no trick about the installation of radio ranges and other such facilities to aid navigation in the interests of commercial flying in this country so as to enable Penhold to continue to operate as a jet training base. Re-routing of this type has been carried out in many areas in Canada where there have been obstructions, whether by mountainous country, by the training of air force personnel or by other conditions. There are three converging radio ranges in the Penhold area and each of these could be re-directed so as to re-route commercial traffic. This would ensure the safety of the commercial traffic and, at the same time, allow the air force to carry out the role which I think it should play in the defence of Canada.
I believe the Minister of Transport said a comparison could not properly be made between the situation at Penhold and the situation at Portage la Prairie. I fail to agree. Though the same circumstances do not exist today, there was a time when Portage did lie within a ten-mile wide radio range of a frequently used air corridor, but the radio ranges were directed so as to allow jet training to continue at Portage. While I am on the subject of Portage I think, with due respect to that particular training base, that the minister might find it in his heart, having achieved all these monetary savings as a result of the cuts he has made in defence expenditures, to spare enough money to supply a little paint for the buildings there,


and perhaps to supply accommodation for the painting of aircraft at the base.
I wonder, sometimes, to what extent we realize the complexity of the machinery required to establish and operate a single air force air training base. To me, it is remarkable that the officers and men concerned with the operation of an air training establishment can accomplish their objective with the limited means which, in the recent past, have been made available to them. I should like to make some comments, now, with regard to morale in connection with air training. The air force personnel to whom I have spoken-and it might interest the minister to know I have spoken to air force personnel from one end of the country to the other in recent months- are very unsettled, indeed. I would not say their morale is at a new low but, certainly, it has been affected by the lack of ability on the part of the government to come out with a clearcut policy with regard to training. For instance, short service commission officers do not know whether their commissions are going to be renewed. They do not know because there has been no declaration of policy by the government to indicate where the government is heading with its air force program.
I have heard airmen and n.c.o.'s in the air force discuss this matter. They have done so without knowing who I was, and I have heard them say among themselves: Where are we going to go in civvy street now, in view of all these rumours about cuts? Some have been discussing the possibility of going into the commercial air transport field.
I can assure the minister, as I am sure he is aware, of the extremely high calibre generally of the individuals in the air force training program. The engineers, airmen and n.c.o.'s who maintain the serviceability of airplanes used in the over-all air force training program are of the highest calibre that can be found anywhere, and it is a shame to see this deterioration in morale. I think that the minister, through his officials and those responsible in the air force commands, can reassure the officers, n.c.o.'s and men in the air force that there is no need for them to think about seeking alternative employment. This is what they are thinking at the present moment. There is a very distinct deterioration in morale. I have spoken to air force officers, n.c.o.'s and men from Ottawa all the way west and what I am saying arises from recent conversations, not conversations of months ago.
Morale is being very seriously affected, first of all by a lack of announced policy. I am sure it is also going to be affected now because the men do not know where the axe is going to fall next. If reassurance could be given to these very capable individuals who

serve in our air force I think there would be an immediate raising of the level of their morale.
I have a word to say about the minister's announcement concerning Rockcliffe. I would hope that his announcement that fixed wing operations out of Rockcliffe airport are going to be discontinued will not affect the continued operation of that airport. I would hope that the minister and the Minister of Transport have had some sort of conversations which will result in the continued operation of this airport for fixed wing aircraft under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. When the minister replies to the comments that have been made perhaps he might cover this point. I am sure he is aware there is a flying club at Rockcliffe and there are other smaller fixed wing aircraft which could use this airport efficiently, provided it is not closed down entirely. I think the Department of Transport should take it over if the R.C.A.F. operation is going to be discontinued.
I am very sorry to see the photographic establishment being done away with. Here is an establishment that led the way in technical skill and ability in photography in Canada, particularly in the role for which it was best suited, that of air photography. It has accomplished more in air photography than any other organization in Canada that I know of. It has led the way not only in Canada but in the world in its operations. It is a sad thing to see this operation being transferred to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. However, unlike other members I have to agree that there should be some homogeneity in photographic operations in Canada and it would seem that this operation could be merged very efficiently with that now carried on under the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys program for the air mapping of Canada.
May I say a word about the army militia. I think it is a very sad thing that the minister has announced these great cut-backs in militia establishments in Canada. It seems what his announcement really means is that the emergency measures organization is being virtually forgotten. It means that all the plans which have been developed over recent years to use the militia as a civil defence organization are being abandoned, along with their training in survival operations. So far as unlimited nuclear war is concerned, which I believe is the only result if nuclear weapons are used, the militia has been trained in recent years to meet this specific emergency and by cutting back on the militia units across the country it seems to me that we are very
Supply-National Defence seriously endangering our civil defence organization. I believe this particular cut-back is going to have very serious repercussions indeed.
I would be interested in learning the real reasons for the disbanding of the 107 search and rescue operation at Torbay. It seems to me that this particular unit was performing a very necessary function. Search and rescue operations are essential to the safety of air travel in Canada and, as hon. members know, the search and rescue operation of the R.C.A.F. is the only organized search and rescue operation for all flying in Canada. Therefore I very much doubt the advisability of cutting back one of the key operations in the maritime provinces.
I cannot conclude my remarks without making particular reference to the plans of the defence department as they affect my own constituency. The minister mentioned, as found on page 5456 of Hansard, that an announcement had already been made regarding the northwest highway system being handed over to the Department of Public Works. In making this reference he said that it was not expected that the majority of the present civilian employees would be affected. He hoped that they would all be retained in the transfer.
I have made representations personally to the minister, which I am sure he will recall, urging him to approach this change-over with the idea that there should be a phased withdrawal of army personnel in the Yukon, because what the announcement means is that virtually every soldier and every family of a soldier will be leaving the Yukon. There will not be a single soldier left there. I am sure the minister realizes that this will affect the economy of the Yukon very seriously. What 390 soldiers did, a substantially lesser number of public works employees will be able to do. I do not say that by way of derogation in any way of the ability of the army personnel.
I notice that one of the former commanders of the northwest highway system is sitting in the gallery. He like all his predecessors did an extremely admirable job in the maintenance of the Alaska highway which does not only concern my constituency but some in British Columbia and Alberta as well. At this point I think I should pay a tribute not only to the commanders of the northwest highway system who have been maintaining the highway since 1945, but also to all of the personnel who have not only done such an excellent job in the maintenance of the highway but have contributed very substantially to the growth of the economy and the social life and every other aspect of the development of the Yukon. It is a very sorry

Supply-National Defence occasion to have to see all of these soldiers leave the Yukon after such very close relationships had been established with these men not only on a personal basis but on every other basis over so many years. I suggest to the minister that a phased withdrawal is essential in order to assure the least possible disruption of the economy of the Yukon generally, and particularly Whitehorse where a payroll of over $1 million annually is involved. Certainly, the payroll of the public works personnel will not even approach the payroll of the army. Then, of course, there is the consideration of some 500 school children. I believe the date the minister mentioned in his remarks yesterday was April 1. Well, school does not get out until June, as I am sure the minister knows. It would be my hope that his plans would involve consideration of this aspect so that the bulk of the army personnel would not be leaving until after the school term had been concluded.
Until recently the army has been responsible for the maintenance of the Haines cut-off. The minister of northern affairs, has replied to my numerous inquiries concerning negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States in a rather belligerent fashion, while the Minister of National Defence has been most co-operative. I certainly do not claim exclusive credit for accomplishing the all-weather maintenance of the Haines road, but I am sure if the minister of northern affairs would admit the truth of the matter, he would see from his files or would be advised by his officials that I have been advocating this course since 1958. I feel a real economy can be accomplished.
I was disappointed to learn yesterday from the statement by the minister of northern affairs that United States equipment will be used and United States labour will be used on a section of the Haines road that is purely Canadian. It seems to me we have unemployed people in the Yukon who could be capably employed in the maintenance of this road. We have the equipment which could have been used, rather than calling upon United States equipment. I know there is no snow-blowing equipment of the capacity of the United States equipment and able to do as efficient a job, but I am sure that Canadian contractors would soon supply that equipment and I am sure that Canadian labour could do the job just as efficiently as United States labour. Perhaps this question might be reconsidered by the minister and his colleagues in the hope that it might assist in eliminating the constant spectre of unemployment which exists not only in the Yukon but elsewhere in Canada, and which has not

improved so substantially as to allow the government to spend $127,000 per year in order to encourage United States employment rather than Canadian employment.
Leaving the Yukon for a moment, I must express disappointment in the minister's announcements concerning cut-backs in the army and navy. Canada has only one aircraft carrier and one naval air operation. It seems to me that this has been essential-


Mr. Choquette:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The time allocated to the hon. member has now expired.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; the hon. member still has a few seconds according to the time which is being kept, not by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, but by the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, I did not have my earplug in so I could not catch the French interruption. I should like to conclude, since I have a few seconds, in this manner: it seems to me that these cut-backs the minister is making are going to result in a further drift toward accepting the policies of other nations, particularly those of the United States, rather than formulating our own national defence policy. At the outset of my remarks, I said that we should establish national objectives for defence, and political objectives for defence with regard to belonging to organizations such as NATO, the U.N. force and the like. The announcements by the minister are simply a means of allowing us to drift further and further into following the policies established by other nations, particularly those of the United States. I think this is a very sad state of affairs indeed.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, on the evening of November 11 last I went with some of the members of the defence committee to the Arc de Triomphe. As you know, sir, France's unknown soldier is buried underneath that arch and an eternal flame burns there. De Gaulle had gone there in the afternoon to place a wreath on the grave. When we arrived we could see in the glare of the floodlights the flag of France, the tricolour, filling the whole of the arch. One almost felt that de Gaulle himself had called on the wind to fill out this symbol of the glory of France.
In the next three days we were never permitted to forget the presence of de Gaulle or the glory of France. De Gaulle is by nature an intellectual, rather like the late John Kennedy, and he tends to surround himself with men of keen intellect and tough fibre. The men who briefed us were incisive, tough and confident. All were men of considerable

achievement. All felt the same intense loyalty to de Gaulle and to France. They understood their national policy; they believed in it. They knew where they were going and they felt sure that they knew how to get there.
This is what they told us. With the end of the t.n.t. age and the advent of the nuclear age, the principles that govern warfare have changed. Few have bothered to recognize that a new and clearly defined body of logic ap-lies to the subject of war and peace in the nuclear age.
First, whereas it was possible for a nation to engage in a war of limited risk in the t.n.t. age, it is no longer possible today among nuclear nations. War is no longer, as Clause-witz said, an extension of diplomacy by other means, for in conducting nuclear war it is not possible to limit or control the extent of the destruction of national wealth which either or both sides may suffer. In Clausewitz' day in eighteenth century Europe, it was possible to send a small mercenary army against a neighbouring principality and to capture it. Thus, by risking the loss of the mercenaries, a valuable and comparatively undamaged territory might be won. In world wars I and II, the United States risked its expeditionary forces in Europe. These were calculable and limited risks on behalf of their allies and in the interest of restoring peace with all its benefits.
Nuclear arms now nullify the validity of all such military alliances. They are, according to the French, no longer valid or tenable, for the law of limited risk now no longer applies. The nation which goes to the support of its neighbour today may be exposing itself to complete or virtually complete destruction. If a beggar asks you for a franc, say the French, you may give it; if he asks you to risk your life for him you will quickly pass him by.
What country could persuade its people to wage war on behalf of an ally knowing that in doing so it might be inviting 10 or 20 or 100 Hiroshimas on its own soil? Would any president urge such a course upon his people? Would any people follow such a leader who promised, not a limited war of blood, sweat and tears, but total war and eternal oblivion? France does not believe that it should ask an ally to undertake such a suicidal mission on its behalf.
Hence, the first principle to be observed in the new logic of the nuclear age is that military alliances are no longer valid. Collective security has little meaning for nations facing each other with nuclear weapons in their hands. If a nation wishes to survive in the nuclear age it must have its own nuclear
Supply-National Defence deterrent and a delivery system capable of surviving and retaliating, say the French.
That is why, we were told, France has established its own force de frappe and why it will have within a few years a delivery system of supersonic bombers, missiles and nuclear submarines of its own. Moreover, they assure us, no committee of allies will weaken the credibility of their deterrent. France's enemies will know that there is only one will behind the force de frappe, one finger on the trigger.
The second principle of war in the nuclear age is that armies are virtually obsolete in the face of nuclear weapons. An army has strength only when it masses the fire power of its individual members. But, when an army is massed or concentrated upon a narrow front in order to obtain maximum firepower, it also becomes an excellent target for nuclear bombs. Thus, the more it concentrates its power the more it invites nuclear attack and total destruction. An army is a cumbersome and inefficient way of concentrating firepower compared with nuclear bombs or missiles. Armies, therefore, will not hold the same importance as they once did.
In support of their theories the French told us that they were applying 50 per cent of their military budget on new equipment while cutting back on the total numbers in their armed forces. France's army of the future will be a strong army of only five divisions but dependant on the force de frappe if an enemy should attack the flesh of France.
The third principle to observe is that a comparatively small nuclear power like France can deter the attack of a much larger nuclear power like Russia. To illustrate this point the French tell a story, that France was anxious to own Monaco so it threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on Monaco if it did not capitulate. Monaco replied that it too was a nuclear power for it owned a fast plane loaded with two nuclear bombs. France laughed at the temerity of Monaco and dropped a bomb on it, destroying it utterly, but not before the one-plane deterrent force of Monaco took off and dropped its two bombs on Paris and Lyon. Thus France had completely destroyed the valuable prize it had hoped to seize and for its troubles two of its greatest cities were reduced to rubble. Did the great nuclear power win the war against the little nuclear power?
The story illustrates the point that, unless it has a completely impenetrable defence against nuclear attack, it is not rational for a big power to attack a smaller nuclear power, for in doing so the big power is unable to limit the risk involved.
5554	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
These arguments lead step by logical step to the conclusion that there will be no nuclear war. The world of the future will consist of nuclear powers in balance and non-nuclear powers in ferment.
If these ideas seem strange to members of this house-remember, it is not the first time that de Gaulle has put forward new military ideas. He is one of the most brilliant of modern military theoreticians. In the 'thirties he outlined the principles involved in blitzkrieg warfare and urged their adoption. The French ignored him but the Germans read the book and applied it to France. He warned against dependence on the Maginot line and upon the theory of a static front. Again he was ignored. And when the time came the Germans went around the Maginot line, and France was overrun by fast-paced panzer divisions who had learned what France refused to learn from de Gaulle.
Now let us cross the Rhine into Germany. I do not propose at this time to dwell in detail on Canada's role in Germany where we have our air division and army brigade. What I want to discuss in more detail today is Europe itself in which we Canadians are so heavily committed, and upon which we depend for the security of the free world. For if we understand Europe and the forces at work there we will better understand how to approach the problem of defence.
While we felt in France that we had arrived in a country where the cold war is regarded with life-and-death seriousness, we felt when we crossed into Germany that we had arrived at the front. Twenty of Russia's best divisions are stationed in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. They can attack in force immediately without build-up and without warning-like Pearl Harbour. Forty more divisions are in the satellites and 100 are held in Russia. Yet in Europe we have within NATO only 22 divisions to meet the Russian threat. A Russian thrust into West Germany would immediately involve major cities. From the border of East Germany the city of Hamburg is only 30 miles away; the Kiel canal, 40 miles; Frankfurt 70 miles and Munich 100 miles from the border of Czechoslovakia. Cologne and Bonn are only 125 miles from East Germany and the port cities of Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam no more than 250 miles away. By striking 200 miles across southern Germany from Czechoslovakia, Russia could bring its armoured divisions face to face with France across the Rhine. From take-off time to bomb release time no city in this area is more than six minutes away from Russian strike planes.
Let us lay these distances out on more familiar ground. To capture Hamburg a Russian division would have to travel no further 

than the distance from Ottawa to Carleton Place. Frankfurt would be no further away than Brockville; Cologne or Bonn no further away than Belleville; and the coast of Belgium and Holland would be less than the distance from Ottawa to Toronto. Thus, we hold today in Europe no more than a narrow bridgehead upon the great land mass of Europe and Asia.
Some people of good intention, striving for ways to lessen the tensions of the cold war, or seeking means to reduce its costs, have asked why do we not pull our forces back and disengage from the cold war front. On the narrow strip of Europe on which NATO now stands we would have to move back to North America to disengage.
Why not then, hold our troops in Canada and fly them in when they are needed? The American operation, Big Lift, showed the delicacy of matching planes and men from North America with their equipment in Europe. But what would happen in wartime? There is greater likelihood that Russian soldiers would reach our equipment before we could and greet us with a well planned reception.
Why not establish a buffer zone between our NATO forces and the communists? We have such a zone now, clearly marked on all NATO military maps. It is there for the purpose of preventing our boys from inadvertently wandering across the iron curtain, and it is backed by electronic warning devices. This is a voluntarily imposed buffer zone. Why not negotiate a deeper one-say 25 miles on each side of the border, and remove all military personnel from the area? If the average east-west depth of Germany from the Baltic to the Rhine is 100 miles-and that is approximately correct-then a demilitarized zone of 25 miles on the west side of the border would reduce by 25 per cent the depth of the field in which NATO has to manoeuver. At the same time, Russia, making a similar concession would hardly be affected at all, as its depth of field extends to the wall of China.
Germany is scornful of France and its force de frappe. France still follows the myth of national grandeur and sovereignty, they told us. She is draining away the efforts of NATO to establish a strong conventional force and she is using the force de frappe to blackmail her allies. There should be co-operation in nuclear defence and not a drifting apart into separate nuclear blocs, they told us. Our conventional forces in Europe are not big enough to repel more than preliminary probes. Moreover, the loss of Berlin would destroy the whole credibility of NATO to defend the western world. Germans wrap themselves in Wagnerian gloom when they contemplate the

cold war. NATO will never get into action in time to save them, they say; and they have written to Mr. McNamara asking him to permit the firing of battlefield nuclear weapons in the very first stages of attack. NATO must strike early to prevent being overrun and to preserve what strength it has, they say.
Much of what I heard in Germany confirmed what I had already heard in Paris. There are not the conventional forces in Europe to do more than hold the Russians for a short time, and the west has no intention of providing them. The United States in fact, is more than anxious to reduce the burden of maintaining a quarter of a million men in Europe. Western Europe is so small that a superior force of fast moving armoured units would overrun it in a week or two. Knowing this, the people of Europe have no intention of delaying the use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
Europe is gearing itself for trip-wire war. The doctrine of measured response in which we North Americans were to be given time to reflect on the war while European cities were slowly reduced to ashes by conventional means has been put aside. Instead Europe is readying for instant nuclear war-not a war in which we wait to be hit first but, if the situation warrants, a pre-emptive war, a war of first strike.
NATO officials are more reluctant than the French or Germans to discuss these cold war facts. They give the outward appearance of being more cautious than some of the fast guns we talked to in France and Germany. But they go ahead with the preparations to carry them out-and so we must infer that they follow, as Mackenzie King might follow if he were here, a policy of trip-wire war if necessary but not necessarily trip-wire war. For example, our own brigade under NATO practices sand table schemes and exercises in which the members of the brigade act as game beaters and bushwhackers to drive the enemy into a position where they can hit him with the Honest John, on a first strike basis.
As for our CF-104, it is singularly constructed and armed to fulfil a first strike role. One cannot imagine its being held in reserve even for minutes, for it is a weapon of such overwhelming power that it must strike first or itself be wiped out by the first missiles from behind the iron curtain. No enemy would let a weapon of such ferocity go unchallenged for a second. By comparison our Voodoos, our Bomarcs, our brigade, are toys. In world war II the first 1,000-plane raid on Cologne went aloft with 3,000 aircraft engines, 6,000 men and 2,000 tons of bombs. It took an hour and a half to pass over the target and it wiped
Supply-National Defence out 935 acres. One CF-104 can carry out a somewhat comparable mission in a few minutes with its little torpedo shaped bomb. Their task, in military language, is to interdict the battlefield-to seal it off-by dropping nuclear bombs on all the eastern approaches to Europe in the first instant of war. In a nutshell, when the CF-104's come home eastern Europe will have been snuffed out.
In our journey through Europe the question was asked again and again: Is there a non-nuclear role for Canada? And each time it was asked we were met with the same enthusiasm a barman might have for a boy scout in a tavern calling for a lemonade. It was obvious from the first day of the tour that we are needed in Europe and that no one expects us to dilute our role there. The French, the Germans, NATO, the British, all made this clear. So in planning our long range defence role there are some conclusions about Europe which we should consider here, for we are involved in Europe.
First, NATO is no longer an alliance grouped around the single deterrent power of the United States. It has become a much looser alliance of nuclear powers including the United States, England, France, and perhaps within a decade some others, including Germany. As Woodrow Wilson might put it if he were here, the future of NATO offers open schism openly arrived at. In such a NATO Canada would not likely be required to carry out a nuclear role on the continent of Europe. But we are needed there now, and for some years to come, as much as we have ever been needed by our allies and by the people of the free world.
Second, because no country can defend itself completely against nuclear weapons, no country will invite nuclear war. The age of limited risk has passed. The age of unlimited and incalculable risk is here. As long as Europe is able to threaten instant nuclear retaliation, as it does now, there will be no war with Russia, for no Russian leader will deliberately risk the instant destruction of the great cities of his beloved homeland. There is real hope for mankind in this fact, for man is learning that nuclear war is suicidal.
Third, with Europe in nuclear balance we may expect to see the cold war fought all over the globe in revolutions, uprisings and petty wars of attrition everywhere. This is where our next and most vital role may be, and it is going to be a conventional and a dirty one.
Mr. Chairman, in Cologne on Sunday we went to the great cathedral which our bombers had spared during world war II, just as theirs spared Saint Paul's and Westminster Abbey, and we heard the choir sing Martin

Supply-National Defence Luther's great hymn Ein Feste Burg, which I suppose has been sung there for 400 years:
A mighty fortress is our God
A bulwark never failing,
Our helper He amid the flood,
Of mortal ills prevailing.
Hearing it, Mr. Chairman, I felt that we were learning to live in the nuclear age and that there is no reason why Luther's hymn should not be sung in that same cathedral for the next 400 years.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, while we are studying the estimates of the Department of National Defence, I wish to state that I deeply regret the decision of the Canadian government, which asked the United Kingdom to build three submarines at a cost of $33 million. Had this order been placed with our own shipyards, it would have provided jobs for 10,000 workers in Canada. The authorities of Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon feel that the company might have built the three submarines with slight differences in measurements, as they would probably have been somewhat longer and broader, but their quality would have been better, and they would not have cost more than $58 million.
In my estimation, it would have been a clever move on the government's part, since it would have allowed the Canadian shipyards to give jobs to our workers.
What surprises me also is that Japan filed tenders and offered to build the three submarines at a lower cost than the United Kingdom, without any loss in quality.
I would have liked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), or his associate minister to give us some explanations on that point. I am sorry to see that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) is not here. I am told he is in Montreal at present. I would have liked him to submit to the house a report on the interviews he had with the various representatives of Quebec shipyards, these same representatives who came recently to Ottawa to protest against the decision taken by the Canadian government to build frigates outside Canada.
I have here a press dispatch published some days ago by he Devoir and which says:
Sorel workers protest
Workers of the Sorel shipyards are angry at the government's decision to have three submarines built in the United Kingdom. "The contract is for $33 million, and that money will come from the Canadian taxpayers," said this week end Mr. Leandre Provost, secretary of the national shipyard workers' union, affiliated to the confederation of national trade unions.
"By this decision, the government is taking away jobs from Canadian workers and increasing unemployment and job insecurity," he added.


The article continues:
Hecently, Ottawa cancelled the building of eight frigates in Canada which were to cost $452 million.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this decision will certainly not help the Canadian government to reduce unemployment.
May I also point out that we would have liked the Minister of National Defence to refer to the position of French speaking Canadians in our armed forces, as well as about what he intends to do to improve the situation at the College Militaire Royale de Saint-Jean.
Mr. Chairman, here are a few statistics for the year 1951:
Number of officials in the Department of National Defence earning $5,000 and over: 88. Number of French speaking officials: 10. Percentage: 11.3.
Here are the statistics for the year 1958:
Number of officials in the Department of National Defence earning $6,500 and over: 502.
Number of French speaking officials: 51.
Percentage: 10.1, that is a decrease of 1.2 per cent.
We would have liked the Minister of National Defence to tell us also whether he intends to study the recommendations made by the federation of Saint-Jean-Baptiste societies of the province of Quebec regarding the College Militaire Royale de Saint-Jean.
1.	That the Department of National Defence make legally clear the bilingual status of the Royal Military College of St. Johns and that bilingualism be maintained at that college as we know it at the present time.
2.	That be also maintained the ratio of 65 per cent French speaking cadets to 35 per cent English speaking, in each new enrolment at the college.
3.	That the Royal Military College of St. Johns be officially affiliated to the University of Montreal so that the curriculum be perfectly suited to the previous training of the cadets.
4.	That the full course be given at St. Johns, without the cadets having to go to Kingston to complete their studies.
5.	That the Royal Military College of St. Johns be freed from Kingston's right of oversight and constitute a self-contained unit of the military colleges in Canada.
6.	That the Department of National Defence make sure that all military and semi-military establishments be provided with school facilities for the benefit of the children of French speaking and Roman Catholic servicemen who are stationed there.
Mr. Chairman, I have learned that the children of our French speaking, Roman Catholic servicemen in Europe have to follow a school program practically identical to the one which exists in Ontario; in other words, the teaching is the same as in that province. In my opinion, this is a serious disadvantage. It is important that children of French Canadian families in Europe should enjoy an education system similar to the Quebec system, because when these students come back to Canada they are confused since they must

continue their studies in colleges in the province of Quebec after receiving in Europe an education patterned after the Ontario school system. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Department of National Defence should take the necessary steps to correct the existing situation.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to say a few words about the countries which are producing nuclear weapons and the countries which are accepting them.
In my opinion, to ensure peace and prevent world destruction, it is essential that the noncommitted nations, that is those countries which do not produce or store nuclear warheads, reinforce by all possible means the United Nations efficiency in their efforts to maintain peace and security.
Drastic action should be undertaken as soon as possible by such nations. They must present a united front so as to grant extraordinary powers to the United Nations disarmament committee, which comprises at present 18 nations. That committee should, in my opinion, include a greater number of non-committed nations in order to force by all possible means both eastern and western powers to destroy and ban their nuclear weapons.
The nations having and producing nuclear weapons have already committed dreadful crimes against humanity. The after-effects of nuclear tests have shocking crimes to their credit, particularly the pollution of the earth waters and of the air, which will result for generations to come in food pollution.
The so-called nuclear powers which accept on their territory nuclear warheads produced by other great powers are criminal accomplices and jeopardize the future of mankind; they also become satellites of a foreign power.
Mr. Chairman, it is truly shameful that only a short while after the signing of the thermonuclear test ban treaty, which does not apply though to underground testing, certain countries including Canada have accepted the stockpiling of nuclear warheads.
Geographically speaking, Canada is squeezed between the two great nuclear powers. In case of a nuclear war, we would be the target of the enemy and our cities would be destroyed.
At present, radioactive fallout which is perhaps greater in Canada than anywhere else in the world, contaminates our foodstuff.
It seems a good thing for mankind to sign a nuclear test ban treaty since nuclear weap-one have already been tested and proven.
The only logical means of ensuring the security of mankind is to give the disarmament committee full powers to stop countries from producing nuclear weapons and to force them to get rid of the stockpiles located 28902-5-354
Supply-National Defence on their own territory or that of their satellites as Canada is about to become one. If it had extraordinary powers, the committee could not only make inspections but also find means of destroying those stockpiles by burying them under the polar ice-cap for instance. An agreement could be reached whereby that territory would become the property of the United Nations.
The world might well rejoice because certain nuclear powers have signed a partial test ban treaty. It still remains however, that those countries are going to keep up the production of nuclear weapons and continue doing research work in their atomic laboratories for military purposes.
An embargo on nuclear weapons would result in a sharp reduction of military expenditures which could be earmarked for peaceful undertakings.
As far as military expenditures are concerned, it is estimated at present that all countries of the world spend approximately $120 billion a year for military purposes. This amount represents at least two thirds of the national income of all underdeveloped countries, and about 85 per cent of this total is spent by seven countries: the U.S.S.R., the United States, Great Britain, France, western Germany, communist China and Canada.
As for the use for peaceful purposes of resources released by disarmament, no country should fear it will not be able to put those resources to a useful purpose. Actually, there are so many ways of using those resources, that the real problem would consist in establishing a priority scale. Among those needs, one might mention the increase of individual consumption, more particularly in underdeveloped countries, the expansion of productive capacity, and investments in the social field, like education, housing, health and purely scientific research.
I appeal to all non-committed powers to launch a crusade to that end in the United Nations, in order to rid humanity of nuclear arms and thus ensure an era of true peace in the world.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I shall repeat the words I said during the conference of the international parliamentary union, which recently took place in Belgrade, and I shall also quote a few sentences from the encyclical Pacem in terris by His late Holiness Pope John XXIII:
Justice, right, reason and humanity-demand- that nuclear weapons should be banned.
and further:
Peace is a right, peace is a duty, peace is a gift.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member allow a question?

Supply-National Defence


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Chairman, I want to give the minister, who has become very silent since he became a member of the cabinet, an opportunity to make a speech, because I have come to the conclusion of my remarks, having said all I wanted to say.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If the hon. member would allow me to ask one single question-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Chairman, I am giving the minister the opportunity of making a speech, if he wants to-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member has refused.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: In a few moments I shall have an opportunity of speaking to the hon. member.


Mr. Langlois:: I have been listening to some of the speeches and exposes made here this afternoon, tonight and yesterday on the subject of national defence. I listened attentively to the speeches made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra tonight and by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. To his last citation concerning Pope John I could also add maybe that peace is also a state of mind and that you have to make it; it does not just lie on a platter. This is probably the main line on which to conduct the expose I want to give.
I should like to divide it into two sections. First, the position of Canada toward the allied forces in NATO, and the others, and then, Canada and its internal defence. We have an obligation toward our NATO allies, not only because we say we are Canadians and belong to the western bloc but because we owe those countries the help they may need and which we can spare them. It is not only the help we may give them, but also the help we might receive from them. Our participation in NATO is not only important on the military side.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra tonight gave an explanation of his tour with the NATO parliamentarians this fall and I came to the conclusion that he had probably attended the military meetings more than the others. I may say there is a defence committee, an educational and technical committee, a political committee and an economic committee. He was on the defence committee. What I wish to stress tonight is the role of the economic committee, which also belongs in the NATO alliance, and Canada's participation in that field of activity. From the military point of view, as far as I can gather on these NATO conferences and trips such as we had last summer, Canada is well accepted and greeted by the European countries in this

NATO alliance. Militarily, yes, but also economically and, maybe further than that, morally. I think one of the greatest forces in the possession of our European allies and friends is the moral support and the hope we give to these people. They feel secure. They feel there is a friendship on the part of Canada, and also, necessarily, on the part of the United States. I am thinking particularly now of Norway and Turkey which are among the NATO allies. Turkey is a country which shares one of its boundaries with Russia. Norway has one part of its boundary on the Russian border. Its people watched what happened in Finland not long ago. They need Canada, morally and also as friends, so as to feel that they are not alone. Friendship is not necessarily extended by military force on the soil of others.
I have had an opportunity to speak with parliamentarians from some of these countries. I think their greatest hope is that Canada will stay friends with them and continue to give support to them. As far as military weapons are concerned, we have not brought in too much artillery to those countries, but we have brought them hope that we would help them in case of an attack by the eastern bloc. When I consider the military aspect, I ask the minister to study the situation of Turkey at this moment, a country which has been drained of its economic resources by a succession of wars for the past thousand years. Turkey has been fighting ever since that country existed. What has it brought? Go to that country and there is one thing that strikes you: If 10 per cent of the national defence budgets in the past had been devoted to developing the country it would not be in the economic state in which we find it today. You cannot drain a country of its resources through continual warfare. I have never known a war bring prosperity to any country; you always pay in the long run. Turkey is one country that has had its share of war and realizes it now. It does not depend on Canada for artillery, but like many other NATO countries it depends on Canada for the economic help we can supply. That has been stressed and I have noted this fact on different occasions. It came to the surface in the economic committee. I found this to be true also in the technical and educational field. These countries need the economic help of Canada and also of the United States because they are all at a low level in that field, in fact possibly more so than they are militarily.
Canada cannot do otherwise but help these people, but we need not necessarily do so with artillery. It would be too expensive for Canada to try to follow some of our allies into

the nuclear race. There is one thing that Canada has to be on guard against, that we do not find ourselves in the economic situation Turkey is in now by trying to compete, or by trying to follow along in the nuclear race which is going faster than we can follow it.
We can play a role more or less like Sweden, which is situated between Finland and Norway, is playing, by adopting a neutral attitude toward the military side of things. Mind you, the eastern bloc is possibly more concerned with Sweden being neutral than with Canada being on one side. They understand the position of Sweden and respect it just as we do. Sweden is gaining the confidence of other countries. It has the confidence of Norway, its neighbour, and it has not furnished Norway with any military equipment or nuclear arms of any kind. Sweden escaped the last two world wars and its economic situation is possibly one of the best in Europe. Canada should follow this example of not going too far, so far as military warfare is concerned, but rather emphasizing more the economic help we can give to other countries based on our natural resources and the richness of Canada's own soil.
There is another aspect I want to consider, the internal defence of Canada, with which we possibly feel more at home. The scope is not so wide. We have two kinds of internal defence to face, that of wartime and that of peacetime. I agree that we do need a defence for our country, but in saying that I must also say that we have to have a defence that we can afford. It is all very nice to say that we like the Bomarc, we like the Honest John, we like the CF-104 or the Voodoo, but by the time we get them paid for they may be obsolete. The CF-104 was a very effective weapon, but the United States has since developed other weapons which are causing the CF-104 to become more and more obsolete every day, and possibly by the time we get our CF-104's paid for they will be obsolete. They may be paid for on the one hand, but we still have the debt on the other hand.
So far as Canada's own defence on our own soil is concerned I suggest that what we need is small effective groups of well trained men with up to date, modern, highly flexible, conventional arms, something that we can afford. We think about nuclear war sometimes but I think some of the world leaders fear it more than we do because they realize the repercussions of such a war more than members of this house or ordinary Canadian citizens. Canada cannot afford a nuclear war. We cannot afford to get the military equipment necessary to fight one, so we have to get what we 28902-5-3541
Supply-National Defence can afford, mobile forces of men well equipped with conventional, up to date arms for rescue purposes and for defensive and offensive needs that may arise. If we have a nuclear war I do not know what we could do with what we have by way of nuclear arms now, so that it seems to me that rather than preparing ourselves to face a nuclear war we should prepare ourselves to face an ordinary conventional war and equip our forces accordingly.
But what about the potential of trained men we have in the country in peacetime? Are we going to have them continue to shine their buttons and march every day of the week? That is all very well in giving them their basic training, but can we not find something else for them to do that would help the country in peacetime? We could train the men in all three of our military forces to help in the case of national emergencies, regional emergencies, conflagrations, which we often have in Canada, and in the case of floods which we also have in Canada. It is true that the army already provides help. The army did so in the sorrowful event that took place when the DC-8F crashed near Montreal. The army was on the spot. But we could use more of the men in the army, navy and air force if they were also trained in that way. We could use them a great deal more. We could give our soldiers specialized training in the commercial field and in other fields. We could give them specialized trade training so that if they did come out of the armed forces they would have a specialty. If there was a war we could then recall these men with their specialties and bring them back into the forces, but in the meantime they would not be wasting their own time and the country's money.
I was looking at an article, which I am sorry I do not have with me, but which dealt with something the minister said and which I also heard about while at the NATO meetings. I refer to the suggestion of bringing all three military forces more or less under one command. The navy, the army and the air force would all be on one base working together and there would be no preferences as between one force or the other. I have heard the minister say that he would like to unify the forces and more or less assimilate them. This might be good in one sense and bad in another. I have heard both sides of the question from military men themselves. This is very suitable for basic training in peacetime. You can afford to have a little conflict, a little bit of friction, between officers in peacetime. However, when war is declared there is no time to have conflict or sparks flying between your own allies,
5560	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence between your own generals. They have to have a common goal. This is no time to have prejudice against one or the other. This is no time to say the navy is better than the army or the army is better than the air force.
It is bad in this sense, Mr. Chairman, that today the tendency is toward specialization. We have had several boat crashes on the St. Lawrence seaway, but these accidents have not been as prevalent as the ones which occur on our highways. I must say that I feel secure when I get on a boat and I know there is a naval captain in command. I feel just as secure when I get on an airplane-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A ship, please.


David Walter Groos: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: I know the hon. member was a naval captain who knew his job. I would feel secure if I were to get on a ship and he were the captain, but I would not feel so secure if he were the pilot of an airplane. There are technicians who develop skills in their own fields. If they do not develop these skills, they are not appointed to the air force, the army or the navy. We have to have specialization in machinery, in artillery in the type of warfare that is waged today. We need that specialization. I do not see how you can get specialists when you are going to combine all the forces.
Another point, Mr. Chairman, is the question of promotion. I might be an army officer and I might have a liking for my army colleagues. I see an air force officer who is eligible for promotion and who has the same rank as the army officer. You can be as honest as you want but you can also have a little bit of reconnaissance towards the one fellow. You may push the army fellow, and shortly this will be a cause of friction and the sparks are going to be flying. This is a question that has been discussed between military men themselves. Last summer we were talking to the allied forces in Europe and there was an observation made to this effect. I think the Minister of National Defence should take a little bit of time to inquire into that problem and he may revise some of his ideas on the subject. He did make these comments some time ago.
If you unify the forces, Mr. Chairman, you put everybody on the same footing. I do not see how you can apply this principle to normal human beings without having them feel that they are just a small cog in one big wheel. If we are going to have an effective defence program, we have to have every soldier, from the private to the general, feeling that he is a useful member of the army.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has listened to quite a few speeches. I hope that he will take the best out of them. If I have made any small offering, I am glad I did. However, until somebody tells me I am wrong, I will feel the same way, Mr. Chairman. Before I close, I should like to tell the minister something about national defence problems in my own region. Thetford Mines has been asking since the last war for "menage militaire". Since 1914, two regiments have gone overseas from this region. We were talking about specialization and having competent men available for our armed forces. The asbestos mine in Thetford Mines would be willing to insert a clause in the contract of their employees that all the engineers working for the mine would have to spend some time at a military base before they would be employed. In this way, you would have engineers with military training. If a mining company such as this is willing to co-operate with the government, then I think the government should give some consideration to co-operating on a request of this sort. There are young people in that region who are willing to join the armed forces of Canada but who cannot do so at the moment because the local regiment is training outside in the snow in the wintertime. If it gets too cold they clean out a garage and train there.
You cannot interest anybody in a military career by giving him a glimpse of such a situation. I would urge the minister to look into that situation and do what he can to rectify it. I urge the minister to give consideration to the establishment of a versatile military force with conventional arms. This force could be used for the protection of the country in the event of an emergency. I think we should be proud to be a member of NATO, yes, but we should help the underdeveloped countries economically. I think we would have a stronger alliance, Mr. Chairman, if we had a little understanding instead of having fear. I think the greatest deterrent force is understanding and comprehension and not necessarily military power.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to trouble the committee for a very few moments. Perhaps I might be excused having regard to the fact that the Hagersville army camp that is to be closed falls within the ambit of the riding which I have the honour to represent. In the circumstances, I feel it is my responsibility to state plainly and frankly my position in this matter. I cannot conceal from myself that I am torn between the competing demands of my constituency on the one hand and of the national economy and national defence policy on the other. I acknowledge frankly that public opinion in my constituency

is acutely alive to the implications of the minister's announcement. That announcement, I also acknowledge, will set in motion a trying train of consequences both for the riding and, if I may be permitted to say so, for myself.
I realize that in the displacement of these workers some of the older men will be forced to go into a labour market to seek job opportunities where the scale is tilted in favour of younger men. It is in that atmosphere and in the light of these competing demands that I have to weigh the government's decision.
I must state that as soon as I heard the decision I went to the minister and, in the hope that he might delay the necessity of closing the camp, I asked him frankly if there was not some purpose that the Hagersville camp in the present circumstances or in the foreseeable circumstances could usefully serve. The minister, with equal candour, advised me that this camp was no longer essential, and its closure would save the Canadian taxpayers $1.5 million annually, and those savings would not include the cost of maintenance of the physical assets of the camp.
I realize economy must be fundamental in government decisions. It would indeed be easy to shape government policy if we did not have to consider money. Mr. Chairman, it would be easy and attractive for me to be seduced by personal and parochial considerations and therefore abuse the minister with the hope of advancing personal political fortunes. But I would only be deluding myself and my constituents to the realities of the need for economy and to the shifting circumstances of our defence policy.
Every unnecessary expenditure of the tax dollar does a great injury to the country, and a very grave injury. My mind was moved and my opinion was influenced by the knowledge that the minister had sincerely, searchingly and thoroughly examined the situation with the assistance of competent staff. There are increasing demands on the government for more money for social legislation, demands that cannot go long unanswered. There are increasing demands for more money from the provinces, and for a larger share in the tax sharing revenues. In short, we must cut the coat to suit the cloth. Indeed there is a duty upon the minister to cut the coat to suit the cloth, provided of course that the coat covers the wearer.
I should also say I have personally inspected the Hagersville camp on a number of occasions, and this camp has lived in the shadow of this decision for the past two years. I trust my hon. friends across the floor will acquit me of incivility if I draw their attention to the fact that it was only last
Supply-National Defence September that the former government discharged 40 per cent of all civilian employees in the Hagersville camp. That announcement was met with silence from the supporters of that Conservative administration. I took no satisfaction from that announcement. I had occasion to discuss it then, with the associate minister of defence and I accepted his submission that he was moved by the same consideration that moves the present minister, the necessity for national economy.
In these circumstances, and with the greatest reluctance I accept the decision of the government, but I am bound to say that I hope those who are laid off will not become slaves of this policy of economy. I shall be watching with attention and critical interest to see that the government discharges its obligations to those displaced workers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand as he indicated how he was going to bear the burden that is now forced on his shoulders in his own constituency. I wish I could share his views that various alternatives suggested by the minister have had the very careful consideration which he attributes to the minister.
I agree with him that economy is essential in any operation of government. At the same time, when you are dealing with the subject of national defence you have to consider the safety of the Canadian people and the country. Money is required for a vast number of things, for welfare purposes and social security, and we know the provinces are eager for a greater share of tax revenues. All those things are well known to us, but there is an overriding necessity on the part of the government to assure first of all the safety of the country and the survival of the people of the country. Otherwise all these other things count for nought.
Consequently my examination of the proposals put forward by the minister are not restricted to the effect that may be felt in any one particular area, but rather the overall effect with regard to national defence. The fact that I remained fairly silent today is no indication that I am any more favourably disposed to the lack of policies of the present government on defence than I was yesterday, but I wanted to hear from the Associate Minister of National Defence and I wanted to see what the attitude of the Prime Minister would be today.
I asked him one or two questions on orders of the day and he rested upon the collective responsibility of the cabinet, which is normal, and consequently he accepts full responsibility for the policies, or lack of policies, now being pursued by the Minister of National

Supply-National Defence Defence. I wanted to come to the rescue of the Minister of National Defence. He is under the gun. I think the Minister of Finance has a pistol at his head and has said to him, "Now, unless I am going to be ruined again twice within 12 months, with the largest deficit in Canada's history, you must cut down."
Every minister of finance looks with a jaundiced eye at the expenditures of the Department of National Defence, but I am surprised that the Prime Minister has not supported the Minister of National Defence. Why did he not resist the pressure from the Minister of Finance, unless the Minister of National Defence is going to say that the ideas he has put before us are entirely his own? If they are, then of course he is open to even greater criticism.
Why did the Prime Minister not protect the minister and the associate minister from the ravening hand of the Minister of Finance? Of course cabinet ministers are expendable and there are other people in the Liberal party who are ready, willing and able to take over at any given moment. So, I appreciate some of the difficulties that face the Minister of National Defence, but I question again these half-baked solutions that have been put before us today.
Yesterday I heard the Minister of National Defence praise the Associate Minister of National Defence. I do not know why he would do it. We accept him in the position which he occupies, but the minister asked us to consider how hard worked the associate minister was and what a great piece of work he was doing. Then today the associate minister asked us to appreciate fully the hard work the Minister of National Defence is doing. So, they patted each other on the back, asked for our sympathy and hoped that we would understand their position. Certainly it was all completely unnecessary. Cabinet ministers have a job to perform; they do not have to be thanking each other for the assistance they receive, or patting each other on the back.
When the Associate Minister of National Defence was speaking I heard this phrase through the translation system. He said, "What we are attempting to do is a housecleaning operation". I wrote it down because it differed a bit from what the Minister of National Defence said yesterday; he said it was a housekeeping operation. If there is housecleaning to be done, I think it should start in the ministerial offices. Let us get things cleaned up there first, because they are certainly on the wrong track with the things they are doing. The Associate Minister of National Defence told us of the tremendous work that is going on: Studies in depth, he

said. There are these vast studies in depth going on. I have never been quite sure how you make a study in depth. I suppose the Minister of National Defence and the associate minister have just been skating over the surface all these years and now they have discovered that there is more to it than met their eye when they were sitting over here in opposition. At any rate, they have entered upon studies in depth and all sorts of these studies are going on. The next thing we know, they will be having week-end seminars to determine what is to be done with regard to national defence.
I think all this is a bit of nonsense, putting up a pretence that this is a tremendous problem that nobody had ever looked at before but now these bright people are really making a study in depth and are going to find out what has been happening in the Department of National Defence. Of course they had a lot to learn and I hope they are learning, but I am disappointed that the learning is not proceeding very rapidly. Then there was talk about these comprehensive surveys that are going on. The associate minister said he doubted whether there were three people in the House of Commons who understood the magnitude of the work that was being done by the Minister of National Defence in these comprehensive surveys. I thought there were more than that within the Liberal party who should be given credit for some sensibility with regard to these matters. He was not very favourably disposed to his own members.
Mr. Chairman, it is not good enough. The associate minister-I am sorry he is not here because I dislike speaking about him in his absence, but we may not be back on these estimates again-said that I was now exhorting the government to accept nuclear weapons. I have been doing no such thing at all. All I am saying to them is, get on with the job. This government said that the minute they were elected they were going to make all the necessary arrangements so that the nuclear weaponry would be available to our forces. My accusation is that eight months have gone by and they have not completed the task. I do not know what the answer is to this except a careless indifference to defence matters. If this was what should have been done-and this is what they said last year-why have they not got on with the job? There is not a thing for the Bomarcs; they are sitting there unarmed, gaping up to the sky. If an attack occurred tomorrow, nothing would happen. This is what they were saying last winter, and eight months have gone by and nothing has been done.

They said our Voodoo 'planes will not be fully effective unless they have nuclear weapons. What have they done about it? They say, "Oh, well, you have to sign a general agreement with the United States, and then a technical agreement", and apparently they have done those things; the dates were given to us, August and October. But they are postponing letting out tenders for the missile dumps because it is not the appropriate time to do it. I would be willing to wager that a year will go by before nuclear weapons are available to the Voodoos. This is the speed at which this government is moving.
Then the associate minister was talking about the air division over in Europe and there was an exchange of remarks with regard to the missile dumps. I interrupted the associate minister when he was talking about the missile dumps and asked him a question. He spoke to his mentor about it, and I jotted down what he said. The answer was: "My colleague informs me that the infrastructure that was being built was held up because of the fact that the government"-that is, the Conservative government-"had not agreed to sign any agreement with the United States". I said: "I regret that I cannot accept that statement". The Minister of National Defence said: "It is true, whether you accept it or not". Then I said: "It is not true", and he said: "Certainly it is". This was just one of those friendly exchanges across the floor of the house.
Let us examine the facts, Mr. Chairman. I think it is regrettable when any hon. member misleads the House of Commons. There is perhaps a heavier responsibility on a minister of the crown. The missile bases by the air base at Zweibrucken were under construction last winter. The contract was let by the NATO authorities. This work is being done under the infrastructure arrangement; the associate minister said so today. I saw the commencement of the construction of the missile dump at Zweibrucken in February of this year. I asked about the delay, and the answer was that the German contractor was unfamiliar with the pouring of cement in very severe winter weather-and it was a very severe winter-and there would be perhaps a six months delay in the construction of the missile dump. No agreement had been signed between Canada and the United States. Since that time the construction work has gone on. The associate minister so informed us today, and he said the work would not be completed until perhaps next spring or later. Then he disclosed the fact that the technical agreement with the United States has not yet been signed and may be signed soon.
Supply-National Defence
Where does this leave the Minister of National Defence? He said the delay in the construction of the missile dump at Zweibrucken and the other station in Germany was due to the fact that we have not signed an agreement with the United States. He has not yet signed an agreement with the United States, and the construction was under way last winter and is going on now. I say that the minister misled the house when he said this delay was due to the fact that we had not signed an agreement. Exactly as I said last winter, this was a NATO obligation. NATO headquarters had to make the arrangement. It has nothing to do with Canada at all. We do not own any territory there whatsoever. It is German territory and the agreement was with the Germans. I hope that settles this particular matter and I express the hope that the minister will not continue to mislead the house in this way.
Mr. Chairman, the importance of the subject of national defence is such that there are quite a number of things I would like to say and some answers I would like to receive with regard to this particular subject. I was disposed yesterday to move along very quickly with the estimates of this department, until I heard, examined and considered the statement made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence. I think the disturbing part of his statement, ignoring for the moment the fact that he enunciated no satisfactory over-all policy, was the announcement of the reduction in the reserve forces of Canada. That reduction will heavily hit the reserve forces of the navy, the army and the air force.
I am much more familiar with the reserve forces of the army than with the other two forces, because of 15 years experience with the militia of Canada. I know the minister does not think very much of the militia or he would not take this action. He has an impression, that is shared by other people in Canada, that the militia is an expensive operation and is ineffective. I spent 11 years between the two wars in the militia and I know the attitude. True, there was a depression at that time, but even when the depression was easing and the threat of war from Hitler was hanging over the world the government of Mackenzie King took no effective action on the militia-the non-permanent, active militia. For 11 years I was a member of that militia, but when the second world war broke out the same thing happened as had happened in the first world war: The first people to go to the colours and swear in were members of the militia. In Canada on August 31, 1939, when war was imminent,
10,000	militiamen were enrolled and were doing guard duty on the canals, railway

Supply-National Defence bridges and places which required security protection. In September, 1939 in the city of Winnipeg-and I speak of things of which I am familiar-the Fort Garry Horse, the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Camerons were enrolling their officers and men. Nearly all the officers and all the senior N.C.O.'s in those three regiments were from the militia. That is the response the militia makes in time of trouble. When the Korean war broke out in 1950 I stood in the armouries at Winnipeg when a troop from the Fort Garry Horse volunteered to serve in the composite force being drawn up by the Department of National Defence.
This business of writing off the militia of Canada completely shocks me. I wonder if these comprehensive studies in depth of the Minister of National Defence have embraced this absolute and worth-while masterpiece by Dr. Stanley of Kingston entitled: "Canada's Soldiers, 1604-1954," which gives the story of three and a half centuries of Canadian militiamen. We have a tremendous background of service to our country. The essential activity of the militia in the 18th and 19th centuries was matched again in the 20th. Why is this Minister of National Defence writing down the militia of Canada? Does he know anything about the history of our country and the history of the militia? In 1840 the militia of Upper Canada showed a strength of 248 battalions, of Lower Canada 178, all told about 230,000 men. That was mostly on paper; it was a muster which they had each year. This is what Dr. Stanley said about it in his book:
The great advantage of the old compulsory militia system was a purely moral one, the fact that It brought home to every adult male and many an adolescent youth the idea that he was by virtue of his citizenship a militiaman, to whom the country had the right to look for its defence in time of need.
What was true in 1840 is true today in 1963. Why should not everyone in this country be prepared to serve his country? What is wrong with our young men joining the militia and, as some of them do, maintain an interest in it for 20 or 30 years? It is good for them and for their country. We owe more to our country than just the ordinary civilian service, important as that is.
I say that the minister has overlooked the history of this country and has downgraded the militia, and he will destroy the morale of our militiamen. It is hard enough to keep it up; if you weaken the force it will be very hard to sustain morale. Under our regime we were attempting to enlarge the militia because the two ministers of national defence who preceded me had an understanding of the militia, and I supported them in everything they did or said about it. The present

minister does not appreciate the militia and he is ruining it. This is the annihilation of the militia of Canada. He is going to stand down, as somebody said this afternoon, four out of ten of the men serving. It means cutting out four out of ten regiments or battalions. This will have a shattering effect in community after community in Canada where people have gladly given this type of service.
Over and above that-and this is even more serious, as mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North-the training of the militia in the last few years has been toward the question of survival. And let us be realistic and practical about it; much as we deplore war and do not want to see it, we still have to be ready for every type of emergency. We have, of course, to have our strike forces and our men ready and active in the field; and you have to have reserves behind them. But in this age of nuclear war you also have to do something about civil defence or survival operations. Let the minister answer this question: What is he going to do about the 265 columns which have been prepared for civil defence organized into 66 mobile groups? In this age, when the fear overhanging the people of the world is nuclear war launched by missiles against which there is no defence, all we can look forward to is proper survival operations afterwards, and for that we are dependent on the armed forces and on the militia. Because trained, disciplined bodies of men know how to act in time of emergency. We had that situation at the time of the flood in Winnipeg in 1950 when the city was in danger of being completely under water. The people called out were the militia. People from the militia took full charge. I worked for ten nights on the dikes under the command of a major from the militia. You have to have organization, men with training to conduct operations of that nature. There are always events happening in Canada where military organization is essential to assist civilians who are ready, willing and anxious to assist but need to have some direction and some organization so that their efforts are not wasted.
This is what bothers me and it is why I asked the Prime Minister today, who has the overriding responsibility for the protection of the people of Canada-the emergency measures organization, civil defence and survival operations all come under the Prime Minister of the country, and he gets assistance from the Minister of National Defence-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not any longer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister says not any longer; there has been a shift of that to someone else. But that does not absolve the

Prime Minister from the primary responsibility. He is the person to look to, if this is what is going to happen. Has the Prime Minister agreed to this reduction in the militia? Has he agreed to cutting this organization almost in half, when its main duty in the last few years has been connected with survival operations? This is why I am so concerned over this matter. I think the militia, together with the reserve for the navy and the air force, is essential to assist the service in time of war. But we are faced with other possibilities and we must be ready for them. Unless there are trained, organized bodies of men, what are we to do? It does not matter how much training we may have had as individuals; we are just a group of civilians, a crowd, a mob, unless there are disciplined men who are able to take charge, give instructions and direct operations.
Why has the Minister of National Defence slaughtered the militia? What is he going to save? About $15 million. It is a worthy objective, to effect economies, but let us have the economies in the right place. None of us can foresee the future and we do not know exactly the nature of the holocaust which would occur in the event of a nuclear war. But we have some idea from experiences in the second world war and later, and as sensible people we have to make some provision. We are responsible for the younger generation of this country and for the children, and nothing can be done unless there is an organization. We spent many hours and days when we were the government of this country, trying to work out planned emergency measures. It is not easy, but an organization was gradually being built up. I realize there is not a great deal of public interest in many of the cities of this country with regard to this matter. But that does not absolve the government or the Minister of National Defence from taking action. It does not matter what the degree of public interest may be. There is a job to be done and it rests with the Minister of National Defence to find a means of carrying it out. Having worked this organization up to a fairly competent level the minister now proposes to cut it down and destroy it.
This is not good enough for the Canadian people and this is the most serious accusation I am making against the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister of National Defence. In their avid desire to save money here and some money there, they have forgotten the safety of the Canadian people. I should like the minister tonight to tell us he intends to review this program, to consult with his colleagues and with the Prime Minister and, perhaps, withhold this proposed 28902-5-355
Supply-National Defence destruction of the survival operations program for this country. I am quite prepared to pause at this moment and await an answer from the Minister of National Defence with regard to this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope to be able to answer some of the questions which have been raised by hon. gentlemen and then, perhaps, we might pass item one and go on to the detailed items upon which some of the other questions which members of the committee may have in their minds can be answered.
At the outset, I should like to explain the absence of the associate minister this evening. He has gone to Montreal to address the 50th anniversary dinner of the C.O.T.C. of the University of Montreal. In recognition of the brilliant service of thousands of officers who have graduated from that university to serve in our armed forces throughout the years we agreed it was right for the associate minister to fulfil that engagement. May I join in congratulations to the University of Montreal contingent?
I regret the hon. member for Villeneuve is not here but perhaps I might reply briefly to a question he raised in respect to Mr. J. A. Lavoie and his mining claim on lands at Senneterre. The property involved in these claims comprises the lands which form R.C.A.F. station Senneterre. These lands together with other properties required for defence purposes were made available to the Department of National Defence by arrangement with Mr. Duplessis, former premier of Quebec. As required, this department advised Mr. Duplessis of the land requirement at Senneterre on August 10 and on August 11, 1950. However, the provincial department of lands and forests were unaware of the recording of D.N.D. requirements and on 25 October 1950 issued a mining licence. Later, when Mr. Duplessis was informed of the double interest in the lands, he expressed the view that no difficulty would be experienced by D.N.D. as conflict would be obviated by the operation of the requirement that the mining licensee must have consent of the proprietor to go on the land.
It is interesting to observe that the subject lands had been explored and prospected for over 30 years with no active interest by any prospector until the date following D.N.D.'s survey. Further, the application for a mining licence covered precisely the land that had been delineated by D.N.D. as the site for station Senneterre, and following a reduction of the defence department's requirement for land, a similar reduction was requested in the extent of the mining licence properties.
Since 1952, Mr. Lavoie has made repeated representations to the department through

Supply-National Defence each succeeding member of parliament and through the offices of solicitors. In each instance the department has set out its position and invited Mr. Lavoie to come forward with a reasonable and practical exploratory program which could be authorized or, alternatively, to present his claim to the court for determination of its validity. Mr. Lavoie refuses or is unable to do either.
The hon. member for Vancouver East read into the record yesterday some figures with respect to NATO. I expect there was a misunderstanding involved in them and, consequently, I should like to take this opportunity to correct the record. The hon. member referred to the costs of the brigade and the air division, comprising approximately 6,500 servicemen each, as being from $350 million to $465 million in each of the last five years. The cost figures used by the member appear to be those tabled in this house but I wish to point out that they include the cost of the ships and aircraft assigned to the supreme allied commander, the expenditures for mutual aid including contributions to infrastructure and NATO budgets, as well as the costs of the brigade and the air division.
The hon. member for Calgary North wished to have some further information with reference to the closing down of R.C.A.F. station, Calgary. I regret he is not here at this moment, but I may say that the flying field at this station, is a small one, built during the second world war, which cannot be used by the Tudor jet trainer to be introduced in 1964 in place of the Harvards. It would therefore be necessary to spend several millions of dollars on a major runway reconstruction project to continue the use of this field and the inherent facilities associated with it.
As the amount of repair and overhaul business available from R.C.A.F. operations in Canada has been substantially reduced with the discontinuance of NATO aircrew training and the reduction in the number of aircraft in the air defence system, it would be uneconomic to spend large sums on this airfield to maintain a repair facility at this location. These repairs can be undertaken at considerably less overhead cost by other arrangements.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit me to ask a question? It has to do with Pen-hold. The hon. gentleman's colleague, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, said the decision as far as Penhold was concerned was final. At page 3204 of Hansard the minister gave the impression that before a decision of this nature was made the matter would be referred to the defence committee. Was the matter referred to the defence committee and were witnesses called before his colleague

made the statement today that the decision as far as Penhold is concerned is final and that ends it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would have to check the reference the hon. member has made because I am sure I gave no undertaking I would refer the matter to the defence committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the minister would allow me to put it on the record?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You can send it over and I will take a look at it later.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you really want it on the record now is the time to put on the record.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: After I have finished you can put it on the record.


Mr. Kindt:: May I ask the minister a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member mind waiting until we get down to the details and I have the officials in front of me? I can then answer these questions in greater detail.
The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) asked if we would permit former members of the naval reserve to use naval facilities if there is no expense to the crown. The question arises whether in fact this can be done within the premise as he has stated it. Presumably in order to use facilities, equipment would be required. If equipment is required certainly there would be maintenance costs involved. If maintenance is involved there are costs to the crown. However, this is an interesting suggestion and we will certainly take it under advisement and see if there is any possibility that it could be done within the terms of reference suggested.
The hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue chastened me for saying first of all that the situation with respect to the air division in Europe is not satisfactory and then not doing something about it. He says I have a responsibility to settle it and to settle it immediately. I intend to do something about it, Mr. Chairman. However, there are two considerations. First of all there is the defence committee report which I suspect may have something to say about the air division and the roles it undertakes in the defence of Europe. Second, any change in configuration in the air division requires consultation with our NATO allies. Under these circumstances it is just not possible for me to make an announcement at this time, even if that were advisable.
He also raised the question of the possible use of nuclear weapons and he gave the impression, which he said he had gleaned from his tour, that these weapons might be used

by a brigade commander and presumably without any prior political authorization. This impression must be corrected at once because it is not in accordance with the facts. I am surprised that after all that has been said about the control of the use of atomic weapons some members still seem to be in doubt about the conditions under which military plans for their use are determined. I am sure it is realized by now that American weapons which will be available for Canadian forces remain the property of the American government and their ownership is never relinquished by that government.
American law provides that only the President of the United States can release atomic weapons to the American forces or to forces of other countries which have agreed to use them in support of NATO. This decision at the highest political level is a necessary first decision before any weapons can be used.
Once this decision has been taken to release the weapons the decision to use them in NATO is made at the highest level by the supreme allied commander, Europe. This decision is conveyed downward in the case of the Canadian brigade through the northern army group to the brigade commander, and the decision to release is conveyed downward from the senior American commander in Europe through a unique American communications system to the American custodial party, who retain custody of the weapons until they receive the release authority from the President of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the President of the United States the only political authority whose consent must be secured by the chief commander of NATO?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He is the only political authority who can release the weapons for use. After he has released them, whether or not they are used depends upon other considerations and the national forces who are part of-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are the member nations to be consulted?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, they are. If I may finish the statement perhaps we could come back to that later. Before SACEUR would authorize the use of atomic weapons by forces under his command-I think this is the answer to the hon. member's question-he would require to obtain national agreement from the governments of the forces which would be ordered to use the weapons. It can be seen therefore that the impression that Canadian commanders at brigade or lower levels would on their own authority use atomic weapons just is not so. Any such false impression must have been gathered through misunderstanding of the situation.
28902-5-355!
Supply-National Defence
The hon. member for Simcoe North-I regret that he too is not here-raised the question of cadets for the army, navy and air force. In respect of cadets there are no reductions contemplated. However, with regard to the university naval training detachment, the C.O.T.C. and the U.R.T.P. reductions are contemplated. These will be of the order of approximately 50 per cent and the saving will be of the order of $1,400,000 annually. Discussions will be undertaken with the universities as to how this can best be carried out.
A question was raised in respect of search and rescue. Those activities at present carried out at Torbay will be undertaken by the unit at Summerside. This will result in providing adequate service at a considerably reduced cost. The same hon. gentleman asked why the frigates were cancelled before new programs were announced. As I explained earlier, it was necessary to give notice to end uncertainty in respect of a major program. It would have been unfair to a large number of people to have withheld this information once a decision had been taken. No doubt if it had been withheld an outcry would have taken place.
As already announced, we are doing our best to determine our future requirements to the end that new ships can be laid down just as quickly as possible and in order that we can have the best possible equipment for our armed forces. I agree with the hon. member that the emphasis at this moment should be on research in order that we can be sure of just what future requirements are.
He mentioned the NATO antisubmarine warfare research unit and I should like to say a few additional words about that. The SACLANT antisubmarine warfare research centre at La Spezia, Italy, is a NATO research establishment with a scientific staff drawn from NATO countries. This laboratory conducts research in fields of antisubmarine importance, in particular in applied physics, oceanography and operational research. Currently Canada is supplying on loan from the defence research board the leader for the operational research program. In addition, Canada is providing the chairman for the scientific committee of national representatives which advises on the research program to be pursued by this laboratory.
While talking about research I have an announcement which gives me great pleasure. I am sure hon. members will share my pleasure on reading a statement concerning the Alouette by E. M. Cortright, deputy director of the office of space science of the national aeronautics and space administration,

Supply-National Defence published in the special annual NASA issue of the magazine, Missiles and Rockets, November 25, 1963.
The statement reads:
Alouette, the Canadian swept frequency ionospheric top-sounder, has had the best test and flight record of any free world scientific satellite. After well over a year of orbital operation the system is working perfectly and has not even employed any of its redundant systems.
At this stage in the experiment, even though only a small fraction of the available data has been analysed, it is clear that a major advance in our knowledge of electron density distributions in the ionosphere has been achieved.
For your further information, the following is an operation summary for Alouette as of local noon, December 4, 1963:
Number of orbits around the earth 5,888
Number of miles travelled,	169 million
Number of commands executed	15,250
Miles of magnetic tape recordings	3,170
Requirement for spare equipments none


Douglas Mason Fisher: It sounds better than the Bobcat.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are right.
Now, I should like to deal with some of the major criticisms of my statement. The hon. member for Calgary North said I was irresponsible in proposing the changes I announced yesterday. I do not agree with this judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the most surprising statement of the session.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, I think I would have been irresponsible if I had not undertaken these changes at this time. As a matter of fact, I think some of them might have been implemented several years ago.
Let us put this matter in perspective. Approximately since 1959 the Department of National Defence has had a serious problem. Insufficient money has been available to carry out all of its tasks. Under these circumstances, there were three alternatives available. The first was to get more money from the treasury.


Mr. Nowlan:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I see one of my hon. friends, an ex-minister of finance, chuckling at that suggestion. The second one was to defer procurement and development programs. The third was to effect economies and to get a balance of forces, to provide an acceptable division of expenditures between operation and maintenance and capital programs. For national reasons, more money has not been available. There have been, as hon. members know, a series of very substantial deficits. The present Minister of Finance has stated that we will have a substantial deficit this

year, and I think it is no secret we will have another substantial deficit next year.


An hon. Member:: Carrying on your tradition.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are carrying on your tradition. Under the circumstances, it seems unrealistic to expect larger sums of money to be available for defence in the immediate future.
Now, during those years, the option that has been chosen has been the deferment of programs. As a result, we now have an accumulation, a backlog, of about $400 million worth of equipment. If this policy were continued for a few more years, we would have no equipment for our armed forces at all. We would have the best housed, best dressed and best fed but most poorly equipped force in the western world. This is obviously an untenable position. A responsible minister has no real alternative but to reverse this trend. Only in this way can we have not only the best trained but also the best equipped force in the world.
Particular exception has been taken to the reduction in the militia. I am not a historian as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is. My knowledge of the militia back to 1600 is probably not as thorough as his. I do know, however, the historic part it has played in the recent history of this country, and particularly in the first and second world wars. I do admit that in the first and second world wars, without the non-permanent active militia it would have been impossible to mobilize as we did. It was, in fact, the mobilization basis for two world wars. The situation in 1963, however, is not identical with the situation in 1939. As a matter of fact, it is about a world apart.
Our main activity now is the deterrence of war, the deterrence first of all of nuclear war, second, of a major non-nuclear war, right down through the scale to sub-limital war, insurrection and so on. Through this whole spectrum of deterrence, the greatest weapon available is forces in being. The chances of a long major war comparable to world war II, although it is a possibility, is extremely remote. Consequently, mobilization potential of the type relied on in two world wars now has a much lower priority than forces in being. The choice before us, then, is expenditure on equipment for troops in the front line versus other expenditures such as the militia.
This is the choice. In the present situation, we have a brigade group in Europe in the front line exposed to a well armoured, well equipped enemy force, without adequate equipment. We have two reserve brigades in Canada that are equipped with training

scales only. This decision taken in 1959 seems to me to be untenable. The choice, then, simply is an expenditure on the militia or on proper equipment tor our front line troops.


Edward Nasserden: Will $15 million do it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, but it would help. This $15 million would buy a lot of M-113 APC carriers. No one likes to make a decision of this nature because it is tough. Nevertheless, hard decisions have to be made. If there is any one element which seems to be lacking amongst some people in this country at the moment it is a sense of realism. If we are going to be realistic, we have to make hard decisions. Everyone applauds them in theory, but not so much in practice. We are now considering the militia on the basis of what real part it would play in a mobilization potential, and with a priority in the scale of priorities which can be applied against modern strategy.
We are also mindful of its potential role in national survival. I think it is a real consideration because notwithstanding the remote possibility of a thermonuclear holocaust, there is at least a mathematical possibility, and this risk cannot be completely ignored. It is our plan to retain sufficient strength to cope with this requirement. It will not require 265 columns, as my hon. friend has suggested. This figure was based on a target system which was completely and utterly unrealistic in present circumstances.
Finally I may say that in respect to the R.C.A.F. reserve units, they too are allied with the militia units in this survival task, and in the reorganization that will take place the target system will be taken into consideration, as will other factors. Unfortunately at present a great number of our columns are in target areas and this is a difficult problem to solve, but I am sure it will be tackled realistically by the gentleman we will ask to assist us in this task.
Finally, the official opposition critic has scolded me for not giving a statement on policy at this time. I suppose his objection, however, is nothing like as severe as it would have been if I had announced the policy now. It is not that I have not been considering policy, because I have, morning, noon and night. It is true that studies have been undertaken, studies in depth and studies in breadth as well. The matter has been given a great deal of thought and I, Mr. Chairman, along with other members of the committee do have some thoughts on this subject.
However, I have been impressed by the work of the special committee on defence. They have been diligent in their work. They have laboured in their efforts to acquaint themselves with the complexities of defence
Supply-National Defence problems and policies based on modem strategy, the differences of opinion in this important fundamental field, and where perhaps a Canadian contribution might fit into the picture. This debate has reflected the new and much higher level of understanding in respect to defence matters which has been acquired as a result of the deliberations of the committee.
I think it is well worth while, therefore, to await their report before making recommendations to the government. If any of the hon. gentlemen opposite do not agree with this point of view, I would hope that in the course of this debate they would indicate that they do not agree with it.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I say again how much I regret the period of re-adjustment and uncertainty. I doubly regret the problems posed to individuals and to families. In the broader context, however, these dislocations will pass in time. Meanwhile we will be able to fashion a policy which will not only lift morale to its highest peak but will also produce the maximum and most flexible Canadian contribution to the peace and security of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister complete his answers by telling us how long the air division in Europe will be unarmed and not ready for immediate action?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot answer that question precisely, Mr. Chairman, because as has been pointed out there are a number of factors which have to be taken into consideration, including the completion of storage facilities, the signing of the technical agreement, the state of readiness and training of the squadrons and so on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then will the minister admit his decision to disband the interceptors was militarily unsound?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was not my decision; it was that of my predecessor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I question the minister's statement with regard to that. He is now making an accusation. Are you meaning me as your predecessor, or the hon. member for Calgary North?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was not specific.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You never are. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will have to make this a question of privilege. The minister has made an accusation which he knows is untrue, and I ask him to withdraw that statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If it will please my hon. friend I will withdraw it, but may I say the decision, at least by inference, was taken some time ago because this was part of the phasing out

Supply-National Defence of the old interceptor squadrons, which was directly related to the phasing in of the new CF-104 squadrons, which has been going on for a year and a half.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, although I have a very bad cold and it is very difficult for me to talk, I would like to say a few things which I feel are very important about matters which should be brought to the attention of the Minister of National Defence at this time. Principal among them is the reduction in personnel of the army, navy and air force, which would also contain the special training at the Kitchener tender H.M.C.S.
For the past three or four years the previous government did much to improve the conditions of the militia and the Royal Canadian Navy reserves in Waterloo North. However the minister now threatens to tear down all the splendid progress made, especially by the Kitchener tender H.M.C.S.
For over 30 years the city of Kitchener has been trying to purchase the old post office building on Benton and King streets, for the purpose of widening the street at this important intersection, which has been a distinct hazard for traffic. This building has now been sold through crown assets corporation to the city of Kitchener.
In order to bring about this successful purchase the former government leased property on Victoria street, so that the Twelfth Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps and the Royal Canadian Reserve could be moved from the old post office building to this new site.
Owing to the cost of housing the Scotch Fusiliers of Canada in the Dunker building, where they have resided for many years, it was decided by the Department of National Defence that this unit and the Twelfth Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps would be moved to the new armouries on Victoria street, and the Royal Canadian Navy reserve would be stationed in new quarters at the Kaya building on Weber street, which has been done.
Through the fine efforts of such men as Commodores Piercey, Kirkpatrick, and others, the Kitchener tender has produced the highest standard of training at the lowest cost per trainee in Canada. After much hard work by this unit they recently moved into these new quarters and are greatly concerned as to the intentions of the Minister of National Defence in regard to his remarks on page 5457 of yesterday's Hansard, that the tender at Kitchener would also be closed.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a telegram I received from the former officers of the Kitchener tender which explains their great concern in the announcement made by the minister.

Kitchener tender has been housed recently in a new building leased for five years. This unit has produced the highest standard of training at the lowest cost per trainee in Canada. Other than parade pay the only item to be saved by closing this unit is the pay of one writer. Furthermore, it is considered that the spirit of the ship's company is such that the unit could maintain its present strength if parade pay were discontinued. It is urged that the Kitchener tender be permitted to continue training during the tenure of its lease and to increase its complement to the training capacity of its new quarters in order to lower further the per capita cost of training R.C.N.R. personnel.
I sincerely hope the minister will give his very serious consideration to the Kitchener tender being continued in Kitchener.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Kootenay West.


Mr. Herridge:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I have been sitting here since eleven o'clock this morning.


An hon. Member:: Since world war I.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My colleagues behind are saying "Since world war I". My remarks this evening could possibly be properly described as a speechette, because I do not wish to delay the estimates longer than necessary. However, I am interested in this subject and I do want to have the opportunity to express my view briefly. I regret I was unable to be here yesterday, owing to my attendance in the veterans affairs committee in the afternoon, and in the evening I spent two hours in the external affairs committee listening to the superbly phrased ambiguities of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was interested in listening to the minister's reply to the various speeches that have been made. I noticed that he overlooked what I considered to be one or two of the better ones, but he may have something to say about them later.
These delayed estimates and the circumstances of the present time provide an opportunity, in my opinion, for this parliament and for the government to reassess our defence posture in a rapidly changing world. I use the word "posture" because I understand it was a word used very frequently by the defence committee when they were overseas, and I want to use language that is current nowadays. During the last 15 years we have spent millions of dollars in an effort to keep in step with our powerful allies and to meet, as various ministers of national defence have informed us, our commitments. However, the records of this house-and anybody who reads the records carefully, commencing with the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the speeches in this house on that subject, will confirm this-show that we have been repeatedly

misinformed as to the results that would flow from these massive expenditures and as to the future developments as the result of these expenditures in the political, military and economic fields.
Anyone reading the back history of these debates realizes how all governments were going into the future without much knowledge of what that future would be. We must make certain allowances for the fact that we are living in a very uncertain world, but these are facts. The minister's tale, shall I say, that was told this evening again amply demonstrates that fact. I remember that just a few years ago when the minister was in the opposition he was a famous anti-nuclear weapon exponent. He has changed his views somewhat in that respect. I also remember his telling us of the magnificent progress being made with the development of the Bobcat. My colleague from Port Arthur was quite interested in and enthusiastic about that subject. We believed what we were told. Now we are told it is being scrapped after spending some $7J million on it, and we are purchasing a similar type of vehicle from the United States.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to be fair as I usually am, or try to be-except under conditions of stress-and congratulate the minister on this first attempt to reduce the expenditures by cutting out some of the duplication and the waste that has occurred in his department, waste and duplication that has cost the taxpayers, the Canadian people, so dearly throughout the years. This is a limited approach, but we congratulate him for having the courage to do this, because our knowledge of military people is that you meet with great resistance when you start to cut down the budget of any of our forces. I remember-and I have quoted it repeatedy- that distinguished minister of national defence, who now occupies a high position in British Columbia, saying on one occasion that in all his lengthy military experience he had never known an admiral, a general or an air marshal who did not ask for far more than he required. I have always approached these estimates having that in the back of my mind, and I have quoted the former minister throughout the years. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us give the minister credit for grasping a rather nasty stinging nettle when it comes to dealing with the reduction of defence expenditures, and we wish him well in all he undertakes in that direction from now on.
It is obvious that the government, faced with unexpected expenditures in connection with old age security, old age assistance, blind pensions and disabled persons allowances, began to look around to see where they could
Supply*-National Defence save some money in some department to make up for these unexpected expenditures, and to see where they could recover some of this expense. In my opinion the government correctly focused its attention on the department that offers the greatest opportunity for saving the funds necessary for socially constructive programs. We congratulate the government for that approach, and the minister for his limited economy program in this respect.
Our expenditures on defence began to rise rapidly with the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At that time we were told that while NATO, as it is called, was basically a military alliance, great benefits were expected to flow from article 2 of this treaty, which provides for co-operation in economic, cultural and other fields. I remember the present Prime Minister making a considerable to-do about article 2 of the NATO treaty. It was the sugar coating, shall
1	say, that sweetened the treaty when it was presented to parliament at that time and attracted the support of many members of parliament who were somewhat dubious as to what this treaty would mean in the days ahead.
What has been the result as far as article
2	is concerned? The result has been nil. Only last evening in the external affairs committee I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he could mention one concrete achievement under article 2. If you read the minutes of the meeting last evening you will see that the minister was unable to mention one concrete achievement. He did mention the benefits of people getting together, even though they did not accomplish anything, and discussing trade, cultural activities and things of that sort-making a social event out of it. But he was unable to mention one concrete achievement. Of course, there was nothing done, although we had the committee of the Three Wise Men, of which our Prime Minister was a member. They made recommendations, but there was nothing done with respect to the recommendations of the Three Wise Men, because as many of us suspected even in the early days, persons engaged in a military alliance and that type of operation- and I do not blame them; they specialize in one field-generals, and so on, as far as I am concerned are not usually experts on trade, cultural and other activities of that kind.
The next step was the rearmament of Germany. This was one method that would help us keep Germany on our side, we were told; otherwise the militaristic elements in Germany might get out of control. By bringing Germany into the North Atlantic Treaty

Supply-National Defence Organization we did something to support the democratic element in Germany, we were informed, and a rearmed Germany would not be permitted atomic weapons or ships or submarines above a certain size. However, all these promises have been forgotten as German demands increase with the growing German economic and military strength. This has been noticed by a good many people in Canada. Our contribution to NATO has cost the Canadian people, I think, including all the infrastructure, logistic costs and things of that sort, and buildings and transportation, approximately $400 million a year. That is a very heavy expenditure. We are told that our presence is still required for the sake of maintaining the morale of our allies. However, there is a growing dissatisfaction with this continued expenditure under present circumstances. The Canadian people know that from a military point of view the European nations can provide the same forces at one quarter the cost. This is illustrated by articles in a number of periodicals and military journals. This is, in the first instance, a wasteful way of approaching defence, from our point of view.
This dissatisfaction with our defence expenditures is not confined to members of this party. A day or two ago, according to the press, a member of the Liberal party in the Senate complained of these wasteful expenditures over the years in NATO and a member of the Progressive Conservative party suggested economies would be made by bringing our brigade home and keeping it in Canada. Not that he was suggesting that we should withdraw from NATO, but he was suggesting economies would be made by returning our brigade and other forces to Canada.
This dissatisfaction is found amongst other members of this house. The minister knows there are members on the Liberal side who are quite critical of our expenditures with respect of NATO under present circum-tances, and there are members on the official opposition side who are also critical. Anyone who has been on committees or had conversations with members of the house knows that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the value we are receiving for this type of expenditure. I know from letters and conversations I have had in the country that there are also s'-pporters of all parties in the house who are beginning to question the value of these expenditures and urging that consideration be given for the use of the same funds to greater advantage in other directions.
In my opinion now is the time to reassess our defence posture. The present situation provides the government with an excellent opportunity to review the whole program.

People of all nations realize that war is international suicide. We can have nothing to do with the multiplication of nuclear weapons. We have the two giants with enough to destroy one another in a few hours. We can have nothing to do with that role. But we can do something effectively in other fields.
In regard to this theory, that war is international suicide, I want to quote briefly from a book entitled "Defence or Retaliation" by Schmidt. I have not read the book fully but I have read passages and on page 5 I find this paragraph:
Public opinion must recognize that we are going to live less and less under the protection of H-bomb deterrence. Many military men and politicians believe that this exposure can be remedied by means of tactical nuclear weapons, but at best this proposition is not even half true. Many have yet to learn that in the event of a collision in Europe our peoples would be destroyed by tactical nuclear weapons every bit as efficiently as by strategic bombs, and that, furthermore, the fact of their existence scarcely reduces the risk of the outbreak of war at all. If Liddell Hart, one of Europe's most respected writers on strategy, can say: "These governments will be unworthy of their trust unless they tackle the problem of developing a non-suicidal form of defence and providing the minimum military strength required for it"-
The writer of the book, I understand, is the military critic of the social democratic party in Germany and the book is recognized as very well written and is accepted as an authority by many persons who understand something about this very complicated subject.
The fact is that the cold war as the way of deciding who shall have world leadership and who shall not is out of date. I think that is recognized by all who have given the subject serious consideration. It has been superseded by the emergence on the world stage in the last 15 years of over a score of new nations in Asia and Africa which neither support the east nor the west at this time. True, they have as yet little power. They are undeveloped and in many cases poverty stricken. But they are developing. They have already won considerable world influence and influence in the United Nations, and it is their future support of either the east or the west that, in my opinion, in the long run is going to determine the question of world leadership.
I think we all recognize that there still is, and will be for a long time yet, a contest between western and communist values, but in my opinion that contest from now on, in these balance of terror circumstances, will be decided not by cold war tactics but by the values that win or lose the loyalty and support of the new and presently uncommitted nations. Canada is in a very good position to exercise influence far beyond her

military potential under these circumstances which offer us such a good opportunity.
What would this amount to in practice, Mr. Chairman? Economically it would mean our diverting that part of our military expenditure now required to keep our forces in Europe into uses such as social construction at home, and secondly as expenditures of foreign aid for the underdeveloped countries. It could also be diverted into manpower, as mentioned by one of my colleagues who is affectionately referred to by some of the ladies who sit in the gallery of the house and others as the Bertrand Russell of the House of Commons, namely the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands. I thought he made an excellent speech yesterday on this question, but the minister did not even make reference to his suggestions. I thought he made an excellent suggestion regarding the transposition of the use of manpower, taking advantage of the military training, the youth and knowledge of discipline of these men so as to utilize them in the field of assisting the underdeveloped countries. From a military point of view it would mean that we use our reduced establishment for home defence and civil defence and the protection of our population to the best advantage under the circumstances. Second, we would provide for the necessary air and sea patrols around our coast, and third we would provide for the maintenance of a highly trained mobile force with the necessary transport for use when required or called upon by the United Nations.
Politically, Mr. Chairman, what would this mean? It would mean a revamping of our foreign policy; a policy which would emphasize that the basic world problem is not the cold war-which we are inclined to overemphasize at this time-with an increase in nuclear weapons. We require a policy which underlines that the issue today is the future relationship between the rich and the poor nations and the need for some leadership on our part. In my opinion such policy takes time to develop; even some of the Liberal members agree with that. The only difference is that they were about 10 years behind us in their thinking, but you could see that subconsciously they were leaning in our direction, although the tempo of thought was somewhat slower. Such a policy is realistic from a Canadian point of view and provides Canada with the opportunity to set an example to the many nations who look to us for leadership in blazing new pathways to peace, which will gradually recognize the fact that the cold war is not an issue as far as we are concerned. It is the association with these underdeveloped nations
Supply-National Defence and giving leadership to these nations that we could welcome.
Later on in the session I look forward to hearing the minister's statement on defence policy. I urge him to make a short step in the right direction. He has shown courage in clipping the wings of some of these wasters and I do hope that after listening to some of our arguments he will take another step in the direction we propose.


Mr.   Kindi@: It is always worth while to put things in their proper perspective. Taking the total amount of the cuts made in the military budget and dividing it into $1.6 billions which are, roughly, spent on defence, it amounts to about 4 per cent. Is that what the figure comes out at?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Close enough for argumentative purposes.


Mr.   Kindi@: Close enough for our purposes. In other words the minister is attempting to cut the budget by 4 per cent. Well, it is a move in the right direction, but I think the newspaper articles and the publicity which has appeared have distorted this matter out of its proper proportion. I know these cuts have hit us worse in Alberta than elsewhere and we are not happy about them. I want to say to those who are smiling over there, and who seem to be getting some pleasure out of it, that if they had been hit as badly as we have in Alberta they would be smiling out of the other corner of their mouths.
The minister said McCall flying field would be closed. May I ask him what is to follow the closing down of this field in Calgary? Is it to be sold? I understand it is to be sold. These are matters which the minister ought to have at his fingertips. He must have known when he gave the order to close that airfield what would follow and what would be done with it. Is he going to put it under the auctioneer's hammer? Will he get the Minister of Agriculture to auction it off? Perhaps he should get the Minister of Agriculture to auction it, because he does not spend much time in the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There may be a certain amount of negotiation required. The department may wish to continue to use some of the buildings. It could be that another department of government has an interest there. I have heard that the city of Calgary is interested. We will probably negotiate with the interested parties to see what the best solution might be.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Is there any thought of adding to the length of any of the runways at McCall field?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman.

Supply-National Defence


Mr.   Kindi@: I turn, now, to one other point, my last, because I do not wish to delay the passage of these estimates. It has to do with the contract which was signed with the United States in connection with the acquisition of atomic warheads. That contract, I understand, was completed last August or October. May I say to the hon. member who is sitting beside the minister that I should like to have the minister's attention. I am about to ask some serious questions. This means a contract has been signed and licenses have been issued by the United States government. In other words, the deal has been buttoned up and it is just a question of getting the warheads. Am I right in that? I think the Canadian people have a right to know these things.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. gentleman mind telling me which agreement in particular he was referring to?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Under the McMahon act, the United States atomic energy act, it is provided that a licence signed by the President or some high official in the United States government must be obtained and that the acceptance of nuclear warheads is subject to certain conditions. The President reserves the right to pull the trigger. Let us look at this situation in another way. Have the military authorities completed the signing of that declaration with the authorities in Washington?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not as familiar with the act mentioned by the hon. member as I might be, but I do know that the two steps which are required to take in connection with our North American defence arrangements, the Voodoo and the Bomarc, have been taken. The first was the general agreement which was signed in August, as was stated earlier this evening, and then there was the technical agreement which I believe was signed in October. These steps have been taken and all the technical requirements necessary to meet the provisions of the McMahon act are included in those two agreements.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: In other words, it is all buttoned up. Now, where does Canada stand, as far as its sovereignty is concerned, in the event of an atomic war? The people of Canada are asking about this and they are looking to the minister to give them this information. Where does our sovereignty rest, now that these declarations have been signed and nuclear warheads have been taken from the United States?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As far as the use of the weapons system is concerned, our sovereignty remains with us.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I did not get that last.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Sovereignty remains with us in respect to the use of the weapons system.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: All right. In other words, what the minister is saying is this. Let us approach it from another direction. The late President Kennedy sent a man to go around to the various NATO countries to obtain agreement on setting up committees on some kind of joint action before nuclear weapons were to be used, so that he as president would not have to shoulder the entire responsibility for making the decision. Those negotiations have been going on for some time. Could the minister tell the committee what progress has been made and where we stand with respect to that joint declaration, should we be faced with entering a nuclear war?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think answers to most of the hon. gentleman's questions are included in reports of the special committee on defence. Since he is so interested in this subject perhaps he would find it worth while to read those reports and get the full background of information which is available in them.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I know about that. It is all well and good for the minister to try to evade the issue, but the people of Canada are looking to him for a clear statement as to where our sovereignty lies in the present circumstances.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to give an example to show where our sovereignty stands and I hope this will satisfy the hon. gentleman because-


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: That is what I am asking for.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -at first I thought he was quite familiar with the McMahon act, but now there appears to be some area of misunderstanding. The following statement applies to the Bomarc system. First, custody: The exercise of custody is a United States air force responsibility. This includes control over access to the nuclear warheads and related classified materials.
Base security: The security of all base facilities, consistent with the custodial responsibility of the United States air force detachment commander, is assigned to the R.C.A.F. squadron commander. All security guards on the base are R.C.A.F. The United States air force have the only custodial personnel and control access to U.S.A.F. owned weapons or non-releasable materials.
Storage: The storage functions of the warheads will be performed jointly under the direction of the United States air force personnel. The storage requirement is in fact very small because the warheads will normally be mated to the missiles.

Maintenance: All maintenance functions on the warheads are the sole responsibility of United States personnel. Other maintenance responsibilities, that is, on missiles, launchers or shelters, are either an R.C.A.F. or joint responsibility.
Safety: The development, observance and enforcement of safety standards and procedures is a joint responsibility. Compliance with applicable Canadian laws and regulations on the one hand and United States nuclear safety rules on the other, is an absolute requirement.
Inspections: After all preliminary inspections have been completed and the warheads have been delivered further inspections will be carried out at prescribed intervals. As a matter of convenience, United States air force standards and procedures for these inspections are being adopted. However, any additional Canadian requirement can be included. Actual inspections will be conducted on a joint basis.
Authorization for use: In general terms the policy is that Bomarcs may be fired only when authorized by both governments and then only in accordance with procedures established by the commander in chief, NORAD, and approved by the appropriate Canadian and United States authorities. Specifically, in the Bomarc control circuitry at the SAGE direction centre there are two locked switches, both of which must be turned "on" before a Bomarc can be launched. The keys to these two switches are held at all times by a designated Canadian officer and a designated United States officer respectively.
Actions that must have been taken before the Bomarc can be fired are: First, the commander in chief, NORAD, must have been notified that the President of the United States has authorized the release of weapons from United States custody for use by Canadian forces assigned to NORAD. Second, the commander in chief, NORAD, must also have received authorization from the Prime Minister or his authorized representative to release weapon carriers for use by Canadian forces assigned to NORAD. Third, the United States custodial officer on duty in the SAGE direction centre must have received properly authenticated evidence that United States governmental release has been given. He would thereupon unlock the United States release switch.
Fourth, the designated Canadian officer on duty in the SAGE direction centre must also have received properly authenticated evidence that Canadian governmental release has been given. He would thereupon unlock the second release switch.
Supply-National Defence
Fifth, at this point the weapon would be available for firing but still would not be fired until the SAGE sector commander had authorized the senior weapons director to commence using the Bomarcs against hostile targets.
So you can see that once the supreme political authorities have given authorization, a considerable sequence of events must occur before the weapon can be used. A number of people are involved and certain preconditions must exist. Then the two keys, one American and one Canadian, must be turned before a missile can be fired. This procedure, with its many checks and doublechecks, is designed to prevent missile firing by accident or malice or without the consent of both governments.


Mr.   Kindi@: Is there any estimate of the time interval between the decision of the political authorities of both governments and the actual firing?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: None that I could give, and it would depend on a number of circumstances, including the proximity of the hostile aircraft.


Mr.   Kindi@: I thank the minister for having taken the time to give us these details. It is spelled out in the agreement between the two nations, is it, that the leaders of both governments must decide?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is spelled out in the procedures.


Mr.   Kindi@: Is that binding on both nations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, it is.


Mr.   Kindi@: That is what we want to know. I want to thank the minister for having answered my questions and I shall turn the floor back to the chairman so that we can get on with the estimates.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two matters I should like to bring before the committee this evening in relation to the remarks the minister made yesterday and I also have one or two questions I should like to ask him. I had intended that my remarks would be mostly of a constituency nature in relation to the announcement of the withdrawal of all armed forces from Fort Churchill. However, keeping in mind the unjustified attack which I felt was made on the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria yesterday merely for coming to the defence of his own constituency, I suppose I should make a few remarks on the general aspects of national defence.
I feel there is probably no better time than the closing days of this first session of the twenty sixth parliament to mention one or two of the issues which were current during

Supply-National Defence the last federal general election. While it is not my intention to rehash those issues I believe this would be a good time to put a few remarks with regard to them on the record. First of all, I am sure all Canadians realize by this time that the Liberal party perpetrated the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated in a general election when they created the myth that the former government had made certain commitments in regard to the acquisition of nuclear warheads. I feel that possibly the issue they raised in that regard in the campaign resulted in some of them being returned to the House of Commons. However, I also believe that as a result those Canadians who supported them must have expected that as soon as they took over the reins of office they would produce the evidence to show that the statements they had made were correct. But we all know what we have seen. Instead of producing any evidence the present government has built a sort of airtight capsule around what they say was the evidence of commitments. They set up a defence committee, but it was made quite apparent that the terms of reference of that committee would not include this question of commitment. In fact, there was a request made for copies of correspondence relating to these commitments, and some of the men who are sitting on the treasury benches made it quite clear that the correspondence concerning these commitments was regarded as classified and could not be given to the House of Commons. I believe I am justified in assuming that the people who supported these candidates are now wondering, if this information was so classified, how in heaven's name it was that practically every Liberal candidate in Canada seemed to know this commitment had been made. I am bringing this to the attention of the committee merely because during my own campaign I mentioned to my constituents that I thought the day was not too far removed when these charges would be proven to be the myth that they are.
There is one other minor issue of much the same nature that came up during the campaign. A great deal was made of it, and in fact some newspapers in Canada carried headlines relating to the charge made by the present Minister of National Defence to the effect that the former prime minister had given out confidential or classified information during a speech at Prince Albert. As I say, I am bringing this up now because headlines were created. It was not long before the former prime minister proved that this was not the case. The information he had given out at this meeting had been carried in


publications in North America many months before. Here, we have a situation in which charges are being made that classified information was given out, and those charges are being made by a man who is now the Minister of National Defence. This person should be the last one to charge anyone with giving out classified information. As I say, it was a false charge, but if one turns to page 3425 of Hansard for February 4, 1963, he finds the present minister, then the hon. member for Trinity, when discussing some aspects of a trip the NATO delegation made to Europe, using these words:
We were interviewed by the supreme allied commander of allied forces in Europe. We were briefed by Admiral Smeeton. deputy commander of the Atlantic fleet, by General Calmel deputy chief of staff of supreme allied headquarters.. .A number of questions have been asked as to what our commitments to NATO are. I realize that this information is presumably classified, but I could never understand why it was, so I am going to take the responsibility tonight of saying what they are.
Then, he went on to state the information which apparently was given to the NATO delegation. If one can judge by the words the minister used, it was classified information.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the hon. member would just let me interrupt for a moment to correct that impression? I had been aware of the commitments from the time I was associate minister, and as a minister you are able to classify or declassify certain information. It was on that basis I took the responsibility for making these commitments known, as I believed they were known to everyone in the world, practically, except the Canadian people, and I thought it was time they were allowed to be in on that information. Since then, they have been referred to publicly in the special committee on defence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I say, with regard to that, the minister as a minister is not entitled to disclose classified information which has been classified by NATO headquarters? We were given information of that nature in Paris just a few weeks ago, but we are not at liberty to disclose it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is my point, Mr. Chairman; it was not information which I had received over there. It was information which, in fact, had been available to me for many years and which I thought should be given to the public.


Robert Simpson: I noted carefully the remarks of the minister at this time, Mr. Chairman, and I am merely putting this on the record because at that time we were led to believe this was information which should not have been given to the public. I am particularly concerned about the minister's remarks at that

time. He said he realized that this information was presumably classified, but he could never understand why it was. If you were to look up the word "presumably" I believe it would indicate he believed it to be classified.
Be that as it may, I felt I should like to get these two points on the record during these closing days of the first session of the twenty sixth parliament because I firmly believe these were two misrepresentations during the last election.
I should like to deal very briefly with the announcement which the minister made yesterday concerning the withdrawal of armed personnel from Fort Churchill. First of all, I should like to tell the minister it is my understanding that the people of Manitoba have been completely shocked by this news and for very good reasons. I noticed that the minister stated that the government was making this announcement at this time in order to give maximum notice to the personnel and allow for readjustment. This is a very worthy objective. I do not intend to indicate that any announcement was made previously outside of this house in relation to the closing of Fort Churchill, but I do feel it was common knowledge in the town of Churchill for many months, I believe as far back as October 14, that this might happen. At that time, as a result of numerous telephone calls and telegrams from Churchill concerning the rumour, I inquired of the minister who told me at that time that they had plans for the withdrawal of forces. However, quite a number of people must have known about it. I am wondering why it was not possible, if the government wished to give maximum notice to the people, to make this announcement in October instead of leaving it until now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is ten thirty.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are prepared to go on for another half hour if the committee is agreeable, to see what we can do with these estimates.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This would be very much appreciated in the circumstances, if it is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we are asked to continue another half hour tonight, I think we should find out, if we can, whether or not we will conclude the debate on item 1. I do not think we gained anything by the extra half hour we sat last night, and I do not want a repeat performance of what we had then, but if we can complete the debate on item 1 in half an hour I would not object. I should like to make it clear that one member of this group, the hon. member for Port Arthur, wishes to speak.
Supply-National Defence


Mr.   Palterson@: I would agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, if there is a possibility of getting through with the first item, but if the debate is to continue next week there is no point in it.


Mr. McIntosh:: May I say a word on that. If we are on item 1 of the estimates as we have them before us, I would point out I notice a headline in the paper tonight, "Hellyer reveals massive slash in defence setup-more cuts coming." Could the minister provide us now with the revised estimates? I have all the estimates that are available, but there is nothing about any change in the estimates before us. How can we intelligently study these, if these are not the estimates we are going to be working on?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I explained yesterday, referring to the cuts, they apply to the following year's estimates, and the reason the announcement was made yesterday was so that the affected people would have the maximum amount of notice in order to make the arrangements that are an inevitable consequence of the announcement. For that reason I would hope hon. gentlemen would agree to sit for a half hour and pass item 1 at least, and maybe even the balance, because the NATO ministerial meeting is coming up in a few days and I will be leaving next week to attend it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make a specific suggestion. To save this kind of argument, may I suggest we sit until eleven o'clock or until item 1 is passed, whichever comes first.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have another suggestion to make. We would have been prepared to pass all these estimates tonight had it not been for the unsatisfactory answer which the minister gave with regard to a question concerning the militia and the problem of civil defence. My alternative suggestion is that we now pass all the items, except item 1, and give the minister an opportunity to reconsider the situation, return to the house on an appropriate occasion and give us an explanation as to civil defence, which he has so seriously curtailed by his cutting down of the militia. That is the alternative proposal I put before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My proposal was made first Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is very difficult to ascertain what the desire of the committee is. There are two suggestions that have been made, one by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and one by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Perhaps it might be easier to meet the requirements of the

Supply-National Defence first suggestion, the one made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if that were the wish of the committee. That is the suggestion to sit until eleven o'clock or until item 1 has been passed. I am trying to ascertain the wish of the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might reconsider. I am suggesting we stand item 1 and pass the others, and then get the answer to the question which I have been asking. Otherwise I do not see it possible to pass item 1, and frankly I would like to get all these estimates through.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If there is not any thought of completing the estimates tonight, and this is just a matter of postponing one and going on with all the others, I do not think there is any particular point in doing that. If we could have some assurance we could wind it up by eleven o'clock then I think everyone would be agreeable to that. Otherwise I do not think we could.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 think it seems to be the consensus that we could pass all or most of the items tonight. That would be very helpful and would be appreciated. I would hope we would proceed on that basis. In respect to the civil defence aspect, what I would undertake to do if the committee would agree to pass the estimates tonight, is to prepare an additional statement, to be considered by the house at the time the emergency measures organization estimates are before it, and then the question of civil defence can be discussed in greater detail in all its aspects.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the face of it, that sounds all right, except for the fact that the minister has to explain to the house why the militia is going to be so seriously curtailed; and the militia is concerned with the problem of civil defence. I suggest that item 1 be left open and that we pass the others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I find that the alternative suggestion made by my friend from the other side of Ellice avenue is not acceptable. The first item is for $3 million. All the other items which we are asked to pass without discussion would add up to $1,500,000,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is sophistry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it would be highly irresponsible to pass all these other items with no discussion of them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nine twelfths of these estimates have already been appropriated under interim supply. What the hon. member is saying is just nonsense.
[The Chairman.]


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest we allow the hon. member for Churchill to conclude his remarks.


Robert Simpson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to thank the committee for allowing me to continue. Returning to the very surprising announcement of the withdrawal of army personnel from Fort Churchill I wish to say I am sure all the people at Churchill, and the people of Manitoba in general, would be very appreciative if a reconsideration were made. There are several points which I am going to bring out.
The hon. member for Calgary North brought out the point of the value that Churchill has been in relation to Arctic training, and I believe it could also be used for training in survival for R.C.A.F. and other personnel.
Due to the geographical makeup of our country I suggest that if we are going to develop it in the way it should be developed, we must decentralize in many ways. It is often very difficult to get industry to decentralize; but in regard to national defence this is something where the government alone has the power, and I feel the obligation, to decentralize as much as possible and assist in the development of the country.
At the townsite of Churchill, as members of the treasury benches probably know, the population have made their homes there entirely as a result of federal government establishments. For instance, the armed forces have the only hospital within several hundred miles. Therefore they have the only doctors and nurses in that area. I am mightily concerned for the health needs of the people of that area if the camp at Fort Churchill is closed, and possibly the hospital along with it. There are many other reasons for taking a second look at this. It may be that relatively the same work which is carried out at Churchill may continue to be carried out in some other more populated area of Canada. Therefore if this is going to be the case I think reconsideration should be given to the army camp at Churchill.
The minister mentioned that the rocket range would continue to operate. I wonder, could he enlighten the committee as to what type of agreement Canada has with the United States government in relation to the maintenance of that rocket base, in regard to the length of contract, and in general how long does the government feel this rocket range will continue to operate? With regard to the minister's announcement that this withdrawal would take place in 1964, my information from Churchill is to the effect that the withdrawal has been under way for some time and some 60 army personnel have been withdrawn and not replaced. Therefore I suppose

the withdrawal took place some time prior to the announcement the minister made in the house.
I would also like to know the intention of the government with relation to the operation of the marine terminal at Churchill, which was built at a cost of some $7 million. The instructions for the construction of this marine terminal were given by a former Liberal government and I would be interested to know whether it can be turned over to other government departments; in other words, will this marine terminal continue to be used? I was very pleased to hear the minister announce this evening that cadet units would not be affected by this announcement. I am wondering whether he would consider it possible if cuts are made in certain departments of the army, to allow these cadet units, such as the naval, air force and army cadets, to have greater use of armouries throughout the country.
The minister also said something about air search and rescue, I believe, in Prince Edward Island. I would be very interested to learn from him whether it is intended to curtail R.C.A.F. air search and rescue to any extent in western Canada. I do not think this question has yet been raised. If I can get answers from the minister to those questions, Mr. Chairman, and an assurance that some reconsideration will be given to the matter of the withdrawal of all army personnel from Churchill, I would greatly appreciate it and I am sure the people of Manitoba would also.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With respect to the rocket range, Mr. Chairman, it is anticipated that it will be kept open during the term of the agreement, which I think extends to 1965. It is likely that it will be continued beyond that, but possibly by a civilian agency, and this is something that will be subject to negotiation.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I have only a very minor question to ask the minister and it relates to the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I wonder whether the minister has the figures of the present militia in these 15 centres that I will name: Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Moncton, Halifax, Sydney, and Swift Current, Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: How did that get in there?


John (Jack) McIntosh: My reason for asking for these figures is that I understand the minister said the present strength of the militia
Supply-National Defence is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 51,000 men and the intention is to cut it down to
20,000	men.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thirty thousand.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thirty thousand-cut it
down by 20,000 men. Our concern is, first of all, as to where this cut-back is going to take place. Will it take place in these centres, or in the rural areas? I am also concerned about the relationship of the militia to the civil defence role. That role has changed. The minister also said he had two choices to make, with which I do not agree. He said, first of all, he had the choice of cutting down the militia or giving our first-line troops adequate weapons. If this is what he bases his cut-back on, I would say it is a false premise, because there are many other choices. It is not necessary to go into them at the present time because I doubt very much if this discussion will be over by eleven o'clock tonight. We are concerned with the role of the militia. We are concerned with the program of civil defence and with the emergency measures organization. I think if the minister would clear up these points he would have no difficulty in getting his estimates through the house.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Port Arthur.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Would the minister answer my questions?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the figures for those cities here. I will be glad to get them for my hon. friend, probably tomorrow, if he is still in the city.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will be here.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I have indicated, these cuts do not apply to the militia for this year's estimates; they apply to next year. The determination will be made by a commission of militiamen which will be put together for that purpose. They will take into account the various factors, including the role of the militia, and particularly civil survival and how this could best be carried out, and all of the other considerations. I am sure they will be able to arrive at a solution in respect of these matters.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the hon. member for Lotbiniere to make his speech. I understand he had a little homily to make about the soldiers of the Queen, and I was ready to prevent his having a go. My original plans have gone by the board in view of the late hour. I wanted to talk about two specific matters. I suppose I spent too much time on kitchen fatigue during the war to ever feel I should rise to a sort of

Supply-National Defence summit to approach defence problems from the heights from which the Minister of National Defence approaches them. I was going to confine my remarks to two things, the Bobcat and the educational program of the Department of National Defence. Instead of making a speech I will just ask the minister some questions.
I want to know how we could have such a dunderhead, clotted-up, stupid line of development with relation to the Bobcat. I use those adjectives of invective because I cannot conceive how any Department of National Defence or any Department of Defence Production with any integrity or any ability could manage to botch a program the way this program has been botched. You can go back through the years 1959, 1960 and before, and little statements were made, "We need another $1 million for the Bobcat", "We need another $600,000 for the Bobcat", "We need another $200,000 for the Bobcat development". Obviously either the army did not give a damn about that Bobcat, or the government did not give a damn about it, or Canadian Car and Foundry did not. The reason I am a little incensed about this is that our community at the lakehead was "suckered" on this deal: That is the word, "suckered". We were told four years ago that in 18 months the development program would be through and our factory would be considered as the place where the thing would go into production.
The Bobcat became a joke a long time ago in our community. We were under no illusions that anything was ever going to come of it. But the joke still exists. The minister has to give us some satisfactory explanation. He almost stood up here as though he was a hero when talking about cutting out the Bobcat. God, some hero. He has arrived well after the last act curtain has come down. How about it? How about knowing, Mr. Chairman, what is the real story on this ridiculous situation? I can remember that when Mr. Pearkes was the minister of national defence I went to knock at his door to speak to him about an important problem in my constituency. I went in. He was walking up and down. He said, "Fisher, I am just bogged down with problems-the damned Bobcat, the Bomarc, and so on. What do you want to see me about?" I said, "I have some ladies putting out washing on Monday mornings near the armouries at Port Arthur, and they want them to burn hard coal". I always remember his reaction. He said, "That's the kind of problem I like to deal with". And, by jove, they started burning hard coal. I wish some of these brains we have in the department had done something about the Bobcat. What a pitiful tale it has

been throughout the years. I hear someone say it has not got a tail, but I want the t-a-l-e from the minister now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is a long, sad tale. To reduce it to one sentence it is: Two successive governments, treasury board, changes in ownership and problems of private management as well.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Reduced to one sentence it is still not very satisfactory. What do we get out of all that money spent? What conclusions are we to draw about the military which can conceive a program like this and fumble it along? I want to ask the minister whether the army really felt any urgency about having that particular carrier. That is a direct question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I would say categorically the army did have a feeling toward it and I think it still does. I think they realize now the only solution is the one we have taken. The concept was excellent. The failure was in the execution, and rather than point the finger at any one group it has to be summed up the way I summed it up in that sentence. It fell to a series of misfortunes.
The hon. member asked what lessons can be learned. One of the great lessons which can be learned from this experiment is that when you have a good idea, if the people concerned can push it through for all they are worth until it is completed in that way, there is some chance for success. But to string it out and procrastinate and spread the development over a longer period, for whatever reason, it almost inevitably winds up the way the Avro Arrow wound up or the Bobcat wound up. That is the lesson which has been learned.
Part of the problem is the system. The decision-making system is too slow and cumbersome; too many committees, too many reviews, some by people who do not have direct responsibility. A lesson can be learned in that respect too, I can assure my hon. friend. So far as possible we will push any developmental work which we undertake so as to get production started before the people who take away the same idea from us overtake us in their decision-making process and beat us to the finished product.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why should not some heads roll over this? A few years ago heads were threatening to roll over a five minute broadcast in the morning on the C.B.C. Here millions of dollars has been wasted. We have had this cumbersome procedure. Surely someone is responsible. Surely some minister, some politician, some senior administrative

officer is responsible for this haywire situation. Where was the great defence research board establishment during this time? I have gone through the estimates and seen the details of the big salaries paid these scientists. They have a library full of classified material. They put out a beautiful magazine called 'The Canadian Army" and you get the impression our army is swimming in experts on almost every phase of modern gadgetry in war. Yet the minister says this is an unfortunate thing and shows a weakness. At least the Avro people got the thing in the air and it looked good. It makes a nice model on the mantle. I do not know why there has been no investigation, instead of running off to find some horses who are on the payroll at Camp Petawawa. We have spent millions of dollars and swaggered and blustered about our own Canadian vehicle, and look at the lamentable result. What a travesty of defence. I am glad I stayed mostly on kitchen fatigue, if that is the kind of thing our military men come up with. What an outfit.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do not condemn them all. That is a generalization.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know it is, but the hon. member has to admit it is a pretty ridiculous situation in regard to the Bobcat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Of course it is.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member and I were of the same regiment and he remembers we wound up with a vehicle not designed for us, and it turned out very well. It was something thrown off by the Americans called the Stag-hound armoured car. The Canadian forces got it by luck and it turned out quite well. The minister has not given us any satisfaction in his announcement regarding the very relevant criticisms and analyses made by the Glassco commission of education establishments in the Department of National Defence. I am referring to the millions of dollars spent in the education of dependants overseas and in particular colleges. Tonight he comes along with a statement which flies in the face of what the Glassco commission says, and what is obvious from the statistics in relation to the cost of training an officer. He is going to cut down on the university training program for officers.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think you have the two programs confused.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the minister cutting down on Royal Roads and on C.M.R. and R.M.C.?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No. There are two training programs at universities, the C.O.T.C. and also the R.O.T.P. It is the C.O.T.C. we are cutting back on.
Supply-National Defence


Douglas Mason Fisher: As long as it is not the R.O.T.P.
I think the minister should explain why he has not done anything about these educational costs and why he has gone in the face of the information on Royal Roads. One of the things which interests me is that in 1959 I had a letter from a person on the staff of Royal Roads giving exactly the same information and reaching the same conclusions. The Glassco commission reported that this junior college at Royal Roads is in effect redundant, and not only that but that it could never really be anything but a gross misconception of the university function because it is a junior college built up of a staff pushing for Ph.D's. The staff is very well qualified academically, yet does not live in an environment where they can exercise skill.


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member says eleven o'clock. I want to ask the minister whether he would give us a fuller explanation as to why he did not accept the Glassco commission recommendations that something should be done, if necessary putting some of the responsibility for the cost on the parents. Second, how could he not move on the position of the high cost of the officer educated through the Royal Roads-C.M.R.-R.M.C. system, when the Glassco commission suggested that the R.O.T.P. produces as good an officer or as comparable an officer and much more cheaply?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a broad and comprehensive question and I should like to give time and thought to preparing a statement with regard to it. I should like to take the time between now and the presentation of next year's estimates, for which I shall be taking full responsibility, to prepare such a statement answering the hon. member in detail.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was given returns to two questions relating to the ability of French speaking as opposed to English speaking students. I have forgotten the numbers of the questions. I am not satisfied from these returns that the French speaking students are getting a fair deal. In brief, I think their failure rate is too high. Attrition from other causes is too high. I am still staggered by the fact that though, in the main, English speaking students at C.M.R. outnumber the French speaking students I should like the minister, when he is conducting this review and trying to develop an approach to the educational commitments of the department, to consider, if we are making an effort to have French
5582	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence speaking officers, whether it is not necessary for us to get better results than we have been getting. If necessary, we must spend a lot more time and effort in doing so. I would prefer to spend more money in this field than to carry on with Royal Roads out in British Columbia, which in a sense, appears to be an unnecessary adjunct to the military college at Kingston.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry. We are prepared to pass all the other items, but stand the first item. Let the minister come back and give us, after reflection, another report with regard to the militia and its relationship to civil defence.


Mr. MacNaughl:: I suggest we stand item 1 and call the other items.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that the wish of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item 1 stands.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
35. Operation and maintenance, $523,121,000.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, before item No. 35 is carried, may I ask the Minister of National Defence a very brief question-


John Watson MacNaught: Put it on clause 1.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Defence research board-
45. Operation and maintenance, $25,416,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: We would like this item to stand. Perhaps we have done a good night's work.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed we allow item 45 to stand and go on with the others?


Alexander Bell Patterson: I think we have gone as far as we ought to go tonight. I know some would like to carry on, but they are the ones who have been taking a great deal of time during this debate. Therefore, I think we should call it eleven o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the acting leader of the house what the business will be for Monday?


John Watson MacNaught: On Monday, the first item of government business will be the resolution respecting the representation commissioner. If it passes and the bill is introduced, it is not proposed to proceed with the bill until the following Monday. The second item will be the resolution regarding finances of the C.N.R. and if it passes it is not proposed to proceed with the bill until the following week. The third item will be the bill respecting the emergency gold mining assistance. The fourth item will be the bill respecting the small businesses loans. The fifth item will be the bill respecting the Canadian world exhibition. The sixth item will be the bill regarding old age, blind persons and disability assistance. The seventh item will be the bill respecting the auditors of the C.N.R. The eighth item will be the bill respecting the currency, mint and exchange fund.
The same business will be continued on Tuesday in this order and, if it is completed, other items of legislation announced by the Prime Minister will be taken after consultation with representatives of the opposition.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Inspection services-
5. Operation and maintenance, $6,936,000.
10. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and	equipment, $200,000.
Royal Canadian Navy-
15. Operation and maintenance, $210,680,000.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $80,720,000.
Canadian Army-
25. Operation and maintenance, $386,579,000.
30. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and major equipment, $58,275,000.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
35. Operation and maintenance, $523,121,000.
40. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and major equipment, $168,679,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 9, 1963