1963-05-30

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table copies in English and French, of a document entitled "Canada in the Jet Age", which is a report prepared by the air services branch of the Department of Transport on growth and requirements of the civil aviation, telecommunications and meteorological branches of the department over the next ten years.
This document is a summary of a very detailed and extensive planning and programming report which has been prepared by the air services branch, but because I think all hon. members will be greatly interested in it I am arranging to have copies provided to them. I should add that this, of course, is not a statement of approved government programs but is basically a planning document to assist our forward thinking.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the house of the results of his talks with United States officials concerning energy resources and, in particular, whether the U.S. officials have expressed concern at the size of Canadian gas and oil shipments to that country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I visited Washington as part of a regular program of visits to our principal trading partners. During the course of the visit I met with various officials of the United States government, including Secretary Harriman, Secretary Udall, under secretary George Ball, assistant secretaries Kelly and Johnson and
other officials of the state and interior departments. We discussed mutual problems of trade and development consequent upon the recent GATT discussions at Geneva, where we supported the United States initiative toward trade liberalization. We also discussed matters pertaining to energy in all its forms, on a basis of mutual interest and development. I should make it clear, however, that our discussions did not include any conversations concerning the Columbia river treaty.
I proposed to the Americans that our two countries initiate and undertake joint studies concerning the development of all forms of energy-oil, natural gas, coal, electricity and nuclear power-in which our interests increasingly intertwine. I found our American friends interested in and receptive to the suggestion, and I hope that preliminary discussions will begin in the near future.
As to oil, we also discussed the prospective growth of Canadian exports in the light of United States import control policy. I am sure all hon. members are aware that from time to time since the national oil policy came into effect, American officials have expressed concern about a too rapid rate of growth of our exports of oil to the United States. They reiterated this concern at our meeting on Monday.
The discussions were conducted in a friendly atmosphere and I believe that the outcome will be mutually satisfactory.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the minister made this statement on orders of the day limits the ability of the opposition to make any comments on it. Therefore I will have to use the technique of asking a question or two, if I may, to clarify the statement he just made.
My first question is this. In this discussion with the United States were gas imports from Canada to the United States considered in their relationship to oil imports?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my statement, we discussed the whole field of energy, which included gas, of course. It related to oil, nuclear energy and the whole field of energy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is any special provision being made to protect Canadian shipments

Inquiries of the Ministry into the Minneapolis-St. Paul area of medium gravity oil which, having a sulphur content, are not easily sold in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: We did not discuss that problem specifically, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of press reports of today can the Prime Minister say whether the strategic air command of the United States is now permitted to fly aircraft carrying nuclear weapons over Canadian soil without prior consultation with the Canadian government.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press reports to which my hon. friend refers, but it is my view that there has been no change in the situation in that regard since this government took office. The situation prior to this government taking office was that every flight of that kind had to receive the permission of the Canadian government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have there been any such flights with prior consultation since this government came into office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker, but I will secure the information.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Defence should be able to answer the question.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question relates to questions and answers earlier this afternoon about strategic air command flights over Canada. I should like to ask the minister if, during the past month, he has signed the usual authorization for those flights. If he has not signed them, for what reason has he not done so?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman is aware, under the existing agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, it is the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence to authorize monthly the arrangements

between the United States air force and the Department of National Defence. This has been done in the usual way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker my question is supplementary to the one which the hon. member for Calgary North asked the Minister of National Defence just a few minutes ago. During the 38 days the minister has been in office, how many flights over Canadian territory of S.A.C. aircraft with nuclear weapons has he authorized?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it has not been the practice in the past nor do I think it would be in the public interest to give the exact number of such flights.



CONSTRUCTION OF FRIGATES FOR CANADIAN NAVY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether it is the intention of the government to go ahead with the building of three new frigates for the Canadian navy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As has already been stated by myself and by several of my colleagues, these questions are under review at the present time.



REPORTED ELECTION COMMENTS BY R.C.A.F. OFFICER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister inform the house which R.C.A.F. officer at Colorado Springs made comments on the recent election campaign, as reported by Jean-Paul Charbonneau in Le Droit of Wednesday, May 29? Will the minister take steps to have such political statements by service officers cease?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. Unfortunately I have not had a chance to look into the matter yet, and I should like to take the question as notice.
(Translation):



REPORTED REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN CANADIAN FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marfineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.

Could the minister tell the house whether the government has received a request from the authorities in Washington to increase, in men or equipment, the Canadian NORAD contingent?
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the first part of the question. Did the hon. member say "when a decision"?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I asked the minister whether the government had received a request from the authorities in Washington to increase, in men or equipment, the Canadian NORAD contingent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I said yesterday, no such request has yet been received.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It refers to the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on Monday last concerning retroactive pay increases to those former civil servants who retired after the date the pay increases were made effective, but before they were actually announced.
My question is, will consideration also be given to retroactive pay increases to those civil servants who transferred to the public service within the same period and under the same circumstances as outlined?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Consideration will be given to the whole question, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR PROMOTION OF GREATER DOMESTIC PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has some bearing also on agriculture, but I think it has more bearing on the Department of Trade and Commerce.
In view of the world sugar shortage, the need for more employment in Canada and the need to conserve foreign exchange, will the government give consideration to promoting increased domestic production of sugar through safeguarding the future of the sugar beet industry by adjusting the level of price 28902-5-29J
Inquiries of the Ministry supports, as requested by the Canadian beet growers association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman said, this question relates partly to the Department of Agriculture. However, I thought the house would be interested to know that partly as a result of the increases in price that have taken place recently the average acreage in sugar beet, which was around an average of 85,000 acres, is likely this year to rise to 110,000 or 115,000 acres. The other part of the question about price supports should, of course, be directed to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Jim McNuliy (Lincoln):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the detrimental effect which increased sugar prices have on the canning industry, and ultimately the consumer, and in view of the urgent need for an increase in the present source of supply, would the minister inform the house if his department is currently working on this critical problem of national interest and, if so, what steps are being taken to alleviate or remedy the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been looking into this question of the supply of sugar, and as far as I can ascertain supplies in Canada are normal. Stocks are at least normal; in fact they have increased somewhat. Import receipts are running at about the same level as last year, and I know of no difficulties which ought to arise as a result of shortage of supply.
The question of price is, of course, a different matter, but as far as the supply is concerned, as I understand the situation, it is adequate and is likely to remain so for all normal purposes in Canada.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister elaborate on the sugar question, and has he asked for information from his department and other government departments as to the amount of the rise in the cost of living index which the recent increases in sugar prices will occasion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did make some general inquiries of this kind, but I really do not have the information in a form that I can answer this particular question. If the hon. member would like me to get some percentage figures as to the effect of sugar prices on the cost of living index, I would be very happy to do so.

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO AID SMALL BUSINESSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether it is the intention of himself and the government to introduce amendments to legislation under his jurisdiction which would strengthen the competitive position of small businesses in Canada.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that legislation of that nature falls within the purview of the Minister of Justice, but I will look into it. In any event, if such legislation is to be introduced, it will be announced in the usual manner.



SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING MUNICIPAL LOAN FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of what appear to be contradictions with respect to an address he gave last night to a meeting of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. The right hon. gentleman is reported to have said he could not reveal or discuss details of the government's proposals with respect to the municipal development loan board and loan fund, but he then proceeded to give many, if not all, of the details of these proposals.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not give the details of this legislation which would properly be given in this house. I mentioned the proposed figure of $400 million, but that is in the resolution which is now on the order paper.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: After the statement just made by the Prime Minister I should like to point out what he did say, and ask him why it was that parliament has been-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read a summary of what the Prime Minister said last evening, information which was denied to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Obey the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order I would think the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to pose his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
fMr. Sharp.]


John George Diefenbaker: I will summarize what he said. First, that the projects will have the benefit of a fund totalling $400 million. Second, that if they are completed within a specified period the federal government will forgive a significant portion of the capital amount of the loan. Third, that in order to finance additional municipal investments in projects which are important and useful-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is very simple. It is this. At this time of day it is permitted to ask questions, but the right hon. gentleman is not asking questions. He is reading from the text of a speech which the Prime Minister delivered last evening. If he wishes to read a brief paragraph as a prelude to a question, it seems to me that would be in order, but I believe the same rules should apply to the right hon. gentleman that apply to other members of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We are always glad to have the help of the hon. gentleman who is an expert on closure and the denial of freedom of speech. I rise, now, on a question of privilege affecting the House of Commons. The Prime Minister last evening dealt with the two items to which I have referred and then went on to say:
We are offering to finance additional municipal investment in projects that are important and useful but which would not otherwise be undertaken in the next two or three years because of their financial burden-
Provided that there is this acceleration of programs, the loans will be available for a wide range of municipal purposes, with emphasis on major facilities and trunk services.
Finally he said:
The administration of the new program will be carried on in conjunction with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporationand so on. Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask the Prime Minister why these things of which information was denied when inquiry was made in this house, were made available outside the house. I would point out that this is another example of the contempt of this house which has been shown by this government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the prime minister began by raising-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The former prime minister, I should have said, who should know better, began by raising a question of privilege which was not a question of privilege at all, and then ended up by asking me a

question. I would ask him to make up his mind on what he was talking about when on his feet, whether it was a question of privilege or asking a question. The right hon. gentleman has raised this question and I am grateful to him for giving further publicity to my speech last night which I gave in Toronto, and in reading from that speech. It is good to know that he was not reading from a forged document.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman's point is that I spoke inappropriately outside the house on a matter which is on the order paper. Therefore to dispose of this matter I think I should put on the record the resolution on this question and show into what detail that resolution went and how I followed it in my remarks last night. I must apologize for taking up the time of the house, but it is necessary in the circumstances. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to promote increased employment in Canada by the provision of financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities, the object of such loans being to enable municipalities to augment or accelerate their capital works programs subject to the approval of the provinces concerned; and for this purpose to provide a special fund in the consolidated revenue fund not exceeding four hundred million dollars to be available for the making of loans to municipalities and certain other municipal authorities for specific municipal capital works projects; to establish a municipal development and loan board to administer the fund so provided; to authorize the acceptance of municipal debentures for any loans so made; to authorize a measure of forgiveness in respect of any loans so made, depending upon the date of completion of the projects for which such loans are made; and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution was on the order paper and this was the burden of my remarks last night.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no answer is given about the information to which I objected being given outside of this house, and I repeat that the answer shows exactly the contempt of this parliament which I have alleged.



REQUEST FOR LARGER SHARE OF TAXES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister consider the taxation demands made by Premier Lesage in Quebec last night as minimum demands for the moment, or does he consider them to be negotiable? If the minister considers them to be negotiable, can he tell whether negotiations are under way and what progress has been made?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance has anything to say on the subject of federal-provincial taxation agreements, he will do so in his own time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.



TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING ACCOUNT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of his stated interest in paring some costs. I ask him whether there will be any substantial savings to be effected by the transfer of a large government advertising account from McKim Advertising Associates to MacLaren Advertising Company Limited?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would hope so.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED BANK MERGER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister or his department received any report of a possible merger between the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Toronto-Dominion Bank?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
[Later:)



CONTINUATION OF DOLLAR DISCOUNT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Has the minister the intention of urging his colleague the Minister of Finance to maintain the Canadian dollar at a discount in order to keep our foreign trade in its present favourable position?
(Text):


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Finance needs any advice from me on such matters.
(Translation):



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Could

Inquiries of the Ministry he tell us whether he has started to study the file relating to lotteries in order to comply with Mr. Lesage's request as soon as possible?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to this question some time ago.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us whether he is keenly interested in Mr. Lesage's request?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am keenly interested in all requests made by the province of Quebec, especially those submitted by the Quebec premier.
(Text):



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. On Wednesday, May 22, I directed a question to the minister with regard to the prices for oats and barley, at which time he said he would take the question as notice. Can the minister supply me with the answer today?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to give me the question again. My machine is not working.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Which machine?


Stanley James Korchinski: On Wednesday, May 22, I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to higher prices for oats and barley, which we were led to believe would be announced in the House of Commons. Does the Minister of Agriculture have a reply for me today?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember ever saying that prices for oats and barley were going to be made higher by this government. I fail to see that the question has anything to do with the prices of oats and barley or what they will be in the fall or at any time.


Stanley James Korchinski: I was referring to a pamphlet put out by the Liberal party during the campaign. A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the hon. member's question, please? Will he put it?


Stanley James Korchinski: The Minister of Agriculture said the other day that he would take my question as notice and give me a reply.

May I now ask a supplementary question. In view of the hundreds of thousands of producers and the thousands of feeders who may be affected by the reply the Minister of Agriculture will give, will he take time off from his busy auctioneering schedule to give this matter consideration?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. In view of the reported dissatisfaction of the Canadian air authority with the increases in air fares on the Atlantic route, can the minister tell us why our authority agreed to or negotiated such an increase as was announced last night?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the authority did not negotiate such an increase. What happened was that last fall the international air line companies had a meeting in Arizona, where an agreement was made to increase fares. Our air transport authority did not agree to those fare increases. There were further meetings as a consequence of the failure of the air transport board, the Canadian government air authority, and the United States authorities to agree to the increases.
This further conference of the air line companies took place in Bermuda and was continued in Montreal last Friday, when a compromise was reached. I hope to put the details of the compromise on record in a moment, and it goes into operation on June 1. These new compromise fares were approved by the air transport board.
Perhaps I should put the actual details of the increase on record. The higher fares agreed to by the companies last fall, called the Chandler fares, become effective on June 1 and remain effective until July 15, 1963. From July 16, 1963, the one way economy class fares will be reduced by $7, and the entire agreement expires on March 31, 1964. The net effect could perhaps be best illustrated by giving a few figures. The Chandler fare increase on a north Atlantic round trip would amount to about $27. The new fares that were agreed to, and which have now been approved, involve an increase of about $13.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that several members as well as myself were led to believe the Canadian authorities were going to stick to their position, I wonder if the

minister could tell us the factors that led them to negotiate a compromise instead of holding to their position which, as the minister said, was quite legal and would have resulted in our air carriers having the low fares on the Atlantic route.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps it would not be satisfactory to give a full answer on orders of the day; perhaps the answer should be more carefully worked out. However, I should indicate very clearly that for Canada to maintain its position on the old rates when all the air line companies and all the other countries had agreed to the compromise would have presented great difficulty and created chaotic conditions in the operation of international air lines. In addition, apparently the hon. member missed the significance of the fact that this new agreement expires on March 31, 1964, and this will afford an opportunity of perfecting the machinery for fixing these international air rates before the expiry of the agreement. I believe the hon. member will agree that is a most fortunate thing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. Will it be possible for Canada to revert to its original position at the end of the time mentioned by the minister?


George James McIlraith: We hope to get lower fares.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to answer the question put yesterday by the hon. member for Skeena, which followed a similar question asked last week by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, concerning one Weldon Chan.
As hon. members will recall, Weldon Chan, a Chinese gentleman, came to Canada in 1958 as a visitor with his wife and their three year old daughter. They were to stay with Mrs. Chan's father in Vancouver for a few months. Chan subsequently applied to be admitted as a landed immigrant. His application was denied by an immigration board of inquiry, and on May 8, 1959, he and his family were ordered deported. An application to the immigration appeal board was dismissed, and the matter was subsequently reviewed by the the then minister of immigration who declined to quash the deportation order.
In order to avoid deportation, Chan went into hiding. His wife and daughter remained with Mrs. Chan's father in Vancouver, and
Inquiries of the Ministry no attempt appears to have been made since that time to deport the wife and daughter.
I have now had the chance to review the matter fully and to reach a decision in the light of all present factors and circumstances. Since this was a purely ministerial decision, I sincerely hope that my decision will not be interpreted as an implied criticism of the decisions made in this matter by my two predecessors at the times at which they were respectively made.
I have now decided, should Weldon Chan choose to surrender himself, to issue a permit under section 8 of the Immigration Act authorizing him and his family to stay in Canada for a period of 12 months, which is the maximum period allowed under the act for any such single permit. This would render possible the immediate reunion of the family, and allow the Chan family to take the necessary steps during this period to finally adjust their status as immigrants.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of his decision- his happy decision-with regard to this case, will the minister now give further consideration to the case of Miss Irene Rebrin, a lecturer at the University of British Columbia?


Guy Favreau: I must say that when I decided to answer the question relating to Mr. Chan, as put by the two hon. members, I was prompted by the relative urgency that existed in this situation because of the desire of the family to be re-united. However, I do not believe the same urgency exists in the case referred to by the hon. member. I feel, Mr. Speaker, I should invoke the ruling made by your predecessors in respect of immigration matters, to the effect that when a question relates to a single individual and there is no element of urgency involved, such question ought not to be admitted, but I will be pleased to look into it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to my erstwhile west block neighbour, the Minister of Public Works. Having so far heard no official government announcement on the construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway, and noting the transport minister's intimation regarding the building of a new ferry, is the minister in a position to state whether the present government intends to repudiate or fulfil its predecessor's pledge to build this transportation link?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: The matter is under consideration, and when a decision is reached it will be announced in due course in the proper place which is the House of Commons.



REPORTED REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF JAPANESE IMPORT QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: I have a question for the Prime Minister which stems from an article in this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail. The article states that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has requested the government to cut Japanese import quotas. My question is, will the Prime Minister assure this house that no cut will be made in Japanese import quotas, since this trade is very important to western Canada and since his party advocates free trade?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question is indeed so important, not only to western Canada but to all Canada, that it should not be answered in a reply to a question on orders of the day.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUATION OF EXPORT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises from the reply given here a few minutes ago by the Minister of Public works (Mr. Des-chatelets) and concerns an article published in the newspaper La Presse under the heading:
From January to April 1963, Canada's trade balance showed a surplus of $40.5 million.
Does the minister feel that the present government is responsible for such a surplus and does he intend to discontinue the progressive export policy adopted by the Conservative government?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member finished his question?
(Text):


Georges-J. Valade: My question was, does the minister intend to continue this progressive program that we had on exportations?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent heavy frost
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
damage to grape crops in the Niagara peninsula, could the minister inform the house what immediate action he will take in regard to this serious financial setback to Niagara peninsula growers?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have an appointment to meet representatives of the Ontario grape growers tomorrow morning, and following the meeting consideration will be given to the policy which will be adopted.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF U.S. REFERENDUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture was good enough to answer a question put by the hon. member for Lincoln, I wonder whether he has had time to prepare an answer to the question I asked him on May 21, nine days ago, and which he took as notice?


Harry William Hays: What was the question the hon. member asked?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the minister can find the question on page 81 of Hansard for May 21.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. It is in two parts. Is the minister aware of the Max Ferguson show broadcast on C.B.C. radio this morning? By way of explanation leading up to the second part of the question, I might say there were two skits presented, one dealing with a meeting between President Kennedy and a top Canadian official in which the president kept urging on the Canadian that Canada take extra nuclear squadrons. The second skit was on the anniversary of the great fight at Stoney Creek of 1812 or 1813, with United States Ambassador Butterworth and the Canadian Prime Minister watching it. If the minister is aware of this show, what action is he going to take about it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me the text of the show, because at the time it was on I was engaged in my usual morning activity of hitchhiking to the office. I therefore did not have the benefit

of hearing this show, which I listen to whenever I can with a great deal of interest and sometimes with some enlightenment. I doubt if the one this morning was very enlightening, but I think we can leave that to the board of directors of the C.B.C.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, and ask him whether he is going to report at this time on the great lakes labour dispute.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that on Friday last I discussed this matter once again with the secretary of labour in the United States. A proposal has been received to reconvene the meeting that was held in Washington last week, and that proposal is now under consideration. It has been accepted with the exception of an appropriate time as to a further meeting.



SUDBURY, ONT.    REPORTED MOVEMENT OF UNEMPLOYED TO THOMPSON, MAN.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last in my absence from the house the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) asked a question with respect to the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act in Sudbury. I have now investigated the situation and should like to report as follows.
The law provides that a claimant not accepting suitable employment may be subject to disqualification for a period not exceeding six weeks. A number of claimants in Sudbury who had been unemployed for more than six months, and for whom work in their usual occupation in that area was not available, were offered employment in Thompson, Manitoba. Some of these persons accepted the employment elsewhere; others did not do so, and as a result were disqualified from receiving benefit. I may add that to date four appeals by these claimants have been heard by the local board of referees at Sudbury, and in three cases the disqualifications were upheld.



REPORTED LAY-OFFS AT POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National 28902-5-30
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence. Has the minister or his department met with any success in placing the nine men recently laid off at the Point Edward naval base?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having advised me that he intended to follow up a question he asked some time ago. Perhaps I should remind the hon. member that the nine people who had been laid off from the Point Edward naval base were casual labourers and, as hon. members know, casual labourers are used to supplement the permanent work force and are advised of the irregularity of their employment. When they are laid off everything is done to get them back to work either through the unemployment insurance commission or one of the army or air force establishments.
I am happy to be able to tell the hon. member that it is expected that there will be an increased work load at the Point Edward naval base and that the people who were laid off recently will be employed shortly. The work load is expected to last until this autumn.
(Translation):



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES PROVINCIAL REPLIES TO LETTER RESPECTING ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister inform the house as to which provinces, up to now, have answered his letter concerning the commission on biculturalism?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Subject to correction, Mr. Speaker, I think all the provinces have replied except British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. I am not absolutely certain, but I hope to have all the replies in a day or so, and if the house desires they can be tabled when they are all in.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister tell the house whether he intends doing anything to persuade his colleagues to

Inquiries of the Ministry bring about a termination of the austerity program of the former government, which is revealed in respect to the estimates of his department tabled yesterday by his colleague, the Minister of Finance?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to have this question put to me, because it is well known all over Canada that the austerity has ended since we took over.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister why there is no indication of that fact in the estimates of his department?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I remind the hon. member that the estimates of the Department of Public Works for this year are the estimates of the previous government, but wait until we see the estimates for next year.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, my question has been occasioned by the surprising reply from the Minister of Public Works. I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he could tell us if it is a fact that the civil service commission and government departments are no longer holding a freeze in so far as adding people to job rosters according to a formula that was in effect for some time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made quite a speech. I will take a look at it and consider a reply.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Does the very brave Sergeant Leja, who was seriously wounded as a result of the unfortunate bombing incident in Montreal recently, qualify for a pension under the Canadian Pension Act?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question just at the moment, but I will be glad to look into the matter and give the hon. gentleman an answer as quickly as I can.
(Translation):	.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to


the Minister of Public Works. On April 8 last, the post office of my own town, Arnprior, was moved into a new building and since that time the clock of the old post office has stopped working. Newspapers assert that it is perhaps due to a catastrophe which took place on April 8 last.
So I ask the minister if he can go to Arnprior and wind up the clock at the old post office.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is possible that the clock stopped working following recent events. However, since the hon. member mentioned this to me this morning, we have given instructions to that effect and the clock is now working as before.
(Text):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of Transport or to the Prime Minister. In view of representations made to the former government and to this government by retired employees of Canadian National Railways, will something be done to improve the pension position of those employees of Canadian National Railways who were retired prior to April 1, 1962?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that question perhaps should be put on the order paper. But it will be looked into, whether on the order paper or not.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question was asked by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble). As the details involved in the answer are quite technical and the answer is lengthy, I would ask permission of the house to file this answer with the Clerk of the House as if the question had been put on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that this information be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF AVAILABILITY OF SEATING PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday the hon. member for Moose Mountain asked me about the house seating plan. I have just received a print of the seating plan, and I believe there will be copies available for all hon. members. I should also like to say that one of the hon. members on this side of the house suggested to me yesterday that a miniature of the seating plan be printed which could be inserted on members' desks. It seemed to me a rather good idea. I have already received a proof of one of them, and I hope they will also be available quite soon.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Lester Bowles 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 18 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has just been read to the house implements a pledge that we on this side have made. If accepted by the house it would carry out a proposal that was put by us to the house over the years when we were in opposition.
The resolution refers to a committee to consider matters relating to defence. There is no limitation in the resolution with regard to any such matters though, of course, there is always the limitation imposed by security considerations when this house or a committee of this house discusses defence. The resolution provides that the committee shall report to the house from time to time on matters relating to defence; that it shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; that it be empowered to adjourn from place to place. That means the committee can travel to defence installations and other places which it might be important to visit in connection with the business the committee is doing.
According to the terms of the resolution the committee should consist of 18 members to be designated by the house at a later date. I understand there have been discussions-and this was referred to last night 28902-5-301
Appointment of Defence Committee by my colleague, the leader of the house- among the representatives of the various parties, and the suggestion has been made that it would lead to an improvement in the basis of the representation of all parties on this committee of the number could be increased from 18 to 24. I am informed that this suggestion received unanimous approval on the part of those who were considering it. Therefore, though this would require the unanimous consent of the house, I make the suggestion that when this resolution is being considered the figure "18" be amended to read "24". If that is agreed to by the house, the committee will be considered as having 24 rather than 18 members.
I do not propose to detain hon. members very long in speaking to this resolution. I shall have an opportunity at the end of the debate to deal with any points which may arise during the discussion on the nature of the committee and its work. But I wish to make it clear at the beginning that a committee of this kind to deal with defence matters, if it is accepted, does not mean that it will be substituting in any way for the responsibility of the house itself in considering these matters. It would certainly be no substitute for the responsibility which the government must have in the making of decisions in regard to defence, the same responsibility which it has in making decisions on other aspects of policy.
Therefore I should like to make it clear at the outset that in recommending this committee it is not the intention of the government in any way, shape or form that, in the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) on May 21, as reported at page 114 of Hansard, it should be used "to give the government a chance to evade its responsibilities". No government can evade its responsibilities in the matter of defence or in any other field by the establishment of a committee. It is the purpose in setting up committees of this house to assist the government of the day in discharging its responsibilities; to convey information to the government and to give the government advice; to make recommendations to the government, if thought fit. But in the last analysis, under our parliamentary system of responsible government the government must remain responsible for any decisions taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister allow a question? The constitutional statement he has just made is one with which there can be no disagreement. But is it intended, and is it in contemplation by the government, that this committee shall have the right to make recommendations regarding policy?

Appointment of Defence Committee


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was coming to that. But I think there should be no limitation on the right of this committee to make recommendations on any matter within its terms of reference, and by "any matter" I do not exclude policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister include policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will come to that if the right hon. gentleman will be patient. In the past the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of his party when they were in office opposed the establishment of a committee of the house to discuss defence policy. The ground for that opposition was that in their view a committee of this kind, considering defence policy, would interfere with and perhaps cut across the responsibility of the government in these matters to which I have just referred. The Leader of the Opposition took the position while in office and, indeed, when he was in opposition earlier, that no committee could even discuss defence policy because defence policy was the responsibility of government and government should not delegate this responsibility to a committee.
I have before me statements made by the right hon. gentleman and, as he has mentioned the subject, I might say that statements along similar lines, though with some qualifications, were made previously by Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent when he was prime minister, in 1951. However, in 1958 when there was a discussion in this chamber about the setting up of a defence committee, the right hon. gentleman now the Leader of the Opposition had this to say on May 30, as reported on page 681 of Hansard of that date. He was discussing a defence committee:
The only forbidden field, and it must remain so, will be that of government policy.
That was to be a forbidden field as far as the work of the defence committee was concerned. They could talk about expenditures, expenditures which had been made, but they could not discuss defence policy. More recently the right hon. gentleman reiterated his opposition to defence policy being discussed in a defence committee when he said, as reported on page 1889 of Hansard for November 22, 1962:
In so far as defence policy is concerned, as in the past when the hon. gentleman was a member of the former government, so today, and so, generally, throughout the free world, questions of policy are not submitted to committees.
I must note that the statement that throughout the free world questions of defence policy are not submitted to committees is an all embracing statement and one which is not accurate, because the United States is

still in the free world and there defence policies are not only submitted to congressional committees but they are very often decided in congressional committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I was referring to the parliamentary free world.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman says he was referring to the free world in which the parliamentary system of government is in effect. So far as we are concerned on this side of the house, we did not accept that position when we were in opposition. We did not accept the position that a defence committee should be limited in this way. Now that we are in office we do not accept this today. We are putting this committee forward in exactly the same terms and with the same intentions that we had three, four or five years back when we advocated a defence policy committee.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask the Prime Minister whether such a committee has been set up before in Canada, particularly in the regime of Mr. St. Laurent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think a committee of the kind envisaged in this resolution has been set up, although I speak subject to correction. Certainly it has not been set up while I have been a member of the House of Commons. But I am proposing that a committee of this kind be set up now with the approval of the House of Commons. In making that proposal I am being consistent in what I said in this house when I was in opposition. In the course of the throne speech as far back as January, 1960 I was asked by the then prime minister the following question, as recorded on page 48 of Hansard:
Does the hon. gentleman suggest that any committee under our system should discuss policy?
My reply was:
It certainly could, Mr. Speaker, if it were set up for this purpose. It could bring in recommendations, get advice on policy and ask the minister about policy questions. It certainly could discuss policy.
And I take that position today, Mr. Speaker. Then last October 1, 1962 I said in this house, as reported on page 73 of Hansard:
What we should have had years ago, and what we fought for in this house, is a defence committee on policy where we could try to find out the principles upon which the government is acting in defence matters. We have never been able to do that, but when a Liberal government takes over that will be done.
I might say parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that we are now proposing that this should be done by this committee. I went on to say:
The defence policy will be examined by a committee in the House of Commons in the way it should be examined-

-that is if we had the responsibility of setting up such a committee-
-in a way it has not been examined since this government-
-that is the Conservative government-
-took office.
That is what we are proposing in the terms of this resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, might I interrupt the Prime Minister at this stage? He has now described the ambit of this committee. Would he object to an amendment so it may be made perfectly clear that the special committee to be appointed is to consider matters relating to defence, and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon, including recommendations as to policy? In view of the fact that he stated that those words are inherent and that that idea is inherent in the definition, which I submit they are not, would he, in order to make the matter perfectly clear, be prepared to accept an amendment in those terms?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already said that in the terms of this resolution there is no limitation on the work of this committee in respect to all matters relating to defence. I have always indicated to the right hon. gentleman that in matters relating to defence we include in this resolution defence policy. I have indicated that that will presumably make the resolution unacceptable to my hon. friend if he follows the course he has followed in the past, when he has taken the position on behalf of his party and on behalf of the former government that it is inappropriate for a defence committee even to discuss policy, let alone to make recommendations on policy. We would assume that there would be no limitation this time on the committee which we are proposing to set up; but if in the course of this discussion an amendment is moved on this or on any other subject, that amendment will naturally be considered by the government when it sees the terms of such amendment.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to emphasize again is something which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, that in setting up a committee of this kind to discuss, if it sees fit, defence policy matters and, if it sees fit, to make recommendations to the government of the day on defence policy questions, it does not interfere with the responsibility upon the government of making decisions in regard to those recommendations or any other matters of defence policy. Also, it does not interfere with the right of parliament itself, in committee of the whole and in discussion of the defence estimates, to reject decisions or to reject any matter of defence policy which may be put before it.
30,	1963
Appointment of Defence Committee
The previous government, in the defence committees which it set up, permitted examination only of expenditures. In the main committee, the most important committee, which was set up in 1960, the committee of that day was authorized to look into the expenditures which had already been made, and it was only later that the terms of reference of that committee were changed to enable it to look into expenditures which were proposed. If hon. members read, as I am sure many who took part in the discussions have read, the minutes of the committee on defence expenditures of 1960, they will realize how difficult indeed it was for a minister of defence, a minister of the crown, in the examination to which he was subjected in the committee on expenditures, to refrain from discussing policy. Indeed, he did not attempt to refrain, because it was quite impossible, in answering questions on defence expenditures, not to give the government's view on policy matters. So perhaps by making it clear that policy matters can be discussed in this committee we are not departing, in effect, very far from the position taken by the former minister of defence himself in 1960 when he appeared before the committee.
It has been said by my right hon. friend- and I have repeated some of his statements today-that it is not proper for a committee on defence to discuss defence policy, and that this cuts across our system of parliamentary, constitutional, responsible government. I would point out, as I have indeed pointed out in the past in this house, that there is a good analogy to the proposed defence committee in the committee on external affairs. The committee on external affairs has been in existence now for a good many years. There has never been any limitation on the right of that committee to discuss questions of foreign policy. There has never been any limitation on the right of members of that committee to examine the secretary of state for external affairs on foreign policy questions. And I do not think that committee has been considered as an agency which has prejudiced in any way our system of parliamentary government, where the government must take the responsibility of making decisions and then announce them in the House of Commons.
When I talk about a defence committee of this kind I do not mean, and the terms of the resolution should not be interpreted to mean, that the right of the members of that committee to summon witnesses extends to serving officers. I think it would be improper for serving officers to appear; but

Appointment of Defence Committee if they were summoned before the committee, the right of the committee to summon anyone does not extend to the obligation of a serving officer to give any information on policy matters. Policy matters in a committee of this kind, as was the case in the committee on external affairs, can be discussed. The government can be questioned on policy, but the spokesman of the government on policy matters should be a political spokesman of the government. In the case of the external affairs committee that spokesman has been the secretary of state for external affairs.
If I may be pardoned a personal reference, Mr. Speaker, I recall that when I was deputy minister of external affairs I appeared before the committee, but I was not asked questions about policy. At least occasionally I may have been asked a question on policy by inadvertence, but if I was I always replied that it was a policy matter which naturally the minister would deal with when he appeared before the committee, and then I took note of the question and submitted it to the minister. Then later when I appeared before the committee on external affairs as secretary of state for external affairs, my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the committee, will remember how the committee itself roamed far and wide over the whole field of foreign policy, and that the minister, I think it is right to say, did not show any reluctance to discuss with the committee any aspects of foreign policy on behalf of the government.
Subject always, of course, to military security considerations, I suggest that is the way that a committee on defence should and could operate; that the ministers of defence would appear before the committee and if there were questions on government policy that members wished to ask, if there were exchanges of views on government policy that members wished to bring about with the spokesman of the government, it would be the obligation of the minister to give the committee all the information he possibly could and take notice of the views of the members of the committee, and in due course the government will take notice of any recommendations which it cares to make.
There is no reason, as I see it, why a committee of this kind should not exchange views on the principles of defence policy; on the reasons for the expenditures made consequent upon defence policy; on the contributions that Canada has made to the NATO alliance, for instance; on changes in defence policy that the Canadian government in due course might be wise to make; on our continental defence policy; on our relations with the United States on continental and joint defence. It seems to me it would not only

be possible but also helpful to have matters of that kind discussed in a committee of this kind, and in such a discussion the only spokesman for the government would be, of course, a minister of the crown.
This does not mean that in such a defence committee the deputy minister and perhaps even the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee should not be able to appear if they were required to answer questions of fact and to answer questions on which information was required that did not entrench on policy considerations. I would, however, believe that it would be wrong if, apart from the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, serving officers were asked to appear before the committee and were questioned in a way which would embarrass them as officers of the services. I think the committee could be very useful indeed in the field of policy without that kind of investigation which is so common to congressional committees in Washington, where I know the system is very different indeed but where I believe-perhaps I should not say this-harm can be done by asking for the views of serving officers which run counter to the views of their civilian chiefs, who are responsible and should be responsible for decisions on policy.
It is also provided in the resolution that the committee, if it so desires, can send for outside witnesses. By that I mean witnesses who would not be serving officers of the armed forces or civil servants of the government of Canada, who would naturally appear before the committee only to give information in regard to matters of fact. But outside witnesses whom the committee felt by their knowledge and experience could contribute to the work of the committee would, it seems to me, be very appropriate witnesses for the committee to summon if it so desired.
That is what we in the government have in mind in putting this resolution before the house. If the house sees fit to accept the resolution and the committee of 24 members is set up representing all parties in the house, I think it can serve a very useful purpose in clarifying the ideas of members of the committee and, through members of the committee, clarifying the ideas of the country on the difficult, complicated and at times dangerous questions of defence. It can also be useful in the recommendations it may see fit to make in the same way that committees make recommendations on other subjects to the government of the day.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy indeed to put this resolution to the house for its consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Am I to understand that by unanimous consent and without any special

motion the resolution is to be amended to the effect that the committee shall consist of 24 members instead of 18?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mandziuk:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question which I intended to put before he took his seat? To what extent would the recommendations of this committee be binding on the government, if at all? Maybe I missed that point in his address, and if I did I apologize.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Legally and constitutionally they would not be binding in any way, because that would indeed contravene our system of parliamentary responsible government where the government must be responsible for decisions. But I should think they would be of great interest to and have an influence on the government in making the decisions that it would have to make on matters of policy.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Did the Prime Minister say that Senate committees in the United States make policy recommendations which are binding on the government there? I should like clarification of that point.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The congressional system is entirely different, and the powers of congressional committees are much greater in respect of the binding nature of their recommendations than the powers of any parliamentary committee. I am not suggesting nor is the government suggesting, in recommending this resolution, that we adopt the United States practice in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask a question first. Is the Minister of National Defence not going to give us an outline of government policy at the present time so the debate may develop in an orderly fashion?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will not be giving a statement of government policy on defence at the present time. I would, I presume, if the committee so desired, make an opening statement at the committee's deliberations which would more or less start the proceedings.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the government has approached this problem in the most halfhearted manner I have ever seen. During the course of the election campaign and in the last session of parliament we heard endless talk about the necessity of a committee to discuss and determine-that was the inference-defence policy, and various statements have already been made in the house before
Appointment of Defence Committee we reached this particular point in our proceedings about what was going to be done.
We have now reached the item on the order paper; a very lukewarm, halfhearted presentation is made by the Prime Minister, with regard to his much vaunted committee on defence, and neither the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) nor the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) is prepared to give us a statement with regard to the government's policy at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for a spokesman of the government to make a statement on defence policy in connection with this resolution?


Mr. Speaker:: The whole purpose of this debate is to set up a committee, and the discussion should be relevant to setting up the committee. Members may indicate from time to time, of course, subjects that might be considered by the committee, but I do not think a general debate is called for at the present time. I will not go any further at the moment, but I have considerable authority for what I have just said.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know you have not made a ruling yet and I should like to say something. Under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the far ranging discussion on the part of the Prime Minister, I feel that in the consideration of a matter as important as defence, discussion should not be limited in the course of this debate which has as its purpose as you have said, and properly so, the setting up of a committee.
But I do feel that unless there is going to be reasonable freedom in consideration of this whole problem, then this debate will simply be a means whereby the important matter of defence will be given to a committee and, inferentially, the House of Commons will be denied the opportunity of discussing this matter. I hope that there will be give and take on both sides in this connection, and that Your Honour will not be required to make a ruling that would deny to members of this house the right to discuss a subject that has received widespread attention and deserves to be dealt with by members of this house in some detail.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I speak to the point of order that has been raised? I agree with the right hon. gentleman that if any attempt were made to restrict this debate merely to the narrow question, should a committee be set up or should it not, it would be unduly restrictive. The government has no such thought. At the same time, sir, Your Honour's

Appointment of Defence Committee predecessor, Mr. Speaker Michener, gave rulings on several occasions-on one occasion the ruling was made against me, so I remember it quite well-that the whole policy with respect to the subject matter being referred to a committee should not be discussed in the house because that was the purpose of the committee, to have the matter discussed there. I am speaking from recollection, but my recollection is rather vivid in this particular case since the ruling was made against me.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not unusual in your case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I think, as a matter of fact, that my score was almost as bad as the right hon. gentleman's.
As I was saying before the amiable interruption by the right hon. gentleman, it has always been the practice to permit hon. members to suggest subjects and to give reasons why there should be certain priority relating to subjects to be discussed by a committee. However, since committees are set up for the purpose of considering a matter, and 1 think Your Honour's predecessors have so ruled, it has always been clearly understood that it would be quite wrong to have a debate in the house on the subject itself that the committee is being asked to consider, and before the committee has considered it. When the committee has considered it and made its report, the report is then before hon. gentlemen and at that stage there is an opportunity for debating the report of the committee and to deal with everything that the committee itself decided.


John George Diefenbaker: May I add one further word? I think what the hon. gentleman has said pretty well represents the situation. It is a distinction without a difference so far as I am concerned, and I think as we proceed on the basis of what he has indicated is the desire of the government, not to prevent the opposition placing before the house its views, I am sure that there will be that degree of give and take which will permit a wide discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be a mistake if too narrow an interpretation were placed on the terms of this resolution. I believe the house has to keep in mind that, prior to parliament meeting, the government made it clear that there would be an early opportunity for discussing general defence questions. Once the committee is set up, in view of the fact that these questions are being discussed in the committee, we may be debarred from discussing general defence matters in the house.
It seems to me that this is almost the only opportunity that will be presented for some

time for a general discussion of defence policy, as was promised by the government prior to parliament convening. While no one, I am sure, wants to wander far afield, I feel it would be a mistake to narrowly limit the debate on this motion to the question merely of whether a committee should be set up or should not be set up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that the right hon. gentleman used as an argument for a wide discussion, the fact that I had ranged, as he said, over the entire field of defence policy. I did not talk about defence policy at all in my short remarks. I confined my remarks to the resolution question, the nature of the committee and the terms of reference to the committee, what I thought it might do and might not do. While I am not, of course, objecting in any way, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks that have been made about some latitude being given in a debate of this kind on a proposal to set up a committee, I would say in answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that far from restricting debate on this matter there has already been a wide discussion on a point decided earlier. There will be a supply motion shortly when the whole question of defence can be raised, and there will be the defence estimates before long. Therefore, there is no disposition on the part of the government to limit the widest possible discussion of defence policy at every appropriate opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in general. However, I would not want to be taken as accepting the view that the fact general defence problems had been submitted to a committee would debar this house from discussing the question of defence at any time.
However, I feel we are pretty well in agreement now, and I would not want to press the matter any further.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can conclude the matter by quoting some excellent remarks by a previous Speaker made on March 23, 1960, as found on page 2371 of Hansard for that date:
To conclude the matter I would ask the co-operation of the house in keeping these debates on motions to appoint committees within the appropriate limited bounds. I do not propose to be unduly restrictive but I suggest we follow the rules unless the house determines otherwise. If the house decides it wants a general debate, that is done by unanimous consent, and that is a different case. Otherwise, however, we will attempt to keep within the rules.
It seems to me we have a general understanding of the problem.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is rather fortunate that the Secretary of State was present this afternoon to save the Prime Minister from error when he was almost on the point of preventing us discussing the very subject he says we should be discussing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is once again falling into his customary practice of misinterpreting and distorting remarks made from this side of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest he is completely wrong in what he has said, once again, even though he has no documents to support him this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now you are in trouble.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the word "distort" is parliamentary, and if it is I apply it to the right hon. gentleman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The words which the Prime Minister has used are a reflection and will have to be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He said, referring to me, "-my customary practice of distorting-" what other word did he use?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -distorting and giving misinformation to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can resolve the difficulty. If there is any hint of restriction at all, it is due to myself. In my capacity as Speaker, it is my duty to point out what the rules of the house are. If the members of the house generally feel that there should be a slightly wider discussion, I do not see any particular objection to that, provided it is kept within the bounds of reason.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before we get to that wider discussion, I may say that I am discussing a point of privilege concerning accusations made by the Prime Minister that I have distorted or, in other words, misled the house. This is not an accusation that can be made and substantiated by the Prime Minister, and those words are unparliamentary and will have to be withdrawn.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. gentleman had distorted and misrepresented what I have said. If I had said the hon. gentleman had deliberately distorted and misrepresented, it would be a different matter, but of course he did not do it deliberately. He did not even know what he was doing.
Appointment of Defence Committee


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Grit party is continuing to show it will destroy itself by its arrogance.
I had hoped that the Minister of National Defence would have accepted my invitation to give us a statement for the direction of the committee. They are intent now on setting up a committee, but let us have some direction as to the subject matters that committee would undertake to look at. Let us have something from the Minister of National Defence. He has now been in office for some considerable time. The Prime Minister speaks for him, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but we hear nothing from the minister in charge. The Associate Minister of National Defence has virtually disappeared from sight.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is dealing with government business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a most unfortunate thing in dealing with a department of such great importance as the Department of National Defence.
I started off some time ago to draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister has very halfheartedly introduced this resolution to set up a committee, and I suggest to you, sir, that in the minds of hon. members of the house, and in the minds of the public, there has been a different concept of what was to be attempted with the committee, than that given to us this afternoon.
Away back in January the Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, in the celebrated speech when he changed his position used these words:
We should set up a small select committee on defence policy. Through that committee we should try to work out a defence policy on the broadest possible national basis.
There is no word of defence policy in the resolution to set up this committee. It is one of those resolutions that evades the matter. Instead of using the words "defence policy," those words used in the last session, during the election campaign and in the turnabout speech at Scarborough, we get the words "matters relating to defence," which is subject to all sorts of interpretation. The committee could spend its whole time on defence expenditures, of course with some profit to public knowledge. It could spend its whole time on travelling around to various bases. This is the sop which is held out. There are going to be some trips. This special committee is to visit this base and that base, but there is nothing about defence policy in the resolution.
Let us be very clear as to the impression that was given to the public. As recorded in

Appointment of Defence Committee Hansard of May 21 at page 109, the Prime Minister used these words:
-we would be bringing forward very shortly a resolution to set up a defence committee to discuss defence policy.
This is the type of information that has gone out over the radio and television, and through the newspapers-a committee to discuss defence policy, but we get the statement today that it is "to consider matters relating to defence."
On May 17, as recorded at page 13 of Hansard for that date, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) asked the Minister of National Defence this question:
For the benefit of the house I would like him to define what is meant by the "modern arms weapons" that are to be made available for the Canadian armed forces.
In his reply the minister said:
-in view of the fact that a resolution will be introduced shortly to set up a special select committee on defence problems I think that would be the best time to discuss these matters in detail.
Mr. Speaker, we are at that very stage now. In effect the minister said, "Save your questions until we are setting up the committee on defence problems, and when we are setting up that committee, that will be the best time to discuss these matters in detail." That is why I asked the Minister of National Defence to let us have his opinions with regard to these matters.
I suggest to the house that the impression created over the last several months was that we were to have a committee on defence policy, and as reported at page 308 of Hansard for May 27 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) said:
As members of the house know, the Prime Minister has announced in the house ... the government's intention to conduct a national review of defence policy and to set up without delay a parliamentary committee as part of that process-
A national review of defence policy was to be the work of the committee, and that is the impression that has been created. There are some people in the country who will consider that they have been misled by this great blowup, and when hon. members of the other parties speak I am sure they will say they were expecting a committee to consider defence policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? May I ask him if he is prepared to move an amendment to include after the words "matters relating to defence" the words "including defence policy."


Gordon Minto Churchill: These matters will be considered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would think that the Prime Minister, who has already moved a resolution that was badly prepared, should now correct it and he should have in it his words with regard to defence policy. When the Prime Minister was asked the question during the course of his remarks, he hedged. He read out this phrase "matters relating to defence" and he said this would be as wide as you like, but of course with certain reservations, you know, with regard to security matters. Then he said, "You understand it is the responsibility of the government to make decisions."
The Leader of the Opposition asked him if it included policy, and we did not get an answer to that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The answer was yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He was asked if it was included in this way, and he replied that the committee may discuss anything it likes. Then, Mr. Speaker, he casts scorn on committees that have been set up in the past, committees set up for specific purposes. For example there was the committee on defence expenditures, and once you get into defence expenditures you do not have much time for questions of policy. That committee met in 1951 and 1952, and in 1960, when we were on defence expenditures, and there was a restriction on the work of the committee so that it would not spend its whole time on other related matters. But now the Prime Minister says, "Oh, yes, you may discuss anything with regard to defence."
I think we will have to be very sure we are not prevented in this house from discussing these matters pertaining to defence, after the committee has been set up. This is the danger I see in some of this, in the wording of this resolution. Well, where do we stand on the question of defence policy? What is the policy of the present government? What happens when the committee is discussing some matter dealing with defence policy and discovers that the decision has already been made by the government? Then it goes on just discussing it and says whether it was a good decision or a bad one. What will happen if during the course of this committee the government is faced with some problem relating to defence on which a decision is required? Will that be referred to the committee for consideration before the government makes its decision, or will the committee be kept in the dark with regard to that on the grounds of security? I very much fear that this is exactly what will happen. The committee will not be given the information with regard to decisions which the government-as any government has to do-will have to make concerning defence matters. But then it will be able to discuss these matters later, according to the Prime

Minister. He rather suggested that without a committee to discuss matters such as this we would not have the same opportunity here; and finally, when pressed, he had to admit that there would be opportunities to discuss this matter in the house on the consideration of estimates, supply motions and things of that nature. We will insist on our rights here in the House of Commons to discuss defence at every opportune moment. We will continue to press the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) with questions, and I hope he will not attempt to defer these questions to the special committee on defence. I warn him in advance that this will not be acceptable to the House of Commons. I have been suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons and the people generally will not be satisfied with the committee as proposed by the Prime Minister, a committee which is not even given a good send-off by the Minister of National Defence.
I am quite prepared to admit that no greater problem faces any country at the present time than this question of defence, of war or peace. I am quite prepared to admit that Canada has a very serious problem to consider with regard to defence. These things should be looked at. They can be looked at by the House of Commons. They can be examined by a committee; we can have two or three committees. But nevertheless the government itself has to approach these problems. The government has to make decisions and they have to announce those decisions. Let us deal with them and let the public generally know what is going on. The problem of defence has been a major problem, and apparently will continue to be a major problem, for our country and other countries for a very long time. It is a very expensive burden resting on our country. A very large part of our budget each year has to be devoted to defence expenditure. Naturally we are interested in seeing whether that money is spent wisely. We are interested in seeing what changes are desired as time goes on. If the committee had been set up for policy matters, it might have suggested to the government before a decision was made what changes should be incorporated in our defence set-up. But I doubt very much if it will have that opportunity.
Despite the heavy expenditure over the years on defence, peace has been maintained in the world since the second world war, in so far as a world conflagration is concerned. Although everyone as a taxpayer has some misgivings with regard to the heavy expenditures on defence, nevertheless I think we must really consider that it is and has been a form of insurance. We have not had
Appointment of Defence Committee an outbreak of world war since the conclusion of the second world war, and we hope that with the work of the alliances with which we are associated, the work of the United Nations, and so on, peace will continue to prevail. This is our hope, because a world conflict would be much more destructive than anything we have seen in the past. Therefore, although defence expenditures have placed a very heavy burden on the Canadian taxpayer, we have received the value of insurance against world conflict from those expenditures.
When it comes to the application of that money and how it should best be expended we enter into a realm of controversy. The committee on defence will not be able to deal adequately with the problems that will confront us unless we have in advance here an outline of some of those problems. That is why I hope we will have such an outline from the government side of the house before the conclusion of this debate. Let us outline in general terms the problems which face us, and then the committee, when it gets down to work, can examine those problems and come up with its findings.
One of the things that strikes me as I read about defence matters and examine the record is the tremendous change that takes place almost every year in defence affairs. The rapidity of technological change in defence matters is almost too great for the lay mind to grasp. We find that the situation as it applied 15, 10, or 5 years ago is rapidly out of date. We seem to be moving into a new age, and some of the weapons which are being devised at the present time are a bit beyond the comprehension of most of us. I am particularly struck with the changes which have occurred over the years.
The U.S. News and World Report has given very valuable service to the public from time to time in indicating the burden which is being carried by the members of the NATO alliance, the manpower requirements and things of that nature. I note in the magazine of January 21, 1963, where the article is discussing and comparing the burden borne by the United States and that borne by its allies, that most unfortunately Canada has been omitted from the list of NATO allies. Had Canada's contribution in money been entered in the column devoted to that subject, we would have been shown as fifth among the NATO allies in the amount of money we are spending on national defence. This amount, as appears in the estimates recently tabled, is in the order of $1,600,000,000. If in the list showing manpower provided by the various countries Canada had been listed, as she should have been listed, we would have been shown as seventh in the group of

Appointment of Defence Committee the 14 countries which do make a substantial contribution to the NATO alliance. Canada has been playing her part with men and with money and has no need to take second place to anyone in this alliance with regard to the effort she is putting forward.
I think at this time a review of our requirements in this atomic age is essential. Once again, in this magazine, U.S. News and World Report we get a picture of the changing concept of defence as far as the United States and NATO are concerned. These changes are really very rapid. In the issue of March 25, 1963, there is an article-it appears to be semi-official-which shows the four stages which are now in progress with respect to United States defence arrangements. Step one is the dismantling of the bases which were built all around Russia after the second world war. Nuclear bombers and intermediate missiles are being withdrawn from England, Italy, Turkey, Morocco and elsewhere. Step two provides for smaller nuclear weapons to be withdrawn from Europe and an effort is being made to dissuade NATO allies from building their own atomic forces. As part of step three, around the world United States ground forces and tactical air units are to be gradually withdrawn to United States soil. United States treaty commitments will preferably be met in future by "fire brigade" forces based in that country.
These are some of the developments which have taken place already or which are being considered. Step number four comes down to this-that the mainstay of future United States defence becomes nuclear missiles, mainly Minuteman and Polaris, based on United States soil or in United States submarines where the president can maintain absolute control free from political or other interference from any foreign country.
These are illustrations of one aspect of the changes that are taking place. The other significant change within the last few years has been the piling up of nuclear missiles at a rate which is simply staggering. Again, I am dependant on the U.S. News and World Report, and this time I should like to read a few sentences from the issue of March 18, 1963:
Missiles approaching 60,000 in number will be added to the U.S. arsenal of weapons this year. Missiles are being turned out in the U.S. at a rate of 3.9 billion dollars worth a year.
The article continues under a heading "A Missile for Every Job", and charts are given of the missiles which are listed. There is apparently no security attached to this matter. The big missiles are the intercontinental ballistic missiles which have a range of up to 9,000 miles. The United States also has ready for use an Atlas missile, 129 of which


are in place now at 11 bases all within the United States. There is also a type called Titan I and II with a range of 9,000 miles. All 54 of the planned Titan I missiles are now completed and in place at five bases. Fifty four Titan II's are now coming. They also have the Minuteman, 60 of which are now in place on bases in Montana. Five more bases are under way and it is planned to produce 950 of these missiles in the next four years. Then there is the Polaris which has a range of between 1,200 and 2,500 miles. One hundred and forty four missiles of this type are now aboard nine submarines. They intend to have 656 of these missiles aboard 41 submarines. These, Mr. Speaker, are all large missiles.
Looking further down the list I note there is the Thor, with a range of 1,500 miles. Sixty of these based in Britain are being withdrawn. Another intermediate range missile, the Jupiter, was, or is, in Italy and Turkey. It is now being withdrawn and replaced by Polaris missiles. The next missile listed is the Mace which was in place in West Germany. I presume that this, too, is being withdrawn. Those are the big missiles. Then we come to the missiles intended for defence against enemy aircraft, and there are nine of them listed in this magazine together with their ranges and so on. All of them, apparently, are operating. In addition to these are nuclear missiles for use by battlefield troops and eight of these are listed-the Pershing, the Redstone, the Honest John, the Little John, the Sergeant, the Lacrosse, the Shillelagh and the Davy Crockett. Then, as a further indication that we are well into the missile age, we find missiles which can be fired from airplanes against enemy planes. These include the Sidewinder, the Genie, the Falcon and the Sparrow III.
In addition, they are trying to develop a missile to strike down other missiles, the Nike-Zeus. The list is not yet complete. There are anti-submarine missiles-the Subroc, the Asroc and the Alpha. The magazine contains a short description of the Skybolt missile designed to be discharged at some considerable distance from its target. Production of the Skybolt has recently been discontinued. In the same class, though, is the Hound Dog which can be launched 600 miles from its target by the airplane which carries it. Then, having a shorter range, is the Bullpup which can be launched against surface targets.
That is just a quick rundown of the missiles now available in this missile age, and the number of these missiles is multiplying at a rapid rate. Their destructive capacity staggers the imagination. These are matters which will have to be considered by the

special committee before it can reach any conclusion pertaining to Canada's defence now or in the future, or before it can advise the government with regard to policy.
As I have said, the destructive power of these missiles is simply tremendous. One has to learn the nuclear jargon before he can begin to appreciate this fact. The Winnipeg Tribune published a series of articles to inform the public, and a collection of these articles has appeared under the title "The Nuclear Primer". I believe there are 24 of these articles which, together, give a great deal of information in popular phraseology which the average individual can understand. The article talks about the sizes of the various bombs available for use at the present time and compares them with the one which destroyed Hiroshima. The Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 20,000 tons of t.n.t. When that bomb was exploded the world stood aghast and Hiroshima was wiped out. Well, the warhead of the Honest John rocket which is the missile available to the batteries now in place in Europe, one of the smaller missiles in this missile age, is equivalent in size to the Hiroshima bomb, in other words to 20,000 tons of t.n.t. The smallest United States strategic warhead, that is, among the big missiles I was talking about, has a destructive force equal to 500,000 tons of t.n.t., namely, 25 of the bombs which fell on Hiroshima.
Human imagination finds it very hard to grasp that. Then the writers go on to mention horrifying figures as to the number of people who might be killed and wounded if a holocaust were to occur. President Kennedy estimates 175 million people would be casualties in the first round if there were an exchange of nuclear attacks between east and west. Premier Khrushchev says the dead and injured would be 800 million in the first 18 hours.
In the use of these terms-and they may come up-the kiloton has the explosive force of 1,000 tons of t.n.t. The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons. The megaton bomb has the explosive force of 1 million tons of t.n.t. SAC bombers carry two 24-megaton bombs. The other day in this house reference was made to the bomb which might be carried by the Starfighters in the Canadian air division in Europe. This bomb was spoken of as being a megaton bomb.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the same reporter who used this figure of one megaton in one of his reports has subsequently been using the figure of 60 kilo-tons which is about 5 per cent of the larger amount?
Appointment of Defence Committee


Gordon Minto Churchill: My understanding is that there are several sizes of bombs which might be used by the Starfighters, and perhaps the minister might enlighten us in the future unless it is a security matter. The destructive capabilities of these bombs are simply tremendous.
The reason I draw these matters to the attention of the house is this. I think it is right to ask ourselves if we have not reached the limit of production of weapons of such destruction. Should we be spending more money to produce hundreds of thousands more weapons of this size? How great should be the deterrent? The deterrent has, in my opinion, prevented the outbreak of a world war. I do not stand here as a pacifist at all, but I would ask how great that deterrent should be. Somewhere there should be a ceiling, because you get this kill and overkill. How many times are you going to destroy a country? If it can be killed in the first thrust or attack you do not require the overkill. I am not opposed to a substantial deterrent, but I would ask the question-and this the committee may have to look at in the house- how great that deterrent should be, and then relate it to Canada's contribution to its armed forces in the NATO alliance.
These are questions which sensible people are asking. Is there any need for Canada to make any further contribution to the nuclear deterrent, or is that nuclear deterrent now great enough? If the United States continues to produce missiles by the thousands and continues to put them in these hardened bases underground where they cannot be destroyed on the surface, then one's conception of the use of the Canadian air force might be changed. Have we now reached the missile age where we do not need to use aeroplanes to carry bombs? On the other hand, people say it is a flexible method, because you can call back a man in an aeroplane which is carrying a bomb whereas, once you have let off a missile, it has gone for good and you cannot recall it. These are some of the problems which have to be considered.
The conclusion I have reached, although I, like others, require further information, is this, that in the last several years technological advance in the power of scientific destruction has grown so rapidly that a major overhaul and examination of defence requirements is necessary. Even if this results in changes and the scrapping of this or that weapon, it is no different from what has happened throughout this history of defence and warfare. Many an example could be given of a weapon which has been produced and then succeeded by something more efficient. As far back in Canadian history as the first world war you had the replacement of the

Appointment of Defence Committee Ross rifle by the Lee-Enfield, and there was a tremendous story about that. In the second world war you had the Grant tank of the United States replaced by the Sherman because it was a much more effective weapon. I can give you a dozen examples of a newer, more efficient weapon succeeding an older one where you simply had to write off the obsolete weapon. So I just make the point that we may seriously have to consider whether changes should be made, whether we should cut our losses. We might have to cut our losses and direct our defence effort along some other line.
I am not prepared to give my solution to that particular problem, but I think that, as sensible people, we have to look at it without getting emotionally disturbed. The danger which has happened over the last two or three years has been the stirring up of the emotions over some of these problems. I cannot subscribe to that at all, although I do not object to a little political warfare and never will. But in this sort of problem we must prepare our minds for certain changes.
This then will get us out of the field where we might have serious difficulties in the political warfare element, and we might be able to concentrate our minds on the exact problem. The committee would have to examine the present and future role of Canada's navy. There again, is it kill and overkill? Does the navy require nuclear weapons for the killing of enemy submarines? With regard to the army we have to consider whether the army requires nuclear weapons on the battlefield, and I do not think that we shall have to agree without careful consideration and examination to the request which may come from certain quarters. I think we can make this decision ourselves.
I think we have to consider whether it is not wiser for a country of our size to be in the so-called conventional arms field. I would seriously question whether, if there should be an attack by bombers on this north American continent-I very much doubt it because I think the bomber threat has just about gone; but assuming that there still is a bomber threat-the first intercept of the attacking bomber should be made by fighters armed with nuclear weapons. There might be a mistake, and I suggest that that mistake had better be made with the firing off of a conventional weapon so that you do not start a nuclear war. I think the greatest danger we face at the present time is mistake-[DOT] human error or failure. Someone might set off one of these nuclear bombs by error. I question whether with our army in Europe there should be any use of a nuclear weapon until the conventional side has reached the stage where it is no longer effective. But then,

once you get into the nuclear field, you cannot have a limited nuclear war: you have world destruction.
So I raise these questions about our army, navy and air force as to whether or not Canada's position and the assistance we offer in this peculiarly difficult field might not be better served by the use of conventional armed forces. We would be filling a role which is being asked for by various people who are saying that the NATO forces are unbalanced, too heavy on the nuclear deterrent side and not sufficient on the conventional arms side.
What is the role for a smaller country? I always become very annoyed when people suggest that Canada is not fulfilling her commitments or her role in this world because I have said often and I say again that Canada's record in world crises has been equalled by other nations, but not surpassed. We were a small nation of 8 million people in the first world war and had a casualty list of 60,000 killed. We were a nation of only 12 million people in the second world war with a casualty list of 40,000. One hundred thousand young Canadians have been killed in two world wars in my lifetime. What other country has made any greater sacrifice? The losses of life, so far as France and the United Kingdom are concerned, were perhaps greater in the first world war, but we have played our part as a nation.
Between wars we have played our part and we are playing our part now and living up to our commitments. My friends opposite have not found yet a commitment that we have not lived up to. We have suggested a re-examination of our commitments, expressed or implied, if you like to put it that way, and a re-examination of them may show that we should redirect our energies along some other line.


Mr. Matheson:: May I ask the hon. member whether at any time within his knowledge the government of which he was a member volunteered either to NATO or to NORAD to make our contribution in conventional or non-nuclear weapons?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not sure I can answer that question. I do not have full information with regard to all matters pertaining to defence. Very able men preceded me in that field, but I have kept closely in touch with defence matters ever since I came to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, Canada's record has been good and certainly should be maintained. I feel that a re-examination of our role is essential and I expressed regret on this point the other day. In my opinion the NATO meeting in Ottawa just a short time ago should have undertaken

a more exhaustive study of the role of NATO and Canada's role within that force should have been re-examined there and by the House of Commons before any decision was made. It is not a question of withdrawing from NATO. Of course not. We were in there at the start and I hope we will be in at the end. But that does not say that our contribution within NATO should not be re-examined.
Without settling the question, I raise this point for the consideration of the committee. Our air division in Europe is being brought to completion. I do not need to reiterate that only one squadron has been reorganized at the present time, and a second squadron is in the process; but by the time it is finished 10 or 12 months from now there will be 144 Starfighter planes in the air division in Europe. I simply raise the question whether that is the best role for Canada. These planes will become part of the deterrent. They will be grounded except for practice flights, because you cannot and certainly should not attach a nuclear bomb to a plane and then start flying it around the country. The air division will be virtually grounded and will be out of action unless nuclear war breaks out. That is fine as a deterrent, and I have no objection to the use of a deterrent, but to my way of thinking this will incapacitate a great air force.
I would rather see our airmen more actively employed. I grant that they will have to make practice flights all the time, but they are being pinned down to a role where they are not in close support of an army and their task is simply as part of the deterrent. Their task becomes something like that of the SAC bombers of the United States bomber fleet.
Without answering or solving the question, I raise it for consideration. Is this the best use that can be made of Canadian airmen who are the best airmen in the world and have been ever since air forces were started in the first world war? The subject before us is vast and comprehensive. I have many more things to say but I think I had better give someone else an opportunity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just before the hon. gentleman concludes, I wonder whether he could advise the house if it is his intention to support the resolution?


An hon. Member:: Is that your contribution?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are taking under advisement the suggestion of rewording the resolution, which I put to the Prime Minister, to bring in the words "defence policy". Until I hear from the Minister of National Defence and know what his stand is, and until I hear
Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays from the Associate Minister of National Defence I do not know whether it would be advisable to support the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 5 o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to provide for pay for statutory holidays and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall spend only a few minutes on the purpose and effect of this bill because it is well known, if it is not already clear from the title, what this bill is all about. Rather, I shall spend a bit of time dealing with what I feel to be the significance of this measure, because it is the first piece of private members' legislation to be brought before the twenty sixth parliament. It it just my good fortune that my bill happens to be the first one on the list and so gets called first during this first private members' hour.
As for the bill itself, it provides for eight statutory holidays a year, with pay, for workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. The proposed eight days are New Year's day, Good Friday, the 24th of May or the day nearest thereto that we celebrate, July 1, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day. It is a fact that we have in Canada a fair amount of legislation both federal and provincial specifying holidays, but we do not have very much legislation that provides for pay on holidays and, after all, to be given a holiday without pay is not really much fun.
The main exceptions to this are to be found in provincial legislation in two provinces and in one piece of federal legislation. The two provinces to which I refer are Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In each of those provinces there is legislation providing for a certain number of statutory holidays a year, and making the provision that workers, when they enjoy those holidays, receive their pay for them. In the case of Saskatchewan, eight such days are provided, and in the case of Manitoba the figure is seven. The other piece of legislation that does the two things that I think need to be done, namely providing for holidays and providing for pay on those holidays, is the federal Civil Service Act in which it is provided that all civil servants in federal employ shall enjoy nine holidays a year with pay.
468	HOUSE OF
Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that all workers coming under federal labour jurisdiction, and we all know that workers in this country come in some instances under federal and in some instances under provincial labour jurisdiction, shall get eight holidays a year with pay. There is also a provision in the bill that if an employee is required to work on a statutory holiday, he shall not only get the pay he would get in lieu of the holiday, but he shall get extra pay by reason of the fact he has been required to work.
This legislation, in principle, has been supported by all the parties that are in this house at the present time. It is generally recognized that the time has come when legislation of this nature should be in our statute books. It could be argued, of course, that most of the workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction already enjoy holidays with pay by virtue of the terms of the Civil Service Act or by virtue of collective agreements. However, there are employees under federal labour jurisdiction who are not covered. It is a fact also that this parliament of Canada ought to be giving a lead in matters of this kind. I hope that at last the time has come when we can give that lead to all the provinces by approving this bill in principle and taking whatever steps are necessary to get it on the statute books of Canada.
I said I was going to deal very briefly with the terms of the bill itself, and I have kept that commitment. I should now like to say something about the significance of this bill being before us today, as it is the first piece of private members' legislation to be considered in this twenty sixth parliament. A great deal has been said in this house and in the press throughout the country about the desirability of making this parliament work. We have said from this comer of the house that we are prepared to give the government of the day a chance to bring forward its legislation, a chance to have that legislation considered, and when it is good we are prepared to support it. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a two-way street. If the private members of all parties in this house are asked to co-operate with the government in seeing that its legislation might be considered and, where worthy, passed, then by the same token it is time that the government of the day co-operated with the private members in this house and made it possible for their proposals to receive consideration.
There are, on the order paper, 65 private members' bills at the present time. I suggest that these bills, covering a wide range of subjects as they do, represent a great deal of thought on the part of the people who have


been sent here by their constituents. In addition to private members' bills there are, of course, a great number of resolutions. Speaking of this bill of mine, which has been before the house on previous occasions, I would say it has met the same fate as many other private members' bills and resolutions: it has been talked out. I plead with this house, and in particular with the government not to do that today. I suggest that this bill coming first presents the government with a challenge to show that it means what it says about wanting this parliament to do a job of work; that it means what it says about wanting the procedures and practices of parliament to be updated so that this house will be more efficient. I suggest that if this bill is talked out, particularly if it is talked out by a member representing the government party, it means, in effect, that there is no change so far as the government's attitude towards parliament as a whole is concerned.
Most of the proposals that are on the order paper today have been put there by private members. They have done a lot of thinking; they have a lot of ideas, and I suggest that they should be considered. In so far as this particular bill, which seeks to establish eight statutory holidays a year with pay, is concerned, I may say that it was debated last year on October 30. The bill was in exactly the same form as it is now. Two members of the Liberal party spoke in the debate on second reading, and both of them supported the principle of the bill. Both of them said they were speaking for their fellow members of the Liberal party. I remind them that there were some other related bills and other Liberals spoke to those bills. In fact, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) spoke on one of them, and indicated that the Liberals were prepared to support this kind of progressive social legislation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, on both counts I make my appeal to the house, and I make it particularly to the government. The government wants parliament to do a job; the government wants co-operation, and here is the chance to give co-operation to the private members of this house. I make the further plea that the Liberals who in opposition said this was good legislation should say the same thing today, not just by using enough words to talk it out but by giving the House of Commons an opportunity to deal with this legislation.
There are at least two ways in which this could be done. One way, the way I would prefer, would bp for the house to let this motion for second reading come to a vote before six o'clock. I am sure if it did it would carry, because all the parties in the house are on record in favour of the principle

of this bill. If it carried, the immediate result would be that the bill would be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. In previous debates some members have found fault with some of the details of this bill. Some members have quibbled over the amount of overtime pay required when people have to work on statutory holidays. This is something over which we could bargain and which we could change in the standing committee on industrial relations. It does not negate the value of the bill or the principle of the bill because members have indicated that they support the principle. I suggest that the logical course, which would show that the Liberals say the same thing on the government side as they say when they are on the opposition side, the logical course which would show they wish the co-operation of parliament, would be to give this bill second reading today and let it go to the standing committee on industrial relations.
Mr. Speaker, if that does not happen I point out, as I have already indicated, that there are 65 private members' bills on the order paper posted for second reading, so the chance of this bill coming back again is rather slim.
Now, if there are hon. members, particularly on the government side, who feel so strongly about some of the details of the bill that they do not like even voting for it in principle, at least there could be an amendment- I would not like it but I would accept it- an amendment that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. At least that would have the effect of this matter being studied by a committee of the house, instead of just letting it die.
The plea I am making for this bill which I now have before the house is a plea I make for every one of the 65 private members' bills on the order paper. It is a plea I make for every one of the private members' resolutions. It is not good enough for parliament to go on like this, just because we have done it for 95 years, talking out practically all the proposals private members place before the house. I repeat that a government that has asked for co-operation to get its legislation through, and a government that has been assured by us and other groups that it is going to get that co-operation, has a responsibility in this five to six o'clock hour, on this 30th day of May, and on this 38th day of decision in the life of the present government.
So, Mr. Speaker not to take up any more time and to leave room for other hon. members to make their contributions, I will close
Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays my remarks. I do not think much needs to be said. The principle of this bill has been debated over and over again. All parties are for it, and what is at stake today is the question of whether or not co-operation is going to be a two-way street, and whether or not we who are private members of the house are going to have considered the measures we place before the house.
I do not suggest that all 65 bills be passed. There are some of them I wish to oppose, and I would like to have the opportunity to record my opposition; but I think it is disgraceful for the House of Commons to talk out bills because hon. members do not want to vote against them, but yet are not permitted by the government to vote for them. The subject matter of this bill is not new. It is a bill that proposes something the people of the country want, namely legislative provision for statutory holidays with pay. This is a challenge to the House of Commons to recognize the importance of proposals put forward by private members.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about this bill which is excellent. I hope that the government will show its mettle and deal with this measure which is of interest to all Canadians, especially those who have civil servants in their riding, for instance the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) who has a very large number of civil servants in his riding.
I hope that he will convince his party to adopt this bill today, in order to remedy this situation which goes against the interests of the federal civil servants. The government has every reason for accepting this legislation to redress those conditions.
Indeed, the federal state must set the example. Moreover, it should be noted that, if the federal government agreed to that legislation, the provinces would ipso facto end by adopting the same measure and so would industry and business.
I hope that this bill also includes crown companies, because in St. Paul l'Ermite, in the riding of Joliette-l'Assomption-Mont-calm there is a plant which is part of the Canadian Arsenals, and which employs a great number of people who have a right to their paid holidays, as mentioned in this bill. This measure affects a great number of employees whether they be crown companies or postal employees.
With regard to the post office, I think it is abnormal that at the present time, post office employees should not be paid a double

Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays
salary when working on a holiday. I hope that the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis), who in the past, has so frequently risen in the House of Commons to ask the government for better conditions on behalf of postal employees, will support the bill and ask his friends not to kill and bury it under too many flowery speeches.


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend a question? Why has his government not thought of it during the five years it was in power?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The answer is easy. During the last session, we had an excellent legislative program and numerous bills had been announced in the speech from the throne, but this government, together with the Social Crediters, defeated us and stopped us from enacting those constructive measures.
Those are the the only words I wanted to add, Mr. Speaker. I wish that, to show its consistency, the government would take some decision today and deal with this bill, the more so as civil servants have in great numbers supported the government during the last election, particularly in the ridings around Ottawa. Let us hope that the government will be consistent and give a fair deal to federal civil servants by adopting this bill, instead of burying it under flowery speeches.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks with regard to Bill C-2, submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I congratulate him for being the sponsor of this bill, particularly because of his persistence in submitting it to the house in spite of his lack of success up to now.
I was quite astonished, a few minutes ago, to hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm ask the party in power to hasten and accept the principle of the bill, when, as he obviously knew, this very legislation was introduced on various occasions when his government was sitting on the side of the house now occupied by the Liberal party.
In short, the same old stories and the same old methods are being repeated, and this is not too surprising, since they are being used by the same people.
Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us provides for eight paid statutory holidays and it also provides that when any employee is required to work on statutory holidays, he shall receive a higher pay for such work. In fact, if my interpretation of paragraph 2 of clause 4 is correct, this pay would even be tripled.

I believe that statutory holidays with pay are provided to make sure that the worker would not have to suffer a loss in salary when such a statutory holiday falls on an ordinary working day, during the week. That is, I believe, the purpose of paid holidays. Thus, if a fellow worker refused to work on a statutory holiday and I accepted to work, it seems to me that I should then be entitled to a higher remuneration, since I would deny myself the opportunity to take part in certain celebrations.
I therefore suggest that the intent of the measure proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) deserves all our attention, for it is timely; in fact, it should have been brought forward by the parties in power a long time ago. Moreover, as the hon. member pointed out a moment ago, it is time to make legislation procedure more efficient, for I notice that the house shall have to consider 65 bills, in addition to several motions and resolutions, and we practically know in advance that the consideration of these bills is almost useless for, in the past, they have always been talked out in good style.
Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that this bill shall receive the attention of the government so that it can be considered more carefully by a committee on industrial relations or by a private committee even, who might be able to recommend certain amendments.
As far as I am concerned, I do not fully agree with the idea that the worker should get triple pay for work done on paid statutory holidays, but I would go along with a proposal providing for two and a half times, instead of three times the regular salary.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, I hope that this measure will be adopted this evening and not talked out, as has been the case in the past.
(Text):


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity during this new session to rise to my feet in this house, let me first congratulate you on the appointment you hold. I am sure you will discharge the duties of your appointment with the dignity and skill which I know fits in so well with your training and personality.
The proposer of this bill has made some very interesting observations on the role of private members' bills in this house. Since he went into this question at some length

in his remarks, perhaps I will be permitted the same latitude in return. I think the hon. member suggested that if this particular bill or other private members' bills were not allowed to come to a vote in this house-at least, this is the inference I drew from his remarks-they would not be considered. While it may well be that the deepest and fullest consideration cannot be given in the hour which is allotted for the consideration of private members' bills, surely it cannot be said that even under the present rules and the present treatment a private member's bill, if it does not come to a vote, really receives no consideration.
The hon. member who proposed this bill suggested that it should be handled in two particular ways, as a sign of a changed attitude toward parliament. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that while the position of private members' bills may well be worthy of study and finally changed in the way they have been treated in this house, this particular hour of our sitting is not the time to do it, in as much as I understand we are soon to have a committee on procedure to go more fully into the whole question of the way this house carries out its duties. I think that until this committee deals with the question we should not in such a peremptory way accept the suggestion of the hon. member who proposed this bill.
The mere fact that hon. members of this house-of this side of the house in particular -have in the past said that the principle of this bill is one which they support does not automatically and definitely mean they are committed for all time to supporting the bill itself. I think other hon. members-


An hon. Member:: Are you going to talk it out?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would suggest to the hon. members of the New Democratic party who are interrupting that even if that were my desire, I would not have the time to do it since I am only allotted 20 minutes today. As I was saying, as has already been suggested by other hon. members who have spoken on this bill, there are some points about it which deserve further scrutiny. I was most interested, however, to hear the views of the hon. member of the Conservative party who seemed to think that this bill in its entirety was such a wonderful thing. I wonder if he had an opportunity to consult with the parliamentary secretary to the minister of labour in the previous administration who, when the predecessor of this bill was introduced in the house during private members' hour, engaged in a detailed critique of the bill and finished his remarks, not by
Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays suggesting that it be referred to a committee for study but that it not be entertained at all at that particular time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member recall that he followed that hon. member immediately and suggested that the bill should be approved in principle and referred to the committee for immediate study? His words will be found at page 1101 of Hansard for October 30, 1962.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, I certainly do.


An hon. Member:: So you have changed your position.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I was going to deal with the position I took then. In view of my remarks at that time I think hon. members opposite will probably be interested to hear what I am going to say now on that particular point. It is quite correct that I had the privilege of speaking in the debate last year on the predecessor of this bill, and I did say then that I supported the principle of the bill. I must say that I still support the principle of this bill. I am not at the moment in a position to say that I agree with the hon. member's bill in its entirety, word for word, comma for comma. Moreover, I do not think it would be appropriate for the hon. member or others of his party, or any hon. member in this house, to suggest that merely because I, or any other hon. member, do not see fit to agree with every particular form of wording or comma in a bill, this means a lack of support of the principle of the bill. However, I would remind the hon. members of this house that we of the Liberal party have said there should be a federal labour code, one which deals with those industries under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. It would comprise legislation dealing with such matters as minimum wages, hours of work, yes, and pay for statutory holidays. I would prefer to see legislation of this type brought forward by the Liberal government which we are now privileged to have as part of an over-all program dealing with these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am confident that this legislation will be put before us in the very near future, although I must say that as yet I do not have the honour of announcing government policy. However, I personally am confident that in the not too distant future we shall see this type of legislation put before us from the government side of the house.

Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays
I took the particular position which I did last year because I was convinced that legislation of the type we are discussing at the moment would never have been enacted by the former Conservative government. I thought the views I expressed then and the suggestions I made in the course of my remarks, were the only possible way open to us in the near future, apart from an election which would bring a change of government, as it did, to bring forward legislation the principle of which I supported then and do now. But I would suggest it would be more appropriate and more effective for legislation of the type we are discussing, the principle of which I support, to come before this house through being introduced by the present government.
Mr. J. A, Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, this is not a new bill by any stretch of the imagination. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has consistently brought this measure to the attention of the house. I may say he neglected to say that although his proposals were not put into legislative form during the years when a Liberal government was in power, it remains a fact that Liberal governments both federal and provincial have, over the years, provided between 90 and 95 per cent of the good labour legislation which has been enacted. This, I feel sure, is beyond dispute.
We all congratulate the hon. member on having brought this subject again before us during the first session of the new parliament in which a Liberal government has taken over the administration. However, I think the hon. member who sponsors this bill should bear in mind the heavy program which lies ahead. We in the Liberal party do not expect to get through parliament all our proposed legislation within the next 60 days-the 60 days of decision as members opposite choose to call them. However, we envisage a large number of legislative proposals dealing with the welfare of all who labour in one field or another. The hon. member might recall that we have proposed to grant bargaining rights to all federal civil servants. It is true the Conservatives have intimated that they, too, are prepared to provide similar bargaining rights-but not when they were in a position to bring forward legislation to this end. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has said this is one of our proposals.
In addition, in answer to a question posed to him recently on the orders of the day, the Prime Minister said we are prepared to bring in a measure providing for a minimum wage
[Mr. Gray.l
in all federal undertakings. During the election campaign we said we were prepared to revise the entire labour code. This, of course, is bound to be an extensive undertaking. We have also said we intend to amend the act providing for vacations with pay. The terms of the present act provide for one week. This seems to be the very minimum of vacation which could be offered and, as I say, we have indicated we intend to move ahead in this field. In our revision of the labour code we propose also to provide for maximum hours of work in any working week.
I realize it would be gratifying to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if we were to accept his bill holus-bolus at this time but I think that on reflection he will see the wisdom of providing for an over-all revision of labour questions as far as the federal jurisdiction is concerned.
The hon. member says it will be a simple matter to get this legislation through parliament. It would not, he says, require much time. But I say to members of this house that even if he and his colleagues are not working to capacity at this time, to carry this measure further would certainly add to the work to be undertaken. The important thing in June of 1963 is to get people to work, to get legislation through which is going to provide jobs for people. That is the primary task which faces us, rather than providing ways of ensuring holidays and so on. There are still many hundreds of thousands who are looking for work.
I was interested in the short and concise speech made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). It was interesting to note, and I noted it with pleasure because I am sure we will be calling upon his support when the government brings in an over-all revision of the labour acts in this parliament, that his party seems to have changed their attitude very greatly since the last session. The hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) pointed out that quite a definite stand was taken against the acceptance of this bill. From looking at some of the terms of the bill I think the hon. member will admit that a considerable amount of study will be required to determine just what would be the economic effects on shipping on the great lakes, on railroad operating crews, who doubtless will soon be going into negotiation, and who I believe as a matter of fact are in negotiation. Also hospitals and other services which are required to carry on a continuous operation are affected. Even the legislation that is provided in the province of Saskatchewan, to which I believe the hon. member referred, makes certain provisions

exempting the government from the requirement to pay two and a half times the base pay.
If I might read from a publication issued by the Department of Labour in December 1962 under the former minister, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), entitled "Provincial Labour Standards", there are two paragraphs here which are relevant. This is respecting legislation in the province of Saskatchewan:
If required to work on a holiday, employees in all work places except hotels, restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes and educational institutions must receive, in addition to their regular pay for the holiday, time and one half the regular rate for every hour or part of an hour worked, in effect, two and one half times their regular pay.
The key word there, of course, is "except". They are excepting hospitals, restaurants, hotels, nursing homes and educational institutions.
It is also to be noted that the legislation in this province, this great socialist utopia, does not go quite as far as is indicated in Bill No. C-2. Two and one half times the base rate is really not consistent with the purposes of the legislation. With all due respect to the hon. member, I would say that he has taken a more realistic attitude and has provided, in effect, for triple time, or three times the going rate. This, in my opinion, is more consistent, for after all the purpose of requiring punitive pay is in order to prevent where possible an employer working anyone on a statutory holiday. I recall negotiating perhaps the first agreement in the mining industry providing for pay for statutory holidays. I recall at that time the members of the committee seeming quite happy to accept time and a half for statutory holidays. This indeed is retrogressive. This does not do anything. It merely provides that an employer may continue to employ his workers and just as if it were a week end to pay no more than half a day's punitive pay. This having established the fact that payment will be made for no work, then accepting double time is, as I say, simply retrogressive. It means that any man can work on a statutory holiday and it costs nothing. There is no punishment or anything punitive about the legislation at all. So in order to be consistent triple time is the point at which we should arrive. As I said earlier, in 1947 Saskatchewan brought in this legislation but have done nothing about it since. They are still only given time and a half to an employee working on a statutory holiday so that it is not really a punitive measure.
I am sure that the hon. member on reflection-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member, before his time runs out, permit a question?
30, 1963	473
Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays


Mr. Byrne:: -will appreciate that we recognize-


An hon. Member:: He is deaf.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -that on principle this is a good bill, but it should be a matter which comes along in our over-all endeavour to improve the entire labour code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he on reflection believe the workers or the voters of his constituency sent him down here to oppose or to block this bill?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have already indicated to the hon. member that I came here to provide good legislation. I did not come here to oppose anything that is good, but I am saying-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member and advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length-


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members would like to hear the conclusion of the answer of the hon. member for Kootenay East as to why he came to Ottawa. I wonder whether he could be allowed to finish his sentence.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman's time had expired and he would require the unanimous consent of the house to continue his speech. Is it agreed unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is my pleasure and I thank the house for its consideration. I am certainly very happy to accept. As I understood the question it was whether I had been sent here to oppose this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Kootenay East.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member for Kootenay East. I can say categorically that I was not sent here to oppose any good legislation and the hon. member for Kootenay East will not oppose good legislation. I am simply pointing out to the hon. member how I believe it can be best prepared and brought forward. The important thing now is to get people to work. We believe this is the important thing at this time. Certainly there are other matters that are very worthy of consideration and which could perhaps be taken up at a later date.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I think the principle of the bill is an excellent one and
474	HOUSE OF
Provision for Paid Statutory Holidays one with which I do not think any member on this side of the house would quarrel, in terms of the objective set forth. I am concerned about one or two aspects of the application of the bill which I think could bear closer examination, notably the type of employment to which it applies. There is no mention, for example, of employment in hospitals where certainly the federal government has a number of people who are very much concerned with continuous operation and are obliged to work on statutory holidays.
It seems to me that the question of the regulation of hours for certain categories of employment, and not only hours but statutory holidays, is a matter which in certain instances should be allowed to go to arbitration. As a member of this house I hope to be able to support legislation which will provide the right of compulsory arbitration on matters which are in dispute between the government as an employer and those associations that represent the employees of various crown corporations and the departments of the government service.
As I read and understand the bill, the problem here is that the application of section 4, for instance, in the case of hospital services where continuous operation is required would lead to unequal pay for particular periods for people doing the same work. If a person worked on a statutory holiday he would be paid at one rate. If by reason of the nature of the shifts he was obliged to work on a holiday he would get a premium in respect of that week. Therefore the pay cheques of different employees doing the same kind of work and working the same hours in that week would not be the same at the end of the week.
The appropriate machinery to rectify such a situation would be by negotiation with recognized employees associations, and by arbitration. I hope it will be possible to devise legislation that will give employees this right. This is certainly something which has been supported by members on this side of the house and I am firmly of the opinion that amendments to legislation governing the civil service generally and granting this right to employees would be a more effective and equitable means of dealing with the question of compensation for employees on shift work who work side by side and where one works on a statutory holiday and another does not with the result that at the end of the week their pay cheques are different in spite of the fact that they have performed substantially equivalent service at the same level of responsibility.
In this day and age I do not think anyone is prepared to say that we are going to be


so backward in employing people as to deny employees statutory holidays. The problem has been one of administrative interpretation and lack of uniformity of interpretation and it may well be that the appropriate answer will have to be found in legislation.
As a new member of the house this is the first piece of legislation on which I have had the privilege of speaking. Under the type of procedure to which 1 have been exposed there is an opportunity to bring forward, examine and possibly rectify questions of this nature within the scope of a regular procedure. I am in favour of such a process in this instance which would guarantee equity to everybody concerned. It seems to me that this is essential before we adopt legislation, because once it is adopted it is not easily changed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear that in my opinion the most effective means of dealing with hours of work, overtime and overtime on statutory holidays is within a framework which guarantees full collective bargaining with the right to independent arbitration at the end of the bargaining process. I hope we will see the day when this right is guaranteed as part and parcel of the rights of civil servants and those employed by crown corporations and other government services.


Some hon. Members:: Question. (Translation):


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) say a moment ago that he was altogether in favour of this legislation.
(Text):
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
[Stage Direction]
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 18 members to be designated by the house at a later date.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of satisfaction that I approach this debate concerning the establishment of a special defence committee. It is something for which I have asked a number of times during the last parliament, and I believe it is the answer to much of the confusion that presently exists, not only within this house but across the country in relation to what the actual defence needs of this country are. I should like, for a moment, to refer to remarks I made on January 24 when we were in the midst of the last defence debate. I referred the then prime minister to the fact that a defence committee could be the answer to the dilemma in which he found himself. I quote from Hansard of that date, page 3091;
The Prime Minister so far has refused to set up an all-party parliamentary committee on defence. We believe he is wrong in this refusal. It would be well for him to remember that this is a house of minorities and that neither he nor any of us knows which political party will be responsible for Canada's government and defence policy even three months from now. We ask that all parties together may have a chance to work out with proper information a constructive policy for our country in its relations with other nations of the world and in our own internal policy in which Canadians of every political allegiance can have confidence.
I believe that those words were true then, and they are just as true now. Therefore, we do give our wholehearted support to the setting up of a defence committee, with the hope that in the light of the remarks which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made this afternoon in relation to the committee's terms of reference there will be an opportunity to carry through to the real objectives of such a defence committee. This committee should be the means of assisting the government and assisting all of us in understanding what our defence policy should be.
The other day the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) stated he felt there was no need for minority parties. It might be an embarrassment, nevertheless, he must realize that some 25 per cent of the electors, or some two million voters during the last election turned to an alternative to the old line parties because the old parties have not faced up to their responsibilities in government.
In so far as this defence committee is concerned, I believe we have evidence that this has been a worth-while suggestion made by our party. Defence is too important a subject to be swept under the rug or to become the
30. 1963
Appointment of Defence Committee pawn of this political chess game. The lives of our people and the future of our country are involved. There is no doubt that the defence issue is, even at this time, a confused picture. Both the major parties have undergone a reversal of policy in connection with nuclear arms within the past few years. We have heard a great deal from the members of the official opposition about the reversal of policy which the Prime Minister has seen fit to make within the past year. This is well known. It was clearly stated over and over again during the last election campaign.
However, the Liberal party is not the only party that has reversed itself in the last couple of years. This is a fact that has become more or less obscured in the charges which have been levelled at the Prime Minister. I should like to refer to the issue of Hansard for February 20, 1959, where I find these words, at page 1223:
Under the irresistible dictates of geography the defence of North America has become a joint enterprise of both Canada and the United States. In the partnership each country has its own skills and resources to contribute, and the pooling of these resources for the most effective defence of our common interest is the essence of production sharing. Believing that parliament and the people of Canada are determined that this nation shall play its full part in terms both of quantity and quality in deterring and resisting aggression, the government intends that the Canadian forces will be well equipped and well trained for the Canadian share of these tasks in a balanced, collective defence.
In keeping with that determination careful thought is being given to the principles that in our opinion are applicable to the acquisition and control of nuclear weapons. The government's decisions of last autumn to acquire Bomarc missiles for air defence and Lacrosse missiles for the Canadian army were based on the best expert advice available on the need to strengthen Canada's air defence against the threat to this continent, and on its determination to continue an effective contribution to the NATO shield.
The full potential of these defensive weapons is achieved only when they are armed with nuclear warheads. The government is, therefore, examining with the United States government questions connected with the acquisition of nuclear warheads for Bomarc and other defensive weapons for use by the Canadian forces in Canada, and the storage of warheads in Canada. Problems connected with the arming of the Canadian brigade in Europe with short range nuclear weapons for NATO's defence tasks are also being studied.
We are confident that we shall be able to reach formal agreement with the United States on appropriate means to serve the common objective.
Those were the words of the leader of the official opposition. It has, then, become very evident that not only has the party with the responsibility of forming the government at this time changed its stand completely on defence, but so has the Conservative party.
It is not necessary at this time to go back and review the situation which led up to the cancellation of the Arrow. This was not just the cancellation of a project but was the

Appointment of Defence Committee actual sweeping out of an industry. Bomarc bases when installed cost some $700 million. We have just read that they are practically useless without nuclear warheads. Here was a decision to spend $700 million, and a moral commitment not only to the taxpayers of Canada but to the government and people of the United States. When we talk about there not being a commitment we are not facing up to actual facts, because certainly the fact that these bases were constructed and carriers were acquired points to a policy. In the developing picture of science and technology, including military equipment, there is nothing wrong with declaring a weapon to be obsolete if the facts are that it has been replaced with something more effective. However, we must be honest with the public and ourselves.
I believe that the confusion which has developed in regard to defence has come about through the inability and failure of our leaders in government to face up to the fact that some of these things are taking place. I have no objection, if what is being done is in the best interests of the nation in the light of the circumstances at the particular time it is done. In this situation, particularly here in parliament, nobody in the opposition can actually evaluate what a defence policy ought to be unless he is given the basic information and all the facts that are involved.
Therefore I think it is the responsibility of the government, which itself has the responsibility of forming policy and implementing it, to see that the opposition are at least informed of the facts and information which they must have if they are to judge the position with any intelligence at all.
Any defence policy which comes out of this parliament should have the confidence of every party in the house. Granted, it is the responsibility of the government to declare policy, but it is also the responsibility of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to know what that policy is, and second, why it has been adopted. That is why I think in a matter such as defence, which is vital to the well-being and the survival of our country, that the government face up to the responsibility of seeing not only that its members are informed in so far as possible, but also of seeing that the opposition have the facts which caused the policy to be stated in the first place, and then to know what the policy actually is.
We on this side of the house are pleased that the government has seen fit so quickly to bring in this resolution setting up the committee to deal with the thorny problems of defence. I maintain these problems cut across all party lines, and therefore the best way of seeking to solve our problems is to do it on a non-partisan basis. This is not

something new in other countries. It may seem strange and may be new to us here, but we should be able to learn objective lessons from others that can help us in the things we are actually dealing with now.
I am gratified that the minor parties are going to have fair representation on this committee, and therefore we were very pleased to support the enlargement of the committee from 18 to 24 members. I would again remind the government that the two smaller parties represent some 25 per cent of Canadian public opinion so far as voting strength is concerned, and that it is absolutely necessary to have this representation which is being allowed at present. This has made it possible for both smaller parties to have at least two members on the committee, something which is essential.
It was also heartening to hear the Prime Minister speak this afternoon and say that this defence committee will have the opportunity to discuss policy. This brings me to the point that I believe we should be carefully considering the terms of reference upon which the committee will base its work. If it is just another committee, as someone has said, to provide a means of getting away from responsibility, then that is not good enough. If it is a committee that actually goes to work and assists not only the government but all of us in our understanding of what the defence policies of our country should be, then we must outline the terms of reference.
I note that it will be possible for this committee to call witnesses regarding past and present events and future possibilities, that may have influenced what our policy should be today, and will influence what it might be tomorrow. Once more I say these terms of reference are essential, simply because parliament has a responsibility to itself in regard to defence matters.
As I listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon it seemed to me he was making a great thing about the fact that the committee will have the opportunity to discuss policy, but on the other hand, unless the terms of reference of the committee go further than that, then it will not be able to accomplish at least what I expect it can and should accomplish. Therefore I would suggest that the following points should be considered by the government, and also by the committee before it actually gets down to work. There may be other points involved, but as I think over the confused picture of our defence needs and what our defence policy should be, these points come to me as being the most important.
One is the anticipated pattern of potential aggression against Canada. We all agree that

we are not interested in any kind of offensive war, or even offensive weapons. We are interested in defending ourselves and at the same time carrying out our full share of responsibility in our struggle for the peace every Canadian looks for, and which I am sure we all agree is our responsibility to strive to achieve.
Second, what is the degree of subversion against Canada, and correlated with that what is the position of our security arrangements? This is something about which I am concerned. I recall that last February the Ottawa Citizen made mention of an information blackout which had been ordered by the government in 1960. I believe the former prime minister, former external affairs minister Green, and public works minister Fulton were involved in it. In this regard there must be as much classified information as possible made available to the committee. This means that it would have to be treated at times as confidential information, but it is the only manner that parties can be informed in an understanding way of the reasons why our defence needs are as they are.
Another point is, how far are peace and disarmament movements expressions of public opinion? We have a large number of peace and disarmament movements, all very vociferous in expressing their objection to the acquisition of any type of nuclear defence weapons, I am concerned, and I believe the public are as well, with the question whether or not some of these movements are legitimate, taking into regard the security of the nation.
Another point is, what forms of defence are practical within our physical ability and within our resource capability? We want to safeguard our country and carry out our responsibilities to our neighbours and friends, on this continent and throughout the western world, to the maximum degree of our ability but, Mr. Speaker, there are some things we can do well and there are some things which are more difficult for us to do. We agree we cannot have a defence policy of our own, entirely by ourselves. It can only be effective as we co-operate with our neighbours and our friends. I think the committee should be able to investigate this question very carefully. I would much sooner see our defence contribution worked out in such a way that we contributed to over-all projects instead of being just a splinter part of larger projects which are beyond us. I am sure the value of the surveillance of our skies, our waters and the radar surveillance of our northland is something that we understand as being within the reach of our capabilities. But trying to become a militaristic nation is something for which Canada does not have the resources and 28902-5-31
Appointment of Defence Committee for which I do not think we have an over-all obligation. If we can work out with our friends and neighbours where we can make the greatest contribution, I think we will get the best value for our defence dollar.
Another point is this. How far do foreign policies and trade policies relate to and tie in with our defence needs? I do not think it is possible any longer, particularly in the light of the cold war and the enemy which we face in it, to separate completely our trade policies and foreign policies from our defence policy. Our enemy does not work that way. These ideals, which have been passed on to us through our heritage, simply do not meet our needs today because the enemy that we face does not follow that kind of a code. Therefore I think this committee ought to be concerned with studying these matters and recommending back to parliament and the government the degree of co-ordination which should exist between foreign trade policy, external affairs policy and defence.
We hear a great deal about military defence and we speak about the department responsible for it as the department of defence. All the while we make it very clear both to ourselves and to the world that we are a country of peace. Canada has done a great deal tc further the cause of peace. On the other hand, I do not think we should ever take for granted that what we are doing is sufficient. I believe this defence committee should have within its terms of reference the authority to study and investigate every possible means of furthering peace and reaching the objective not only of nuclear disarmament on a multilateral basis but also of disarmament on a much wider scale than that. This is work that a committee can do.
There is an opportunity before us, in the setting up of this committee, to prove that there is a value to committees. To carry out some of the studies to which I have referred would mean that the committee would probably have to be divided into subcommittees, who would report back to the main committee on certain aspects where specialization and time is a prerequisite. That in itself would be good. But if we are to add to the collective knowledge which must be used to judge this tremendous problem of maintaining peace, and at the same time maintaining adequate defences for our country, we must broaden the base as far as we can. Therefore to object to such a committee being set up now is, I think, burying one's head in the sand in regard to the facts and procedures which should now be used by parliament. Let us not maintain the status quo just for the sake of maintaining the status quo, any more than we should criticize just for the sake of criticism.

Appointment of Defence Committee
We are told that the recent NATO council meeting which was held in Ottawa did not accomplish very much. I think the very quietness of this meeting was due to the fact that there is no crisis at this time. We may tend to prejudge the effectiveness of NATO simply because at this particular time there does not happen to be a world crisis facing us. But let us not let that condition fool us into thinking that we are at peace in this cold war and that things are coming our way. The cold war is just as real as it ever was, simply because our enemy in the cold war has promised that it will not stop until it destroys the very way of life which we regard as the only way that civilization can survive in the world. It is therefore very important that we take every precaution to make sure that our defences are adequate and that the policy we are using to provide these defences is the right one.
The cold war is not one of our choosing. We the Canadian people want nothing more than to live in peace, to live in peace with ourselves and our neighbours, having the objective of developing the human and material resources of the world. But we are at war with communism because communism is at war with us. We must be on guard to make sure we are aware of the dangers and are prepared to meet them, not after they have met us but before they reach us.
I am sure the people of Canada want to be informed to the extent that technical and classified information can be given to the public. We all want to do our part, however humble our situation, in making sure that peace is maintained. So it comes back to us in parliament to make sure that this defence committee does clear away the confusion that exists about defence. This is not a confusion only in the minds of we who are in parliament or the members of the public. Even the technical people themselves seem to be confused, because you often get one answer to a question from one person, and another answer to the same question from another person. This is illustrated by what we have all seen reported in the press.
We have maintained a policy since the end of world war II that the only way we can have peace and win the cold war is to contain the threat of communism. This policy has been right. Those who are critical of the necessity of spending money for defence and who question our defensive measures ought to remind themselves that probably if we had not had these defence policies since the end of world war II Europe, and who knows, maybe North America, would have been overrun by communism before now.
Public confidence has been shaken by this game of old party leapfrog regarding our


defence policy. Confidence will be restored when it is known that representatives of all parties have had the opportunity to inform themselves and understand the weighty and difficult problems which influence decisions on matters of defence policy. That is why, again, we are pleased this committee will be set up, and look forward with a great deal of expectation to seeing it play a constructive part in this over-all defence picture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of supporting this motion to set up a special select committee relating to defence matters. I had hoped that the motion to set up this committee would be the occasion for a full-dress debate on the broad concepts of Canada's defence policy.
I must say I was disappointed that neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) nor the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) have made any statement to this house outlining in broad and general terms the policy which the government proposes to follow. Naturally, we do not expect them to give a detailed program at this time; that will be part of the functions of the committee. But before the house even met, ministers of the crown were constantly stating there would be an early opportunity for a full debate on defence matters. It is true that during the debate on the address there was a discussion of one narrow aspect of defence, that of nuclear arms in connection with the amendment I moved. However, the subject of national defence is a much broader question than the subject of nuclear arms. I still expect the Minister of National Defence to make a statement in the course of this debate in order that the country and the House of Commons may have a clear statement before them outlining the position the government takes with regard to defence matters. The minister of defence has never been a shrinking violet in talking about defence outside this house, and one would not expect him to be shy in this public forum.
We are supporting this motion because we believe a defence committee can serve a useful purpose. We believe it would have proved still more useful had it been set up before the government committed itself to a nuclear policy, rather than after the government has committed itself publicly to other countries and, apparently, to the ministerial council of NATO. It is difficult to evolve a non-partisan defence policy when a partisan defence policy has already been adopted in spite of the fact that there has been a division in this house on the question.
The value of the work which this committee can do will depend on whether it is permitted to deal with broad policies of

defence and international affairs, because these fields touch each other at so many points that they cannot be separated. It would be greatly preferable for the committee to discuss these larger aspects of the subject rather than that it should become immersed in technical details of military equipment and expenditure. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that the terms of the motion, "all matters relating to defence", would include policy matters. Since I take it that the present motion constitutes the terms of reference of the committee, I trust that whoever is chairman of the committee will interpret the terms of reference as broadly as did the Prime Minister this afternoon. Certainly, as far as the New Democratic party members on that committee are concerned, they will insist that the committee's attention be primarily directed toward policy and Canada's role in the world defence situation.
I think everyone agrees that Canada needs a clearly defined defence policy which is consistent with her needs and in keeping with her economic resources. The Romans had a maxim: "If you wish for peace prepare for war". Captain Liddel Hart in his book "Defence or Deterrent" tears that argument to shreds and says: "If you wish for peace, understand war". When the Romans uttered their well-known maxim, what they really meant was that in times of peace one should prepare for victory. The world situation has changed tremendously since 1945 when the atomic era was ushered in. No country now can prepare for victory, because in a nuclear war there is no victory, only annihilation; and there can be no victor, only a nation which in the process of destroying its adversary would itself become a wasteland.
Canada has never had a clearly defined defence policy. We have had only a functional approach throughout our history. This is due to the fact that for many years we had a semi-colonial status and our defence policy was tied in with that of Great Britain. In the South African war our military forces became part of the British expeditionary force. In the first world war it was only with great difficulty that Sir Robert Borden and Sir Samuel Hughes managed to retain the identity of the Canadian corps. Even in the second world war, many of us will remember, the minister of defence for air, Mr. Chubby Powers, fought a long battle to keep the R.C.A.F. from being absorbed in the R.A.F. The reason we had a functional approach throughout this long period of our history was that Great Britain was one of the great military powers in the world, if not one of the greatest, and we sheltered behind the 28902-5-312
Appointment of Defence Committee protection of the British navy. But in the past few years two great military powers have emerged and the world has polarized around them. Canada must now enunciate a defence policy of her own in the light of this polarization. To use the words of James M. Minifie we now have the choice between becoming peacemaker or powder monkey. We have to decide whether we are to play an effective role in the world community or whether we are to become a military satellite of one of the great powers.
We in this group believe that Canada's defence role must of necessity be built around three centres, because there are three agencies with which we are now associated in matters of defence, namely, the United Nations, NATO and NORAD. What I assume this committee will be discussing is the order of priorities-where the emphasis should be laid. A defence policy, to have any merit in a changing world, must be a flexible policy so that the emphasis can change from year to year and from decade to decade.
The first agency to which I referred is the United Nations. In a world where nuclear war means disaster for all who participate, collective security on a world scale is the only answer. Regional pacts and military alliances should never be accepted as more than temporary expedients. The danger is that we shall come to rely too much upon regional defence pacts and resist the transfer of power to an international authority. If we are ever to build a world community based on the rule of law, there must be over the years this gradual transfer of authority and power from regional pacts to a world police force.
Clemenceau once said that war was too important to be trusted to generals. I submit it is indeed more true of peace. The great danger is that having built up military alliances we shall think solely in terms of military alliances because of those who have a built-in interest in maintaining those regional military alliances. It was a great soldier of the last war, president Eisenhower, who put this matter very succinctly in his farewell address to the American people in 1961. This is what he said:
We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments Industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and one half million men and women are directly engaged in the defence establishment. We annually spend on military establishment security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Then he went on:
In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We

Appointment of Defence Committee
should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
I think that is a warning that all nations might well heed.
In his book "Juggernaut: The Warfare State", Fred J. Cook has pointed out that in 1961, in the United States, 100 top corporations alone got $21 billion of army procurement orders, with General Dynamics leading the field with $1,260 million; and that 86.4 per cent of all the army purchases were awarded without competitive bidding. The Herbert investigating committee in 1959-60 in the United States found that more than 1,400 retired officers from the rank of major, up, were employed by the top 100 corporations, including 261 generals or officers of flag rank. General Dynamics alone had 27 retired generals and admirals on its payroll.
We suggest that if this nation of ours and the other nations of the world are to move steadily toward the idea of collective world security, we must not allow those with a built-in interest in maintaining military alliances to prevent the evolution of a world police authority. It is in the United Nations that Canada can make its major contributions to the peace of the world. We can make it in many ways. We can make it by supplying conventional forces for policing action as we have already done on a small scale. Canada has the confidence of the Afro-Asian nations in a manner which is not enjoyed sometimes by other white nations. We have no territorial ambitions, we have no imperialistic designs, so oftentimes our forces can be used when other countries' forces are not acceptable. The fact that we are going to become a nuclear power may make us less acceptable, but certainly we have been acceptable in the past and we could be acceptable in the future.
Highly mobile mechanized Canadian conventional forces is one of the major contributions which Canada could make to a world police force. We could contribute through the United Nations by increasing supplies of food, raw materials and personnel with technical know-how to assist the undeveloped countries of the world. Mr. Speaker, we who are members of this house know very little about Canada's economic program. If one contrasts this with the United States, where a congressional committee examines every detail, in some cases visits the countries to look at the various projects which are undertaken by that very generous nation, we would see how little we know about what Canada is doing and how very little interest, in the
IMr. Douglas.]

main, Canadians take in this question. We would then begin to realize how much more of a contribution we could make.
The world has paid tribute to the great contribution which was made to the rehabilitation of Europe by the Marshall plan. Why not a Martin plan for Canada? Why not a bold and imaginative program for Canada? We are spending at the present time $60 or $70 million on economic aid. We could spend five or ten times this amount. This would, in the long run, make a greater contribution to peace than many of the purposes for which we have spent money on defence over the past 15 years.
The second agency around which a defence program must be built is NATO. The original purpose of NATO was to stop the spread of Russian armies across western Europe, and in this it has been successful. Tactical nuclear weapons were suggested for NATO largely because of the preponderant superiority of the Russians in the field of conventional weapons and manpower, and because the strategic deterrent, the intercontinental ballistic missile, was not at that time in a state of complete readiness.
The use of tactical nuclear weapons was based on the military theory of limited nuclear war. The interesting thing is that today most of the military thinkers who espoused this theory are now reversing their position. One of the greatest military thinkers in the United States, Henry A. Kissinger, who first advanced the idea of limited nuclear war has now called a halt. These are his words in making up a long article on this question:
In these terms the nuclear establishment on the continent is both dangerous and useless. It is dangerous because it may make inevitable the limited nuclear war both Mr. McNamara and Mr. Gilpatric have declared is certain to escalate. And it is useless because it will merely duplicate attacks on targets already covered by our strategic forces.
Mr. Gilpatric, the under secretary of state for defence in the United States, put it very clearly when he said:
I, for one, have never believed in a so-called limited nuclear war. I just don't know how you build a limit into it once you start using any kind of a nuclear bang.
The fact is that the real defence of the west today lies in the strategic nuclear deterrent in the form of intercontinental ballistic missiles. There can be no doubt that this deterrent has now reached staggering proportions. Dr. Lapp in his book, "Kill and Overkill", says that the United States now has sufficient nuclear capacity to destroy every person in the Soviet union ten times over and that the Soviet union has the nuclear capacity to destroy the United States five times over. It may well be that we have

reached the stage in world armaments of overkill, that we may have reached the stage where we must start to find some way of withdrawing rather than adding further to the great stockpile of nuclear weapons. Mr. McNamara, defence secretary of the United States, said before a congressional committee:
There is no question but today our strategic retaliatory forces of bombers, missiles and Polaris are fully capable of destroying Soviet targets even after absorbing an initial nuclear surprise attack.
It seems to me, therefore, a sad thing that Canada is contributing to the nuclear force at the very time when the whole trend of military thinking its toward conventional weapons. The weapons which we contribute to NATO cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called defence weapons. The Honest John artillery rocket has a explosive capacity of 60 kilotons, three times as powerful as the bomb that wiped out Hiroshima. This is hardly a defensive weapon. It was said the other day by Judge Thorson that the CF-104 Starfighters will carry a bomb with a one megaton explosive capacity. When the government was asked last Monday whether or not this was correct it was neither confirmed nor denied.
These Starfighters have a range of 1,000 miles. This does not mean a deterrent against the Soviet union. This means laying waste to the cities of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria. This is hardly likely to fan the hopes of peace in central Europe when we talk about equipping the Starfighter with a weapon capable of wiping out any one of the great cities of Canada. We should remember moreover, that when we equip the Starfighter with nuclear weapons we will have to remove them from French soil because of the provision of the French government that they will not allow nuclear weapons on French soil unless they are solely under French control.
In spite of the genuflections by the ministerial council of NATO last week in the direction of peace I for one, and I think my feelings were shared by many people, had grave misgivings about the statements which emanated from that conference. There was constant repetition of "our adversary" as though we were already at war. We believe that the day must come when NATO will become a part of the United Nations police force, and if we do not work toward that end then we risk the danger of NATO becoming a focal point of a military alliance for promoting the military and territorial ambitions of a rejuvenated and remilitarized Germany.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we cannot separate defence from diplomatic programs to relieve tensions. It is not enough
Appointment of Defence Committee to keep on building up armaments against an alleged adversary. Side by side with defensive programs there must go a diplomatic program to relieve the tensions and the causes that lead to war. Not much progress has been made, and I think not too much good will on either side has been shown, about finding a solution to the Berlin crisis and in bringing about military disengagement in Europe.
May I say a word now about the third agency, NORAD. Under this agreement Canada was to join with the United States in continental defence. We were to accept Bomarc missile bases and to supply CF-101 or Voodoo planes, and this was for the purpose of repelling an attack by manned bombers. But today even Mr. McNamara, the defence secretary of the United States, says that the Bomarcs are losing their military value. He told a congressional committee that if it were not for the fact that it cost only some $20 million a year to maintain them he would suggest scrapping them.
Today the situation has entirely changed from what it was when NORAD was set up. The real threat today is from intercontinental ballistic missiles and against these there is no known defence at the present time except a counter-attack by other I.C.B.M.'s to knock out the opponent's missile bases. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I wonder whether this is not the real reason why we are being pressed so hard to accept nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Certainly this seems to be the view expressed by General Simonds, who was chief of staff of the Canadian corps in 1941 and who had a distinguished military record in the last war. I quote now from the Toronto Star of February 20 where it says:
General Guy Simonds, former Canadian army chief of staff, suspects that the main reason the United States is "pressuring" Canada to accept nuclear warheads for its Bomarcs is to establish the principle that the U.S. may establish nuclear bases on Canadian soil.
"That is the only explanation that makes any sense," he said in an interview. "Even when Canada was making the decision to accept the Bomarc in 1959 military men in the U.S. were saying it was useless as a defensive weapon. Our poor little Bomarc bases couldn't knock out more than .0001 per cent of an attacking force. They will not defend Canada. They will not defend America, they do not make the slightest bit of difference in the present world balance of power."
Then he goes on to give what he thinks is the real reason for this pressure. He says:
"Within six months of the time Canada agrees to accept nuclear warheads for the Bomarc, I am convinced the United States will declare it obsolete and recommend another nuclear weapon. And by accepting nuclear warheads for the Bomarc we will have established the principle that will make it virtually impossible to turn down later proposals of a similar nature, no matter how much against our national interest they may be."
482	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Defence Committee
I hope this committee will call General Simonds and some of the other military experts in this country because I have the uneasy suspicion that the Bomarcs are not the issue at all; that eventually we shall be asked to station intercontinental ballistic missiles in Canada on the theory that the only way we can defend this continent is to have the capacity to knock out missile bases in the Soviet union in Siberia or in some other part of the world.
There is a growing uneasiness across this country as to why Canada at this time, when almost everyone from the President of the United States, down, is speaking of the growing importance of conventional weapons, at a time when there is no longer any inferiority of the west as compared to the east with regard to nuclear capacity, should acquire nuclear arms both under NORAD and under NATO. No explanation has been forthcoming for this complete about-face on the part of the government. One need only go back to November 14, 1961, at which time everyone saw the printed letter which the Prime Minister sent to the voice of women organization. In this letter, he said:
I was very glad of the opportunity to receive the delegations from the voice of women and the Canadian campaign for nuclear disarmament when they were in Ottawa last week. As I mentioned to them, I have always maintained that the nuclear powers should not be expanded and that Canadians should not accept nuclear weapons under either national control or jointly with the United States.
This is signed, "Yours sincerely, L. B. Pearson". This statement is less than six months old. This is why there is an uneasy feeling that we have not been told all the facts; that there is some reason for this complete about-face. One of my colleagues has already made reference to a book that was published last year entitled, "The Liberal Party" and written by one J. W. Pickersgill, who has very kindly autographed this copy for me. I might say that I bought it at a newsstand. It is one of the best investments I ever made. I think it will become more valuable as the years go by and as more and more promises fail to materialize. At page 133, the writer of this book says:
We do not believe, however, that it would strengthen the nuclear deterrent to equip the Canadian forces with nuclear weapons under national control. We hold this opinion, not on moral grounds but because we do not believe that Canada, by becoming a nuclear power itself, should provide any other country with an excuse to equip itself or its satellites with nuclear weapons, thereby increasing the number of nuclear powers.
I draw attention to the last phrase, "-thereby increasing the number of nuclear powers". At that time the writer thought that the acquiring of nuclear weapons made one a nuclear power. There was none of this hairsplitting chauvinism to the effect that you


have not become a nuclear power, you have not joined the nuclear club, until you have become an independent nuclear nation. There was no suggestion of that then.
The writer goes on as follows:
Moreover, it is quite clear that the Canadian forces will never have nuclear weapons under exclusively Canadian control, unless Canada manufactures her own weapons which we cannot afford and do not desire to do. The Liberal party believes that Canada can make a more appropriate and effective contribution to the joint defence of this continent and to the military alliance of the free world by strengthening the so-called conventional armaments of the Canadian forces than by seeking to become a very junior nuclear power, with a limited supply of nuclear weapons which, in present circumstances, could not be under Canadian custody.
The only reason we have been given for this complete political somersault in the course of a few short weeks is that there was a commitment made by the previous government. I do not know of any better reply to that than the one which appeared the other day in the Toronto Daily Star, a well known Liberal newspaper, not one of the new acquisitions of the Liberal party but one that has been traditionally with the Liberal party. This editorial is dated Tuesday, May 28, 1963 and reads as follows:
The Pearson government misleads the public when it claims it is accepting nuclear warheads only because of a "commitment" made by the former Diefenbaker administration.
The Liberals fostered this myth during the election campaign, despite repeated denials from former Prime Minister Diefenbaker. Yet External Affairs Minister Paul Martin still implies that it is the Conservatives, not the Liberals, who are responsible for Canada becoming a nuclear power.
"This government," he told the Commons last night, "has merely acted in respect of a commitment which was made by (the Diefenbaker) government."
Mr. Martin's bland explanation is unconvincing. If Canada is now committed to accept nuclear arms, it is because of a commitment made by Prime Minister Pearson, no one else.
Since taking office April 22, the Liberals have been challenged repeatedly to produce evidence that the former Conservative administration committed Canada to accept nuclear warheads. They have been able to produce none.
Indeed, even if the Conservatives had made such a commitment, the Liberal attitude raises a more fundamental question:
When a new government takes office, should it feel obliged to maintain the policies or "commitment" undertaken by its predecessor?
In our view, it should not. For what real progress could we expect at Ottawa if a government felt itself bound by the policies of a previous regime? A new administration cannot place itself in a position where it is a prisoner of policies which are no longer valid or which may have been discredited by the electorate at the polls.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that the public is concerned, and that we in this party are concerned. We trust that this committee which will be set up as a result of the passing of this motion will be directed to

look at the defence policies of Canada, whether she should have a nuclear role and therefore a position of being a military satellite, or whether we can occupy the role of being a peacemaker in the world of nations and make our contribution to the establishment of the rule of law.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman will permit me to ask him a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: X followed with great interest what he has said, as I am sure all hon. gentlemen have. Could the hon. member tell me whether he believes now that we should stay in NATO? I hope he will not regard that as an unfair question. I am not addressing it only to him but to his party, in the light of the statement that he has made tonight. Does he think we should still stay in NATO?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am one of those who has been a strong advocate, in my own party, of Canada staying in NATO in order to prevent further military aggression in Europe. But when the minister asks me whether I think we should still stay in NATO, I would like to know a great deal more about what commitments are being made with reference to a multi-allied or multi-national nuclear force. Because I am convinced that nuclear power, and the capacity to precipitate a nuclear war, should be left in the hands of the two great powers, the United States and the Soviet union; I am opposed to extending nuclear power to the nations of NATO because I am convinced it will increase the dangers of nuclear war and lessen the chances of nuclear disarmament.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, before launching into my few remarks I should say that I thought I saw some indication on the part of the Minister of National Defence, and if he feels this would be an appropriate time for him to make some contribution, I would be only too glad to defer my remarks.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak tonight but if the hon. gentleman would like me to, I shall speak briefly at this time. I thank him for deferring.
First of all may I say on behalf of my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) and myself, we welcome the setting up of this committee. We think it can be a very useful vehicle. It will provide an opportunity for hon. members of parliament to gain information in respect to the defence forces of our country and in respect to the part they play in the North
Appointment of Defence Committee Atlantic Treaty Organization, and in North American Air Defence, as well as the other roles they have undertaken.
So far as policy is concerned, the Prime Minister has already indicated that there would be no limitation in respect to the discussions. Hon. members can discuss policy fully and freely. There can be a complete exchange of opinions and ideas. This, I think, is a good thing to do. Most important, however, and I have been convinced of it tonight, is that before we start to talk policy we should get some of the facts on which to discuss policy.
I have been completely convinced, listening to the debate so far this evening, that it could well have waited until the committee had met, and until members of the committee had had a chance to get some of the basic information they need in order to debate such a delicate and complicated subject. That is what we intend to do when the committee is set up, and that is one of the most important functions which the committee will have.
I speak with some conviction on this matter. I know that a committee of this kind has been resisted in the past by previous ministers of national defence but, notwithstanding that historical position, I came to the conclusion, two or three years ago, that with the technological changes that had taken place in the past ten years in particular, the subject of national defence was much too complicated and too complex just for a superficial examination. I felt that, in order to have an intelligent discussion in the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons, in the press of the country, a great deal more information would have to be made available, and a much more detailed examination of the facts would have to take place by a committee especially set up to spend a lot of time and energy on the study of that information.
It is for this reason I have supported the position of my leader that we should immediately set up a small, relatively small committee, and that it should commence its deliberations.
I think at the outset of its deliberations it should seek-and this of course will be up to the committee itself-briefings on the most fundamental of facts, and bring forward the body of information on which a more comprehensive discussion, including policy discussion, can take place.
It was a surprise to me, although I do not know why it should have been, to learn during the election campaign that a study, which had been undertaken by the peace research institute of Canada, had indicated that a large proportion of Canadians, I think something like 30 per cent, thought that the Bomarc was an intercontinental ballistic
484	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Defence Committee missile; and some of the facts and figures used in this debate are just about as absurd as that. This is no reflection on anyone, but really only a demonstration of the fact that for the last three or four years the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament have been starved of real information on which they could base an intelligent opinion.
When I was in opposition and had the responsibility of trying to criticize defence matters, I found I could get no realistic information whatsoever from the government of Canada. That government printed a little booklet on what Canadian forces were doing, and provided a few statistics and a bit of summary information, but none of the hard facts and none of the background material really needed. Consequently I had to go outside this country in order to seek this information. I had to get the reports of the United States congressional committees and read them at length, where they told not only about the defence forces of the United States but gave much more information about Canadian forces than I could get from my own government.
Of all the hon. members in this house who need a study on this subject, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is probably one of the most illuminating examples.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I won't learn anything from you.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I offered to debate with him during the election campaign and he declined. After listening to him today I understand very well why he chose that course. He was a member of a government which not only left the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament uninformed but, worse than that, they misinformed them. My hon. friend shakes his head, so I would like to give an example.
He went overseas just before the end of the year and he came back and said that Canadian forces could be equipped with atomic weapons in a few hours in case of emergency, without any general agreement being signed. This is just absolute rubbish; and to come back and make a public statement of that kind, notwithstanding the fact that he was well advised by his advisors of that day that it was not so, is an affront to the Canadian people.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister what agreement has to be signed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 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 had not achieved it.


Mr. Winkler:: And still had our sovereignty, too.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was fascinated to hear him say this afternoon that he thought our air division overseas was perhaps not engaged in the correct role; that he thought some different role could be found for it. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what my party said four years ago, at a time when his party and the government of which he was a member had the responsibility for national defence and foreign policy. We said it was not a role which should be embarked upon. Yet, notwithstanding our advice, which was ignored, the government of that day went ahead on its own, committed itself, and do not ever say that you did not commit the Canadian armed forces. The government of that day committed itself to a nuclear role in NATO-


Gordon Minto Churchill: How?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -and in committing itself, it went ahead and spent half a billion dollars of the Canadian taxpayers' money in order to implement that role, and with equipment which cannot reasonably be used for any other purpose.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is false.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not false. And that is the position we find ourselves in at the present time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, will the minister answer a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will answer a question when I have finished. You just wait until I have finished.


Some hon. Members:: Arrogant.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We gave this matter a lot of thought. It was obvious that a re-examination of defence policy in this country was due or overdue. It is time that a good look was taken at the direction in which we are going. It is time we looked at the relationship between our forces and those of the alliances of which we form a part. We have urged that this be undertaken and we are now pleased and confident that it is going to be done.
We are also gratified with the NATO meeting, notwithstanding some of the derogatory remarks which have been made about it

tonight. It was, as my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) said, a very successful meeting in respect of the objective that it sought. It has authorized a review of the strategy of the north Atlantic treaty alliance and its total approach to the confrontation between east and west, in all its aspects, both military and political; and once this strategy review has taken place the force requirements to meet the strategy which will be agreed on can be determined by those people who are experts in these matters. Once that has been done, the resources available to meet those force requirements can be worked out in some sort of logical fashion.
I think it is a very happy situation, in so far as our government is concerned, that the NATO review will be going on simultaneously with the review which will be carried out in this country, so that the two will be complementary one to the other. When the future course is plotted there will be a definite, understandable relationship between Canadian defence and foreign policy and the defence and foreign policy of our treaty allies. Well, my friends-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are no votes here for you.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You never know; you might move to my riding some time. I think this committee is a good idea. The attitude of the government is to make available to the committee just as much information as can be provided without violating the security regulations. If it is the desire of the committee to adjourn from time to time to visit defence installations, this will be facilitated. They will find in the Department of National Defence and in the ministers a genuine willingness, not only a willingness but an eagerness to bring forward sufficient information so that a genuine discussion of the pros and cons of defence policy can take place. When it is concluded, Mr. Speaker, I think hon. gentlemen will agree that in respect of most of the decisions that have to be made at the present time, they are matters of judgment. Most of them involve a weight of evidence. There are no 100 per cent decisions. There are very few things that are categorical; many factors have to be taken into consideration. I have no doubt that once the committee has studied all the evidence and weighed the factors it will appreciate not only the complexity and the difficulty which faces anyone charged with this responsibility, but it will also be impressed with the review being undertaken by the government, with 28002-5-32
Appointment of Defence Committee the ultimate results of that review and the course which will be plotted for the years ahead.
I welcome, as a responsible minister, this development. I think it is a great opportunity for the government to do what has not been done in this country before.


An hon. Member:: Pass the buck.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think we can count on the co-operation of all hon. members because, notwithstanding the things that we said during the campaign, 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, so that when we do come forward with a solution it will be generally agreed as being one which is in the best interests of our country and of our alliance.
I think we have a unity of purpose. I am sure we will not all agree on detail, but I am sure that when we bring forward, as we propose to do, the information and it is weighed carefully, when the committee has concluded its deliberations no hon. member will say there was not a genuine attempt, a genuine effort both to inform the hon. members of this house on this question and to reach the maximum degree of uniformity possible, under existing circumstances, between all members of parliament and representatives of all groups in this country in respect of the course which we should follow in years ahead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the minister said he would accept a question after he had concluded his remarks. I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware that the Honest John missile discharger can use either a conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead; and is he aware that the Starfighter airplane, with appropriate modifications, could use a conventional bomb instead of a nuclear bomb?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has just made two statements which only illustrate what I was saying a few moments ago.


An hon. Member:: He did not make a statement; he asked a question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Answer the question. I know the answer. You give the answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think you do, because in the two visits which you made to the department when you were the minister I do not think you had a chance to get all the

Appointment of Defence Committee background information. You were more concerned with other things. I hope you will not press me into indicating what they were.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend is aware that to use equipment as complicated and as expensive as the Honest John for an ordinary high explosive charge would not make any sense whatsoever, and it would be just about the clearest demonstration of futility in relation to resource input and output that could be imagined. In respect of the F-104, the particular version that we have, as I am sure my hon. friend is aware, and my colleagues and I attempted to warn him at the time the aircraft was chosen, is a very sophisticated aircraft. It is not a good all-purpose, general weapons platform, and the particular configuration purchased by this government was designed in such a way that it is virtually useless for anything except the role that was undertaken by the previous government; and the modifications which could make it useful for some other purpose are so considerable, and the effectiveness that it would have under those circumstances-


An hon. Member:: Like the Arrow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -would be so low that no military adviser would ever recommend it to any government, I can assure you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A very unsatisfactory answer.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister would answer another question? Does he now consider that the Star-fighter, as he anticipates its use, will be effective?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that it is a very sophisticated aircraft, I think it would be quite effective for the role for which the previous government acquired it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: One further supplementary question: I wonder if the hon. gentleman recalls the day when, asserting Liberal defence policy, he said the government should scrap plans to acquire the Starfighter and that no nuclear weapons should be used either on it or on Canadian soil.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the government would have been well advised to have taken my advice at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister saw fit to make some comments, though I deplore the fact that he did not make what I thought he should have made, namely a first statement


as to government intentions and government policy. To my thinking-and to this extent I agree with the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas)-we shall obtain the maximum value from this committee only after there has been a confrontation between the government and the opposition-after there has been a joining of issues as to the facts upon which there may be a divergence of opinion. If this were done, I think the committee in proceeding with its work would have the necessary guide lines to enable it to carry out its task most effectively.
After listening to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) I am afraid it is all too easy to see that the committee may become bogged down in an avalanche of studies all more or less relevant to its task. The hon. member suggested a wide variety of subject matter which might well be discussed during the course of the committee's deliberations. A number of these suggestions were, it is true, relevant to the terms of reference; but bearing in mind the broad manner in which those terms of reference have been conceived and the different interpretations which have been placed on them by hon, members I find it difficult to see how the committee can accomplish anything useful except possibly over a long period of time. It may even have occurred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that the members of this committee might ultimately be appointed to the other place where, in the more leisurely atmosphere which prevails, they might be able to come to some conclusion over a period of several years. Nevertheless, the committee could achieve something of value provided that at some time before this debate is concluded a spokesman on the government side sees fit to make a statement such as I suggested at the beginning of my remarks.
I wish, now, to speak briefly about one matter which has already provided scope for controversy tonight and which might well form the basis of considerable discussion in the committee, namely the question whether or not there was a commitment by the previous government with regard to the acquisition of nuclear arms. The Prime Minister and other members of the government have referred to what they consider as being adequate evidence to establish their view on this matter. I do not share their opinion. It has been suggested that General Norstad, who came to Canada at the turn of the year, made statements from which there is an inference to be drawn. It is interesting to read in a recent press comment that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) had some conversation with General Norstad short!v Kefore he came here. It would be

interesting to know-and possibly this information could be obtained during the committee hearings-whether General Norstad came here at the invitation of the Minister of National Defence and whether there was any prompting from the minister as to what he should say when he came here.
The Prime Minister suggested that the NATO communique issued by the 15 nations in 1957 after their deliberations forms the basis for what he suggests to be a contractual obligation by the Canadian government to take nuclear arms. I think it will be well to take a look at this particular document. It was cited by the Prime Minister, who read part of it, and it is to be found recorded at page 63 of Hansard of this year. I would particularly refer the house to the second paragraph of the communique, the part which was quoted by the Prime Minister:
The deployment of these stocks and missiles-
This refers to nuclear stocks and missiles. -and arrangements for their use will accordingly be decided in conformity with NATO defence plans and in agreement with the states directly concerned.
My submission is this: there are two essential requirements before there is an obligation or a contractual commitment. The signing of the communique does not in itself constitute such an agreement. I think a good point was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam when he referred to Norway and Denmark, two nations belonging to the NATO organization, nations which had subscribed to this communique but which did not see fit to take nuclear weapons. I think the reason for this is plain. Until any one of those 15 nations which signed the communique enters into the agreement referred to in the second paragraph there is no binding obligation. The minister made some reference to this this evening. I am not in a position to know the length of time which would be required to conclude such an agreement, but there is no doubt about the terms of the United States atomic energy act-and, of course, we must consider ourselves in relation to the United States, the country from which the nuclear missiles would be obtained. Until an agreement has been reached, we are not bound. Neither is the United States bound. The United States, as conditions now exist, is under no commitment to furnish us with nuclear weapons. Not only is there no commitment but it would be a breach of the McMahon act if weapons were supplied.
As I understand the law of contract, there must be two parties to an agreement and until an agreement has been signed, there is no binding commitment and no obligation upon the government of Canada. As a matter 28902-5-321
Appointment of Defence Committee of fact, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence for some time have been in possession of what they consider to be adequate information regarding the alleged commitment-and I underline the word "alleged".
In 1960 the present Prime Minister, speaking in an external affairs debate, made this categorical statement, as reported on page 985 of Hansard:
I think we had a right to conclude from that-
-the word "that" had reference back to a statement that the government had taken weapons which could be used with nuclear missiles-
-that the government had made a decision to use nuclear warheads on the Canadian weapons. If it means anything, it means that.
So the Prime Minister and his party are in this position, that they have indicated that as from February 11, 1960 in their opinion the Canadian government was obligated to take nuclear arms and that there was a firm commitment.
We heard nothing at that time of the sacred necessity of fulfilling our obligations. We heard nothing of the fact that Canadian prestige would suffer seriously and that our position would deteriorate if we did not fulfil these commitments. The so-called pledge was not of great concern to the Prime Minister and those of his party who were interested in this matter. I just point that out, and in support of this view I would put on the record these quotations from the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the present Minister of National Defence. The Prime Minister said on August 5, 1960, as reported on page 7606 of Hansard:
So far as continental defence is concerned-I start with that first-I repeat what my hon. friend said. In my view we should get out of the whole SAGE-Bomarc operation, and we should not spend any more money on radar gap fillers. Our objection to the Bomarc is not only that we do not think it is an effective weapon. I admit that, its tests lately have been certainly far more successful than the previous tests. Perhaps for certain purposes it may become an effective weapon, I do not know; but that is not our major objection to it. Our objection is to the kind of defence strategy it represents and which we do not think will be effective however effective the weapon may be.
Then follow these words:
If the United States wishes to continue that kind of protection, let the United States do so. Let us withdraw from that direct form of continental defence.
There is not one word about honouring commitments there, Mr. Speaker.
Then the Prime Minister said in the same debate, as reported on page 7605 of Hansard:
It is on that basis, on those principles-I would like to call them that-that I have tried to work

Appointment of Defence Committee
out my own views as to what our defence policy should be at this time. I admit at once that it is not easy to do that, and it has taken two or three years of what has been referred to in another context as agonizing reappraisal-
I might just say, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party must have been in a perpetual state of agony since then, having in mind the frequent changes they have made. The Prime Minister went on:
-and I do not put them forward as anything final and fixed that could not be changed. They may even have to be changed-
Then later on he said:
After all, this kind of defence is primarily a United States responsibility. It is the defence of the deterrent. We know how important that is; but it is a deterrent which is under the sole control of the United States of America. It is not a defence, and in the nature of things I submit cannot be a defence, of our territory in the traditional sense of the word, and it will soon be no defence of anything. As the minister himself has indicated, in a few years missile attack will make this kind of defence of very minimal importance indeed, once missiles supersede airborne bombers, and that will not be long from now.
Then the Minister of National Defence said in 1961, as reported on page 8230 of Hansard for September 12:
It is interesting to note that in the long list of priority items presented by President Kennedy to congress on March 28 last there did not appear one of the major items on which the Canadian government is relying. Not one American penny for the Voodoo, the F-104, the Bomarc or the Honest John. The Canadian defence department has become a pawnshop for second hand American hardware.
Our position in this respect is the same as we announced last year. We still feel that atomic weapons in Canada are unnecessary at this time. We feel they are redundant. We do not think they add anything to the security of Canada, and we think they provide no protection for the strategic air command.
-if the Russians were to start a war now-
-and this is 1961, Mr. Speaker-

if they were to embark upon a direct attack, they would not do so unless they had enough missiles to cover every American strategic air command base on the north American continent. That is fundamental.
There is not one word there about commitments.


John Ross Matheson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: If you do not mind, I have some more interesting comments to make. The hon. member might wish to amplify his question when I have finished.
The Prime Minister, as reported on page 8348 of Hansard for September 14, 1961, said:
Even if this Bomarc missile is effective-and we do not think it is effective; we think it is obsolete, and that the United States will soon be dropping it-
Defence of this kind, Mr. Chairman, is not going to save us, and Canadian participation in defence

of this kind is not going to be the best way in which we can discharge our obligations.
Mr. Speaker, there are some more remarks made by the Minister of National Defence, with whom I had the pleasure of appearing as a member of the special committee on defence expenditures in 1960, to which I should like to draw attention. At page 399 of the minutes of that committee meeting he had this to say:
The Bomarc is useless even with the nuclear warheads.
Later on the hon. gentleman, I must say with some reluctance, seconded a motion made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that funds appropriated for the Bomarc should be removed from the year's expenditures.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? In face of that advice, why did the government which the hon. gentleman supported go ahead with the acquisition of the Bomarc?


Gerald William Baldwin: In face of that statement, I would ask why did the minister go ahead with his program to get warheads for the Bomarc at this time?
Then speaking in support of the motion which he seconded he had this to say, as reported on page 491 of the minutes:
This is exactly the reason which has been given by the Liberal party for opposing the Bomarc installations. In the event of such an all out attack it would be an obvious thing for the Russians to set as their first targets as they approached the American continent by air with a missile attack, the Bomarc fixed installations and it would not be reasonable to expect these fixed installations to survive an initial attack. Therefore the defence provided by them and the return effect is nil.
Then later on he said:
As far as Canadian air defence is concerned, or as far as its contribution to the defence of the United States is concerned, in the event of an allout attack, such as was hypothecated by the parliamentary secretary, the Bomarc missile would offer no possibility of any defensive action.
There are one or two more positive rather than negative examples of this particular controversy as to whether or not commitments were made. I think it is fair to say that during the course of the whole of the hearings held by the defence expenditures committee, those at which I was present at least and I have read the proceedings fairly carefully, the then minister of national defence made it categorically plain that the Bomarc could be equipped with either a nuclear or conventional warhead. He did not budge one iota from that position which he established with his first statement.
On the same aspect, Mr. Speaker, I might also refer to a statement made by the present

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), then the prime minister, when dealing with the agreement under which the Canadian authorities took the Voodoo aircraft as part of their obligation. He made this statement which appears at page 6179 of Hansard, June 12, 1961:
Canada will assume responsibilities hitherto resting on the United States ... for manning, operation, maintenance and financing 16 stations of this line.
That is the D.E.W. line.
Canada will be furnished with 66 F-101B interceptor aircraft and appropriate support equipment. These aircraft.. . will be armed with conventional weapons-
Those are the Voodoo aircraft. This was the statement in which the then prime minister advised the house and the country as to the terms under which these weapons were acquired and the equipment that came with them.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask a question on that point?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am about ready to sit down and I will have ample time then to answer the hon. member's question. I would just say that the discussions and deliberations of this committee could be well directed to that one point alone, whether or not any commitment was made by the previous government or whether or not the present government has used this an an obvious excuse in order that it might implement what I and millions of other Canadians think is the part of the terms of surrender negotiated in the treaty of Hyannis Port.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Leeds has a question?


John Ross Matheson: Yes. The hon. member has just concluded his remarks by referring to something the former prime minister said which indicated there was no nuclear commitment. I should like to read him one sentence from page 3136 of Hansard, January 25, 1963:
Following SACEUR's recommendation, as we saw the situation in 1959 and as I said earlier in my remarks, we undertook to equip our squadrons assigned to NATO for a strike reconnaissance role, which role would include the mission of delivering nuclear weapons. No one was under any misunderstanding in that connection. Parliament approved this program and appropriated the funds.
Does the hon. member not regard these remarks by the Prime Minister on January 25, 1963, as evidence of the assumption of a nuclear role for the CF-104 in NATO?
Appointment of Defence Committee


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not regard them any more as a commitment than I regard what the hon. member has said as a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me one second to see whether it might be the wish of the house to go on a bit later this evening with a view to finishing this debate-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -so that the committee could be set up and we could get on with other urgent business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A suggestion has been made by the minister. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important subject and there are other members of the house who would like to speak. I hope the house leader is not trying to limit debate on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I can assure hon. members that nothing is further from my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My thought was that in conformity with the suggestion made by his right hon. leader at the beginning of the session we might sit a little longer tonight so that hon. members who wish to speak could make their speeches while the other speeches are fresh in their mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A suggestion has been made which requires unanimous consent. This has not been given. Therefore I recognize the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is ten o'clock? (Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really feel, sir, that we should sit at least until ten o'clock.
(Translation) :


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, it was most agreeable to have the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) condescend to address this house. We had almost drawn the conclusion that his new office did not involve the responsibility of submitting from time to time a report of his activity to the House of Commons.
We could almost have believed that he had been gagged by exterior pressure.

Appointment of Defence Committee It was a pleasure to hear his voice, but I thought that under such important circumstances, he should not have dwelt at length on the theme of his last election campaign but that he should rather have explained the program he intends to put into effect, or the steps he intends to take in order that the defence committee may operate within its foreseen province.
I was also most unhappily surprised to hear other speakers, for instance the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), talking about an entirely different matter than that they should have commented upon. We were expecting suggestions about the defence committee but the hon. member simply stated his party's nuclear policy.
Then a Conservative member took pains to excuse the mistakes of the previous administration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.	It is	ten
o'clock.


Gérard Chapdelaine: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.	It is	ten
o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I take it that we are going on with interim supply tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we will take interim supply and then resume this debate. If this debate should be concluded we will take the first stage of the economic council measure. I would imagine that perhaps that would be all it would be possible to get done tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 31, 1963