1963-06-04

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the house on the law of the sea, a subject of considerable importance in international affairs and of particular significance for Canada, the seventh largest fishing nation in the world and the fourth largest trading nation, possessing the world's longest coastlines.
Traditionally the breadth of the territorial sea has been three nautical miles, but the Canadian view has long been that a breadth of three miles is not adequate for all purposes. It was on December 7, 1956 that a Canadian representative put forward at a meeting of the sixth committee of the United Nations the proposal, which later came to be known at Geneva as the Canadian proposal, of a contiguous fishing zone beyond the three mile territorial sea which would extend to a limit of 12 miles.
In the light of the failure of efforts to bring about an agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea and the contiguous fishing zone, the government has decided, after careful deliberation, that the time has come to take firm action to protect Canada's fishing industry. It is well known that foreign fishing operations off Canada's east coast, which have increased enormously over the past five years, are not only depleting our offshore fisheries resources but are posing other problems. There are indications also that Canada's west coast fisheries may soon be threatened. In similar circumstances an increasing number of countries have felt themselves compelled to abandon the three mile fishing limit. All told, more than 40 countries have already extended their territorial limits, and more than 50 countries their fisheries limits beyond three miles.
With these considerations in mind the Canadian government has decided to establish a 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone along the whole of Canada's coastline as of mid-May, 1964, and to implement the straight base line
system at the same time as the basis from which Canada's territorial sea and exclusive fisheries zone shall be measured.
The government recognizes that such action will necessarily have implications for other countries, particularly the United States of America and France, both of which have treaty fishing rights in some of the areas affected and claims to "historic" fishing rights in other areas in question. In the case of Canada and the U.S.A. in particular, there is a long tradition of friendly and fruitful co-operation on fisheries problems, and any action by Canada on these matters will, as in the past, take full account of United States interests, as well as of those other countries affected.
It may be recalled that in my discussions with President Kennedy at Hyannis Port I informed him that the Canadian government would shortly be taking decisions to establish a 12 mile fishing zone. The President reserved the longstanding American position in support of the three mile limit. He also called attention to the "historic" and treaty fishing rights of the U.S.A., and I assured him that these rights would be taken into account. Discussions will be held with the United States with a view to determining the nature and extent of the U.S.A. rights and interests which may be affected by the action which Canada is taking. Discussions will also be opened as soon as possible with other countries affected, and it is our hope and belief that we will be able to reach agreement with such countries on mutually satisfactory arrangements.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, naturally there will be widespread interest in the statement made today by the Prime Minister. Throughout the period this party was in office we endeavoured to bring about by international agreement the 12 mile limit. I am not going into the details of that, but I refer to the six and six. There were two international conferences in Geneva. In the course of the second conference agreement was almost arrived at internationally, and was lost only by one half vote. However, I would point out that the taking of unilateral action is not always effective. It has about it implications that may have serious consequences to Canada's economy.
622	HOUSE OF
Establishment of 12 Mile Fishing Zone
While apparently the Prime Minister and the President discussed these questions during the Hyannis Port siesta, the fact remains that the Prime Minister has not thought it proper to indicate to the house the attitude of the President in this regard. Not having had notice that this matter was coming up I have not before me the necessary statistics, but certainly there has been a tremendous increase in the export of fish products and the United States is a major market of those products.


Mr. Nowlan:: For Canadian products.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, for Canadian products.


An hon. Member:: Seventy per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: As has been stated, the United States takes some 70 per cent of Canada's exports in this regard. While the objective is desirable, while the purposes that the Prime Minister had in mind are supported by this party, we would like to have a clear and definite statement on his part that the taking of action in this way, not by agreement but by unilateral declaration, will not have a detrimental effect on Canada's export market.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement of the Prime Minister this afternoon with relation to the establishment of the 12 mile limit. As has been pointed out, this is a policy and principle that has been adopted and followed by a great many nations of the world. We have felt for quite a long time that it was necessary for us to reassess our position as a nation with respect to this important issue.
The question of historic rights was referred to, and no doubt they will be considered. But I suggest to the Prime Minister that with relation to this whole problem, the rights of Canada and the interests of Canada should be the guiding motive, and whatever action is taken should be taken with a view to safeguarding the interests and the welfare of Canada.
I think this matter should also be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries. This is the second announcement that has been made with reference to issues concerning the fisheries and action that has been taken by the government. As has been pointed out, we feel these matters should be referred to the committee so that all interested parties would have adequate opportunity to make their representations. However, Mr. Speaker, in principle we welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister this afternoon.


Mr. T. S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the party to which I belong in connection with the announcement made by the Prime Minister today has been long established and is well known. Indeed, as long as 14 years ago the present hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) raised and advocated in the British Columbia legislature the question of the establishment of broader fishing limits for Canada. More recently, as the house is aware, my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) placed a bill on the order paper in connection with this matter. So I think I can, without expanding on the matter, make it clear that we welcome the announcement made by the Prime Minister.
We are, of course, concerned even more with the details of the manner in which the government intends to work out this proposal and what its end result will be than we are with the broad statement of principle which the Prime Minister has made today. However, on this occasion we are happy to join in the general agreement on that principle in this country.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of his statement a few minutes ago with regard to the unilateral declaration of a 12 mile fishing limit. While the Prime Minister mentioned the establishment of a base line for calculating this 12 mile limit, I was left uncertain as to whether the declaration will include the designation of the waters of Hecate strait, the Dixon entrance and Queen Charlotte sound as exclusively Canadian waters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to such a question on orders of the day it is difficult for me to go into details on this matter, but the proposed change will be applied to include all waters which come within the 12 mile zone as applied from headland to headland, in accordance with the theory which I mentioned in my statement.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his statement today that unilateral action would be taken to enforce the 12 mile limit off Canada's coast. In view of the large number of foreign trawlers from all nations which are fishing off our coasts, would he tell the house what steps will be taken to enforce

Inquiries of the Ministry
this regulation; and will this be the re- other ministers are concerned in the delibera-sponsibility of the Department of Fisheries tions? Is the Minister of Northern Affairs or the Department of National Defence, or and National Resources one of those who are both?	participating in the discussions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question in detail at this moment. I will look into the matter, but the establishment of a 12 mile zone will, of course, involve the good faith of other nations in respecting that zone, and it will take some time to work out implementing arrangements. I will be glad to let my hon. friend know as soon as possible.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his announcement earlier this afternoon of the extension of Canada's territorial waters to 12 miles effective next year, does this have any effect on the status of such large bodies of water as Hudson bay, the gulf of St. Lawrence and similar bodies? If so, would these now be regarded as Canadian territorial waters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if application of the headland to headland base line theory brought these bodies of water within the new jurisdiction, then of course they would be covered.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Radio reports this morning stated that the Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia have reached full agreement on the sale of downstream power benefits from the Columbia river to American power companies. Would the Prime Minister care to verify this news story and make a statement to the house regarding the outcome of his discussions with the premier of British Columbia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the discussions are still going on any statement in regard to an agreement would be premature. At the end of the discussions, tomorrow or the next day, a statement concerning them will be made by my friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is conducting them on the federal side.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question. In addition to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the prime minister will be pleased to know that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I keep sympathizing with the prime minister in his present position-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -with the Leader of the Opposition in his present position. I can only say in extenuation of this persistent mistake that I have such regard for the Leader of the Opposition's present plight that I do wish to give him the luxury of the title if not the responsibility. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Minister of Forestry, both from British Columbia-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs are part of the delegation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure these kind remarks on the part of the minister deserve a reply on my part. The number of times that he and other members of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, have referred to me as prime minister indicates a hope that I expect will be realized before long.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition may I say it is very difficult indeed to get rid of bad habits.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the policy of the government to have defeated Liberal candidates announce the awarding of government contracts?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what contract or letter is involved. I am not aware of this, and I would appreciate it if

Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member would at least let me have the document. I will certainly comment on the matter with great pleasure.


Percy Verner Noble: I have a supplementary question. Why, then, did the Grey North Liberal association, through the defeated candidate, announce last week that a contract had been let to a Toronto firm for wharf improvements at Owen Sound?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If this has been done it is because the defeated candidate in Grey North was faster on his feet than the hon. member, because a public announcement had been made previously.


Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of the government to make announcements respecting public works through Liberals who were defeated at their own conventions and not through the sitting member, as was done in the Orangeville Banner?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member to let me have at least the document, the contract involved, and I will comment on it with pleasure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would seem to me that we have had enough discussion. I do not believe the subject is one of pressing urgency, even though contracts are of great interest to members.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Following the meetings to take place in Washington beginning on Thursday, June 6, between Japan, the United States and Canada on the north Pacific treaty, can the minister advise the house if the standing committee on marine and fisheries will be given an opportunity to discuss this important matter before any final action is taken by the government in order to implement the recommendations of our delegation?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard I am pleased to advise that the standing committee on marine and fisheries will be convened before a decision is reached by the government on the north Pacific treaty convention. If amendments are recommended following the Washington meeting, ample opportunity to
[Mr. Deschatelets.)

discuss these questions will be given to members of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, as well as to witnesses if the committee decides to call them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if that undertaking applies equally to the annex to the treaty, which was changed on May 8 by order in council?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to advise the hon. member that any matters pertaining to the north Pacific treaty will be discussed if the members of the committee decide to discuss them when the committee is convened.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This might be a convenient time, Mr. Speaker, to reply to a question which was asked me on May 28 by the hon. member for Queens. His question had to do with the instrument used by the Minister of Fisheries in accepting some of the recent recommendations of the international north Pacific fisheries commission. The hon. member also asked whether it was necessary or desirable to refer this matter to the standing committee of the house. That question has been answered by the Minister of Fisheries.
With regard to the first part of the question, I may say that it has two separate aspects. In the first place, the acceptance of the recommendations of the international north Pacific fisheries commission is clearly within the executive power of the government under the provisions of the convention which was tabled in this house on March 27, 1953, and under the implementing legislation which was approved by the house on April 2, 1953. Consequently the commission's recommendations were accepted by Canada on May 10, 1963, in a telegram which I signed as Secretary of State for External Affairs, addressed to the executive director of the commission, pursuant to this convention which had been discussed in this house.
Second, there is the question of giving effect for Canadian fishermen to the recommendation concerning the conservation of halibut in the east Bering sea. This was done through an amendment to the international Pacific halibut fishery regulations, in accordance with the North Pacific Halibut Fishery Convention Act which appears as chapter 43, 1-2 Elizabeth II.
The order in council to which my colleague the Minister of Fisheries referred on May 28, and to which reference was made a moment ago, was one promulgating this amendment, and I would point out that the implementing legislation approved by this house gives to the governor in council authority to make

regulations "tor carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the convention and any recommendations of the commission." (Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO PERSONNEL OF CANADIAN DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister tell the house the names and duties of the members of the delegation who will go to Washington for next Thursday's conference?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I shall have the complete list of the members of the delegation and I shall advise the house accordingly.
(Text):


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. Will the advisory committee also be accompanying the Canadian delegation?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member perhaps 1 could answer a question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and was taken as notice by the the Prime Minister. I would advise that the advisory committee to the north Pacific fisheries commission has been appointed consisting of six members, one from each of the following fisheries organizations: the united fishermen and allied workers union, the Pacific trawlers association, the native brotherhood of B.C., the B.C. fishing vessel owners' association, the fisheries association of B.C., the Prince Rupert co-operative fishermen's association. This committee has been consulted in connection with the discussions which are to commence on June 6 in Washington, but it is not the intention of the government that the members of the advisory committee attend the Washington meetings. However, this committee will be consulted again as negotiations proceed.
I may add that the delegation to Washington will include a representative from external affairs and technical advisers both from the staff of my department and from the industry. The department will also pay the expenses of two active B.C. fishermen who will act as technical advisers during the negotiations. A complete list of the names of the delegation will be announced tomor-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be kind enough to complete the record by giving us the names of the members of the advisory commission?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The names will be given tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask if the "two active fishermen" who are to accompany the delegation will be nominated by fishermen's organizations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker. In delegations of this kind it is not the practice of the government to appoint representatives from organizations as such. We will appoint two active fishermen-


George Clyde Nowlan: Two active Liberals.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -who will be recognized as technically qualified to act as advisers.



LAKE ERIE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Kent, Ont., asked the following question:
Since fresh water fish have now been included under the Ontario department of agriculture to make the formation of a marketing scheme possible, can the minister inform the house whether there is any regulation under his department that would make illegal the imposition of production quotas on producers under such an act?
There is no regulation administered by the Department of Agriculture that would make illegal the imposition of production quotas on producers under the farm products marketing act of Ontario.
(Translation) :



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since there are many parishes not incorporated in my riding, can the minister tell us what are the intentions of the government concerning assistance to be given to the numerous unemployed in those communities next winter?
(Text) :


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the winter employment program of the government is presently under consideration, and the representations contained in my hon. friend's question will be taken into account in this consideration.
row.
626	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



GREAT LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I have a question to ask the Minister of Labour. In view of the United States court injunction directing an American union to cease boycotting the Canadian grain ship Howard L. Shaw, now in a Chicago dock, can the minister advise the house why this ship has not been loaded and released to its Canadian owners?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am aware that a temporary restraining order was issued which would have the effect of allowing this particular ship to load at this port. My information is that the injunction was not respected, and for this reason the ship in question has not been able to load. We have been keeping in close touch with the department of labour in the United States on this question, and I think I ought to mention the co-operation we have received from both the department of labour and the department of justice in the United States. Representatives of both these departments appeared before the courts in Chicago supporting the application for this particular injunction.



CANADAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a direct question of the Minister of Transport. Is it the minister's intention to correct the precarious situation existing at Canadair regarding the dismissal of a large number of employees?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minisier of Transport):: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I did not hear clearly the latter part of the hon. member's question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I repeat in English. Is it the minister's intention to correct the precarious situation existing at Canadair regarding the dismissal of a large number of employees?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how a minister as such can correct a situation. In any event, if I understand the question to mean that the hon. gentleman is concerned with the lay-off of personnel at Canadair and he is trying to assist in getting work which would keep these people employed, then I am very much concerned and will take

an interest in the question, and as a matter of fact I have had some conversations on the matter.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question. Does the minister expect to have new contracts for Canadair?


George James McIlraith: I do not know the internal nature of Canadair's business or its ramifications. I do know that there is a great deal of concern among employees about the prospective shortage of work, and I think that concern is shared by people other than the employees of the company. Anything which can be done to alleviate that fear will be done.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to report to the house on the negotiations between T.C.A. and producers of jet medium-range planes which could be built in Canada; like the Caravelle, which could be built 90 per cent at Canadair?
I wonder whether the minister could report to the house on the stages of these discussions between T.C.A. and the various companies, because this would be a wonderful way to look after unemployment at the Canadair plant at Montreal.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, much as I would like to be able to encourage my hon. predecessor by saying that a decision is imminent, I am afraid truth compels me to say that it may be some time before I have any announcement to make on those negotiations.



SUGGESTED EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS RECEIVING WELFARE ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Webster) asked a question in connection with a policy recommendation by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities in connection with employable persons and welfare allowances. I have discussed this matter with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whose department administers the agreements with the provinces respecting unemployment assistance. Representations have been made from time to time both for and against requiring employable persons receiving unemployment assistance to perform work in return for such assistance, and the matter is being carefully studied. However, I would like to tell my hon. friend who raised this question that there is no intention of making any immediate change in the present policy.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ROYAL COMMISSION  LETTER FROM MANITOBA PREMIER RESPECTING TERMS OF REFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister respecting a letter he received from the premier of Manitoba. I wish to ask him whether the terms of reference for the proposed federal-provincial conference will be broad enough to include those things which are suggested by the premier in his letter and, if not, is the government now considering broadening and extending the terms of reference to include those other matters raised in the letter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the proposed terms of reference for the commission in question are broad enough to enable the commission to consider every matter relevant to the problems of biculturalism and bilingualism, but naturally the terms of reference will be considered by the government in the light of the replies received from the provincial premiers, and they are not all in yet.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a supplementary question, the letter from Premier Roblin specifically pointed to the fiscal aspect of co-operative federalism. Will this subject be included?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a separate machinery of federal-provincial relations to deal with that particular matter, and it will be considered at the forthcoming conference of the provinces and the federal government. I do not think it was one subject specifically intended for consideration by the royal commission, but certainly some aspects of it will touch upon the problems of biculturalism and bilingualism, if the commission wishes to consider those aspects.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Would the Prime Minister advise the house which provinces have not replied as yet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.



ROYAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked a question of the Prime Minister with respect to his letter of May 15 directed to the premiers of the provinces on the royal commission on biculturalism. His answer led me to believe he would be inquiring whether the letter was sent to the
Inquiries of the Ministry governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Can he now indicate whether similar letters were sent to the governments of the territories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have ascertained that a letter was not sent to the territorial governments in the same way that it was sent to the provincial governments. It was considered that any formal approach to these two governments in that way would be to abandon the established practice and raise the question again every time the federal government consulted the provinces. However, Mr. Speaker, we will invite the territorial governments to comment on the work of the royal commission and to submit briefs to the royal commission. They will be given the opportunity to appear before it.
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY MONTREAL  PROPOSED CHANGE IN PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister inform the house as to whether he intends to approve the new layout of the trans-Canada highway on the island of Montreal which was proposed recently by the provincial minister of highways? Could he tell us also what was the nature of the conversations he had lately with the latter?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, that most interesting project is under consideration at present and when a decision is taken it will be communicated to the house in the usual manner.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to contribute financially to the construction of the trans-Canada highway without any strings attached, as the province of Quebec wishes?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the existing law will be applied in Quebec the same way as it is in all other provinces.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to propose an amendment so as to give the provinces greater freedom of choice as the government of the province of Quebec requested?

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Royal):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which is prompted by yesterday's healthy development during the debate on interim supply.
My question is, are the political beliefs of one's relatives taken into account when enlistments or promotions are being considered in any branch of the armed forces?
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question qualifies. It is in the form of an argument rather than in the form of a question.



NEGOTIATION OF VOLUNTARY QUOTAS ON EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister indicate what progress has been made in negotiating new voluntary quotas on imports from Japan?
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question. When the matter has been settled I shall be glad to make a statement to the house.
(Translation):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister tell us whether the world exhibition site in Montreal has been definitely approved by his department?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed since the day I sent a telegram to the mayor of Montreal, who was then in Paris, to the effect that we agreed with the decision taken by the former prime minister of Canada, subject to the shipping act.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question in connection with the answer he gave a moment ago with regard to the world's fair. 
I wonder if he has some comments to make on an item signed by a Mr. Lazarus which was published in yesterday's Montreal Star, and where it was stated that an official of the boundary waters commission called the site recommended by the authorities of the city of Montreal "the worst site he could imagine".
Moreover, could the minister tell the house when he will be able to give final approval to the site chosen for the world exhibition?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I did not read the statement of the expert just mentioned and who,
I understand, was appointed by the government of which my hon. friend was a member. Anyway, I have no comments to make, and, not having read the article, I have nothing to add to the answer given earlier today.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Had the minister received all the needed technical reports before accepting the site, for instance the report of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and that of the municipal authorities of Verdun?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the authorities of the city of Montreal have undertaken to create an appropriate site and to give it to the world exhibition corporation. In so doing, they accepted to observe navigation laws on the river. Before any major work is carried out the authorities of Montreal will ask our assent and they will submit detailed plans to us. We will then give them the green light for starting work in the river.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister want us to believe that until now he received no request from the authorities of the city of Montreal?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not with regard to starting the work, only in respect of some soundings needed at this time, but, as I say, not as far as starting work on Notre Dame island is concerned.
(Text):



JAPAN-REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING IRON ORE AND MACHINERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government involved in the negotiations reported in the

last day or so concerning a major agreement dealing with Canadian iron ore and Japanese machinery?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, the government is not directly involved.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the Export Credits Insurance Corporation or any other government agency involved in the reported negotiations for an agreement involving enormous quantities of Canadian iron ore and Japanese machinery?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if it has I have not been informed. I shall make inquiries and endeavour to answer the hon. member's question.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OF COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: May I reply to a question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Rosthern. The hon. member asked whether it was possible to advise him when certain classified civil servants on the staff of the board of grain commissioners might expect their salary increases.
As I stated in answer to a question last evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the whole subject of civil service salaries is under review.



SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS ON 1962-63 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) asked me whether I would inform the house whether the Canadian wheat board will be in a position to make supplementary payments this year on the farmers' 1962-63 crop.
As hon. members know, under the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act interim payments may be made to producers, providing such payments can be made without loss to the pool account involved. The Canadian wheat board advises me that the marketing operations on the 1962-63 pool accounts for wheat, oats and barley have not progressed to the point where the board is in a position to indicate whether or when an interim payment on these accounts may be made.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tisdale):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to say whether this applies to wheat also? He just mentioned oats and barley.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I thought I had said wheat. I include it, if I did not.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that increasing numbers of Canadian youth are attending institutions of higher learning but that only a small number of native Indian boys and girls ever proceed beyond high school, would the minister tell us whether any plans have been developed to encourage more of these young people to enter university next fall and thus remove this unfortunate discrimination?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Without, of course, answering "yes" to the last part of the question, which speaks of discrimination, and without admitting that any discrimination exists, I wish to answer as follows. Indian students will receive financial aid to attend university in accordance with their needs, and no student who can meet the requirements for admission will be denied this opportunity solely because of lack of funds. Over and above the financial aid referred to, there is a program of scholarships to encourage outstanding students to continue with their education.
I wish to add that as far as I am concerned it is my firm and sincere intention to do my utmost to convince as many Indian students as possible to avail themselves of this type of assistance. I shall also do my best to persuade their parents to encourage them in this direction.
(Translation):



DELAY IN DISTRIBUTION OF FRENCH &quot;HANSARD&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, or at least I should like to point out to him that we have not yet received the French copies of yesterday's Hansard.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: I will draw this matter to the attention of the officials of the house. I believe the delay in producing Hansard arose because of the extraordinary rapidity with which the government answered the questions put on the order paper by hon. members.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
I wonder whether that is his conception of bilingualism as advocated by his leader? (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir. My conception of bilingualism is that it is quite proper to speak in either official language and that no other hon. member should comment upon it, regardless of which language is spoken in this house. (Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: May I add that the French version of Hansard is now available to the hon. members of the house.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the report of the science advisory committee of the President of the United States dated May 15 dealing with the use of pesticides, and will she use her good offices-which I am sure she could do to great advantage-with the Secretary of State to try to see that the special committee which was referred to on May 23 is set up as soon as possible to deal with this and other matters?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As I reported earlier to the house, it is the intention to set up a committee as soon as practicable.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the light of the statements made by officers and members of the Canadian Medical Association and the excellent speech made in this house by the hon. member for Simcoe East, is the minister prepared to recommend that the terms of reference of this committee be extended to cover the relationship between smoking and lung cancer?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As presently conceived, the committee which is to be constituted will have terms of reference slightly different from those of the committee set up last session, but it is not the intention that smoking in relation

to lung cancer should form any part of the considerations of that committee, nor is this under consideration at present.



CONSIDERATION OP EXTENSION OP HOSPITAL COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of the resolution adopted at Winnipeg over the week end by the Canadian Mental Health Association asking that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act be amended to include provision for mental hospitals and institutions providing psychiatric care? Is the government giving consideration to that request?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part, not yet.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the hon. gentleman any information to give the house with respect to a statement in today's Globe and Mail attributed to a spokesman of his department to the effect that the Dawson city gold rush festival was a "can of worms"? Is the use of this language an indication that some people are wriggling?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I regret very much that the words used were attributed to an official of my department. The Dawson city gold rush festival is one of a number of matters which are receiving close study by the department at the present time, particularly with reference to the possible financial involvements that we may have. However, I want to assure the hon. member that I know of nothing which would justify him or any other member of the house going on a fishing expedition.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister assure me, and through me the people of the Yukon, that while these investigations are going forward his department will not neglect a close scrutiny into the millions of dollars of revenue which resulted indirectly from the Dawson city festival last year, federally and territorially, thereby justifying the investment by the public?


Arthur Laing: The point which the hon. member has brought up has no relation to the investigation we are making.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I regret not having given him notice, but the question arises out of an article in the Globe and Mail this morning. Can the minister assure me and the people of the Yukon Territory that the government will continue to support the Dawson city festival, in view of the greatly increased revenues that resulted from last year's festival and the expectation that it will continue?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the festival is being continued this year, but the territorial government has set aside a relatively small sum of money, $6,000, for a local group that is putting on shows or performances in the building that was constructed there.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, who reports to parliament for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Is the government giving consideration to the reduction of N.H.A. interest rates and the extension of National Housing Act lending facilities to older homes, as he suggested in the house? If so, does he expect to make an announcement on these important matters at an early date?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is aware of the announcement in the speech from the throne that certain amendments would be made to the National Housing Act. All these matters to which he has referred today, and others, are under consideration but are, of course, a matter of government decision to be announced at the appropriate time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Does he anticipate receiving the Norris commission report and recommendations in the near future? If so, has he any idea as to when he might receive them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand this particular
Inquiries of the Ministry report will be forthcoming this week. I hope it will.
(Translation):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great speech delivered by the Prime Minister on December 17 last and also of the speeches he made during the election campaign in which he said how important biculturalism is in his opinion, can he tell the house why seven times out of ten we receive answers in English when our questions are put in French to the ministers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but in my opinion his question is out of order.
(Text):



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has prepared an answer to the question respecting the status of one of the men captured in the F.L.Q. activities, as he promised to do today?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman is quite correct, but on reading the question I decided it was one which properly belonged to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and he has the question under advisement.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    TRANSFER OF OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has a date yet been set for the government of Manitoba and its delegation to appear before the government of Canada with respect to the question of retaining T.C.A.'s maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister give the date, and can he say that no decision about moving the base will be made until after that delegation has been heard?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: I am speaking from memory, Mr. Speaker, but I think the date is June 18. I had offered an earlier date but the provincial authorities found it unsuitable. Subject to correction, I think the date finally set is June 18. I might say, as to the final decision, that a firm of consultants were retained by the previous government to review this matter. I have forgotten the date, but that was done shortly before the election. In any event, the report of that consulting firm will be received in July and the decision made some time ago will, of course, be reviewed in the light of that report when it is received.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice: It arises out of his very generous and frank statement last night with regard to a case that I brought to his attention last Friday. My question is, now that investigations have revealed that the information contained in the R.C.M.P. file on this young man Gordon Knott is without foundation, will he issue instructions that this file be removed from the custody of the R.C.M.P. and destroyed?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend rose I was prompted to think of the phrase timeo Danaos. Notwithstanding that, I could not answer the question without consulting with the commissioner, which I will do and will be glad to give the house a reply at a later date.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a telegram today from the Edgerton chamber of commerce regarding the action of Canadian National Railways in closing their stations in many communities in western Canada? If so, what action did the Prime Minister take?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries as soon as I go to my office.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked last Friday by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin), who asked for information in connection with negotiations between Canada and the state of Maine aimed at granting unemployment insurance benefits to Canadian lumbermen.
In reply I would advise my hon. friend that discussions on this particular matter began in 1944. The most recent meetings were held in May and August 1962 with representatives of the state of Maine, the United States government and the unemployment insurance commission. The most recent exchange between the state of Maine and the unemployment insurance commission took place in March of this year.
While progress was made in connection with determining the cost implications of such an agreement, I must say that no agreement has yet been concluded.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Agriculture was asked a number of questions on orders of the day and he took three of them as notice. The first one, asked by the hon. member for Lisgar, was as follows:
-now that he has announced the support price of soybeans, when will he be announcing the support price on sunflower seed?
It is anticipated that as usual the announcement concerning the support program for sunflower seed will be made some time in July.



EXPANSION OF OPERATIONS UNDER MARSHLAND LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Cumberland asked the following question:
Is it the intention of the minister to expand the operation of the M.M.R.A.?
The projects submitted to M.M.R.A. by all provinces and approved have been completed. The present activities under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act are, therefore,


of a maintenance nature. The M.M.R.A. organization, however, is being integrated with ARDA to assist in the conduct of ARDA programs in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the government to amend the present Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act so as to be able to better carry out the functions the minister has indicated?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy, and the government will announce its policy in due course.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State in his role as liaison man with the broadcasting industry. Does he see any way by which the government can help in speeding the building of the C.B.C. television station so eagerly awaited in his home province of Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be only too happy to do anything I possibly can to facilitate improved broadcasting in any part of Canada, but parliament has charged certain agencies with this responsibility and I do not think it would be wise for me to try to usurp the functions of those agencies.
(Translation):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Chapleau asked a question concerning those who were responsible for patrolling the park on the Plains of Abraham.
I have received information on this matter and I must say that the R.C.M.P. is responsible for patrolling the park. However, that does not change anything of what I said as regards offences against the Criminal Code which, under the constitution, come under the jurisdiction of the city police.


Gérard Laprise: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. During the off-season for tourists,
4, 1963	633
Appointment of Defence Committee is the protection given by the R.C.M.P. on the Plains of Abraham adequate?


Lionel Chevrier: According to the information I have now, the answer is yes.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house, resumed, from Thursday, May 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That a special committee be appointed to consider matters relating to defence and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses: that it be empowered to adjourn from place to place; that standing order 67 be suspended in relation to the committee; and that the committee consist of 24 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
(Translation):
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in my race against the clock last Thursday, I lost, and so I was unable to complete the short speech I had begun to make in respect to the establishment of a committee on defence.
However, I am glad that an occasion is given me today, following the death of His Holiness Pope John XXIII, to pay a public tribute to that great man for the important part he played in favour of world peace.
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I said the other night to the effect that this debate on the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) aiming at the establishment of a special committee on defence is not a debate on defence itself. The hon. members who preceded me have inadvertently explained the policies of their parties, when they should have made constructive suggestions for the proper operation of the committee.
If we read again the resolution on the order paper, we see that the purpose of the committee isto report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if the defence committee is not given greater powers, it is useless to set it up because then it would be just a make-believe body, one that would have in fact no real power.
That committee should be in a position to impose its decisions on the government because if we go to the trouble of setting up a committee to study defence problems, we must, to be logical, give it some authority.
634	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Defence Committee
At the present time, from the wording of the resolution, it is difficult to see clearly what the role of the committee will be, because it is said that it will report from time to time. It does not say when, it does not say how and it does not say what its responsibilities will be.
There is no need, Mr. Speaker, to repeat that we, of the Social Credit party, are in favour of that committee, because all our members, during the last election campaign, advocated such a study of Canada's defence problems.
In that respect, may I read you, Mr. Speaker, the second paragraph of our election program on national defence:
(Text):
The defence of Canada must be maintained. In light of changing military techniques and strategy, Canada's defence policy must be removed once and for all from partisan politics. Social Credit pledges that upon election, it will immediately appoint a non-partisan parliamentary defence committee through recommending defence policies in light of secret security information, military requirements, and international developments. (Translation):
If we have adopted this attitude, Mr. Speaker, it is for a specific reason. Since the question was raised as to whether Canada should get nuclear weapons, we have realized that Canada has been subject to pressures from many sources, and in the past, those pressures have placed our country in the rather unusual situation which we have experienced in the last parliament when nobody seemed to know exactly what was our position concerning defence problems.
On the one hand, we are under American influence and our friends, the Liberals, should know something about that. This influence is being shown more and more openly.
Mr. Speaker, if you would read a recent article written by Mr. Melvin Conant in the International Journal magazine, you would find revealing facts such as these:
(Text):
For it is certain that other weapon systems, now anticipated, and of the nuclear variety, will deepen and enlarge the Canadian commitment.
(Translation):
And further on-
(Text):
There should be no mistake about this; a nation unwilling to share the burden of defence cannot expect to retain undiminished-much less increase- its political role. From the point of view of an American, such an abdication would be a tragedy of great proportion.
(Translation) :
In the same article, Mr. Speaker, we read the following passage:
(Text):
If all the above suggest the historic importance of the initial decision which Canada will make this


spring, then perhaps some fresh perspective is gained on the nature of that decision. Canadians are not being asked to determine simply the arming of several contemporary weapons systems; Canadians have been asked to say if they intend to be a major participant in the alliance. Its friends can only hope it 'will answer the question with a ringing affirmative.
(Translation):
On that point, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the United States are determined to have Canada equipped with nuclear arms, so that we would, in a way, pay our share of the expenses. Moreover, the United States would thus feel secure in the knowledge that we would integrate into their defence policy, and would not, if war broke out, suddenly decide to stay neutral.
If we continue to acquire nuclear arms as we did under the Liberals, we shall play straight into the hands of our American neighbours.
But we must also take into account the influence from the east, that is to say from the communist world. That influence shows itself in many ways, through the Canadian peace congress, the voice of women and other similar groups which are convinced that Canada can do without nuclear arms.
Let us not fall into that trap either, Mr. Speaker. I believe we should see clearly the purpose of the influences that are being exerted from both sides.
I have here a publication issued by the national committee of the communist party of Canada dated May 16. We can see in it the relations which exist at present between the communist party of Canada, influenced by the communist party from Moscow, and a certain organization such as the national congress for peace. Here is what we actually find in the statement of the national communist party:
The will of the people must prevail. On April 8, 59 per cent of the electorate repudiated the Liberals.
It is certain that the Liberal party does not have the authority at this time to acquire nuclear weapons for Canada. This is what we find, in terms quite similar, in a publication sent to the NATO council which met here in Ottawa in May 1963:
(Text):
The Liberal government, which took office with a minority of seats, has no mandate from the Canadian people to enter into any arrangement or treaty involving nuclear arms for Canada.
(Translation):
We can perceive in the same publication the influence from the U.S.S.R. which is obvious in the following words:
(Text):
Formation of a military alliance of the west has inevitably produced a military alliance of "the east".

(Translation):
Then one can see in reading those letters how deceitful is the propaganda of that movement which claims to be a movement for peace because the west is charged with the fault of the east which wanted to get armed the same as all the other countries.
Mr. Speaker, I think that a committee where the matter of defence would be discussed is the most natural system which we can dream of in order to protect ourselves against all those influences bringing us to take nonCanadian stands, for they are rather American or Russian, depending on whether or not we accept nuclear arms.
I am not one of those who are automatically opposed to nuclear arms, nor am I one of those who will necessarily accept them.
I am of the opinion of a certain Mr. Tos-sanyi, a professional engineer and geologist, commanding officer of the Hungarian paratroopers regiment, who has examined the question seriously and has come to the conclusion that we should not have nuclear weapons. However, I would not say that I am entirely of his opinion when he says that we should not have nuclear weapons of any kind whatsoever. It is logical and reasonable to think, in view of our geographic position, that we could come to the conclusion that defensive weapons are a necessity.
I will quote what this gentleman has to say about the influences which come from all sides and which affect our judgment: (Text):
According to Time magazine, in 1959, Norstad, the allied supreme commander in Europe, briefed the Canadian cabinet in Ottawa on NATO's changing needs, and suggested that Canada should switch from an interceptor role to a strike-reconnaissance role, and suggested the two-key control. Subsequently the so-called "tactical strike-reconnaissance" aircraft, the CF-104, was acquired-
From utterances, it appears that our political leaders were under the impression that with the acquisition of these weapons, we still had a nonnuclear alternative.
(Translation):
The funny part of the situation, Mr. Speaker, is to see our government leaders who have been squabbling for a certain time to determine whether or not there has actually been any commitments.
A Toronto newspaperman working for the Daily Star has given a good summary of the situation when he said: "In fact, there has been no formal commitment", but he adds in conclusion:
(Text):
If the Pearson government is convinced we should get nuclear arms, let it justify the weapons on their merit, if any. But let it stop trying to tell the Canadian people it's all the fault of the Diefenbaker administration.
Appointment of Defence Committee (Translation):
The situation continues because nobody seems to know whether there has been any commitment.
Indeed, the Diefenbaker government was overthrown because it refused to tell us whether there were any commitments and because it had no defence policy in spite of the representations we made in that connection.
Today we find ourselves in exactly the same situation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it would be up to the parliamentary committee to determine how much we are bound by any commitment and, if there is no commitment at all, to take a decision which would be truly our own. It would be a "made in Canada" decision not a "made in Russia" or a "made in U.S.A." decision.
Mr. Tossanyi continues as follows: (Text):
One cannot escape the conviction that Canada was gradually accepting nuclear armament through the back door, which suited perfectly the U.S. and Canadian military planning.
(Translation):
In my opinion, sir, it is just as bad for Canada's defence policy to follow too closely that of the United States as it would be to follow that of Russia.
Canada is an adult nation and I feel that, as such, it should adopt a truly Canadian policy.
That is why I find that it was ill-advised on the part of Judge Thorson of the exchequer court to make the remarks he made. In my opinion, it is ill-advised for any man holding such a high position in our country to try to influence the policy of the government and the decisions that might be taken by the defence committee at this time. It is up to the parliamentary committee on defence to establish our defence policy.
Comments from outsiders such as Judge Thorson are ill-advised and ill-timed.
Consequently, in view of the complex decisions we will have to make concerning defence problems, I feel that Canada has a unique opportunity at this time to play an intelligent role toward the achievement of world peace.
We are placed between two spheres of influence, each trying to get Canada to accept a foreign-made policy.
In my opinion, the main purpose of the special committee on defence will be to see to it that Canada plays its role between these two spheres of influence and decide where it should stand better to serve peace.

Appointment of Defence Committee (Text):
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Speaking on this motion, Mr. Speaker, may I first state that I was sorry the government found it necessary to restrict the membership of this committee to 24. To me it is fairly obvious there are a great many more hon. members of the house who are extremely interested in the subject of defence and who are obviously not all of the same opinion.
Those of us who are not selected as members of the committee will be restricted in our efforts to study the issue as we would like to do. We will be unable to obtain answers to the questions which as individuals we have a right to ask, and also to ask on behalf of the people we represent. When the Prime Minister remarked that this was an entirely new type of committee to be set up, the first one in Canada, I hoped he would have made the committee unrestricted and open to all hon. members of the house, to all those who are interested, and this would have given the privilege to all hon. members to ask questions as they desired.
As the motion now reads, only 24 selected members will have this privilege. I am aware that hon. members of the house can attend the committee hearings, if they wish, but they are restricted in asking questions.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of National Defence state that the purpose of the committee is to study all aspects of defence, including policy. He felt all hon. members should be given every opportunity to obtain first hand information on the facts. I appreciate that. As recorded at page 485 of Hansard for May 30 the minister said:
-notwithstanding the terrible confusion which engulfed most aspects of this question during the campaign, and notwithstanding the confusion which still exists and the great mass of inaccurate and incomplete information, we think there is a genuine desire on the part of all hon. members to come to grips with this subject-
I believe he could have added that there is also a great desire on the part of the public to have the facts placed before them, after the confusion we all know existed during the recent election campaign.
In view of the minister's statement I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to get the committee off to a good start by placing one important fact before the house this time. To begin with, I am sure the Canadian people would be very grateful to him for a direct answer, yes or no, to a question put to him on May 20, as recorded at page 37 of Hansard of that date, and which he left unanswered. I would put the question again:
In an interview shortly after being sworn in the present minister is reported to have said that he expected a Canada-United States agreement on custody and control of nuclear warheads to be signed in about a month's time, an agreement

which requires both parliamentary ratification and congressional approval as well as the signatures of the contracting parties.
In view of this statement, would the minister now refute his former claim, which misled the Canadian public, that the Conservative government had fully committed Canada to equipping its air squadrons and Bomarc missiles with nuclear warheads-
And the rest of the question read:
_and was therefore abandoning its duty in not
accepting them.
As the minister declined to answer, may I ask him how can he relate what he told the public during the election campaign, about Canada's commitment on defence, to the statement he made in the House of Commons in reply to a question put to him by the house leader of the opposition? The question, as recorded at page 484 of Hansard of May 30 was:
May I ask the minister what agreement has to be signed?
His reply was:
As the hon. gentleman should know, if he had done his homework on these matters, these warheads cannot be made available to any friendly nation unless, first, a general agreement has been signed between that nation and the United States of America; and as my hon. friend further knows, his government spent about four years trying to work out such an agreement. With the speed with which they did things they still have not achieved it.
I will take the minister's reply, which is now recorded in Hansard, as the word of a responsible member of the government; that when the Liberals took office in April, 1963 there was no signed agreement and therefore no commitment by Canada to acquire nuclear warheads. I believe the present government, and particularly the Minister of National Defence, are now duty bound to inform the Canadian public of the truth that upon taking office they did find that Canada had not been officially committed. As late as April 8, 1963 Canada had not signed any agreement to take nuclear warheads for her weapons. Therefore there was no commitment on any one's part.
I further believe it is the duty of the press to inform the Canadian people that while the Conservative government was in power no commitment had been made to accept nuclear warheads by Canada. At least let the committee begin with clarification on this one point, a point which confused the public during the election campaign. There were no grounds for the Liberal accusations at that time, and I think it has been established by the minister's statement that Canada was definitely not committed when the Conservative government was in power.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is not true.


Mr. McIntosh:: Actually, Mr. Speaker, the cost of defence has always been a staggering item to all taxpayers and I, as well as a great number of other taxpayers, do not



A. 1963

[Stage Direction]
believe we are getting our money's worth. I believe we all accept the fact that funds are expended today for certain equipment which may be outmoded tomorrow. But it is not equipment I intend to deal with at the present time. When dealing with defence, I feel the public are entitled to straightforward answers to some pertinent questions, one of which might be: are the three services which make up our forces of national defence organized to fight in accordance with the present day concept of war? My answer to that question would be, no. I understand our military organization has changed little since the days of 1914 or 1940 although the role of our forces today is entirely different from what it was then. Our whole organization is based on a five and six division operation, including the numerous headquarters staffs which go to maintain units within those divisions. Our military organization is top heavy; it should be modernized and streamlined in keeping with Canada's new role in the defence of the North American continent. If the trend to expand the senior positions in our services could be curtailed, the taxpayer, I believe, could be saved a considerable amount of money.
On the subject of organization and senior personnel, may I say that I believe we have delegated, since 1950, too much power to the chief of our general staff. When the National Defence Act was revised in 1950, personal authority was given to the C.G.S. far beyond that of his counterpart in Great Britain. British parliamentary reforms throughout the years established the principle that no single commander in chief should have sole responsibility for the control and administration of the army. Ever since 1904, since the Esher reforms, the British army has been administered by an army council composed of political, military and civil service officials. This council has survived severe tests in two world wars and has remained an effective and efficient instrument of government policy in the administration of the army.
The weakness of full military control similar to that which is at present in effect in Canada has been illustrated over and over again in other countries. History reveals that the German general staff was supreme in military matters and powerful enough to ignore the advice of the civil authorities. As a result, decisions of the German general staff plunged Germany into two needless and unsuccessful wars. Surely, no similar action should be taken in Canada delegating authority to the military. It should be a warning to us in Canada; we do not want to follow the same pattern as Germany did.
637
Appointment of Defence Committee
One of the pitfalls resulting from the power delegated to the chief of staff by the Canadian parliament is the natural tendency of people in authority to gather about them like-thinking friends. Someone has said: "Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks at all". This situation, to me, represents a major danger attaching to this type of control. I understand that the chief of the general staff is also a member of the joint chiefs of staff committee but that he is not bound by the decisions of that committee. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) told us the other day that the chairman of this committee could be called as a witness before the committee which we are now proposing to set up. But if the chief of the general staff is not bound by the decisions of the joint chiefs of staff committee, what would be the use of calling the chairman of that committee to give evidence? Regardless of the confidence we have in our present chief of staff or in his successors, I submit that such delegation of power to one individual is dangerous, not only to Canada but also to the individual who is charged with this responsibility. I trust the present minister will introduce legislation to rectify the existing outmoded system of military organization and control.
Another question which might be raised is this: are our services equipped to fight on a nuclear battlefield? This is a question which should be answered to the satisfaction of hon. members of this house. It brings up the contentious subject of equipping our armed forces with nuclear weapons. Some will argue that if such a step were taken we should be joining the nuclear family. As members of this house, let us not fool ourselves. We are charter members of that family now. We have been an exporter of uranium for the past 14 or 15 years and as such have been full members of a great nuclear alliance whether we like it or not. Even if we wished, now, to proclaim our innocence in this regard it would be too late. We cannot deny the fact that Canada has supplied essential material for the manufacture of nuclear explosives, nor can we plead innocence by saying we were unaware of the use to which our raw material was being put. If guilt is to be attached to any one person, let us face the facts. We are all guilty.
Hardly a week passes in which members of this house do not receive a brief or letters from some organization maintaining that if we were to acquire nuclear weapons we would end all possible chances of bringing peace to the world. Other correspondents maintain we should disarm in order to bring peace to the world. Still others maintain that if we were to ban the bomb we should
[Stage Direction]
Appointment of Defence Committee bring peace to the world. In each case, it would seem to me, those subscribing to any of these theories assume they have a monopoly on the desire for peace, and all others subscribing to contrary ideas or views are classed as warmongers. In some cases, I would suggest, certain individuals have lost sight of the main objective, which is one of peace, and have gone overboard as to their professed method of obtaining this objective. The desire for peace is, I believe, the sincere desire of everyone in this house and of every Canadian, even if we cannot agree on the method of achieving this objective. The desire for peace is not confined to any one individual, or group of individuals, nor does it necessarily follow that any one party or individual has the solution to this problem. Like many others, I believe Canada should acquire nuclear arms and that by so doing we would best ensure that our efforts to bring peace to this modem world will be successful.
The question of whether these arms would be defensive or offensive weapons is, to me, splitting hairs. Any weapon can be a defensive or an offensive weapon depending on how it is used. It also depends on the range of the weapon.
To those who maintain the acquisition of nuclear arms by Canada would be detrimental to world disarmament, I say: let us be realistic. In my opinion, it is not logical to assume that the U.S.S.R. are really interested in general disarmament. Communism was born in violence, and its spread to other countries has always been accompanied at some stage with force or threat of force, and has been maintained by the same means. For Russia to disarm would mean the end of its avowed aim of world domination and, certainly, the loss of its satellite states. The Soviet union would no longer be a world power.
I believe the fact that the free world possesses a nuclear striking force capable of dealing unacceptable damage to any aggressor has prevented the proponents of communism from embarking on an adventure designed to force the free world to submit to their principles. I suggest that the creation of the NATO shield saved Europe and the free world from Soviet occupation and further aggression. Our duty, I believe, is to convince the Soviet union that their might is cancelled out by the strength of our defences-I refer to the defences of the North American continent under NORAD. The power of the free world to retaliate is the greatest deterrent to any thought Russia may have of world domination.
As a sovereign nation, we should be proud to be an ally in the free world, playing our part in an undertaking which has halted the

advance of the aggressor. Some in this house have contended that Canada should adopt a neutral role. They have pointed out the advantages which have accrued to countries such as Switzerland and Sweden as a result of their neutrality. Very seldom is mention made of the disadvantages encountered by Holland and Belgium because of their adoption of a like role. History has proven that there are no advantages to countries in a neutral role if the potential aggressor will not recognize or respect that neutrality. The geographical location of a country in a conventional war dictated whether or not the country would benefit from a neutral role. Geographical location will mean very little of a practical nature in an atomic war.
As a member of parliament I believe, as I am sure we all believe, that it is our responsibility to legislate for the best defence the people can afford. Where can we get the most for our defence dollars? As I previously stated we are not unanimous as to the method of providing this defence. I support the acquisition of nuclear warheads for Canadian defence because I believe they will reduce the amount of fallout from a number of atomic bombs, should they be released over Canada by manned bombers or otherwise. I also suggest that we obtain nuclear warheads for every weapon we have capable of firing them. Because if my information is correct, that nuclear warheads are the only known method of preventing fallout from atomic bombs, then it is our duty to prevent as much fallout as we can from taking place over Canadian soil. We should place more emphasis on the fallout from the atomic bomb, not on the bomb itself. Fallout is the more dangerous to our people.
Most Canadians believe the United States is determined to defend the North American continent-and in so doing they are bound to defend Canada from external aggression, almost regardless of whether or not Canadians wish to be defended.
If this is the present defensive plan of the United States, then does it not follow that Canada can never, consistent with her own interests, ignore the requirements of American security? Because in continental defence, which I think we have to admit is what is required at the present time, we recognize that the security of the United States is also the security of Canada. A joint defence is essential because of the changed circumstances. We cannot defend ourselves alone.
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am, like everyone else, is or should be, keenly interested in this matter of defence. If I might be a little sentimental to start, may I say that I am interested in this question of defence because I am a

member of humanity. I am one of the billions which go to make up this world. I also have the honour of being one of the 265 members of the House of Commons representing the 18 million souls who reside in our country. Going beyond that, I have the honour of being the representative of the wonderful constituency of Vancouver East. And going beyond that, I have a wife, three children, and the three children have given me 12 grandchildren. So that going from the individual to the family, to the community, to the constituency, to the province, to the country and to the world, we must all have a keen interest in defence, and in the meaning of defence, so that there shall never be another world war. Because on an individual, a family, a community and a world basis we want to see ourselves, our families, our countrymen and our people live their lives to a natural death, not to an unnatural death through the holocaust of a thermonuclear suicidal war. That, sir, is my introduction, because it is the way I feel.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat the broad principles and policy in defence and foreign affairs as we in the New Democratic party see them because they have been very fully and capably outlined by our leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I have no hesitation in saying that I think one of the curses of this parliament and of previous parliaments is too much useless repetition, and so I do not intend to be guilty of that. In the time at my disposal I want to refer to the resolution before us, which is concerned with the appointment of a special committee of the House of Commons on defence. I am most certainly in support of the appointment of that committee. I am most certainly in favour of the broadest possible terms of reference. I hope it will be a committee that can function. Committees can function if they are given the opportunity. You need only refer to the public accounts committee of past sessions to see that it did function. It did work and it brought in recommendations; and if cabinet ministers and the departments concerned did not pay any attention to those recommendations, then the next year the public accounts committee called them to account. So that committees can function.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this proposed committee will function, but I am sorry to say that I am wondering whether it will. That is why I am speaking this afternoon. I had the privilege of being a member of the prior committee on defence established in 1960. I hold in my hand the transcript of the evidence of that committee. It is quite a blue book. It was a committee appointed by the previous government. At the moment I am interested 28902-5-41J
4, 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee in two members of that 1960 committee- myself, who was the sole representative from our party on that committee, and from the former opposition, the hon. member for the constituency of Trinity, now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, between the two of us we might have been called the "unholy trinity" on that committee because neither of us ever missed a meeting. It was just about as close as we ever came to coalition because we always sat side by side, and if he could not get a seconder to a motion I would second it, and if I could not get one he would second it. Over the week end I have been going over that committee transcript, and through you I am reminding the Minister of National Defence of the frustrations we had when we sat on that committee. If you asked a pertinent question-not an impertinent question but a pertinent question- of the military witnesses, what was your reply seven times out of ten? "That is policy; ask that question of the minister". So we got the minister in front of us and the hon. member for Trinity and myself would put our questions to the minister of national defence.
We asked the same pertinent questions in order to understand defence policy and defence expenditures. Seven times out of ten what was the answer of the minister of national defence? We received a quizzical smile and the answer, "For security reasons those questions cannot be answered", or, "No comment", or, "To answer that question is not in the public interest". I am certain that I do not have to warn the hon. member for Trinity who is now the Minister of National Defence. That was it right down the line. We hope, sir, that is not going to be the experience in the proposed committee, but I am very sorry to say I am afraid it is going to be unless there is a change in the attitude of the Minister of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Don't prejudge.


Harold Edward Winch: He wonders why I say that. It is because of the way he answers, evades and weasels on questions asked on orders of the day. If that is going to be his attitude in the committee, it will be as big a failure as the one in 1960. I sincerely hope this will not be the case.
In all my life in parliament, sir-and that is a long time now-I have never threatened. However I do want to say this as an intimation to the minister, that I anticipate being a member of this committee when it is established, and having sat with the now Minister of National Defence on the committee in 1960 when he was a member of the opposition, let him not be surprised-because basically the picture has not changed-if I ask

Appointment of Defence Committee him the identical questions which he asked of the three Conservative ministers of national defence and expect the answers that he did not get and fumed because he could not get them. I will not only speak from memory, sir; I will also speak with the book right alongside me.
I notice that the resolution says the terms of reference of this committee will include moving from place to place. That is interesting. I think that provision should be there, but I would not be too concerned about the committee moving from place to place. The information required can be obtained right here in the city of Ottawa from the Minister of National Defence and the members of his department, if they want to give it to the committee. I can assure the house that moving from place to place is not too important. The other day the minister mentioned that he had had the opportunity of moving around and visiting military camps. He is not the only one; there are other hon. members in this House of Commons who over the years have had the opportunity to move around. There are quite a few of us. I was one of the fortunate ones to have the experience in 1961 of being a member of the official delegation from this House of Commons and visiting, I think, every Canadian camp in France and Germany and the majority of the official headquarters of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has time after time called these visits briefings. They are not briefings; they are an attempt at brainwashing. I have visited the majority of our military camps and have attended every so-called briefing, and a briefing is an attempt at brass brainwashing. Not only that, but as the committee moves around on these "briefings" they will encounter the same experience that the Minister of National Defence and myself encountered in the House of Commons committee; that is, evasion and weaseling. I can remember when we were in Soest and Zweibriicken and all through there that if on the briefings we asked a really pertinent question about Canada's role in defence we were told, "Sorry, sir; perhaps you had better ask that question of the next highest echelon", and when we got to the next highest echelon and put the question the answer was, "Sorry, sir; I think perhaps you ought to ask that of SACEUR or the next highest echelon". I followed that through from Soest to Zweibriicken until our five days in Paris at the NATO parliamentary conference, when I had an opportunity to ask the highest echelon, and what was the answer, "Sorry, sir; for security reasons we cannot answer that question".


An hon. Member:: What did you ask for, Harold?


Harold Edward Winch: The problem was that I knew the questions to ask and the things we wanted to know, but they were not prepared to answer. That has been my experience in five years both on the defence committee and in travelling around as a member of the Canadian delegation to the NATO parliamentary conference in Paris and visiting our stations in Germany and France.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of National Defence have asked for our co-operation. They will certainly get it. All we ask in return is the co-operation of the Minister of National Defence. All we ask is his confidence. We hope the information we seek can be given in public, but if it cannot, then give it in camera.
I can assure the Minister of National Defence that when I was leader of the opposition in British Columbia in the last war and questions were asked of the G.O.C. western command, the premier and myself knew from week to week the inner secrets of western command. That was the only time I think my own colleagues ever hated me, because I would not tell them whereof I knew. We worked that way.
This committee is as far as possible entitled to know the defence policy of Canada and its needs and requirements so that Canada may participate in the best possible way in the maintenance of peace and the maintenance and extension of democratic principles throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the establishment of this committee. We hope that the words we have heard thus far from the Minister of National Defence will be carried into effect and that as far as is humanly, governmentally and politically possible within the ultimate realm of security, he will take this committee into his confidence. We hope that, irrespective of what the committee recommends, it will have the full consideration of his department and of the government.
As I have said, sir, I only want the experience of sitting on this committee and being able to ask questions on government policy in defence matters, but I would like to add only one thing on the question of policy. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why it came to my mind. Yesterday the Pope died in Rome. There are three days of mourning in Italy and nine days for the five hundred million Catholics throughout the world. Last night the leaders of the world expressed their regrets at his death and said many things about his ideology and his principles. Last night

at eleven o'clock I watched the C.B.C. television news and I heard the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and what he had to say about the late Pope, about his goals and objectives, his principles and his efforts in working for peace. After hearing what the Prime Minister had to say about the late Pope John XXIII I heard what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had to say about the late Pope and his efforts for peace.
I want to ask the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition whether what they said on television last night does not make them liars so far as defence and foreign policy are concerned in view of the attributes which they applied to the man who died yesterday in Rome. What did that man say which was so highly praised by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the eleven o'clock C.B.C. television news last night? What did the man they were talking about say? Do I need to remind them? The title of the encyclical letter is "Pacem in Terris", papal documents series No. 7,4,1963, item No. 63,8. I read from page 23 of this encyclical letter issued at Rome on April 11, 1963:
The production of arms is allegedly justified on the grounds that in present day conditions peace cannot be preserved without an equal balance of armaments. And so, if one country increases its armaments, others feel the need to do the same; and if one country is equipped with nuclear weapons, other countries must produce their own, equally destructive.
Consequently, people live in constant fear lest the storm that every moment threatens should break upon them with dreadful violence. And with good reason, for the arms of war are ready at hand. Even though it is difficult to believe that anyone would deliberately take the responsibility for the appalling destruction and sorrow that war would bring in its train, it cannot be denied that the conflagration may be set off by some uncontrollable and unexpected chance. And one must bear in mind that, even though the monstrous power of modern weapons acts as a deterrent, it is to be feared that the mere continuance of nuclear tests, undertaken with war in mind, will have fatal consequences for life on the earth.
Justice, then, right reason and humanity urgently demand that the arms race should cease; that the stockpiles which exist in various countries should be reduced equally and simultaneously by the parties concerned; that nuclear weapons should be banned; and that a general agreement should eventually be reached about progressive disarmament and an effective method of control. In the words of Pius XII, our predecessor of happy memory:
"The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not be permitted to envelop the human race for a third time."
In view of the statement of the Prime Minister on the C.B.C. news last night, the almost adoring attributes he expressed with regard to the works and ideology of Pope John and in view of the similar expressions of the Leader of the Opposition, I can only
4,	1963
Appointment of Defence Committee conclude by saying that I hope this committee on defence will have a clear field to go into all questions of defence with relation to every country in the world in order that we in Canada can make a contribution, as I believe we can, in giving leadership and direction toward the maintenance of world peace.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this first opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his election to that office and to congratulate you, sir, on your election as Deputy Speaker. Discussion on this motion to set up a defence committee has revealed considerable difference of opinion as to the functions of the committee, how it will be carried on and what it will accomplish. The speeches of the leaders of the Social Credit and New Democratic parties indicated that they look to the committee to be a body to determine defence policy, and I presume that assumption on their part is only natural in view of the demands made by the former leader of the opposition during the past two years and particularly because of the statements he made during the election campaign in connection with this matter.
However, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made his opening statement I think he indicated a considerable shift in his position from that which he had taken when he was on this side of the house. He indicated that his interpretation of the terms of reference was that the committee would be able to discuss defence policy and would be able to make recommendations if it so wished but the determination of policy would remain with the government, as indeed I think it must under our system of responsible government. Under these circumstances I doubt very much whether the way in which the committee will carry on and the type of discussion that will take place will be very much different from that which took place in the committees of 1958 and 1960 when there was a great deal of discussion on policy matters although the committees were set up to examine defence expenditures. However, when you are discussing defence expenditures you inevitably get into the field of policy because all such expenditures are related to the types of equipment being secured, what they are going to be used for and things of that kind.
I believe that this committee can serve a useful purpose in informing its members, members of the house and the general public with regard to the organization, equipment and capabilities of our defence forces, the problems in defence and the policies being followed. I hope there will be a good deal of information given and a good deal of discussion on all of those matters.

Appointment of Defence Committee
I do not believe, however, that it can be an effective body so far as policy-making is concerned. One of the basic reasons for this was touched upon by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who spoke just a moment ago. He complained that a large number of the questions he asked during his visit to Europe and to other places had not been answered on the grounds of security. In so far as defence is concerned, security requirements, particularly our responsibilities to our allies in NATO in regard to security, make it impossible to put before a committee of this kind all the information on which defence policy is based and must be based.
I have heard it suggested at various times that all information, could be given to a committee of this kind in secret session. However, I must say that experience over the past 18 years has shown me, and I think has shown everyone who has been here for a long time, that such information generally appears in the newspapers within 24 hours after it has been given to the committee. Nobody ever knows how this information leaks out, but it does become part of the public domain. I feel this situation makes it impossible to give a committee of this sort all the security information which would be essential to enable it to act in the way that some members who have already spoken think it should act, that is as a policy-making body.
If the committee is to do successfully the job that it can do, there is one essential requisite and that is that members of the committee approach their task with open minds rather than with a set partisan position and the objective of trying to publicize this position to the greatest extent possible. One of the characteristics of most parliamentary committees is that they are political forums, to some extent, and with subjects such as defence and external affairs, the greater the extent to which the committee is used for these purposes, the less useful work it can accomplish. If the members of the committee approach their work with set ideas and spend all their time trying to elicit facts which they believe will support those ideas, and to discredit facts which they think are contrary to those ideas, I doubt whether the committee will be able to accomplish useful work in the way of enlightening the members and the general public.
During the course of the remarks the minister made when he was speaking in this debate, there was one statement to which I must take objection. He complained that he was unable to get any information about defence when he was in opposition. This statement is demonstrably not true. Every question that the minister asked when he was in

opposition, that is written questions, questions on orders of the day or when the estimates of the department were being discussed, was answered. He might not have been satisfied with all the answers. In some cases, the only answer that could be given was that security considerations prevented the question being answered. Nevertheless, he was given all the information it was possible to give him. I can vouch for this fact, so far as I am concerned, and the same thing is true so far as my predecessor was concerned. I take considerable objection to this statement made by the minister last week.
A very large amount of information in regard to defence matters was given to the committees of 1958 and 1960. All anyone has to do in order to determine that fact is to peruse the reports of those committees. He will ascertain that there was discussion of all the weapons which subsequently became the subject of so much general debate and discussion throughout Canada. I must say that I think the difficulty of the minister, when he was in opposition, was that he refused to accept information. In other words, it was a case of the old saw: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This was, essentially, the position of the minister. His whole approach, during the time he was in opposition, was to denigrate everything that was done in connection with defence. According to him, no single piece of equipment we secured was right. We should not have had it, we should have obtained something else. Nothing that was done in connection with defence, no policy that was followed, was correct. Something else should have been done. In other words, his whole purpose at that time was not to get information, not to try to see that Canada had the best defence effort possible, but merely to belabour the government for political purposes. I will say that in opposition he was the perfect example of the attitude which would make this committee unworkable or make its work abortive. He was the perfect example of the attitude which I said I hoped would not prevail amongst the members of the committee. I hope that they will approach the task with open minds and be prepared to examine the facts in an impartial manner.
I trust that in so far as this committee is concerned the government will not follow the tactics that they used in connection with the defence committees of 1951, 1952 and 1953. I was a member of those committees. At that time, there was a great mass of detail presented to the committee, largely irrelevant so far as the real issues were concerned. The result was that the committee was bogged down in these details and it was unable to

get around to the consideration of the important matters which it should have been considering. I believe the Liberals of the day thought these tactics were very clever. I trust there will be no repetition of that sort of thing. I mention this particularly because there seemed to be some hint of these tactics in the minister's speech when he talked about the need to put vast amounts of information before the committee, to take trips here and there, and so on. If this is the method followed in carrying out the work of the committee,
I can readily see that the committee will degenerate into the same sort of operation that was so unsuccessful in 1951, 1952 and 1953.
I hope that will not be done.
A good deal of time has been spent during this debate in a discussion of defence policy. My position in that regard, especially in relation to nuclear weapons, I think is sufficiently well known to the members of this house and to the country generally that I need not take up the time of the house by reviewing it. I would, however, like to say this: During the Conservative period in office we followed a policy of fully supporting NATO, NORAD and the United Nations, and of contributing to them the men and equipment required to meet our fair share of the collective responsibility of maintaining peace and the security of the western world. This involved the acquisition of four weapons systems which are effective only when they are armed with nuclear warheads. The final step of securing these warheads was the one step which was not taken at that time.
At the present time, the Liberals have adopted this policy in its entirety, so far as one can see. I believe that they should be honest and say that they have adopted the Conservative defence policies of the last five years instead of trying to pin their position to the narrow ground of merely living up to commitments made by the previous government.
The result of the government's failure to state frankly it now believes the Conservative government's policy was a wise one is further confusion, and we have the Gilbert and Sullivan, or perhaps Alice in Wonderland situation, of Liberal spokesmen defending the Conservative policy of the past five years, and some Conservative spokesmen attacking it. I trust one of the things this committee may be able to do is clear up the general confusion in regard to defence policy, and where the various parties stand on that very important matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly.
4, 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In his opinion was the previous government committed to the acquisition of nuclear warheads for use in some of the weapons systems it had acquired?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the acquisition of these four weapons systems indicated an intention on the part of the government to supply them the ammunition which would make them effective.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Aihabasca):: Mr. Speaker,
this is not the first time I have stood up in this house and spoken on defence, and in order that the gentlemen of the fourth estate may not be misled any further I would like to make my own personal position clear. It was stated in the Montreal Gazette of May 24 that I supported the N.D.P. motion. The N.D.P. motion, on the face of it, was to the effect that we should not have nuclear arms in Canada. That is not why I supported it. The reason was because it was interpreted by our side that the Liberal party purported to complete an agreement with the United States with regard to acquiring nuclear warheads for Canadian forces, and on Canadian soil, without full consultation with parliament. That was the reason why I voted in favour of the N.D.P. motion, as a vote of censure.
I want to make sure that Canadian sovereignty is secured in any agreement we make with any country. Personally I am against nuclear war, like everybody else within earshot of me and like everyone else in the world. But, Mr. Speaker, we live in the twentieth century. We live in the era of nuclear warheads, and I fully believe that only the deterrent power of the United States has prevented Russia from imposing her will on the western world. This is not to say I am willing to accept nuclear arms and nuclear warheads holus-bolus, on Canadian soil.
I made my position clear on September 12, 1961, when I spoke on this question in the house, and I will not bore you by repeating it. On May 23 this year I reiterated my stand. Briefly, what I am asking is that we take the full moral commitment of supporting our United States allies. Then, if we take that full moral commitment, the question of the distribution of weapons is only incidental.
I am ready to put my life and my talents, such as they are, at the disposal of the western world under the leadership of the United States in the military sphere, but if I make such a commitment I would like a reciprocal commitment on the part of my United States allies to always recognize Canada as a sovereign nation. The fact that they are larger than we makes no difference. If we had a population of 185 million people

Appointment of Defence Committee would the United States expect to locate atomic weapons on our soil without a proper two way commitment?
We should face the moral issue properly and decide we are with the United States in resisting communist aggression on this planet. Once we decide to do that, the details are not very important, and we should stop playing politics on this point on both sides of the border.
If the government through this committee, is going to show the Canadian people what our attitude is to joint defence then we will get somewhere, but if this committee is just going to be a way of passing the buck, and smothering us with a lot of straw and no wheat, then I would be opposed to establishing a committee because it will have a bad effect on public opinion and on our position in the eyes of the whole world. However, if the committee achieves this, then I would like to be on the committee and discuss the matter fully with hon. members of the Liberal party.
It is not the responsibility of the opposition to set government policy. As I see it, we have just had an election on this very issue. We were turned out of office because it was said in the press, on the radio and television, that we did not have the courage to determine a policy and negotiate a working agreement with our allies. That, Mr. Speaker, is not so. I have just heard the former minister of national defence say he had this clearcut policy, but never in public or private did he say he was dickering with the Americans for a policy that was acceptable. There may be reasons for this, and I think he gave one in the Calgary Herald, some 18 months ago.
I hold in my hand a paper put out by the Calgary Herald which, on the last page, states that the former minister commended a series of articles on defence published in the Herald and suggested that they should be given the widest possible circulation. The punch line in this paper can be summed up in one short paragraph:
On the other hand, all the nuclear weapons are in American hands, and American law requires that they be used only upon order of the United States government.
This is not a bilateral affair; it is only on the order of the United States government that they can be used. The paragraph continues:
There are tricky questions of sovereignty to be decided here, and they can probably be decided only by agreement (secret if necessary) between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.
How can a committee discuss what can only be discussed between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of

Canada? I have to put my faith somewhere.
I put it squarely in our democratic way of solving the question. Having pooled our resources and opinions and having picked out the best man we can find by public consent, now I am willing to put this responsibility for a secret agreement-and I think a secret agreement is necessary-fully upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister of this country. Let him work out the secret agreement. Let him come up with the decisive action for which the Canadian public is looking. Let us have no more talk about committees or the joint action of four parties. Frankly I do not trust the joint action of four parties.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
(Translation):



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Representation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to speak in this house during the present session, I should like to extend to you, as many of those who have spoken before me have done, my warmest congratulations on your appointment to the office you have been holding with such dignity since the beginning of the session.
I do not intend to deal at length with this bill because the few words of text provide practically all the required information.
At this stage, I do not have to give you an historical account of the constituency of Charlevoix. If I considered introducing this measure, it is because many constituents of Montmorency county whose name does not appear in the riding to which they belong have asked me to do so.
In fact, this federal constituency was formerly called Charlevoix-Saguenay. At the last redistribution, the county of Saguenay was removed from the constituency of Charlevoix, but the county of Montmorency stayed in. Geographically, three quarters of the county of Montmorency belongs to the riding of Charlevoix, and at least one third of the voters of this constituency are from the county of Montmorency. The fact that the name of Montmorency does not appear in the name of the federal constituency is sometimes confusing for certain people of Montmorency who

do not know what constituency they belong to. That is the reason why I moved this bill so as the name of Charlevoix constituency be changed to Charlevoix-Montmorency.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monimagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, as to Bill C-3 the purpose of which is to change the name of the district of Charlevoix to that of Charlevoix-Montmorency, as it has been announced, may I be permitted to put forward my personal opinion on that question; and I have no doubt that a good number of residents in my native riding of Quebec-Montmorency have the same opinion. However, as it is the first time that I have the honour to speak to this distinguished audience, I should like first to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, for the efficient and wonderful way in which you discharge your important duties.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, in order, also, to pay a tribute to your very practical bilingualism which will surely facilitate our mutual understanding in this distinguished chamber, an understanding which is so dear to the leaders of the present government and to their colleagues, allow me to extend to you my warmest congratulations upon your welcome nomination to this most important post in our country's administration, as many other hon. members have done before me.
To come back, now, to the second reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Representation Act regarding the electoral district of Charlevoix, may I continue in French, my native tongue, which is naturally much more familiar to me?
(Translation):
I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that at first the principle of this bill seemed to me good and even desirable. However, after having given the matter some thought, I now wonder if this change would not lead to some confusion, as we already have the well-known constituency of Quebec-Montmorency.
I wish to state here that I always had a soft spot for Montmorency, as I was born in Ville Montmorency, and I return there regularly to visit my numerous relations. My ancestors came from Baie St. Paul, in Charlevoix county, while by a remarkable coincidence, the hon. member for that constituency was born in Montmagny-L'Islet, which I have the honour to represent in this house. That being so, I sincerely hope that my hon. friend will understand and forgive if I take a special interest in his bill.
Representation Act
I would remind you, Mr, Speaker, that, as you probably already know, it is not the first time that Charlevoix's designation has been changed. The hon. member said so himself a moment ago. Our distinguished fellow member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) will perhaps be surprised to know that what is now the county of Charlevoix was, at first, part of the county of Northumberland, when it was created in 1792.
In 1829, Northumberland was divided in two counties, Montmorency and Saguenay, the latter's limits comprising what is now the county of Charlevoix, which is the subject matter of this debate.
In 1858, the eastern part of the county of Saguenay became a separate county and was called Charlevoix, after Pierre Francois Xavier Charlevoix, a Jesuit father who wrote a history of New France which was published in Paris in 1744 and was a great success.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am now thinking of my fellow members who are dedicated fishermen even if they would rather stress the social angle-I am happy to point out that this mountainous county with many picturesque sites, where three rivers flow into the St. Lawrence, is a paradise for fishermen. I might mention the Gouffre river, at Baie St. Paul, the Malbaie, at La Malbaie, and the Noire river, at St. Simeon, where the catch can be marvellous.
But to go on with my remarks, history tells us that like an easily comforted widower, Charlevoix was unable to live alone. That is how it came about that, in 1917, it was united with the county of Montmorency and, in 1926, with the county of Saguenay. I do not know exactly if this was due to household or other troubles, but those unions were not lasting ones. There was a divorce, or rather a separation because of an ever increasing family- which would be more acceptable- and Charlevoix again for the last few years has been on its own and apparently finds this rather tedious.
I therefore can very well understand, as you probably can, Mr. Speaker, why the present incumbent of this county is so gentle, to whom his voters apparently complained about this widowhood which I shall call "districo-electoral". For, Mr. Speaker, you know that Charlevoix still has all its charm and is a very acceptable match for Montmorency, as suggested by the hon. member. You just have to refer to the book Dans nos mon-tagnes by Rev. Lionel Boivin, priest of the Assumption parish at Les Eboulements.

Representation Act
Charlevoix has various parishes which were established under the French rule, and all are situated on the northern shore of the St. Lawrence-I might, among others, mention St. Pierre and St. Paul of Baie St. Paul. Those who have been listening to the radio and television programs-I have devoted 13 or 14 years of my life to that field-will recall a very popular person on the radio, Mr. Albert Duquesne, called Alexis, who came from Baie St. Paul. There are also the parishes of St. Francois, Petite-Riviere, Chateau-Richer, Ste Anne de Beaupre and St. Joachim, founded in 1722.
That is interesting history.
On the Montmorency side, we might perhaps recall that since the redistribution in 1924, the former Quebec county has become Quebec-Montmorency, as it is known today.
That is another excellent match. It is named after the Montmorency falls, so called by Champlain in 1630-this is going back quite a bit-to honour the duke of Montmorency, third viceroy of New France. Those falls are 240 feet high, which is 75 feet higher than Niagara falls, and I do not say this to spite our colleagues from Ontario. Mr. Speaker, the mention of the height of the Montmorency falls may explain why we perhaps look down on such a proposal. But we find some gentility in the name of Montmorency, which reminds us of Anne de Montmorency, high constable of France, Henry I, duke of Montmorency and marshal of France, the also quite illustrious Frangois-Xavier de Mont-morency-Laval, the first bishop of Quebec who left his name to an institution of high learning, the Laval University of Quebec city, which I am proud to have attended during my youth.
We could also mention several other names, the Montmorency river which had some importance in politics or international politics since the Montmorency river, as you undoubtedly know, has its source in lake des Neiges, a wonderful place in the national park where prominent people made a fishing trip during an important conference held in Quebec city-if my memory does not fail me-at the Chateau Frontenac where the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a late prime minister of Canada, and representatives from Russia met and made quite a fishing trip to lake des Neiges.
Therefore, as you see, a lot can be said on the merits and charms of Montmorency.
We do not necessarily see an improper alliance in this case, Mr. Speaker, but, as you undoubtedly know, it is when the bans are published that those who know of some reasons why such marriage should not be made are called upon to come forward as soon as possible. That is why I made those remarks.
To conclude, I wish to point out a serious objection in addition to the multiplicity of the name of Montmorency used for other ridings, it is that this union seems to be between next of kins and I would be most concerned over the brood bom from such a union.
Moreover, to get back to serious things, as the government has the intention to introduce soon a measure concerning a redistribution of our ridings through a special committee that will be instituted for that purpose, I think it would be premature to comply with the request of the hon. member for Charlevoix because, in my opinion, that would not settle in a concrete way the problem which we face at the present time in that field.
That is why I object to this bill; besides, I am sure that the study which will be made through the proposed redistribution would serve to dot the I's and cross the T's; this would be better than putting in commas that might put us in an unfortunate situation.
It only remains for me to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to me so patiently and I hope that my next contribution will be of interest to all the members of this house.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for the constituency having Montmorency in its name, I should like to say a few words. Not that I am opposed to the bill of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger), but it seems to me that the voters of Quebec-Montmorency would be opposed to the amalgamation of two parts of different counties. It is obvious that, from a geographical point of view, many parishes and municipalities which belong to the federal constituency of Charlevoix, are included in the provincial county of Montmorency.
In my opinion, that would be a dangerous precedent to accept that municipalities belonging to a provincial county could be designated under the same name for federal purposes.

For instance, I do not see the county of Quebec South being named Quebec South West, and the county of Quebec West being named Quebec West St. Sauveur, because some parishes of a federal constituency belong to another county for provincial purposes.
It would certainly be a prejudice to some people who are in the habit of abbreviating riding names.
Some people who live in the St. Maurice-Lafleche riding say that they live in the St. Maurice riding. Others call it the La-fleche riding. If people in our two adjacent ridings decided to call each riding the Montmorency county it would bring more confusion into the matter instead of more clarity in the use of riding names, due to the names given for various reasons, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger), to some cities like the city of Montmorency which is in fact in the Quebec-Montmorency riding. I wonder what those people would think if the name of their city was also used in another riding.
I also understand very well the electors of the Montmorency provincial riding when they consider they are a little far away keeping in mind the fact that they belong to the Charlevoix riding.
But I imagine that the former hon. member for Charlevoix riding and former minister of lands and forests in the defeated government, being himself mayor of a community in the Charlevoix riding, would surely have been opposed to the name of Montmorency for his riding because his own people, in his own community, would have thought he was the member for another riding.
Of course, that is a rather difficult situation, whether it be accepted or not. It is somewhat like nuclear arms. However, I think we must go on past experience and especially on the reasons which favoured a particular name for a particular riding.
As the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet suggested a while ago, it is quite possible that in the near future, we will have a redistribution which should provide a better identification for the Charlevoix riding.
It is quite likely that some municipalities now found in the county of Charlevoix would again find themselves in the Quebec-Mont-morency county and that some municipalities now found in Quebec-Montmorency would find themselves in other Quebec counties, such as Quebec South or Quebec West. At the same time, it is quite possible that the Quebec-Montmorency county would simply become the county of Montmorency.
28902-5-42J
Representation Act
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I think that, despite the good intentions of the hon. member for Charlevoix, we should not set a precedent in this house before getting the advice of the commission which will be established to study the redistribution of electoral districts and perhaps also the advice of the persons directly concerned if the two names are joined together.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take any more time in this debate, but, as member for Quebec-Montmorency and having been elected in the constituency which, why, I do not know, bears those two names, I could even say that it would be in order for me to ask that the word "Quebec" be changed, for there is no part of the city of Quebec in the riding of Quebec-Montmorency. However, in view of the history and the geographical delimitation of our riding-I imagine that the name "Quebec" indicates that the riding goes all around the provincial capital-I feel that the present designation should be kept and that there would be no point in adding the word "Montmorency" to the name of the riding of Charlevoix.
That is why, in spite of the sympathy I have for the mayor of the municipality of Beaupre and for the member for Charlevoix, I would ask the house to vote against the addition of the word "Montmorency". If the reasons I am giving now and those which will be expressed a little later on seem reasonable to the hon. member for Charlevoix, I would ask him to agree to the withdrawal of his bill.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. Would he agree to having the bill amended so as to have the words "Beaupre-Charlevoix", for instance, substituted for the words "Charlevoix-Mont-morency" to emphasize the presence in the riding of a sanctuary of world-wide reputation?


Guy Marcoux: Personally, I would be in favour of any new designation providing it does not include the word "Montmorency". The riding could be called "Charlevoix-St. Ann", "Charlevoix-Beaupre" or "Charle-voix-St. Anne de Beaupre". I have no objection at all and if it suits the hon. member, the riding could be called "Charlevoix-Beau-port" since the city of Beauport is situated in Quebec-Montmorency, besides being my hometown. That would underline the importance of the municipality. However, I feel it is my duty to object to the use of the word ' 'Montmorency".

Representation Act


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I must also object, of course, to changing the name of the constituency of Charlevoix to that of Charlevoix-Mont-morency.
Two hon. members have already set forth convincing arguments in order to show that the passage of this legislation would cause confusion among the people of Quebec-Mont-morency. It is obvious that those are two neighbouring ridings which also cover a provincial electoral district.
I feel that we should wait before deciding anything concerning the names of constituencies. I mean by that that we should wait until the redistribution of ridings is completed, because at that time the Montmorency section may no longer form part of Charlevoix county and electors might be sought elsewhere to increase that riding.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I think that the argument put forward by the hon. member for Charlevoix to the effect that a third of his electors are in Montmorency county, applies just as well in my case.
A third of my constituents of the St. Maurice-Lafleche riding are actually in the provincial riding of Laviolette and the two thirds in the provincial riding of St. Maurice.
If we trace the origin of the name of my riding, one finds that the name of St. Maurice was given because the riding is crossed by the St. Maurice river and also because it includes the provincial constituency of St. Maurice. As for the second part of this name, Mr. Speaker, it has been given in commemoration of Monseigneur Lafleche. But as this riding, which was established in 1935, has never elected a Conservative member, I believe that my constituents would be justified in requesting the removal of the name of Lafleche as Monseigneur Lafleche, who was quite well known in the region, had at least some ideas somewhat incompatible with those of the party of which I am a supporter. Therefore, it would be advisable to strike out his name from that of the riding that I represent.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, we are talking of the constituency of Charlevoix-Montmor-ency, not of the constituency of St. Maurice-Lafleche. Consequently, I should ask the hon. member to return to the bill under consideration.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I am of the opinion that we should be allowed to discuss this matter. There has to be serious reasons to change the name of a constituency. If we have to cater to the whims of the voters, I should ask that the name of Lafleche be struck out, because it does not meet with the views of many of
IMr. Marcoux.)
the voters of my riding. But the name of a constituency, let alone that of a member, should not be changed simply because the voters have expressed this view.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the hon. member was just making a comparison, and I would hope he can continue. (Translation):


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, sound reasons are needed to justify such action. Some of my constituents pointed out that between 1935 and 1963, we were in the Liberal camp, with two exceptions when no Conservative candidates had been nominated. Monseigneur Lafleche, one of the most prominent persons in that region, had his name linked with the constituency, and this is indeed a great honour. Even if Monseigneur Lafleche, whose name is linked with the county, did not share my ideas he was a man who left his imprint on Canada's history though he did not share in the political philosophy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that great leader; but we still can have his name in the constituency I represent in the house.
It would be wrong for me to ask for his name to be erased, simply in order to gratify the whims of a few of my constituents.
The county of St. Maurice-Lafleche which has chosen me to represent it in the house and which is Liberal, has a historical name, and I would like to read to the house a document I found-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know what bill is being studied at the moment. Does the hon. member want to change the name of the constituency, or are we supposed to be studying the bill submitted by the hon. member for Charlevoix?
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the hon. member's point of order is well taken. The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) has, I think, carried his comparison far enough and I would hope he would now get back to the bill before the house.
(Translation):


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I believe that I am not straying too far away. I have serious reasons to explain why I would ask a change in the name of my constituency; however, it is better to await the redistribution of seats. A commission is supposed to be set up to deal fairly with everyone. In my opinion redistribution is required and when this commission on redistribution of constituencies is

created, we will have at that time to make it responsible to give adequate names to those constituencies we represent.
Very often, when addressing a member, for instance the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, etc. etc., (Mr. Paul) the name of his riding is made up of seven or eight names which we are never able to remember. Mr. Speaker, if only the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) etc.,-we never know whether he is member for Joliette, L'Assomption or Montcalm-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to strike out any of the three nice names of the constituency I represent because the people in my riding would be most vexed about that. I would ask the hon. member not to antagonize in any way the people of the riding I have the honour of representing in this House of Commons.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This was simply an opinion and I intend to keep on expressing my views.
In the riding of St. Maurice-Lafleche, I submit that we have an historical and partisan reason to have the name of Lafleche together with St. Maurice, but it is not enough and I believe that the commission which will be set up to examine the matter shall see to it that the names of constituencies are not overly long.
I suggest this is a most serious matter. I feel that in the provincial riding of Montmorency, the name of Montmorency has been given to the member for Quebec-Montmor-ency. Why then should we also have to put the name of Montmorency in the riding of Charlevoix? Is this only a whim? Because a person lives in the provincial riding of Montmorency is no reason why we should say Charlevoix-Montmorency because there are some persons from Montmorency included in the federal constituency of Quebec South.
I think this is a very serious discussion and I should be allowed to come back to this historical article I wanted to discuss a while ago to the effect that Monseigneur Lafleche did not agree with Sir Wilfrid Laurier's opinions. Indeed, those are historical pages.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is not discussing the bill before the house to change the name of the Charlevoix electoral district to that of Charlevoix-Montmorency.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes to read that document to prove that I could have ideological reasons to ask that the name of my riding be changed,
Representation Act
but I do not do so because I would then be yielding to some of my electors' whims.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not abiding by your rulings.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
I think I would have to listen to the hon. member to find out what he is going to read before I would know whether he is out of order.
(Translation):


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a page of history taken from a book entitled "Toward the Abyss" in which is reported a letter written by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I quote from that book:
The bishops do great harm to our cause. If we could have a Liberal bishop, our triumph would be a sure thing.
This is why I say that. At that time, people in the province of Quebec were fighting for political philosophy, to put forward progressive policies as the Liberal party always did for a century.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, objections were met-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: The hon. member is not discussing at all the bill before the house. He is talking about Monseigneur Lafleche. He was not known in Charlevoix county. I should like him to discuss the bill now before the house.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must remind the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche of the bill which is now before the house.
(Translation):


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Then, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should wait until the redistribution is over before giving precise terms of reference to those who are responsible for that redistribution, to give us appropriate names in order to avoid any confusion in the names of the counties. I object to the fact that the name of Montmorency is being connected with two or three other counties in order simply to satisfy the whims of some voters. In St. Maurice-Lafleche a third of the voters live in the county of Laviolette; however, I do not think that it is sufficient reason to change the name of my county.
That is the reason why I object to that bill, under which the name of Charlevoix would be changed to that of Charlevoix-Montmorency because the name of Montmorency is already connected with the name of Que-bec-Montmorency. This would add to the

Representation Act
existing confusion instead of helping people and it would also be a nuisance for the members of the house when they want to find out who is the member for Montmorency because they would have to ask themselves "what Montmorency".
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that Charlevoix is an historical name in the province of Quebec and that it should remain unchanged in order to represent that riding. It is also possible that the provincial riding of Montmorency will no longer be a part of the federal constituency of Charlevoix, as a result of the redistribution of electoral constituencies, provincial as well as federal; those problems will be settled when the commissions, provincial as well as federal, have redistributed the electoral districts.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, is it permitted to speak English in the present debate?
(Text):
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that some of the objections raised to this bill, which seeks a change of name of a constituency, have been to the effect that there is already a riding with the name of Montmorency, namely, Quebec-Montmorency. This should not be any great problem. There are three ridings with the name Richmond, Burnaby-Richmond, Richmond-Wolfe and Inverness-Richmond.
I think it has been the tradition in the past that if a member wants the name of his riding changed this is accepted, and I am rather sorry to see the Liberal whips running around lining up people to talk out the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I feel that the hon. member is now imputing motives and possibly I should advise him to come back to the bill.


Robert William Prittie: There is really not much more to say about the bill. The member has asked for this change, some of the people in his riding want it and I think we should grant him the name he desires. That is all I wish to say except that I am sorry to see the efforts being made on the other side.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Louis Frenette (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, since I seconded the motion for second reading of the bill, I feel that I should reply to those who have spoken against it.
At least ten electoral ridings are designated in a manner similar to that which is proposed in this legislation. In fact, every time we wish to speak of a member from a riding situated in the city of Montreal, we have to
IMr. Chretien.)
add the name of his constituency, for instance, Montreal-St. Ann, Montreal-St. Henry, etc.
In fact, I noticed that several ridings outside of Montreal are designated by a double name such as the one which the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) proposes to the house in this bill, namely "Charlevoix-Montmorency".
My friend is just trying to satisfy his constituents and I feel that he is right in doing so since the first duty of a member of parliament is obviously to speak on behalf of the people he represents. I fail to see how other members can cast a reflection on the hon. member for Charlevoix precisely because he is looking after the interests of his constituents.
I appreciated greatly the fine and witty speech made by the member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Berger). We were pleased to hear the argument which he put forward against the bill. It is obvious that he has not forgotten the role he played for several years on the radio. I congratulate him for being such an outstanding comedian.
The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) went to great pains to try to talk out the bill, but it is obvious that he will not get anywhere. However, he is most persistent and consistent when he speaks of his riding.
The hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) is also against this bill which tends to change the designation of the riding of Charlevoix to that of Charlevoix-Saguenay.
He reminded us of the immediate predecessor of the present member for Charlevoix who, according to my information, once introduced a bill to have the word "Montmorency" added to that of "Charlevoix".
I think that the main argument in all this discussion which, after all, does not deserve to be called a debate, is simply that the hon. member for Charlevoix is speaking on behalf of his voters who want their federal constituency to bear the name of Charlevoix-Montmorency.
In consequence, I want vigorously to support the effort of the hon. member who introduced this bill which I would like to see passed by the house.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Frenette), mentioned just now my former association with radio and television work.

I must say that I was very proud of my name as a comedian at the time, because that was my profession. However, since I entered politics, I had to quit my activities as a comedian to become something more serious, and I do not think I can be blamed for doing so, because I thought that people were more serious-minded in the house, where we are supposed to discuss grave matters, and I wonder whether I could not ask the hon. member to withdraw the qualification of comedian he used when speaking of me, more particularly when we are trying to do some serious work.
When I want to become a comedian again, I shall know what to do, without seeking the advice of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Frenette).


Jean-Louis Frenette: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I cast any reflection on the hon. member for Montmagny-l'Islet for having been a comedian. Indeed, I was very pleased to say that we enjoyed the way in which he put forward his arguments against the bill before us. I obviously hold no grudge against him for having resorted to his talents as a comedian. On the contrary. I would like to be able to do so myself. But if he says that I have offended or shocked him, I do not think I have. Anyhow, I had no intention of offending him when I said that he was a good comedian.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with those who have spoken before me on this subject. On the other hand, I must say I am rather embarrassed, as far as the Quebec area is concerned. In fact, I live in the Quebec-Montmorency district and my member of parliament is none other than the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux). Moreover, I am the member for the Quebec South riding which was mentioned a moment ago.
Mr. Speaker, towards the end of a sitting that looked much like the one we are having tonight, I heard an hon. member say the following words: "Always the same old contraption". That undoubtedly proves that the committee which will be set up to examine the reform of the house will have to seek means of changing the parliamentary procedure in such a way that the members are not compelled to waste their time.
I believe that, in principle, matters of legislation are the responsibility of the government. As regards the bill now before us, since the speech from the throne provides for the establishment of a commission
Representation Act
to study the redistribution of electoral districts, that is the revision of the Representation Act, I am of the opinion that bills which run counter to measures already advocated in the speech from the throne are surely premature. Questions are raised there that will be studied anew by the commission to be established and whose duties, among others, will involve the redistribution of electoral districts in the province of Quebec.
To my way of thinking, that is reason enough to reject measures such as the one now before us, because the matter concerns but one constituency and not all the country's electoral districts.
Mr. Chairman, it is rather strange to see the results sometimes brought about by changes in the names of certain districts. I do not doubt the good intentions of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger); indeed, as he said himself, one quarter of the population of the federal riding of Charlevoix live within the boundaries of the provincial constituency of Montmorency and three quarters in the constituency of Charlevoix.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency told us that three quarters of Montmorency riding, which are located in my constituency, should be called Montmorency. I must say that I agree in principle with the single name for a single constituency.
The name of Charlevoix is a very nice name with its history, as it has been said so eloquently a few moments ago.
The name of Montmorency is also an historical name; it has also a beautiful history attached to it that would deserve a constituency all to itself.
Sometimes it may be just a whim to ask for a change of name. This afternoon, I had the time to make a quick list of the names which have been changed in various ridings since the last redistribution of seats, which dates back to 1952.
If we consider chapter 48 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, we note that the lawmakers passed legislation of a general nature when proceeding with the 1952 redistribution. If we go back farther than 1958, we note that in 1953 and 1954, as evidenced by chapter 32, they had to give a double-barrelled name to ridings.
At this time, I think of the Speaker of this house and of the second assistant Clerk who have to recognize the members not only by name but also by the name of their ridings, which is an enormous task.

Representation Act
To show what I mean, I will give the case of the riding of Swift Current, which became the riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek.
I seriously wonder where such definitions have led us. If you refer to chapter 5 of the statutes of 1955, you will find that there is also a third name, as was said before.
The hon. member for Charlevoix may have learned, at the same time, that the riding of Northumberland once was part of the riding of Charlevoix and that, following a change of name in 1955, it became known as the riding of Northumberland-Miramichi. At that time an effort was obviously made to pay tribute to the local Indians, but I think that a triple name is already much too long, if one really wants to speed up the business of the house.
Finally, going back to 1959, we notice another change. This concerns chapter 16 of the Statutes of Canada relating to the riding of Temiscouata. That is an example of a change which is hard to justify. The name was normal. With a little imagination, it might be possible to restore the original name. It was changed from Temiscouata to Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata. Evidently, you know that at the time of its simple designation, that riding was highly represented by the hon. Senator Jean Francois Pouliot to whom I now wish to pay a tribute.
The present member for Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) will undoubtedly be able to speak about his riding. I sincerely believe that it might be advisable, when redistribution is examined, to give that riding one name only in order to expedite the business of the house.
If we go back to 1961, we notice another change. I refer to chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada. There is the riding of Humboldt-Melfort, to which it was decided to add a third name. In fact, today it is Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member can take the liberty of explaining the history of the Charlevoix constituency, but to switch from one riding in the west to one in the maritimes and to go from one coast to the other is a departure from the bill under study. I understand that the hon. member is very interesting. He has done a lot of research which he could save for another occasion, namely a meeting of the St. Jean Baptiste society in his constituency. But in my opinion, he should deal with the bill under study, which concerns the Charlevoix riding, and not talk about the western constituencies.


Mr. Habel:: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in the interest of the hon. member for Joliette, etc., to listen carefully to the thorough study being made by the hon. member who has the floor. It would be much better for him and he should remain seated so as to learn something.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I may say that the hon. member has been sitting in this house for many years. I do not question the value of the statement being made by the hon. member, but I think it is not appropriate, that it does not concern the bill presently under consideration. We have to adhere to the standing orders. The member is talking of a western constituency which I think is located pretty far away from a county of the province of Quebec.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think there is a question of principle involved when the members ask for some changes. In my opinion, it is necessary to give examples, and I think it is quite relevant to read what was done before and to give some examples of name changes that were requested by some members in the past. Otherwise, this might lead to any exaggeration. It is true that sometimes improvements were achieved.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) is trying to use some examples of where names have been changed. I do not think he is quite out of order at the moment, but I would hope he would continue with the bill now before the house.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I respect your decision, but I wish to say that you are showing generosity towards the hon. member.


Jean-Charles Cantin: So, Mr. Speaker, I will give you another example. It deals with chapter 28, 1962. The name of Nanaimo has been changed into Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Here again, we have a longer name and it results in a waste of time.
But, may I be allowed to give you another example where, I believe, there has been some improvement? In 1962 under chapter 17, the name of the Northwest Territories was changed into that of Mackenzie River. Here, I believe, that as far as the geographic position is concerned, the name really indicates the territory in question and it is all for the better.

Then, as I pointed out a moment ago, I am not, theoretically speaking, against changes in names. But I think there is a proper way of doing it, for instance through a committee that would be set up with this end in view. In such a committee, the hon. members would be able to take turns giving their own version. Thus, Mr. Speaker, we should help to speed up the business of the house rather than delay it.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see that this bill is submitted to the house by my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger). May I point out that our surnames should not be mixed up: I am Boulanger, he is Belanger. We often get each other's mail. I sincerely hope that my secrets are safe with him.
Though I have only a few minutes I will have time to state emphatically that I share in the feelings of my colleagues who have found strong reasons for disapproving the bill submitted by the hon. member for Charlevoix. I could point out to him that there are 120,000 voters in my county, that it is the second largest in Canada, coming immediately behind York-Scarborough, that it has changed its name to Montreal-Mercier and also that it is called sometimes federal Montreal-Mercier, sometimes provincial Montreal-Mercier. And now there is a new ward represented in Montreal city hall and it is called municipal Montreal-Mercier. It would be odd if we changed the constituency's name to comply with an hon. member's whim.
I wonder if my hon. friend truly feels that this request reflects the opinion of the Charlevoix constituents.
I have listened to what the hon. member had to say, and I find that he said nothing, that he did not even attempt to prove that he was speaking in the name of his constituents, of the citizens of his county, in submitting this amendment to the house.
I wonder whether I would be violating the rules of the house if I said that I am beginning to doubt or rather to ask myself if it is not a whim on the part of my colleague rather than a request from his constituents.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I rise on a point of order. I feel that the hon. member for Mercier has no right to impute motives to me following my remarks. In fact, I did say that it was following the representations of my constituents that I introduced this bill; the hon. member has to accept my word on the matter.
Representation Act


Prosper Boulanger: Do you think there is really a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I would be grateful if you would settle the matter.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member has made his explanation and the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) will have to accept that explanation.
(Translation):


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, let us say that
I did not ask the question, but that I was simply expressing my doubts that the bill was introduced because of a whim of the hon. member rather than at the request of his constituents.
Anyhow, I feel that his request is premature. It must be realized, first of all, that the chief electoral officer of Canada, Mr. Castonguay, as the hon. member should know, is on a trip to Australia at present, before starting on a redistribution of ridings, in order to study the manner in which electoral districts are distributed over there.
I am sure that, on his return, Mr. Castonguay will be able to enlighten my colleague from Charlevoix, as well as myself and all other hon. members. That is why I find his bill premature.
Moreover, after listening to the eloquent speeches of the hon. members for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Berger) and from Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Marcoux), there is no doubt that the request of the hon. member for Charlevoix must be questioned.
What deepens my conviction is that, after having heard the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin)-I take the liberty of calling him by name-who gave us a long list of name changes, I see that there can be much more confusion than in the county of Charlevoix at present. I wonder if the confusion he speaks about in regard to his own constituency is not of his own doing.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. members who took the floor before me and devoted particular attention to those who dealt with redistribution. I would like to tell the house that after the committee is set up, I shall speak first of all about the number of voters who reside in and around Montreal.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Appointment of Defence Committee AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That a special committee be appointed to consider matters relating to defence and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; that it be empowered to adjourn from place to place; that standing order 67 be suspended in relation to the committee; and that the committee consist of 24 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: At five o'clock I had just indicated that I would have no faith in a defence policy which was a combined policy of the four groups in this house. I suggested, and I still think so, having thought it over again during the supper recess, that responsibility for defence policy under our parliamentary system must rest squarely on the shoulders of the government. The Canadian people have made a somewhat shaky decision as to whom they expect to make this policy, but having accepted office the Liberal party is, in my view, solidly seized with these responsibilities. If we do set up this committee it will never be more than a fact finding committee and we cannot expect it to make decisions of the kind to which I have referred.
In recent months we have heard talk about anti-Americanism. I do not think any party in this house is anti-American. Far from it. I think it is high time we stopped any such talk and got down to seeing just how far we can co-operate with the United States. In my opinion this co-operation must be 100 per cent. Many of us feel that our budget expenditures on defence are much too high. However, I cannot agree with this view. Expenditure in the United States on defence is at a much higher per capita than ours. Moreover, their attitude toward national service is more realistic than ours and I, for one, would like to see national defence discussed in this committee. I think it is high time the people of Canada looked at the twentieth century and its challenges, forgetting old mistakes and recriminations, and decided we must have arrangements in keeping with modern needs. If we are to match the United States in per capita dollars spent on our defence, I think we should also match them according to our population, in manpower. We cannot do this unless our young men and women are given the chance to be prepared, physically and mentally, for the challenges which I am sure will lie ahead for many years to come.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten) .1
The Calgary Herald, in that article which it put out some 18 months ago to which I have already referred, faced these problems clearly, particularly with regard to expenditure, and if the house will bear with me I will quote a paragraph or so from that article which I think is relevant to the issue before us.
Canadians can scarcely argue at this point that defence constitutes an insupportable burden on their pocketbooks. As a matter of cold fact, defence expenditures have scarcely squeezed the pockets of most of us at all.
Furthermore, since the survival of this and other free nations may depend entirely on adequate defence arrangements, it is impossible to say that such and such a level of defence expenditure is "too high" if it isn't adequate to do the job it is intended to do.
If we value our sovereignty and our nationhood, we ought to be prepared to spend whatever is necessary, even at the cost of some sacrifice, to defend our country. No matter how much we spend, if we spend one dollar less than is necessary to do the job adequately, we shall have spent too little.
This is not to argue for lavish and needless expenditures on defence luxuries. It is merely to state that once the best brains we can hire have decided on what the job is, and the minimum weaponry necessary to do it, then Canadians, as a matter of pride, ought to be prepared to spend the money to acquire such weaponry.
This brings me to the question: are our present weapons adequate for defence. Perhaps they are not. But I think we have done our best. When the Arrow program was cancelled-and this was one of the decisions which the former government made; I think it was a proper decision-we looked around for some other form of defence against the bomber. We built the CF-104 for the reconnaissance role and we purchased 66 Voodoo planes from the United States to replace the Arrow as a defensive weapon against manned bombers. We were severely criticized by all parties in the opposition for doing this but I say, today, that we would not be able to accept the commitment we expect to have presented to us in the near future unless we had taken this step to prepare our country. As far as the Arrow is concerned, I understand the United States refused to include it in their defence program. If the United States is so forward looking, and if the Liberal party is able to get agreement with the United States in all respects, why did they not get a workable arrangement with the U.S. at the time the Arrow was on the drawing board? These are questions which, I think, should be brought up before the committee.
I do not think any weapons we have at present are capable of giving us complete security. But the important thing in my opinion is that we should show complete

solidarity on defence matters in North America. We should put up a proposition to the United States in clear terms which the Canadian people are ready and willing to support. Then, if necessary, we could put the Americans on the spot to give us the full sovereignty which I think we deserve. In my family, for 900 years we have had a motto, and the motto is in good plain English- "Country Dear, Liberty Dearer". That is still my attitude today. I do not think the price of freedom can come too high.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, other members of this party, as you know, have already spoken on this resolution and indicated general support. I wish to add that I think the government is to be commended not only for this resolution but for the fact that the resolution places no limitation on the scope of the work of this committee and asks the committee to deal with the whole broad subject of defence. I believe this is a new departure as far as this parliament is concerned and one which in my view is long overdue because of the very striking new problems which face all the people of the world today.
When we talk of war we sometimes fail to realize that total war in these days is utterly and immeasurably different from any phenomenon we knew previously. We would have a sudden, overwhelming calamity beyond the bounds of our imagination. One of the major problems in dealing with defence is that we often do so within an intellectual and emotional framework which is moulded from the past. Our images, our slogans, our ideas and attitudes on the subject of war have been transmitted to us from the past when war was, to a degree at any rate, a sort of limited liability operation.
Mr. Speaker, it is trite to say, although many have said it throughout the years, that the military point of view must be subordinated to the political point of view. I think very few in this house would disagree with that as a general proposition. I want to point out that the tremendous acceleration of technical revolution in warfare has made the subordination of the military point of view to the political point of view both more urgent and also very much more difficult. In these circumstances I suggest that it is indispensable that those of us in political life who wish to live up to our responsibilities have to get rid of the attitudes of fatalism, on the one hand, and wishful thinking on the other. Fatalism takes the view that nuclear war is inevitable and there is very little we can do about it. Wishful thinking, on the other hand, says that we have a nuclear stalemate between
4,	1963	655
Appointment of Defence Committee the major powers and this makes for stability and the likelihood that because war is unthinkable it is also impossible.
In my view the part that Canada plays in the defence of the west in establishing major policies of defence is inevitably limited. But whether we like it or not, we are involved in it and Canada is not only entitled but obliged to participate in deciding what our over-all strategy should be. In this connection I suggest that an adequately informed parliament has a vital role to play, and it is for this reason that I for one welcome the formation of this particular committee.
I should like to quote a German writer named Helmut Schmidt who has for eight years been a member of a parliamentary committee on defence in the German Reischtag or parliament and who has looked into these matters. Incidentally, he happens to be a member of the German Social Democratic party, and therefore his views will be acceptable to hon. members in this comer of the house, or may well be. In his book called "Defence or Retaliation" he says this:
Politicans can make appropriate decisions only-after the most careful preparation of the relevant materials by competent professionals, but in doing so they should not become completely dependant on their advisers. In this respect the field of strategy is no different from that of transport policy or social security legislation. Military advisers throughout the world tend to underestimate the imperatives of disarmament policy or quite simply to regard the goal of arms limitation as illusory and to pay it only lip service. Over-all conceptions can be worked out only by the political leaders specifically charged with the task, and only they can accept the responsibility for so doing. And only if we have such over-all conceptions does a policy of attempting to influence our allies become meaningful. We are neither a major power-
He is talking of Germany there, of course-
-able to impose our will on others, nor are we a satellite with no alternative but to adapt ourselves to the will of a major power.
He was speaking of the West German republic, but what he says is equally applicable to Canada. We are not a major power, but we are not a satellite with no alternative but to adapt ourselves to the will of a major power. He continues:
We do not have the right to allow our people's existence to become the passive object of the strategic decisions of other states. We have, on the contrary, a duty to make our own contribution. The better we are able, soundly and impartially, to put forward conceptions that carry conviction through their inner logic and consistency with the over-all interests of the west, the greater will be our success.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these words from a German statesman who has studied these matters are perfectly applicable to our situation in Canada.
856	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Defence Committee
Hr. Speaker, I wish to quote one more passage from the same book, where he speaks of the necessity for the division of labour.
In addition, a far reaching division of labour is necessary within NATO, not only for political and strategic reasons, but also for those of financial and economic policy. How the tasks are divided must be decided in the light of political and military interests. The smaller and medium powers must not try to set themselves up as great powers.
It seems to me that that applies full force to the situation in Canada.
The leader of our party in this house when discussing this matter also mentioned the purposes to which our defence should be directed. I hope with him that we will not be thinking of a committee solely on defence from the immediate point of view, but on defence for the future. Because if defence consists solely of the confrontation of two major powers with their alliances, it is inherently unstable and cannot be a secure basis for peace. Therefore I commend the suggestion made by the leader of this party that we should consider as an essential contribution from Canada a contribution to the United Nations. I noticed that three of the Scandinavian countries whose position is somewhat similar to ours have proposed unilaterally devoting a brigade of troops to the United Nations on a permanent basis to serve as police forces at the disposal of the secretary general and the security council. It is interesting to note that the suggestion that a brigade of troops from these countries be made available to the United Nations on a permanent basis originated with the ministers of defence of two of these countries who belong to NATO. Therefore I would commend to the Minister of Defence, who I see is now in his seat, that he look very carefully into the possibility of seeing that at least part of Canada's defence effort be put into strengthening the United Nations, out of which will arise in the future the hope of more general security than is possible on any other basis.
Before I sit down I do want to suggest that if this committee is to be truly useful it should not be burdened with too much detail; it should not be asked to substitute its judgment for the opinions of qualified scientists and military men in regard to details of operations and technical questions; it should not be burdened with the minutiae of defence expenditures, although that expression may be a little inappropriate to use in regard to expenditures amounting to $1,600,000,000 in the year. But notwithstanding the fact that a careful look ought to be taken at these vast expenditures from the point of view of the economy and the burden on the taxpayer, it seems to me that the major function of this committee should be to take a careful look
IMr. Brewin.]

at all aspects of security and strategy and it should inquire into what is Canada's most effective role within the alliance with regard to the needs of the future as well as those of the present.
It should also be able to consider whether the whole strategy of the alliance should not be reviewed so as to make it unnecessary to reply with tactical nuclear weapons to conventional attacks. As I understand it, one of the most basic needs of the alliance now is to be able to meet limited wars, limited aggressions with conventional means. That is a point which I hope this committee will look into very, very fully and very carefully. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this committee should review promptly and adequately the major choice that faces Canada, as to whether its role in the alliance should be nuclear or, rather, whether it should not be in terms of conventional forces.
I hope that the reports of the committee will guide this parliament in regard to the policy which will strengthen what after all are the objectives of defence, which are the security of Canada and the security of all humanity in the nuclear age. We in this party believe that the formation of this committee is of historic importance and may make a real contribution. We undertake so far as we are able responsibly and carefully to give our best support to the effectiveness and work of the committee.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to note that the leader of the Social Credit party, when he was speaking in this debate the other day, said he was frightened about those people whom I call committed Canadians, who are members of what he referred to as peace and disarmament movements. I do not know which group the hon. member finds so alarming, but speaking personally I feel it is very refreshing to find Canadians who are willing to take a stand for an unpopular cause. Surely conformity is one of the deadening factors of contemporary life and, as one author put it just the other day, it seems that the bland are leading the bland. I for one welcome the emergence of dissenters. I welcome them when they parade here in this central place in Canada in witness of their beliefs. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Canadian campaign for nuclear disarmament has too distinguished a board of directors to need any defence from a backbench member of parliament. Surely the idealism of most of these movements should be cheered about and not sneered at.
Second, without in any way wishing to be ungracious about the statement made by the

Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) last evening-and I certainly do not intend to belittle a very generous change of heart-with regard to the young man who was discharged by the navy because his uncle was alleged to be a communist, I wonder why the ideological sympathies of one's uncle should affect one's own career in the armed forces. I am prepared to accept the charge that I am overly naive, but I fail to see any relevance whatsoever in this curious standard. How does the Department of National Defence measure relationships? I am wondering whether they have a blood relationship measurement, or are relationships by marriage considered? The Book of Common Prayer contains a table of kindred and affinity within which one cannot marry. I am wondering whether the armed forces use this as a measurement for loyalty. To me this is an unsettling episode, not because of the generous retraction but because of the implications that necessitated the retraction. I hope the new committee on defence will look into policy considerations which need investigation and which this episode points up.
Third, Mr. Speaker, I found the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hell-yer) to be extraordinarily lacking in information. He spoke grandly about "hard facts" and he said that people were "starved for real information". I quote him. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read his speech and I suggest that not a hard fact was forthcoming from the minister except the startling one to the effect that 30 per cent of Canadians thought the Bomarc was an intercontinental ballistic missile. This certainly adds to our massive knowledge and our intake of, to quote the minister, "hard facts".
The minister continued his program of starvation of this house and took, if I may suggest gently to him, much too long a time to tell us that he agreed with his leader about the need for this committee. The minister then went on to tell us about his reading habits-I was glad to learn this-and he told us he had been reading at great length the reports of the United States congressional committee. Well, this hard fact is most enlightening to us all and one which hon. members will learn with, I suggest, calm and unswerving comfort and satisfaction. Mr. Speaker, surely the minister can do better than this.


An hon. Member:: That is doubtful.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Surely he can share with us the results of his lengthy reading of the congressional reports; he can let us in on the startling secrets divulged to him in Paris by General Norstad; he can brief the house- and again I quote his words-on the "most
Appointment of Defence Committee fundamental facts"; he can tell us about NATO's, and again I quote him if I can get this sequence right, "total approach to the confrontation between east and west in all its aspects". Mr. Speaker, what gloriously impossible nonsense is this from a minister who comes to this house aching to share with the country everything he knows? If the minister's contribution to this debate is any example of the "briefings on the most fundamental facts" which he promises the new committee, heaven help the committee and heaven help the country.
We have been flooded with statements and releases about the success of the NATO meetings in Ottawa, but treading a perilous and unpopular path amongst all the gobbledegook about the new NATO role are words and phrases which must put this house on its guard. For example, the London Economist headlines a story thus, "Nuclear nonsense serious matter". The Christian Science Monitor of April 16, "Multinuclear multimaze", and the great Walter Lippmann on April 17, "Nuclear gimmicks will fail". The London Economist again on May 18: "NATO in Ottawa, Cheshire Cat Force". It says, of course, that all it will have left will be its toothy smile. The Manchester Guardian on April 11: "Britain's Nuclear Pretence". Finally, in today's Globe and Mail the distinguished correspondent, Mr. George Bain, says: "A Multilateral Farce".
These are not my words, Mr. Speaker. "Nonsense", "multimaze", "gimmicks", "pretense", "hoax" and "farce" are but a pattern of what thoughtful critics have been suggesting lately. The new defence committee has a duty to seek out answers to the implications of these words. I suggest it has somehow become unpatriotic to disagree with arrangements made for us by others.
The new defence committee should not be drowned in a sea of statistics and manufactured possibilities or probabilities. It should not, I suggest, be stifled by columns of figures as to the per diem cost of feeding a sailor in the Bermuda station or by such questions as whether or not generals are entitled to first class air fare.
This committee, to use the Prime Minister's own words as reported by the Canadian Press on March 26, 1963 at Kingston, has as its objective "to take the defence issue away from partisan politics" and "to determine an appropriate role for this country". I predict that the committee will have a very busy time studying an appropriate role for this country. In any consideration of an appropriate role for this country I think it is right that the committee should turn to an editorial in the Toronto Star of May 30. It shows how magnanimous I am to be quoting that immortal
6S8

Appointment of Defence Committee Toronto publication. The editorial is entitled "The Defence Fog", and the editorial writer suggests four questions that the defence committee must ask.
What are the military and political arguments which have persuaded the government that Canada should acquire nuclear weapons?
What is implied in the "strike" role which our overseas division has assumed in the NATO defence plan and which is reported to involve the use of one megaton nuclear missiles? Is this role purely defensive, as Canadians have been led to believe, or is it really an offensive one-attacks on cities and industrial centres deep inside the communist countries of eastern Europe, and Russia itself?
Should Canada agree to Washington's proposal that U.S. interceptor squadrons, with nuclear weapons, be stationed on Canadian territory as part of North American air defences?
Is acquiring nuclear weapons from the United States-under controls set by Washington-pushing Canada along the road to the status of a military satellite of the United States? Will it increase the risk that these weapons will spread to other nations?
The editorial ends by saying:
Before parliament is asked to approve vital defence decisions, it needs accurate answers to these and other questions-answers based not on statements or "commitments" which somebody made four or five years ago but on the military and political realities of 1963.
If I may quote a less widely read publication, the Canadian Churchman of March, 1963, poses two questions that to my knowledge have not yet been answered. I quote:
1.	Just what, exactly, is the United States asking of Canada and her other NATO allies? Why does she want to involve them all in nuclear weapons?
2.	Is it NATO military policy to meet conventional attack with tactical nuclear weapons?
These six questions will keep the committee busy through one or two of its earlier sessions. Then, too, the committee has a duty to ask about the progress of negotiations for a test ban pact-I think this is an appropriate place for this to be asked-progress of which is now being stymied by political manoeuvring rather than by technical obstacles. This is not the unsupported opinion of a backbencher but the considered assertion of eminent western scientists. The assertion is that there is no technical reason why deadlock should persist over the American claim for seven annual on-site inspections and the Russian offer of two or more. Here, of course, I do not disparage the heroic role played by Canada in the disarmament conference, but I think that the defence committee will want to hear from these eminent western scientists. We want these facts because in my opinion they have not had enough circulation in the country. Fallout surely is too dangerous to allow narrow political considerations to stand in the way of its abolition.
The committee must ask about reciprocal defence purchasing between Canada and the

United States and other countries within NATO. Here I do not for one minute suggest a horse trade of, say, bases for defence orders. To me this is too crude for modern Canada. But we do have an obligation to maintain a fair position with regard to defence purchasing. The committee must, I suggest, inquire into plans to amalgamate the armed forces. The committee has a duty to reinforce, as has been so effectively done in Washington, the civilian control of the military complex. As Walter Lippmann said last night, this is probably the outstanding achievement of the Kennedy administration since it took office.
No preconceived notions should interfere with the searching re-examination of defence. No old loyalties should stand in the way of appropriate policies for today. No expediency should hamper Canada's adoption of a role in the world predicated, I say to the minister, on hard facts as they may prove to be. May I suggest, as one did many years ago, that "they are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see nothing but sea".


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Sirathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to follow a member who has made such a brilliant speech on this most difficult subject. However, I have taken an extreme interest in this matter and in the hope that I may have an idea or two or that I may perhaps present an idea in a different manner I feel compelled to say a few words on the setting up of a defence committee.
I must admit at the outset that I am of two minds as to this committee. I think it is a great idea for any government to try to get the best advice it can from the house on these very complex problems, and in that same vein I recognize that this is the first time in Canadian history that a committee of the house has been asked to give advice on policy. I think this is extremely wise because it is obvious to most of us who have heard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) speak that never before in Canada's history has there been a minister so sorely in need of advice.
The one thing that fails to convince me this is a good idea is the record of Liberal tactics with regard to defence and the minister's own speech the other day on this subject.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that this is all a political sham. Bearing in mind the history of the reversal, the complete change-around, on the subject of nuclear weapons and defence, not only by the minister but by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) as well, I suspect that what they are looking for is some way to shift the responsibility. I believe I have some evidence to back up my suspicions in this regard. Perhaps I am

being a little unfair to the Prime Minister, but when he denied with such emphasis that this was the situation, I am all the more convinced that it is the real reason for referring policy to this committee.
The minister of defence has said that there has been a paucity of information for the members and the general public. He cited as an example how misinformed the public was on this subject. If the minister was surprised at the way the public has been misinformed, then he is most modest because I think the minister and his colleagues should take all the credit for this fact. It is in this direction that they have bent all their efforts for the last three or four years. Indeed, their success in misinforming the public has a direct bearing on the fact that they are now the government of this country.
I was struck by the fact that the minister addressed his remarks about NATO to the need, in present day circumstances, for Canada to play its role in connection with our allies, and so on. All this sounded exactly like Conservative policy enunciated during the last election campaign which was so derided by the minister and his colleagues as being indecision. I certainly know that I campaigned on the fact that changing conditions in the world, new weapons, new techniques, all these varying considerations that we now face, should cause any government to pause and consider. Any government that would say we will play this role or that, knowing that the NATO ministerial meeting was going to consider all these facts in a few months, would be rather silly. We were derided for this position. I am happy to think that success in politics has brought so much common sense to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) that he can now recognize that the only sensible course is the one which we advocated for so long.
The Prime Minister, I believe, pointed out that we have always had a committee on external affairs which has considered policy. He said that since the external affairs committee has always considered policy, there is no reason why the defence committee should not. Certainly, he must have had his tongue in his cheek when he was saying that. Anyone who has any conception of the number of items which are considered security items and which, therefore, cannot be dealt with in detail, should know that this basic information about which the minister of defence talks so glibly is likely to be very incomplete on item after item. We are going to have to accept, as members of that committee, the advice of various officials who will say, "I cannot give you the exact details on this item because of security considerations. However,
Appointment of Defence Committee here is what we have, and I assure you this is correct." I can think of no broader scope for the political machinations of the Liberal party, and undoubtedly they are smarter politicians that we are, than a situation like this in a committee which is supposed to be considering defence and which is supposed to bring in its recommendations on the basis of information given by various individuals.
I say I do believe this government could benefit and would benefit from the opinions of the members of this house in any consideration of policy if hon. members were furnished with the facts. I may be unduly suspicious of hon. members occupying the front benches opposite-if I am they only have themselves to blame by virtue of their conduct over the last few years-but I am totally unable to believe that they will provide the committee with access to the necessary information. I believe that in many cases the committee will be given opinions instead of facts in those cases where exact knowledge of the facts would be most important. I do not want to dwell too long on the purely political implications of this motion. The scope of the debate is broad enough to mention something of policy, and it is here that I depart most violently from that defence concept which has been accepted and extolled by the government.
I really believe that the information to which the minister refers so glibly is that information which will convince us as to the exact extent of the defences of this country, and the extent of the defences of the United States, in so far as they can be revealed bearing in mind security considerations. I think that the question of defence eventually comes to this point: Once we have satisfied ourselves that the west is possessed of enough power that we have a real deterrent, that is that degree of retaliation that no other power could possibly contemplate unleashing it, then we have sufficient defence. It seems to me that today we have paid lip service to this concept. I feel that as long as three or four years ago each side, the east and the west, had such power that no one could possibly contemplate bringing down that power against the other.
If such is the case, Mr. Speaker, no matter how incomplete our knowledge of defence is, then it seems clear that there is more than that amount of power today and we must, therefore, look at the other considerations. If each side possesses power to the extent that no one would deliberately bring it down upon the other, then we must consider other things which might cause this power to be unleashed. I refer to an accident, a little spark which may be brought about by misunderstanding, and so on.
660	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Defence Committee
Next I suggest we must consider that so long as that sort of power is there it presents a menace not just to us but to civilization itself; that so long as it remains the principal threat we must guard against it and it should be given the highest priority in our studies.
When I think of our disarmament talks I am reminded of two people in the wild west, with six-shooters on their hips, talking about who is going to let go their gun first, or who will have the fewest bullets. I am sure we all know enough about the history of the west to know that, each having some reason to mistrust the other, such differences have never been settled by mutual consent. It was the sheriff who possessed the fire power to punish one or the other, or to settle the conflict, that enabled each of them to lay down his weapon in safety. Therefore I suggest the first consideration that should preoccupy this committee, when it is set up, is the possibility of establishing the sheriff. In today's world there is only one, the United Nations.
At the outset I will admit we have many faults in the U.N. Certainly as it is presently set up it is not competent to handle these problems, but I suggest that instead of turning our backs on the U.N. we should turn our faces towards remedying those errors of commission or omission in its constitution and status which prevent it from operating in the way that it might serve this role.
I am most unhappy, most depressed, with the thought that considerations of defence go beyond what our defence planners say is our goal to deter the aggressor, and that once they have passed the point that any logical, sane person knows is sufficient, they go on thinking in terms of world war I and world war II-strategic concepts; consideration of bases; the military advantage of one side or the other; who has got the most of which sort of weapons, and who has the supremacy in this line or that. Certainly I would think it is not too strange an idea that once you have overcome the initial thought that they are afraid to attack you, then you should turn your attention, as the first line of defence, to how you can prevent the accidental outcome of world war.
Mr. Speaker, I think that when we are going to contemplate taking on weapons we must first look and see whether they are going to add to our defence. I suggest there is already in the hands of our American allies more than enough deterrent power, and that what we would be doing if we accepted nuclear arms would not be adding to that at all. It is merely taking control of a small part of what we already have. I fail to see how anyone can say this adds to our defence.


If we are not adding to our defence and if we are going to have to give up part of our sovereignty, as I suggest was tacitly admitted by the Minister of National Defence in his speech the other day, I fail to see the justification for such a move. Canada's first role in defence can only be maintaining Canada as a sovereign, independent state with a voice which counts, having a sense of justice and integrity, having the respect of fellow nations which listen to it, and thereby bringing the utmost weight to bear on those vexatious little problems that occur about the world now and then so that we may, in our own little way, help to stave off some of the consequences of mistakes, and even sometimes by our advice, help to avoid them.
I may sum up simply by saying that I am afraid this committee can only be a red herring. I would not like to vote in favour of it, but I would urge that when the committee is set up, if it is going to consider matters of policy its members proceed to consider those policies, after they have become convinced, as I am sure they soon will be, that we have reached more than enough deterrent power, and so that we can look at those things which are in need of most attention today.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate this evening I should first of all like to disclaim any pretentions to being a military expert. I am sure this will be received with great gratitude by our so very knowledgeable Minister of National Defence-that I make no pretensions on this score at all. In the course of a rather chequered military career the most exalted rank I attained was that of corporal, although I must say I attained it more than once, my military career having a certain yo-yo characteristic. But even had I by some miracle attained the rank of field marshal in that very ancient world war in which I took part, I would not be capable of being a military expert in the lunatic world of kilotons, megatons, overkill, first strike and second strike.
So, I have to rely on the views of people who are presumed to be experts, both scientists and military logicians, and I find like most experts they spend a very large amount of their time contradicting each other with great virulence, but there is one thing they all agree on, in fact there is no disagreement at all among accepted military experts and accepted scientists throughout the world on the fact that there is literally no defence against modern weapons of war.
I have an idea that a great deal of our trouble and confusion in Canada today is due to our misuse of words, that we will persist

in using the word "defence" when every authority who has the right to an opinion tells us there is no such thing. In fact it was the general acceptance of that idea that caused the evolution of the theory of the massive deterrent, brought forward by the late unlamented John Foster Dulles. If this theory is valid, Mr. Speaker, and it may very well be valid, it must include an anterior theory, a theory that must be held both by those in control of the western strategy and those in control of the communist strategy, and that theory, conviction and assumption must be on the part of the western world that the Kremlin is inhabited by certifiable lunatics, and on the part of the Russians that the American administration is similarly staffed by lunatics, because let us examine for a moment what are the implications of this theory of the massive deterrent.
It is that while there is no means of defending ourselves in the traditional sense of the word from destruction, complete and near destruction, it may still be possible to frighten any prospective enemy from attacking us first, by waving in his face the ability to strike him even more severely than he has struck us.
Now, as I say, this theory depends on the assumption that each side must consider the other to be composed of lunatics. After all, only a lunatic in the Pentagon could imagine that any benefits would occur to the American people by creating a radioactive desert in central Asia and Europe-yet it is on this basis that the Russians operate today in building up their deterrents; it is their presumption, evidently, that the Americans are lunatic enough to embark on the projects which could be of no possible benefit to them after it had been completed. And, in a similar way, the Americans must hold the same view with regard to the Russians and consider that the Russians could seriously envisage creating a radioactive desert in North America which could be of no conceivable benefit to them or anyone else.
If this theory of massive deterrence is valid,
I think it is about time we began to examine the extent of the deterrence which is available today. My hon. friend who spoke before me dealt with this matter at some length, but I want to quote from someone who should be an unimpeachable authority-no less a person than Mr. Robert McNamara, the secretary of defence of the United States as quoted in the February 8 issue this year of Science, the premier scientific journal of the United States, being the organ of the American association for the advancement of science. In this article, Mr. McNamara is quoted directly in the following words:
4, 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee
As the arms race continues and the weapons multiply and become more swift and deadly, the possibility of a global catastrophe, either by miscalculation or design, becomes ever more real. More armaments, whether offensive or defensive, cannot solve this dilemma. We are approaching an era when it will become increasingly improbable that either side could destroy a sufficiently large portion of the other's strategic nuclear force, either by surprise or otherwise, to preclude a devastating retaliatory blow. This may result in mutual deterrence, but it is still a grim prospect. It underscores the need for a renewed effort to find some way, if not to eliminate these deadly weapons completely, then at least to slow down or halt their further accumulation.
Following on the statement of Mr. McNamara, statements have appeared on the authority of Mr. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defence in the United States. In March of this year, in a speech in Cleveland, Mr. Nitze drew attention to the overwhelming superiority of the United States in nuclear striking power and the overwhelming superiority in manpower and conventional weapons of the western alliance. With regard to the nuclear striking capacity, which he described as America's awesome nuclear capability, he told his audience that in the United States there are 600 manned jet bombers on 15-minute alert, 200 intercontinental guided missiles in place and aimed on their targets, and 144 Polaris missiles on submarines. And only yesterday, Mr. Nitze was reported in the Globe and. Mail as saying in Washington that one Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile or a Polaris missile is being added to the United States deterrent force every day. So 365 of them are added every year.
Now I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the theory of massive deterrence is valid- and it is the only theory of defence in the world today; the only theory which is accepted by military and scientific authorities-then, surely, this deterrence is already as large as is necessary for any eventuality. It seems to me that if this tremendous volume of these deterrent weapons is not enough to frighten a potential enemy, any contribution Canada could make would be derisory in its nature, so minute would it be.
While reading Mr. McNamara's statement published, as I say, in Science magazine, the thought occurred to me that in making public these facts in a somewhat astonishing manner, followed by his assistant making public equally remarkable facts, the authors of these statements were attempting to come to grips with that military and industrial complex against which President Eisenhower warned the American people in the last few months of his term of office. We may well not be strengthening the hands of those in the United States who are seeking to curb this headlong drive to catastrophe which Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Appointment of Defence Committee McNamara speaks of when we meekly accept further weapons, meekly accept a role in this devastating and lunatic business.
I have been interested and somewhat dismayed on hearing statements made by the present Prime Minister both before he was prime minister and since he assumed that office-statements indicating that in his opinion Canada's national honour was involved in this question of acquiring nuclear weapons for which, demonstrably, there is no possible need or use. It struck me at the time when he spoke in this vein in the House of Commons that this was a most curious concept of national honour, a most curious concept indeed, namely, that we were bound by a lunatic agreement-if there was such an agreement-to spend our treasure and our resources, to the exclusion of much more useful activities, not on adding to western strength but merely going through the motions in an absurd and ridiculous manner so as to pretend we have a role to play in the military world of today. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he is looking for stains on our national honour he had better not look in this direction-in the direction of unfulfilled, ridiculous pledges. He had better look at the unemployment, at the slums, at the lack of a medical insurance plan, at the difficulties we are experiencing in education, at the foreign ownership of most of our country. These are the things this government should be attending to.
Even if one agrees with this argument- and I fail to see how one could disagree- the question may be asked: why does the United States press us along this course, and press us to a most striking degree. I would suggest there are two possible reasons. One is a matter of prestige. There is, on the other side of the world, another complex of nations, communist nations. Largely for reasons of prestige the Soviet union decided not to release the east European countries which are under her domination. Although they constitute a continual worry and threat to her, it would be a severe blow to national prestige if they slipped outside the Soviet orbit. I suggest some similar sort of considerations may well be operating in the minds of those in the Pentagon in Washington who are already in control of sufficient nuclear power to destroy the world several times over. There is no other logical reason, unless one takes another possibility, one which I would hope is not the right one, and that is that we are being pressed today so that Canada may be a protecting area, a cordon sanitaire if you like, for the nuclear weapons aimed at the United States. After all, I suppose the first responsibility of any government is, if it is at all possible to do so, to deflect any attack upon its own people and its own
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
territory on to any other territory. One might take that position, and if it is one of the motives of the United States, the government of that country is merely doing its duty.
I should like to examine this proposition in regard to this question of nuclear armaments and defence measures in toto, and to examine the possibilities and the probabilities in the world with a view to assessing our behaviour and that of our possible adversaries. It is a well known psychological fact that people who insist on attempting to guard against every possible danger or mishap very rapidly become mentally unhinged. The sane person is the one who guards against probabilities; he does not waste his efforts, anxieties and worries in trying to cover every possible contingency. In fact the people who do so find their way into our mental homes. A very well known mental disturbance is that of the person who suffers from a "compulsive cleanliness" because he is always afraid that some kind of germ will get on his hands and cause his illness or death, and who spends his time frantically washing his hands and disinfecting them, and who eventually lands in the "loony bin". It may be possible that he will get a germ on his hands and by a million to one chance it does kill him, but no sane person operates on that basis. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that right now we are faced with mass lunacy in centres of power in the world. I suggest that those in control of the military power in the world today are attempting to protect themselves not merely against what is probable or likely but against what might possibly, by some strange concatenation of events, take place, and the result of their insanity is that it has brought the world almost to the brink of disaster.
Now, the question may well be asked: Is there a useful role for Canada to play in the world today in this regard? I suggest to you, sir, that there is an extremely useful role. I want to illustrate that role by referring to some events which took place last October. Those of us here who were members of the twenty fifth parliament will recall that evening in October when the prime minister of Canada rose to tell us that the President of the United States had informed him about half an hour earlier that the United States fleet was deployed in the Caribbean blockading Cuba; that any ship approaching Cuba would be stopped and searched; that any ship refusing to stop would be sunk; that any retaliation in any part of the world would result in the outbreak of a thermo-nuclear war. I do not need to remind hon. members of that dramatic and nerve-wracking period here in the House of Commons and throughout the world.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when people examine the Cuban crisis I note that they have a tendency to go only half way back in the chain of events which led us to this precipice. Most of them go back no further than the misguided effort or pretense-whichever it was- of Mr. Khrushchev to put missile bases in Cuba. Most people go no further back than that. It is, to their minds, what created the crisis. Others who are a little more perceptive go a little further back as far as the Cuban revolution which brought Fidel Castro to power. This was the start of the chain of events which led us last October to the brink of thermonuclear destruction. But I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we must go further back than that to find the real reason why the world was perched last October on the brink of disaster-back far beyond the Castro revolution. We must go back to the condition in which Cuban people were living for generations before the Castro revolution.
I have no means of knowing what conditions are like in Cuba today. I have not been there and one gets conflicting reports. But I and other hon. members of the house know that before the Castro revolution the people of Cuba were living in unbelievable misery, squalor and terror under the Batista regime, and predecessors of a similar nature. And we know something else-that not one of us lifted one finger to help the Cuban people out of their appalling misery. We took it for granted that that was the way the Latin Americans lived. We said: "It's too bad they don't understand our democratic procedures. It's too bad they are not as developed as we are". We never lifted a finger to help them, yet we knew what was going on in Cuba. Our Department of External Affairs knew because they had steady reports coming in.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when we are seeking for a valid and viable role for Canada to play in the world today that bitter lesson should be borne in mind. Because there are today throughout the world many Cubas in which the people are living in the squalor, misery and terror in which the Cuban people lived not very long ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to interrupt his very interesting, I may say, discourse. I have been making a few notes on this matter, and although a lot of hon. members have made some very interesting speeches, is not the real issue in this debate whether or not we should set up a committee on defence? That is the question before the house. I have gone into the authorities rather extensively and I take the view rightly or wrongly, that the motion is to set up a committee. It is not
4, 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee a review of all matters to be referred to the committee. It is for the house to decide whether a committee is or is not desirable at this time, and this, let us face it, is a relatively narrow field of debate.
I do not wish to restrict hon. members in debate. They are quite right in referring matters which should be discussed by the committee to the committee, but an extended debate on foreign affairs or foreign relations, when the point before the house is whether or not we should set up a defence committee, seems to me comparatively restrictive. I just throw that out to hon. members and suggest that perhaps we should make speedier progress.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, in reply to your suggestion I would submit that we are here setting up a committee which, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), is to discuss and examine not merely the details of material defence or the weapons of defence, but the whole question of the policy of defence. I submit with all respect that I am presenting to you the alternative roles which I think Canada should be playing which to my mind are more reasonable and rational defence proposals than have yet come before parliament or from the government benches. It is for that reason, sir, that I have dwelt on this question of an alternative role because I consider that to be the only valid defence role in the world today.
Now, sir, perhaps you will permit me, just for the few moments I have at my disposal, to deal with one specific aspect of defence. I refer to the question of nuclear arms. I have dealt with this on a tactical basis and I should now like to say a word or two, with your permission, on the moral question involved. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people cannot afford to dodge this moral issue.
There has been throughout the last few decades a steady escalation of horror in the prosecution of war. I referred, when I began my speech, to my own experiences of war, a very primitive war and one which had more in common with the middle ages than this lunatic world in which we live today. But I also recall during the last war the horror that descended on the world when the first news of mass bombings came to our knowledge, and how those outraged protests died away and people finally accepted the idea that to destroy civilian populations as a deliberate military project was acceptable in this strange world in which we live.
That was bad enough when we were only destroying people of that generation, when we were only knocking down the material bases

Appointment of Defence Committee of the civilization of that time, but at Hiroshima we went into a new era and it is for the Canadian people of today to decide whether they are prepared to allow their governments to involve them in military operations of any sort which involve the use of weapons which destroy not merely generations now living but maim and cripple generations yet to come, and poison and destroy the very environment from which a new civilization could be built.
I suggest to you, sir, that this defence committee had better deal with this moral question which is involved, not merely in the narrow question of nuclear weapons, but in the whole question of our involvement in this lunatic race toward mass destruction. Canada has a role to play that might well bring into the world some new hope that at the present time does not exist because it is darkened heavily by the clouds of official strategic planning. These are the things that I think any defence committee that is to be worth its salt will have to discuss, rather than perhaps being brainwashed by experts from the armed services or by some tame scientists and forgetting this final moral issue; because it is on moral issues eventually that people rise or fall.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to say it in this session of parliament, may I offer you and your assistants my felicitations on the appointment to your high offices. I would also congratulate the government on having appointed an hon. member such as the Speaker to his high office. However, I do think that a person of his particuar ability and integrity would have been much more acceptable and necessary on the front row of the treasury benches.
You have asked us, Mr. Speaker, to restrict ourselves in this debate to talking about the committee that is to be appointed. I am glad to see that the government is taking steps to appoint this committee, because it will be one of their election promises which has been carried out and I think it is high time that some of them were carried out. I was also glad to learn that the number of members on the committee has been increased from 18 to 24, because that will give the opposition more opportunity to make their views known. That is what we need in regard to this question of defence.
I am very pleased to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has decided to allow discussions of defence policy in this committee and I will be more pleased when I see it added officially to the resolution, because sometimes just making the remark in the house does not mean it is carried out.
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1

I wonder, though, exactly how much good such a committee will be. Will the government pay any attention to the recommendations of the committee? Will they listen to its recommendations on policy? I am very sure they will not. I say this because I was a soldier, and I really cannot see how the government can have its policy set by a committee composed of members of all parties. It is a good out for them, but I do not think they will take it.
I also wonder, Mr Speaker, whether the government is going to pay attention to the committee should it, say, recommend that we do not have nuclear arms in Canada, that we do not equip our out of date Bomarcs with nuclear warheads, because our Bomarcs at this late date are not the last word in defence against nuclear bombers. They are not even as effective as they were five years ago when the idea originated of using Bomarcs in our defence. In addition, with regard to the F-lOl's being equipped with nuclear weapons, they may not be too effective now for the simple reason that they are not as fast an aircraft as would be a fighter plane coming in to attack this country. They would not be a bit of good against intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be the main method of attack today. Therefore I say it would be a very good thing should this committee recommend that we do not equip the two Bomarc bases in this country with nuclear warheads and that we do not equip our F-lOl's-that is, the Voodoos-with nuclear warheads.
I was rather intrigued in reading what the Minister of National Defence is reported as having said, that it would take four months to train our forces to use nuclear weapons. Does he not know that in the first world war men like Bishop, Barker, Collishaw and McCall, whom I knew so well, went into action with less than five hours training? If this government is going to take four months to train them to use nuclear weapons, what is the matter with the outlook of the Minister of National Defence, who apparently does not know that Canadian fighting men have no peers anywhere in the world. Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen are at the top of the heap and have always been since Canada became a nation. This has been proved many times. They do not take forever to be trained, and should it be necessary to have them trained quickly I would venture the opinion that they could have these weapons put into their hands and could use them immediately because they are all trained to do the job with conventional weapons and they are trained to do it well.

I want to say that the equipping of NATO with nuclear weapons is a different proposition because NATO is under a different command. It is not located in Canada but on foreign soil. I do want to say that I hope when the committee is set up it will have the powers it is supposed to have and that its recommendations will be listened to. I doubt that very much, of course, but I hope that is the case. I know that the committee will be set up because almost everyone here is in favour of it. Therefore I hope it will be effective and will be listened to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if anything prompted me to speak today it was the speech by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) the other night. I have known him of old in defence committees and may I say that we have seen no change whatsoever. We got nothing out of him the other night, just the same as we used to get practically nothing out of him in those committees except his own opinions. I might say that he has made statements that he had to go and read the congressional reports in order to get information about the Canadian forces. Having listened to his speech the other night, I rather gathered that what he listened to on many occasions were the lobbyists for aircraft companies other than the Lockheed company, who were trying to sell airplanes to the Canadian government during the past few years.
We now have the proposal of the government that this defence committee should be set up to discuss what was not included specifically in the resolution, namely defence policy. To me this is nothing but a sham and I will tell the house why. With respect to the question of policy the minister told us the other night that it was so convenient that at this time NATO was making a review of all its strategy and tactical strength in order to arrive at some final principles of policy, after which the various NATO countries could then decide what forces they would use to fulfil the roles that might be determined after this review. He says that at the same time the Canadian parliament will also be making a review.
But I put this point before members of the house. We all know full well, and with this I agree, that there must be an element of restriction and secrecy so far as defence is concerned. Therefore, either the members of the proposed committee are going to have to be cleared for security and the sessions will be held in camera when they will be briefed as to all the details, if they are going to arrive at valid decisions, or else none of the sessions of the committee will be in camera and all we will have will be the making of innocuous.
Appointment of Defence Committee harmless statements. In that case members of the press will be present and will be able to report as they have done in the past.
So far the press have not been denied any information. Certainly a lot of opinions come from the press. Many hon. members seem to draw their opinions and conclusions with regard to defence from statements in the press. So the knowledge of the press will not be increased by the opportunity that is going to be afforded. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the setting up of this committee will accomplish nothing more than was accomplished by referring the estimates of the Department of National Defence to the estimates committee. As much policy will be discussed this time as was discussed in 1958. The minister was not here then, when the national defence estimates were before the estimates committee, at which time policy certainly was discussed incidentally.
1 am amazed at the conclusion drawn by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and the members of his group, and also by the members of the N.D.P.-this grieves me, I may say-particularly the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), that we would now be able to get to the bottom of policy. The government is not even going to lift the corner of Pandora's box for us to examine what is in it, because it cannot. This is inherent in the subject of defence. Either we are going to have full disclosure or we are going to have ill considered recommendations. You cannot have it both ways. How does the minister expect members of the committee to arrive at valid, tested conclusions? Is it by flying by the seat of their pants or by reading the press?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You would be flying blindfold anyway.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. lady is quite quick to identify herself, but I suggest this would be the role of members of the house, including the hon. lady. I agree that we should have a defence committee but let us not claim too much for it. I suggest to hon. members that the government is already suffering from a sprained shoulder as a result of patting itself on its back with the suggestion that it has done something new, that this is a new departure. Maybe in terminology this is a new departure but frankly, Mr. Speaker, I fear we are not going to get any more than we have in the past.
Let us not compare this committee with the 1960 committee. The resolution at that time was limited strictly to the consideration of past defence expenditures and subsequently widened to include some current expenditures, and policy did come in incidentally. But we read in Hansard, that there
666	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Defence Committee is no limitation in the resolution with regard to any such matters though, of course, there are always limitations imposed by security considerations.
There is the further restriction or limitation on this committee that certain problems have to be dealt with in the relatively near future. Is the government going to wait for the recommendations of this committee before arriving at decisions? Certainly it will not if it lives up to its slogan of 60 days of decision, or 100 days, or six months of decision. These cannot wait. Therefore if the government are not going to wait for the recommendations of the committee, what do they think the committee is going to do?- waste its time? This is an empty gesture. They have trumpeted across the country that the committee is going to help them to decide policy. This is what they have led the newspaper editors to believe, because I have read a number of editorials and commentaries which say this is a great new step, the birth of a new day with respect to defence policy and its discussion. The people of this country will be sadly disillusioned when they see what actually happens. This is inherent unless, of course, the limitations imposed on the committee by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Defence, as I understand them, are removed.
But if the committee are going to do a real job in the light of what they believe to be the purpose of this committee, then those restrictions must be removed. We have to make a complete departure, not a halfhearted departure as is proposed.
There is something more I should like to mention which I do not believe is inherent at all in the committee set-up and which our friends of the Social Credit party do not understand when they advocate these allparty commons committees. This house is composed of parties, and the representation on these committees is based on the strength of the parties. Now, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made that statement of his in Kingston on March 26, as reported in the press, to the effect that the Liberal party would set up an all-party Commons defence committee right away to take the defence issue away from party politics and so forth, I say, frankly, that was a lot of tripe. That was nothing but pure, unadulterated tripe, because at that time the right hon. gentleman was expecting to win the election, to have a majority. He did not tell the public this, but certainly we, in the House of Commons, know that the composition of committees is according to party strength. If the Liberal party had a majority in this house they would have a majority on that committee.


Then, all that would come out of that committee would be Liberal party resolutions and recommendations. When you say that committees come to conclusions, they come to conclusions on the basis of political muscle. If you have got resolutions to put forward, then you get them passed by means of your voting power. I have had enough experience in the past few years in these various committees to understand just what may happen. Hon. members should remember that there are no minority reports from these committees. There is a majority report that comes back to this house. The government may accept it or may pigeon-hole it. It may do with it as it sees fit because under our parliamentary form of government we do not have government by committee. This is another limitation or restriction on the proposed committee.
It is true that you may have persuasion. I am sure that there are certain eminent journalists who feel that they have as much power of persuasion or influence on the government, and I am not taking anything away from them when I say that, as the conclusions of a committee would have.
Now, I believe there are certain things this committee will want to know once it is set up. First of all, I believe that all the members of the house will want to know the reason for the sudden change in Liberal defence policy which was enunciated on January 12 last. I am sure the decision was arrived at without consultation with the backbenchers on the government side. After all, if we read that booklet-someone has suggested it should be a comic book but perhaps the colours might be wrong-published by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), to which reference has been made on a number of occasions, entitled, "The Liberal Party and its Policy", or something of that nature, we find a very clear, categorical statement of Liberal policy in relation to nuclear arms. Certainly, however, the booklet is not clear on some of the policies enunciated by the present minister when he was opposition defence critic.
I wonder what has happened to the concept of unified command, that sort of overall umbrella? What has happened to that great fleet of mother ships, those transports that were to be built? We remember that famous speech-a lot of hon. members opposite were not here then-that was so widely reported in the press prior to its delivery in the house. This was a great speech on policy. I, of course, felt sorry for the minister's embarrassment at the time, but let us get down to facts. What happened to the policy that was enunciated in that speech? I suppose it has gone into the trash can, like a

lot of other things. This committee will be interested in knowing how the Liberals arrived at this latest policy. After all, so far we have failed to obtain a statement of policy from the hon. gentleman or the associate minister.
We would like very much to hear from the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin). There are many problems in his area of responsibility. I am sure he has charge of personnel matters. Are we going to hear from him about our commitments to the United Nations in so far as our armed services are concerned? Are we going to have more personnel who are available for training assignment or policing assignments under the United Nations? Are we going to have more French speaking personnel? The other day it was suggested, I believe, that the Congo would like to have a corps of French speaking Canadian officers as instructors. This situation might also apply to some of the other new African nations. Naturally, this question will affect policy with respect to recruitment.
There is also the question of whether or not recruiting is going to be stepped up in order to bring the forces up to authorized ceilings. Then, how about the balance between the navy, air force and army? I was not there, but I am told that Liberal candidates in the maritimes, certainly in those areas where there are naval stations, played two ends against the middle. They played off the air force against the navy. They said that a Conservative government had neglected the navy. They alienated the navy from the former administration and in other centres they said: down with the navy and up with the air force. We should hear from the associate minister of defence on these matters.
Perhaps the associate minister would also have something to say about the educational policies of the Department of National Defence. Does he consider this would be, within his own province, an unwarranted intrusion into the educational system of the province of Quebec? There are a few other pertinent questions which affect policy. These are points about which this committee would like to hear and about which the house has not heard. I am sure that hon. members, before they decide to establish this committee, would like to have some idea of what it is going to do. After all, if we look at the resolution we find it refers to all those matters pertaining to defence.
In view of the fact that the foreign policy of this country now relates even more closely to national defence policy than it did in the past, are we going to have a declaration
Appointment of Defence Committee from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) as to the policy of this government with respect to those questions involving national defence? This is something that must be determined. The house should know the government's stand on these matters before the committee is named, otherwise we will not know the true purpose of such a committee.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated what I feel are some of the clear restrictions on the efficacy of such a committee. I understand the composition of the committee is to be 12 members from the government side and 12 from the opposition. Whatever the voting strength will be I do not know; and to appoint a chairman will of course be up to the committee, perhaps at the suggestion of the government.
I say to hon. members tonight that while I appreciate the necessity of setting up a defence committee, in which we can discuss defence in greater detail than it can be discussed here in the house, yet I would be the last one to subscribe to any suggestion that the administration is coming forward with something new. I believe that the hon. members on my left are going to be sadly deceived as to what they think they are going to get and what they think they are going to accomplish. If they feel they are going to be able to question service officers, we know of course that they cannot.
There are certain hon. members over there, among them the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-I think I can hear his dulcet tones and I think he will agree with me on this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say we are used to being deceived.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, having listened to some of the newer lights of that party expressing themselves on the value of this committee and about how much they welcome it, I address my remarks in their direction and say I am a little cynical as to the efficacy of such a committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; is it not a rule that an hon. member, when speaking, should address the Chair?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is sitting so far away from the Chair he can do nothing else but face the Chair when he is addressing this house. I was addressing my remarks through you, sir, as I always have, and I think that points of order should be founded on true points of order and not serve just as an opportunity to stand up on one's feet and open one's mouth to show how wide is the space between one's ears.

Appointment of Defence Committee


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just admit you made a mistake.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is so prone to self-identification, that is his privilege, but I was raising the question of spurious points of order, and if the cap fits that is his responsibility.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, I would say that while I accept the nomination of the committee I trust the government will see fit to accede to the suggestions I have made if it wishes to do a real job, and I think a real job can be done; but the government will have to alter the practices in our committee system. It will have to take the committee members into its fullest confidence and then let them go to work. With that, Mr. Speaker, I say I am prepared to accede to the resolution, but with the limitations I have indicated.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for the excellent speech he has just made.
He asked the government to have, prior to the establishment of that committee, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) as well as the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) set forth in this house its defence policy for the future as far as our country is concerned.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it would be in the interest of all members and, also of the Canadian people, for the government to take its responsibilities and say what it intends to do in the future in respect of each area of national defence. It is all very well to set up a committee, but it should not be restricted, as the hon. member for Edmonton West indicated a while ago, by certain security measures.
I will admit that some problems will be hard to solve on account of the security of our country, but I should not like to see the government take advantage of the situation to keep from the house part of the details concerning our defence policy, so that the Canadian people will also be informed.
It is important that this matter of defence be considered in all its aspects, because the Canadian people want to know every detail.
In my opinion, Canada should not acquire nuclear arms and the estimates of the Department of National Defence should be reduced
tMr. Lambert.]
accordingly. The government should rather concentrate its defence policy on the one field of conventional weapons.
Unfortunately, in the past, particularly under the former Liberal government, we have perhaps been subject to the influence of the United States to an exaggerated degree. We are ready to co-operate with the Americans but, on the other hand, we do not want to become a satellite of the United States. Moreover, we do not want to be dragged into all kinds of expenditures by the American government, when the people of Canada do not have the same financial resources as their southern neighbours.
In that respect, one must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the American government has a budget totalling $100 billion whereas ours amounts to only $6 billion. As a matter of fact, the annual deficit of the Washington government is higher than our whole budget.
In the past, the American government has dragged us into all kinds of expenditures. For instance, we constructed a type of aircraft that became obsolete right after its completion.
I think that the Canadian people are tired of giving their money when it is not used effectively in the field of national defence. That is what we feel is important for the government and that is why we hope that the government will tell us exactly what defence policy it will follow in the future, before we set up that committee.
We do not want Canada to be a satellite of the United States, let alone the servant of Washington. We want sovereignty for Canada. We do not want to be another star, another American state.
Canadians are proud of their sovereignty. They want to co-operate with the Americans, but they do not want to be dominated by them. In brief, we want decisions to be taken only in Ottawa and not in Washington.
At the present time, there is almost no means of defence against intercontinental ballistic missiles, and that applies to the whole world. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that a missile coming from the U.S.S.R. would not take 11J minutes to reach Canada? If we had nuclear weapons in our possession, we who assume the leadership for peace across the world, we would be in a very bad position to tell both great powers-the United States and Russia-to ban nuclear weapons.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock? (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would mind if I interrupted him-it is a shame to interrupt the hon.

member's speech half way through it-to ask if the house would sit for a few minutes more? Surely everything that could conceivably be said about setting up the committee would have been said if we were to prolong the debate about half an hour?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: Obstruction.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: I presume I may ask the house leader whether we are to continue with this debate tomorrow?
Business of the House Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, if I could answer the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) I wish to say it is the intention of the government to go on with this debate, which we hope has pretty nearly exhausted itself, and when it has been completed to go ahead with the resolution stage preceding the bill on the economic council. If there was still time tomorrow, although it will be a short day, we would then call the resolution respecting the department of industry. I may have to suggest some change in the order so far as the third item is concerned, on account of engagements of one or two of my colleagues.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
671
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 5, 1963