1971-05-21

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a distinguished visitor from Malaysia, the Honourable Tun Tan Siew Sin. Tun Tan is Minister of Finance in the government of Malaysia, but he is visiting Ottawa today not solely in that important capacity. Tun Tan is also Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and in that capacity he is the honoured guest today of the Canadian Parliament.
Tun Tan is proceeding tomorrow to Halifax and Charlottetown where he will be the guest of the legislatures of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and preside at the meeting of the General Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I know that hon. members will want me to welcome him on their behalf and express the hope that his stay in Canada will be interesting and rewarding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the two official languages-Mr. Noel.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in English and French the report of an inquiry into the coasting trade of Canada and related matters of marine activity by H. J. Darling.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege affecting my standing in the House of Commons. It is with profound regret that I find myself increasingly out of sympathy with the government's philosophy, its policies and its performance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In consequence, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request Your Honour to change my designation in this House of Commons to that of Independent Liberal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Paul's.


An hon. Member:: Oh, another one.


An hon. Member:: You too.


Mr. Wahn:: I hope I heard you correctly, Mr. Speaker, and that we have proceeded to reports of standing committees.


Mr. Bell:: We would have taken you.


Mr. Baldwin:: A pretty mixed bag is left over there.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he can advise the House whether any discussions took place between the Prime Minister and the Kremlin leaders with regard to trading and commercial relations. In particular, did the Prime Minister obtain any commitment with regard to firm grain sales arrangements which would prevent the state trading agency of the U.S.S.R. from being in apparent default as is the case now?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any report directly in detail on the subjects covered by the Prime Minister. I do know that in general he dealt with commercial relations between Canada and the Soviet Union; indeed, this was one of the main subjects of discussion. I think we will have to wait until there is a further report to learn how far he raised this particular point, or indeed even until the Prime Minister returns.

May 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister may know the answer to this question or he may have to acquire the information. As the discussions were no doubt frank and fruitful, can the Acting Prime Minister report whether the Prime Minister advised the Kremlin leaders of the objection of the Canadian people to Soviet action in Czechoslovakia? Did the Prime Minister also discuss with the U.S.S.R. the position of the Jewish people in Russia and did this discussion take place before the recent severe sentences imposed on Jewish people who attempted to leave Russia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister had all these matters on his agenda to take up with the Soviet government and I am sure he did. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the arrangements that have been made for regular consultation will enable us to forward our interests more effectively than at any time in the past.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to one aspect of the question just asked by the hon. member for Peace River, may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the assurance the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave on Monday that the Prime Minister would speak to the Soviet authorities about the trials of Jewish citizens in that country and in view of what has happened since, will the Acting Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to express the concern of the Canadian people over the decisions handed down yesterday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I will ensure also that the remarks made here in the House of Commons are conveyed directly to the Prime Minister so that the Prime Minister may be aware of the views of hon. members on this subject.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister, while in Russia, might not take up the question of the wheat agreement that was signed since the Russian authorities are now several years behind in picking up the grain that they committed themselves to buy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was implied in the question of the hon. member for Peace River. These are subjects that the Prime Minister has on his agenda.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister, while he is in Russia, will, as requested by the
Ukranian Canadian Committee, take up the matter of human rights on behalf of individual citizens within the Soviet Union, in particular those of Mr. Moroz and Mr. Karavanskyi, who are now in prison for political and cultural reasons?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, even though the Prime Minister had many hours of discussion with Soviet leaders on a wide variety of subjects, I do not know whether he would be able to press every point that is of interest to the Canadian people. That is why I think, Mr. Speaker, that a very wise decision has been taken by the leaders of our two countries in providing for regular consultations on these kinds of matters.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has often expressed the point of view that it is very uncomfortable living next to the American elephant, I wonder if the cultural agreement signed in the last few days and especially the press conference that the Prime Minister is alleged to have held in Moscow last night are a substitute for the American elephant? Will familiarity with the Russian bear be that much more comfortable for us, or is this a positive attempt to extend and supplement Canadian foreign policy and not just a negative step because of our reaction to the American elephant?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Prime Minister, in putting forward this proposal for the establishment of regular consultation, is trying to reinforce good relations with both of our great neighbours and, as he himself said, to reinforce an independent foreign policy for Canada.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would have directed my question to the Solicitor General if he had been here today as scheduled, but perhaps I might ask the Acting Prime Minister. My question relates to the statement yesterday by the Solicitor General before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that henceforth communications between inmates in federal institutions and the Commissioner of Penitentiaries and between inmates and Members of Parliament would be confidential and no longer be looked at by censors or any of the officials in the institutions, and that the reverse would be true as well. In view of that statement by the Solicitor General to the committee yesterday, would the Acting Prime Minister look into the situation which saw this morning the Commissioner of Penitentiaries overrule the minister and refuse permission to Members of Parlia-

May 21, 1971

ment to visit Collins Bay Penitentiary and talk with some of the inmates there on a confidential basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to discuss this situation with the Solicitor General.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch, also, as the Solicitor General seems intent on keeping a lid of secrecy on all of these activities-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: -would the Acting Prime Minister mind looking into the reasons for maintaining the element of secrecy and ascertain whether in fact it is not just an attempt to cover up the blundering by the Solicitor General that has taken place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, I suggest to the hon. member for Skeena is more a speech than a question.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
He is no doubt aware that the Ayers Co. of Lachute is now dismissing 250 workers and I would like to ask him whether the government is taking some steps to enable the Ayers Co. to carry on its operations and avoid the dismissal of those workers?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The answer is yes to both questions, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of the matter and my officials are now co-operating with the company to determine whether some of our programs could be useful under the circumstances.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of recent statements by the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that the government has an option with regard to compulsory price and wage controls, is it the view of the government that it has the normal constitutional powers in this area or is the government only justified in introducing such controls in the case of a national emergency? Also, are we
Inquiries of the Ministry
now going to have a declaration of national emergency in regard to inflation?


Mr. Speaker;: I have some doubts as to the procedural acceptability of the first part of the hon. member's question, but perhaps someone on behalf of the government might reply to the last part of the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has asked is really a legal question about which there are conflicting views. It is our view, and this is why we have been looking at the possible options for enforcing mandatory price and wage controls if it becomes necessary, that under the circumstances then existing we would have that authority. Otherwise, the exercise that we are undertaking would be futile.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If there is some legal doubt as to the constitutional powers of the government to institute such compulsory price and wage controls, why is this option being conveyed to the Canadian public by ministers of the Crown as a possible solution unless there is going to be some specific attempt to gain acceptance of such a program by the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I hesitate to interrupt the Acting Prime Minister before he replies to the question, but I think that the supplementary is rather in the form of an argument.



POLLUTION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in his capacity as minister in charge of the anti-pollution efforts of the government. Has the minister noticed the massive pollution floating on top of the once pure and clean Ottawa River and clearly visible from Parliament Hill? Will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House and the country what steps the government has taken in the past year and is now taking under the Canada Water Act passed by Parliament a year ago in order to clean up the pollution on its own doorstep and thereby set an example to the rest of the country?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are aware of the pollution problem which we have on our doorstep, as the hon. member phrased it. Yesterday I discussed this and other problems with the responsible minister from the province of Quebec. I expect to discuss the same problem with the responsible minister from Ontario next week.


George Harris Hees: As I directed the same question a year ago to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who at

May 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
that time was responsible for anti-pollution measures, and received the same kind of answer, will the minister take it upon himself to see that some action is taken now so that we will not have massive pollution of our rivers continuing year after year without anything being done by this government?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister get up early some morning and take a walk with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and view this mess personally?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I would be very pleased indeed.


Mr. Jerome:: That's no way to talk about George. He is not that big a mess.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of reports that the United Kingdom is contemplating making a very substantial contribution-I think a figure of one million pounds sterling was mentioned-for the relief of refugees from East Pakistan through the United Nations, is the Canadian government considering or will it consider making a contribution of similar proportion through the same channels?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are
now in receipt of information from the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees concerning the extent of the problem and we are beginning to receive general requests for assistance. This matter is under study and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very soon.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In view of the fact that there has been a massing of troops on both sides of the border between India and Pakistan and bearing in mind the explosive situation which exists there, will the Canadian government invoke the good offices of the United Nations to seek a mutual withdrawal which would minimize the danger of conflict in that area?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
know whether that would be the most effective means of achieving a purpose, with which we all agree, but we are doing everything we can to avoid an exacerbation of the situation and to avoid a conflict which I agree with the hon. member would be a most tragic affair.



HOUSING


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing and it concerns the CMHC mortgage on Rochdale College in Toronto. Would the minister tell us whether he has made a decision as to the disposition of the Rochdale situation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: When that decision is made I will announce it in the House. It is not available at this moment.


William C. Scott: Since the minister has given this answer repeatedly for the last six weeks or two months, I give notice I shall raise the matter at the time of the adjournment.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: My question is for the
Minister of National Revenue. In consideration of the particular necessity at this time for the government to make known its policies on all matters affecting investment in Canada, especially foreign investment, will the minister assure the House that the priority of the white paper on foreign ownership will be upgraded so that it may be available at the same time as the budget is presented next month?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: I am
not in a position to give any such assurance.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: My question is for the
Minister of Supply and Services. Are negotiations taking place to relocate the Royal Canadian Mint in Winnipeg and, if so, what is the present position of those negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this question was asked yesterday.



REPORTED REPRESENTATIONS BY UNITED STATES CONCERNING COMPOSITION OF BEEF EXPORTS FROM CANADA

Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of news reports that the United States Department of Agriculture is planning to make representations to Canada with regard to Canada's rising exports of beef to that country, and the concern of the United States that some of the beef may have come from third countries, can the minister tell the House whether

May 21, 1971

representations have been received in this connection from the United States or whether any discussions are planned on the subject in the near future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have not heard of any but I will look into the matter.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the concern expressed by the United States authorities, is the Department of Agriculture taking the matter under consideration, and is it prepared to meet with its U.S. counterparts?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure the hon. member is aware that there was a complete cessation of any trans-shipment of beef through Canada to the United States last summer. I will check to make sure it has not resumed. If it has, then we have under our arrangement with the United States an obligation to see that it is discontinued.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the Quebec section of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will initiate an information campaign in September, I should like to ask the minister whether this is only an information program, or does he intend to suggest certain supplementary grants to keep already existing industries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have not heard this question very well. Perhaps the hon. member could repeat it in other terms.


Roch La Salle: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the information campaign which the Quebec section of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will run in September, could the hon. minister tell us if this campaign will be only for information purposes or if the hon. minister intends to recommend additional grants for the maintenance of already existing industries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not have a Quebec section. We operate on the national level, but at the present time we are making a special effort to help certain industries in the secondary sector, and this is done with the entire cooperation of the provincial Department of Industry and Commerce. If there is further information which I may give the hon. member, I will pass it on to him behind the curtains in a moment.
Inquiries of the Ministry




Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of recent statements out of Detroit to the effect that United States car manufacturers are considering the limiting of style changes in the future, can the minister inform the House whether his department has taken a position, either publicly or privately, on discouraging exorbitant expenditures on style changes and replacing such efforts, with more concern about consumer protection in terms of safety and durability?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the automobile safety act is under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Transport. Naturally my department has taken a lively interest in the cost of motor vehicles and any steps that the manufacturers can take to reduce and keep down the price of cars. If this can be done by eliminating some of the needless style changes, it would be encouraging and very helpful to the consumer.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not sure the minister heard my question correctly. I asked him whether any representations have in fact been made or steps taken regarding what is obviously a very high cost factor. Has the minister had any direct contact with the automobile industry?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the question was related to the application of those savings to safety devices which are under the administration of my colleague the Minister of Transport.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps I could direct my question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether his department has made such representations. More specifically, in view of the new safety bumper presently under discussion by the United States Senate commerce committee, has the minister anything to report with regard to the co-operation of the Department of Transport on a similar study to be undertaken in this country into this prototype bumper?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to the second part of the question the answer is yes. I have had direct contacts with the automotive industry and also with my counterpart in the United States, the Secretary of Transportation. We have an understanding regarding the exchange of information on safety matters and an agreement that we will, to the maximum extent that appears possible and also desirable, at least attempt to get whatever new innovations are introduced in the United States introduced in Canada, and vice versa.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary Centre.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
6034

May 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I realize that he has sought the floor for some time now, but the hon. member for Egmont is rising on a point of order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would respond to the first part of my question about style changes which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was unable to answer.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the sense that style changes, or a great many of them, do have an effect on safety, yes, there have been representations made. However, there is some difficulty with regard to applying safety regulations per se to the matters the hon. member has referred to, that is, in terms of the extra cost of style changes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has a supplementary but the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Calgary Centre and will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby next.



POSSIBLE ADMISSION OF UNITED KINGDOM INTO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-POSITION OF CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, either of whom may be in a position to answer it. In view of the reported imminence of the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Common Market, has the Canadian government now received any definite assurances that Canadian agricultural products will continue to have entry into the United Kingdom market on favourable terms?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the situation is very fluid at this time. We have intervened on a number of occasions, both in Brussels and in London, in order to safeguard as much as we can our grain exports to the United Kingdom. On the previous occasion we obtained a number of concessions when the British introduce the levy system. We hope that the transitional period will be as long as possible-it appears it is going to be five years-so as to permit our exporters to adjust progressively to the situation that will be created.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as other agricultural products in addition to grain are concerned, have we received any assurances that they will continue to be able to enter on competitive terms?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think the best thing for me to do is to provide the hon. member, and possibly the House, with a detailed assessment of the situation. It would be difficult to answer for every product since the situation varies from one to another.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister provide this detailed statement in the form of a statement on motions or otherwise so that the information will be in the hands of the entire House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is perhaps dangerous to do so, Mr. Speaker, since these negotiations are going on now and, as I have said, the situation is fluid. I was volunteering in fact to have a very friendly conversation with my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked the Minister of Transport. In the past Canadian automotive safety standards have tended simply to duplicate those in the United States since the larger part of the market is south of the border. Given the fact that the percentage of cars now being produced in Canada does constitute a major segment of the total North American market, is the minister now considering improving safety standard regulations in Canada and thereby influencing in a significant way what happens in terms of the production of automobiles on the whole continent?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I held discussions as recently as two weeks ago with one of the major auto manufacturers in which I indicated to them in general terms our desire to move independently regarding the introduction of certain safety standards that have particular applicability in Canada. I think I can say I received a positive response in this regard from the auto manufacturers. Perhaps more than most the hon. member will know the complexity of this subject in that many of the cars manufactured in Canada are destined for the United States, and vice versa. But, in short, we are trying to do precisely what the hon. member asks.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that international airports are so important to our resource industries, as we were told today in the committee, I wonder whether the minister, having now seen the mayor of Calgary and discussed the question with the Minister of Highways of the province of Alberta, can make a clearcut statement on the development of the international airport at Calgary?
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) .1
May 21, 1971


Donald Campbell Jamieson: would be pleased to, Mr. Speaker. I did meet with the mayor and representatives of Calgary yesterday and I undertook at that time to proceed without delay with the construction of a new terminal building at Calgary international airport.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. What action is being taken to recover from Canadian waters Canadian fishing gear which was abandoned as a result of interception by the United States coastguard during the recent incident involving a Canadian fishing vessel?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian fisheries research vessel G. B. Reid is on the spot now picking up the gear.



INQUIRY AS TO DESTRUCTION OF GEAR BY SOVIET VESSELS OFF EAST COAST

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether there is any evidence on the east coast of Canada to indicate there has been an incident between the Soviet Union and Canadian fishermen similar to the one between the United States and the U.S.S.R.?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have received no evidence that Russian fishing vessels are picking up Canadian lobsters off our continental shelf.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister having in mind the presence in Ottawa today of the Minister of Finance of Malaysia who was introduced to the House this morning. What consideration is the government giving to an attempt to retain that gentleman in the capital to advise it on its many financial problems?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. visitor's services have been retained for parliamentary matters.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that unemployment insur-
24107-32J
Inquiries of the Ministry
ance benefits for some swordfishermen have terminated and they are unable to go swordfishing because of present food regulations, has the minister formulated a policy or program to assist these fishermen and, if so, when will this program be announced?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a program has been developed in close co-operation with the province of Nova Scotia and we expect momentarily to be able to announce the details of this program in respect of the swordfishermen in question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister this question. In light of the statement made by the Minister of Finance that the government is committed to full employment, can he inform the House whether the government now has a timetable set for the achievement of full employment in Canada, and what year is it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that any time other than as soon as possible would be unacceptable.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has his attention been drawn to the situation in respect of Paul Maney Laboratories, one of the largest independent drug companies in Canada, and the danger of it being sold to foreign investors? Does the minister intend to take some action to assist this company and prevent such a sale?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot answer that question in detail at this moment, Mr. Speaker, but I will check further and try to answer on Tuesday.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will he tell the House whether he received a representation from a member of the Argentia task force in Newfoundland requesting that the chairman resign on the basis that the task force has failed to fulfil its objectives and the chairman misled a committee of the House of Commons with regard to employment?

May 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the question might be rephrased. The hon. member is simply asking whether the minister has received a communication and in these terms the question is not in order. The hon. member might like to complement the question to make it procedurally acceptable.


Walter C. Carter: What action has the minister taken on the recommendation of a member of the Argentia task force that the chairman resign?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged the representation and I have sent the full text of the hearing to the gentleman concerned to see whether he will change his mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just now beginning to understand the background of the question and I would not think it should be directed to the Minister of Transport.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government made a decision to downgrade the Ukrainian heritage in Canada by removing reference to the Ukrainian language in the 1971 census and, if so, has this been done in order to please the U.S.S.R. as has been alleged?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, as often happens, has been mischievous on this subject and I should like to state the facts. There is no such situation. All mother tongues will be recorded in the coming census. This is very important, Mr. Speaker, so would you kindly allow me read two paragraphs from DBS to set the record straight because the record has been deformed.
On form 2A, which goes to two-thirds of all households-this is the short nine-question form-space limitation permitted provision of separate marking positions only for those mother tongues anticipated to be the four numerically largest in the country. Persons with mother tongues other than these four will write in their specific mother tongues, such as Ukrainian, Polish and others, in the space provided on the document. These write-in entries for mother tongues will be coded and separate statistics provided for them in the 1971 census publications.
It should also be noted that on form 2B, the long questionnaire which goes to one-third of all households, space limitations are not as stringent and separate marking positions are provided for a number of additional origins and languages including Ukrainian in question 15 on "ethnic origin" and in question 17 on "language most often spoken at home." So the rumour is wrong, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the minister has had ample opportunity to discuss with the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission what steps the commission intends to take to fight what the chairman has described as Canada's No. 1 economic enemy, inflation, will the minister outline to the House what steps the commission is going to take to fight this No. 1 enemy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the importance of the question asked by the hon. member, but he will appreciate that he is inviting the minister to make a rather lengthy statement of a type that normally should be made on motions.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to that part of my question. I was going to ask the minister whether he would take the first opportunity on motions to outline what steps the Prices and Incomes Commission intends to take to fight this No. 1 economic enemy as described by the chairman?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, any changes in government policy from what is now a rather successful fight against inflation will, of course, be announced in the normal way. No doubt my colleague the Minister of Finance will have a good deal to say about this in the budget speech to be presented next month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether hon. members would allow me to go to the next question. We are running short of time and the hon. member for Huron in particular has been trying to ask a question.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and has to do with the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery. Does the government intend to set up a central testing and evaluation agency for farm machinery as the report recommended?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a decision has not been made on that but, as I indicated yesterday, this is one of the recommendations in which we are keenly interested.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Will the government give consideration to subsidizing interest rates for the purchase of farm machinery in order to assist the farm machinery manufacturers and the farmers?

May 21, 1971


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, while this does not amount to subsidization, there is a very satisfactory and lower than commercial rate of interest now charged to farmers through the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Corporation. To extend that to cover the credit required by dealers would require a change in the act. We will have a look at that suggestion as well.



FARM MACHINERY-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister say whether he is consulting with the provincial Departments of Agriculture in order to ascertain which parts of the royal commission report can be implemented as soon as possible?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We will do so, Mr. Speaker. In fact there is a meeting of all Ministers of Agriculture in Canada slated for July 20, I believe. I am sure this is one of the subjects that will be on the agenda.



FARM MACHINERY-MEETING WITH INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when he proposes to meet with representatives of the industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will be meeting with some representatives of the farm machinery manufacturing industry this afternoon.



FARM MACHINERY PRICES-EXAMINATION BY COMBINES INVESTIGATION BRANCH

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On May 4 I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether an investigation into farm machinery prices would be undertaken by the combines investigation branch. The response by the Minister of Agriculture was that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had considered that course months ago. Will the minister now indicate whether such a course is still being considered and, if so, when can we expect such an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The interim report from Professor Barber indicated that there were certain aspects of the farm machinery industry that should be examined by the combines branch. It can be taken as said that any such direction would be attended to by the Director of Research and Investigation.
H:	4	^



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Inquiries oj the Ministry
Is he going to inquire into and make a statement on the increasing complaints that air fares are becoming biased toward travel outside rather than within Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the 'board of Air Canada appeared before the Committee on Transport and Communications yesterday and I understand he is returning next week. Since to a great extent this is a matter for the airlines it might be appropriate for committee members to ask him these questions. In a general way I might say I am keeping a watching brief on the situation. I would expect that international fares are likely to go up in the near future if all the current reports are correct.



INVESTIGATION OF INCREASE IN CHARTER RATES

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the Prices and Incomes Commission looking into the spontaneous decision of three Canadian carriers to raise charter rates by as much as 10 per cent now and 30 per cent next year and, if so, when will a statement be made on this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will have to determine that from the chairman.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is supplementary to some asked earlier of the Acting Prime Minister. Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the announced resignation of the hon. member for York West last night and the question of privilege raised in the House of Commons today had any reference or relationship to the activities in Moscow in the last two or three days?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: I had intended to ask a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but I see he has left. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary would take notice of the question. Some time ago the minister indicated that negotiations were taking place between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec toward the development of a large national park in the Lake Timiskaming area. I wonder whether these negotiations have now been concluded and, if so, with what result?


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member's question has been noted.

May 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago a book was published in the United States alleging that Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bryce gave improper information to IT and T in connection with a project known as "Deep Freeze" in about 1954. Has the government taken any steps or is it contemplating any steps to investigate this serious allegation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that this question might be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, I am sure that many hon. members would want to return at the time of adjournment to hear the hon. member .expound on the matter and ask the question in a more detailed form.



PROVISION OF MARKETS FOR PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY PRODUCTS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of lay-offs in the pulp and paper industry because of marketing and monetary circumstances, can the minister advise what initiatives his department or the government is taking to firm up these markets and stabilize the industry's future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question can be allowed only if the minister will reply briefly. Normally a reply to such a question should be given in the form of a statement on motions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Following representations made by the
industry and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself to EEC countries some very important developments took place a few days ago following negotiations concerning pulp and newsprint. On pulp, the 3 per cent tariff on entry will be suspended. On newsprint, there will be a free entry quota which will permit Canadian pulp and paper producers to continue competing on the British market. The industry will also have a free entry quota on plywood on the continent, whereas in the past they had to pay a 13 per cent tariff.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that the largest market for Canadian pulp and paper is the United States, has any initiative been taken at that level to try to improve the marketing conditions at present?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have no special development to report on that front.



SUGGESTED MORATORIUM ON FEDERAL GRANTS FOR NEW PAPER MILLS

James Aloysius McGrath: Is the minister prepared to recommend to his colleagues, especially

to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, that a moratorium be placed on federal grants for new paper mills in Canada until the paper market has had a chance to improve?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Every project is studied on its own merit.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is for the
Solicitor General. In view of the concern expressed by John Hodgson, vice-president of the Ontario Bar Association, that the integrity of the proceedings of the Swack-hammer Commission investigating the riot at Kingston may be questioned if the proceedings are held in camera rather than in public, would the minister reconsider his decision and have the hearings held in public and at the same time protect the names and reputations of the witnesses?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Ml.
Speaker, I do not have to judge the credibility a lawyer attributes to the remarks of the chairman of a commission.



DISCIPLINING OF INMATES MOVED FROM MILLHAVEN TO COLLINS BAY OR KINGSTON-LAYING OF CHARGES-RIGHT TO COUNSEL

John Leroy Skoberg: Can the Solicitor General say whether the inmates moved from Millhaven to isolation in Collins Bay and/or Kingston are being disciplined? Can he also say whether they have been charged and, if they have, whether they have been given the right to counsel?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, no disciplinary action has been taken. None will be taken before the inquiry commission reports. To my knowledge, there have been no criminal proceedings. Of course, it is up to the Attorney General of Ontario to decide when to prosecute, if it is necessary.



PERMISSION FOR MEMBERS TO VISIT INSTITUTIONS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of recent problems in penitentiaries, would the Solicitor General now change his mind with regard to the situation and the position he and all other Liberals on the committee took about Members of Parliament visiting the
May 21, 1971

institutions to determine what is going on with regard to the mistreatment of prisoners in Canada at this time?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have said already. Inquiries are under way. I should like to complete my previous reply to the hon. member by saying that if legal proceedings are instituted against the prisoners, I trust the provincial authorities who are directly responsible will provide them with legal counsel, or that the Law Society of Upper Canada will attend to it. If, on the other hand,-not that I expect it to be the case-the prisoners are without legal counsel, we will take all the necessary steps to ensure that their rights are respected in court.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the hon. member for Skeena to ask the last supplementary question. The question period expired four minutes ago but we have gone beyond our time because of supplementary questions.



DETENTION OF INMATES IN ISOLATION AT COLLINS BAY

Frank Howard: The supplementary question I wish to ask the Solicitor General relates to his statement a moment ago that no disciplinary action is being taken against any of the inmates who were presumably involved in the riot at Kingston. With respect to the seven inmates who were transferred from Millhaven on the night of May 12, I believe, to Collins Bay penitentiary, where they are now being held in isolation or, in other words, in the hole or in the dungeon, does the minister not consider that to be a form of punishment?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, immediately after the disturbances in Kingston, there was not enough room for some inmates and we had to make use of all other premises available. The choice was not ours, but that of the inmates. Up to now, no disciplinary action has been taken against the inmates and, recently, considering further disturbances were expected-


William Arnold Peters: You are not allowed to be dishonest.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


William Arnold Peters: Just because you are a minister, you cannot lie here.


George Harris Hees: Just watch him try.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
National Security Measures
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax East) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the government, having reduced our defence capacity by erosion of our NATO commitment, reduction of our active and reserve forces, and mismanagement of our material and supply requirements, has downgraded our armed forces and led to a questioning of our credibility by our allies.
This House therefore urges the government to declare a defence policy that will clarify the role of our armed forces at home-with particular reference to our north and aid to the civil power-and which will demonstrate our willingness and capacity to contribute to world peace by honouring our alliances.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available to me today, virtually on the eve of the production of the first white paper on defence policy in some years, I wish at the outset to pay some tribute and compliment to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly in light of the role they played in our society in the communities of Quebec City and Montreal, and in our nation's capital, during the crisis last fall. It was a tangible thing which brought them to the attention of the Canadian people more than did any other single event in recent years.
While that was a tremendous job I also wish to pay tribute to the normal work they do and which Canadians, by and large, never hear about. I wish to pay tribute to their professionalism, dedication and skill. As long as we are served by men of the skill, competency and professionalism that I have noticed in our Armed Forces, Canada will be well served, and our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) will be well served. Having said that, I wish to put as quickly as possible some basic and general comments on the record.
When talking about a defence policy or structure for Canada, the basic consideration we must keep in mind is that a threat does exist. The setting up of Nato and of our other alliances was in response to a recognition of that threat. Today, simply because time has passed, and because the nature of society has changed to some degree, it would be unwise for us to conclude that the nature of the threat has changed to such a degree that we might consider it no longer exists.
This period of apathy, stemming from familiarization with peace at home and the non-inolvement of Canadian forces in active warfare, could lead us into a state where perhaps many would not consider the threat to be as real as I continue to believe it is. The white paper is going to be produced against the background of a defence budget freeze, without any indication that the freeze will be lifted. Indeed, there are acceptable levels of argument to indicate that the freeze will not be lifted.

National Security Measures
It must be remembered that Canada has made certain commitments to its allies. These must be given very serious consideration by the minister during the final drafting of his white paper, which I presume will take place on his return from the spring meetings of the NATO Council of Ministers, to which he will be travelling next week. In this atmosphere of complacency stemming from the non-involvement of Canadian forces in active warfare, we must be careful not to ignore the perception evident in the views of our allies with respect to the threat, and the changing nature of the threat. The image that the Department of National Defence conveys is important to the many Canadians who are interested in the Armed Forces, and here I refer to both civilians and servicemen. I bring no new light to bear on the problem when I say that the morale of the forces is not at a level it could be at, or a level it should be at. I am concerned, as are many servicemen and civilians, that the forces have been downgraded through a series of events, none of which were within their control.
I hope the government fully understands that reductions, continuation of the budget freeze, and the insecurity and uncertainty caused by these two factors, erode even further the present shakey morale in the Armed Forces. To meet this threat, we hope the government will come to grips with the points I have enumerated, the questions of concern, the questions of realism, the question of a budget freeze, the question of commitments to our allies, the question of morale in the forces. While there may be ample wisdom in the Minister of National Defence reflecting in his white paper what appears to be the clear national will against expanding defence forces at this time, it is to be hoped that he will not so restrict the forces that we will slip even further down the ladder of credibility in the eyes of our own people, in the eyes of our neighbours to the south, and indeed in the eyes of our allies in the western world.
We see the problem in several ways. Today in 1971, on the eve of a white paper, we see the problem as being one brought about by the total absence of a clear, well defined national defence policy. Since the government came to power we have had ad hoc, irrelevant and inconsistent measures taken, and we still have to hear the minister's grand design. Mind you, he has taken advantage of many opportunities to elaborate it for us item by item, but we still have to see it all put together.
This vacillation, indecision and delay have brought about some degree of suspicion, which I think is justified, on the part of some of our allies. I think we have encouraged some potential enemies to look upon us askance and wonder whether or not we are credible about anything. Again, and more important, this beating around the bush, this delay and procrastination have contributed even more to lowering the morale of the men in the forces. Instead of a logically developed plan we have had the former minister's troubled dream of unification, arising out of the white paper of 1964-65. Here, I refer to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). We had an extensive cutback in our NATO commitment just two years ago, to the point where we now have only
May 21, 1971
5,000 or 6,000 men in Europe. I might add they are poorly equipped, there has been no firm decision as to what we are going to do with respect to replacing them.
We have had a reduction in our Armed Forces from about 120,000 in 1964 to the rapidly approaching 80,000 mark of today. We see the reduction of the militia to some 17,200 men from a figure much closer to 30,000. In the beginning of 1970, we were told that the defence budget would be frozen at least for the next three years. We have seen the errors which resulted in the dropping of the Bonaventure, and the failure to find a use for our brand new CF-5 aircraft. The list is almost endless.
Sometimes I wonder whether or not the white paper will be developed on the basis of non-availability of dollars and manpower resources or the philosophy upon which it should be based, our perception of the nature of the threat and acceptance of the fact that it is a real threat rather than an imagined one. A close look at defence expenditures over the last ten years reveals, parallel to the reduction in forces, a steady decline in Government expenditures on defence and in the priorities which have been established for the department. In 1960 the defence budget was $1,537 billion or 26.9 per cent of the total government budget. In 1966 this percentage dropped to 20.6. Since 1968 the defence budget has been effectively frozen at around $1.8 billion and by 1973 it will represent an insignificant portion of the Canadian commitment of its total budget.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


J. Michael Forrestall: This has meant a steady and steep decline in defence expenditures as a percentage of the total government program, from approximately 20 per cent in 1967 to slightly over 12 per cent during the fiscal year 1971-72. Furthermore, the freeze will continue through 1973, meaning a further decline in defence as a government spending item.
How much are we really investing here? On a per capita basis in 1970-71 defence cost us about $88, a decrease from the Korean peak of $132 in 1952-53. I do not have to mention the increase in government spending or the increase in the gross national product in this country in the years that have intervened. Even if you add atomic energy, which might be considered as part of our defence establishment, the budget per capita only comes to $91, compared with the United States per capita cost of $360. This gives us some measure of the understanding that we should bring to the contribution being made by the United States military forces to world peace and to the defence of North America. The latter is a role with which I think we just play around.
In 1969-70 Canada's total defence outlay was 2.3 per cent of the gross national product. Belgium, a country of nine or ten million people with an armed force of 70,000 spent 3.3 per cent in the same year, an indication that they take the matter of defence structure more seriously than we do. Canada with a population of 21 million has

May 21, 1971

80,000 or 85,000 people in the armed forces and who knows what the number will be by 1972? In 1964 when the last defence white paper was published, the Canadian forces numbered about 120,000 and today we are on our way to 80,000. What will this mean to our new defence posture? We will have to wait and see. I hope the minister will be able to be more precise when he presents his white paper.
A few things are clear. Four or five years ago with a substantially larger armed force we were scarcely able to meet our multiple tasking assignments, so how can we expect to do it with 80,000 people or probably less in 1972? Where will the minister find the resources and dollars for national sovereignty? Will he turn to the priority established by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1969? Will he return to the area of defence of Canada for national sovereignty? If the minister is to lend substance to the posture of the Prime Minister on the question of the defence structure for the '70s he must find the resources and dollars to do it.
Then, we come to the question of NATO. The Prime Minister, our great national dove, is flitting around Russia and I do not know who is putting on the greater show, the Prime Minister or Charlie Lynch in his writings. Time will tell. From the minister's recent comments, it does not seem that we are going to find additional manpower or dollars for NATO. I can anticipate the minister's white paper. If that is his posture I would congratulate him on it. One might think that on an annual review basis we were going to honour our commitment to our NATO allies. I do not see any ground there for getting the resources required for lending effect to the white paper.
The joint US-Soviet statement of intent respecting the desire of those two great nations to arrive at an understanding with respect to the deployment of the ABM's some time this year, will have to lead to a very serious look at our NORAD position. I think the minister's options are now whether we are going to actively participate or whether, in exchange for active participation or a non-capital participation role, we will give to our American allies the advance staging requirements they need with respect to air fields for the AWAC plane carrier and the over the horizon radar program. His options are now more clear but I cannot perceive of the minister, in the next two years, walking away from our NORAD commitment. I can only see a changing emphasis and changing role but not much hope of finding the necessary resources.
If the minister touches Maritime Command, except to expand it, I will shoot him. He must find the manpower and dollars necessary for this area. He must do it not solely on the basis of expanding a paramilitary role to other departmental facilities and capabilities but rather in terms of the capabilities and facilities which continue to come under the direct control of Maritime Command. The problem of ground forces and Mobile Command is well illustrated by the desperate logistics situation we faced during the crisis last fall. What would we have
National Security Measures
done if there had been another call on Mobile Command then? As with Maritime Command this is an area where the minister must expand to change the impact on the direction of forces of training, so that is not a fertile ground either.
The minister needs resources and dollars and cents for a weapons system. I cannot see any way that he can cut back there unless we are to withdraw completely, and I cannot imagine that happening. We have to meet desperately needed weapon requirements. I do not find any great support in cabinet for such programs. Indeed, as I have already indicated, I think there is an inclination toward further retrenchment. In short, I wonder if the white paper will reflect any substantial changes. It should. Surely the world has changed in the last six years and surely the white paper ought to reflect some changes. I am not sure how they will be reflected.
The four broad directives the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) laid down two years ago need implementing. It is the "how" that concerns us at this time. How will we defend our country? Indeed, against whom will we defend it? There is some confusion about that. I wonder how we will participate in NORAD. I wonder how we will participate in NATO with respect to equipment and what will be the thrust of our direction. What will result from an allegedly casual comment by American Secretary of Defence Laird with respect to the $500 million deficit in our defence productions sharing arrangements? I doubt very much that Defence Secretary Laird made such a comment casually. I doubt whether he made any casual comment during the minister's entire visit. You just do not make casual comments on occasions like that. When my banker says casually that I am overdrawn, he is not being casual; he is being polite and telling me in a nice way to get behind the ball and do something about my overdraft. I wonder to what extent that $500 million deficit will result in parts of the white paper being written in Washington. For instance, will we buy more Boeing 707's? Will we phase in the 707 to replace the Argus as a long range maritime and northern patrol aircraft? Will we buy that aircraft because it may be the best piece of equipment we can obtain? If it is, let us buy it for that reason and not simply because we happen to enjoy a favourable trade balance with the Americans.
I wonder how the minister, through the medium of the white paper, will deal with the future of the CF-5. Why does he not keep the House and the country advised with respect to the sale of these aircraft? Are the Norwegians interested in it? Are the Venezuelans interested? How will they be used in Canada? Will they be kept for training purposes or will they form part of our commitment to NATO for the defence of the northern flank? I hope that the minister will answer those questions.
I am also wondering what is to happen to our Hydrofoil. What plans are there for building these vessels and selling them? It is a tremendous piece of Canadian equipment that was designed and developed here. I think we ought to be more proud of it and we ought to capitalize more on the research and development dollars we

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
have invested in it. I hope the minister will be able to sell it. The Germans might be interested in it. I wish the minister well in his negotiations with them.
I wonder how the minister will de-emphasize the antisubmarine warfare role of maritime command. That has been its traditional role. How will he de-emphasize it? I know that the minister has not been happy with the DDH-280 program. He must find the money to pay for the vessels. One of the great psychological blocks to changing the role of maritime command stems from the names that we give to that role. Surely we must recognize that the role of maritime command in recent years has changed. Its role now is preponderantly one of surveillance, monitoring and detection, as opposed to its former role which involved anti-submarine warfare. The terminology used in connection with anti-submarine warfare dates back to the 1914-18 war, which was before my time and before the minister's time. I know that terminology was used in the Second World War. The term "anti-submarine warfare" no longer reflects the role of maritime command today. We should drop the term "anti-submarine warfare" denoted by the letters ASW. The role of the command involves surveillance, monitoring and detection, and "SMD" sounds much nicer than "ASW". These changes involve questions of psychology. I think the minister would find it much easier to sell his ideas to cabinet if he used new terminology and dropped the archaic terms that have been used to describe maritime command in the past.
We need a true submersible if we are to maintain, as the Prime Minister has suggested we should, our national sovereignty. We need a submarine. We need a nuclear submarine to be exact. We need three or four of them at least if we are not to pay mere lip service to the control of the north.
What substantial changes can be anticipated with respect to the size of our forces? Surely the white paper will deal, as well, with the widespread disquiet within the forces resulting from the continuing application of what may be described as archaic labour-management practices. On a number of occasions the minister has indicated clearly that there would not be an expansion of the forces but that there would be, rather, a realignment of trades. We must make certain that we can meet our external commitments.
The development of policy solely on the basis of our willingness to make available resources seems to me to be dangerous. If the threat is not real, then the government has the responsibility of saying so and of acting accordingly. On the other hand if, as I believe, it is real, then we must adopt a policy that will reflect honour on our country and the wisdom of the professionals in the Canadian forces. The white paper should say to our friends that we stand with them in the interests of preserving world peace and that we will play our role to the full. We will play the fullest role that our resources will permit in the preservation of those principles within which, and only within which, peace can be achieved and sustained. I urge the minister, in the final dotting of the
"i's" and the crossing of the "t's", to show some concern for the professionals who serve our country so well.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the official opposition for introducing this important subject for debate. Having said that, I must also say that as far as this party is concerned we do not agree with the motion and we do not agree with the emphasis of the speech of the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).
Of course the subject is important, Mr. Speaker. The future security of Canada depends upon our armed services and our defence measures. Our contribution to the security and peace of the world depends upon our defence measures and the actions that we take for defence. We spend about $2 billion yearly of the taxpayers' money on defence. The function of Parliament in this field, as I see it, is not to attempt to discuss the details of hardware to use the jargon of those involved with defence; rather, it is to determine what shall be the essential roles to be served by the Canadian forces and to distinguish between those roles which are essential to the peace and security of Canada and those which are unproductive and wasteful and which lead to inflation and dissipation of the resources of the Canadian people in useless and obsolete systems.
I wish to ask some questions, and I think all hon. members of the House in debating the subject of defence ought always to ask these questions. I hope the forthcoming white paper will consider what roles the Canadian Armed Forces should play. I suggest that the first of these is the preservation of internal order in aid of the civil power. We know very well that the army played a big part in the disturbances of last October. We know that we live in an insecure world-it is insecure internally as well as externally-and the army has a back-up role to play of great importance in that particular field.
Second, the most functional role of our armed services is the defence of Canadian sovereignty against incidental attack or invasion of our territory or territorial waters by the forces of other countries. Precisely what that involves, I do not know, but I hope we will learn from the white paper and perhaps hear from the minister a definition of what he thinks is essential to the defence of Canadian sovereignty. I think all Canadians agree that the armed forces have a part to play in that defence.
The third aspect of defence which I regard as absolutely essential is a contribution by Canada to international order, building a world community, strengthening the United Nations and making forces available for peacekeeping. At the present time, it is fashionable for people to say that peacekeeping is a thing of the past and did not work. That is not true. We now have a peacekeeping force in Cyprus which may still be helping to preserve a measure of peace in a very disturbed part of the world, the Middle East. Every time there is a disturbance in the world, it is proposed that United Nations forces should act. Sometimes this is not acceptable and they do not act.

May 21, 1971

The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence had a subcommittee which discussed the matter of peacekeeping. Among other things, we visited the United Nations. We discussed this matter with representatives of the United Nations, representatives of the great powers including France, the U.S.S.R. and the United States. Without exception, they said there was a future role for peacekeeping and that Canadian forces, by reason of their expertise, training and background of their country, might well be needed as a crucial component of a peacekeeping force to preserve the peace and security of the world.
These three functions, internal order, defence of sovereignty and aid to international order are all essential. We in this party approve of them. We believe our armed forces should be geared to perform these particular functions and trained and armed for these purposes. We do not think that Canada has much part to play in the major, strategic over-all defence of the North American continent. We are the neighbour of a superpower. Whether we like it or not, we are under the umbrella of that superforce as far as strategic power is concerned. We are not asked and do not need to make a contribution to that.
We in this party welcome the apparent move toward a limitation of the antiballistic missile system which appears to have been arrived in the SALT discussions between the United States and the U.S.S.R. We have stated many times in this House that multiplication of the antiballistic missile systems is another step in the mad momentum of the nuclear arms race, to be followed by further steps of escalation which would in turn minimize the changes made by the installation of the ABM system and leaves the parties exactly where they were before. We warmly welcome what appears to be a move in this direction as announced yesterday by the President of the United States.
I want to deal with some of our other roles. I want to deal with one role which we should now discard as obsolete. That is our participation in the NORAD system. I have said this before and I say it again. As everyone knows, that is a system of defence against manned bombers. It costs us at least $200 million a year. The estimates show this directly. We are not against co-operation in principle with our American friends, but we say that this particular defence is long obsolete. In the missile age of today, it is absolutely useless. A couple of well placed missiles could destroy the main bases in Canada which are used by NORAD.
As long ago as 1964, Mr. McNamara, the secretary of defence of the United States, said the only useful purpose of the NORAD system that existed at that time, and still exists today, was as a target for missiles which the U.S.S.R. had in limited numbers at that time. Since then there has been an increase in the number of U.S.S.R. missiles. One thousand high powered missiles would be a low estimate of what they actually have available. This defence, which was installed at great expense


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) would like to ask the hon. member a question on this point.
National Security Measures


Mr. Roberts:: Does the hon. member recall that Mr. McNamara's statement was perhaps referring to the sky-bolt missiles and not to the NORAD detection and warning system in its entirety?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I may stand corrected. There certainly was the missile system involved in NORAD. He may not have been referring to NORAD as a whole. I am trying to point out that even that usefulness has now disappeared.
In 1964, General Simonds, a very distinguished Canadian soldier, pointed out to the committee on defence the reasons that this system was obsolete and should be scrapped. One of the reasons he gave was that the major defence against any attack by armed bombers was the fact that they could be detected shortly after they left their bases. We had detection systems on the North American continent to detect incoming bombers within a two hour duration of those bombers leaving their bases in their own territory and arriving at their targets in North America. Within two hours, the target planes could leave the ground and immense retaliation would be poured on the country that launched the attack. General Simonds said the Russians would have to be crazy to launch such an attack with manned bombers. What he said then applies today. Can anyone suggest, particularly at this time when our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is discussing protocols of friendship with the Russians, that their government would be crazy enough to launch destruction on themselves and the world by a manned bomber attack?
Once you have a system installed, it is easy to carry on with it regardless of whether it makes sense. There is a self-perpetuating tendency within military systems. I urge this government to have the courage to negotiate with our American friends and say to them that we are prepared to continue co-operating with them in detection systems, but anti-manned attack systems have not made sense for a long time, do not make sense now and regardless of what the Americans can afford, we cannot afford hundreds of thousands of dollars on something unproductive and useless.
My colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), is going to discuss the question of NATO. It is well known that this party has expressed a desire to withdraw from NATO. I do not propose to discuss this except to deal with one aspect. I do not know how NATO can have credibility in the world when the principles which it proclaims in its charter are clearly flouted by the members of NATO. I refer to Greece and Portugal. The purpose of NATO is supposed to be to protect human rights, yet in these two countries and in the colonies of one of them, these human rights are disregarded by military dictatorships. If NATO is essential to the defence of the so-called free world, some steps should be taken to ensure that its members respect the basic principles. Instead of that, the United States has recently rearmed the colonels in control of Greece.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How about Czechoslovakia?

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures


Francis Andrew Brewin: Canada, through its defence services, has a special role to play in helping to build a world community. We are free to do this because of our geographical position. If we were in a position such as Israel, which is more or less surrounded by hostile neighbours, we would have to devote a tremendous amount of effort to the actual defence of our territory. But because we are part of the North American continent, certain consequences follow. We are neighbour to a super-power against which we could not possibly contemplate defending ourselves successfully. Then again, since it is a superpower, we ourselves can scarcely imagine being attacked from any country outside. In these circumstances Canada can concentrate on doing what it can do well, and upon what it has done well, namely the roles I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East began his remarks by complimenting the Canadian Armed Forces. I want to compliment them, too. I do not wish my compliments to lessen in any way the force of my plea to the government to squeeze out the waste resulting from the unnecessary roles now being played by the armed services. This is not the fault of the armed services but of the civilian administration. From my experience, and I have travelled with the defence committee through Europe as well as on this continent, I would say that our armed services are a highly professional, highly skilled force which does credit to Canada wherever it happens to be. I was in Cyprus and I saw what they were doing there. They are highly respected on the island. I was in Europe, and whatever we might think of our NATO role we cannot complain of the efficiency of our forces and the high regard in which Canadians are held there. If it is true, as I assert it is, that we are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on an obsolete system which should be discarded it is up to the government to have the courage to say so and to get out of that particular system.
I have said we have a highly skilled professional armed service. I hope this will always be the case and that they will be well paid for doing their job. This brings me to a point. I would ask the minister to disregard some of the traditional advice he is probably getting and proceed toward conceding to the armed forces of this country the right to collective bargaining with regard to the conditions of their employment. I see no reason why this skilled and responsible group of people should not have the same right as others to present its claims. This has been permitted in other countries, in the Scandinavian countries and, I believe, in West Germany. It is very proper that a highly trained and, I would say, intelligent group of people should be shown this kind of consideration.
The idea is a new one. It sends chills down the spines of certain people with traditional attitudes. They immediately begin to ridicule it by asking: How can you bargain collectively in the middle of a battle? Of course, this is not intended to be suggested. What we are dealing with are peacetime activities and conditions of work of those
who from day to day are carrying the burden of service in the military forces. If they do not want to be represented collectively there is no reason why they should be so represented, but if they want to be represented like others who work for the Canadian community they should not be treated as an inferior class. I think I have seen expressions of opinion by the minister in which he appeared to frown upon this idea but I hope he will reconsider it, because an up-to-date force deserves this sort of treatment from the community which employs it.
I began by saying I welcomed the introduction of the subject of national defence into this debate. It is not a subject which has great appeal to those outside, but it is one of tremendous importance to the security of the country and to the taxpayers of the nation. I am looking forward, as all members must be, to the white paper on defence because we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to review carefully the roles and tasks imposed upon our armed services, to provide them with the means to carry out those tasks, and to take away from them tasks which are useless and outmoded.


John (Moody) Roberts: I, like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), was delighted when I saw the Official Opposition had placed this motion on the order paper. I thought, as did the hon. member for Greenwood, that it meant the Official Opposition was seizing the opportunity on the eve of the white paper to present to the House of Commons a series of considered views on what it believed the white paper should contain. I thought it would seize this debate as an opportunity to present the Conservative view as to what our national defence policies should be.
I was somewhat surprised, therefore, to find that while the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall) did say we should make great changes, and-rather than simply formulate a defence policy with financial limitations in mind-that we should begin with an analysis of the threat facing Canada and on that basis arrive at an appropriate defence policy, he made no analysis of what constituted the threat to Canada in the course of his speech. What he gave us was a rambling survey of certain decisions which had been taken in the past. He wondered about a lot of things. He wondered where we were going to find the resources. He wondered whether our priorities were those which had been outlined on one occasion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He wondered what we were going to do about NORAD. He wondered what we were going to do about maritime defence. He wondered about our readiness for anti-submarine warfare. In short, there never was a speech more full of wonderment.
On the basis of all this wonderment, what did he produce? Well, he produced some suspicions. He suspected the government was going to do something or, rather, that it was not going to do something. On the basis of suspicion of what the government was not going to do, he attacked the government for not doing what it was not going to do. Instead of a constructive analysis we heard a series of hypotheses, the construction of straw men which the hon. member then tried to knock down. I found

May 21, 1971

myself asking why the hon. member had not waited until the white paper was before the House. At least, he would then have been able to criticize on the basis of definite programs and proposals. But instead of seizing the opportunity to give advice to the minister-and the minister is a reasonable man open to advice, ready, almost to a fault, to accept criticism and constructive comments-the hon. member allowed it to pass by. Here was a chance for the Official Opposition to put in its oar and assist in the consideration of a more sensible and rational defence policy for Canada. I regret the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East, a man who is capable of giving this kind of help, chose not to do so. I trust that when the white paper is presented we shall be given a full description of what the Conservative party would present as a defence policy.
I was, however, pleased to hear one point that was made by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, who together with myself was involved in the report of the external affairs committee dealing with maritime affairs. At that time we found ourselves in some disagreement about the approach taken by the Canadian government to maritime defence, particularly in relation to anti-submarine warfare. In one place in his speech to-day he said change indicated that we should take a sceptical look at some of the things we have been doing, particularly in relation to anti-submarine warfare. I was delighted to hear that because that was the view which I presented to the external affairs committee, a view which was attacked specifically at that time by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is the other way round: you attacked my view.


John (Moody) Roberts: Well, we were in disagreement at that time and I am delighted to see that things have now reached the stage where the hon. member is supporting the position that I took.
On the other hand, I must say that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) presented the kind of speech that in a way I had hoped the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East would present, because he did outline a set of priorities which he felt should determine Canadian policy. While I would not say that he necessarily presented them in the proper order of importance, the priorities that he expressed are the right priorities.
I was particularly pleased with the reference he made to the peacekeeping role. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to be chairman of a sub-committee of the external affairs committee which examined in considerable detail this whole problem of peacekeeping. I would like to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. member. I came to exactly the same conclusions as he did; that the peacekeeping role that the Canadian forces have performed with so much distinction in the past is one which is greatly appreciated at the United Nations and by our allies in the western alliance.
This is something that we should continue to do. We have some unique qualifications, both in terms of techni-
National Security Measures
cal expertise and in terms of a political position, which make us an acceptable peacekeeper in most countries in the world. It would be a very regrettable day if any government ever decided to diminish the emphasis we now place on the maintenance of a peacekeeping capacity for the Canadian Armed Forces.
One of the hon. members taking part in today's debate emphasized that there is still a threat to Canda. If we harken back to the days when NATO was established in the late forties and early fifties, there was then a clear and evident military threat which the countries of the western alliance perceived and came together to defend themselves against. It would be a mistake to consider that the threat is unchanging and that the world has not changed. Perhaps it would be a very conservative view of history, a conservative approach to our forces, if we always concerned ourselves with the threats of yesterday and not with the threats of today. The world has evolved in the 20 years that NATO has existed, and while there is undoubtedly still a threat, the nature of the threat has changed considerably. What has changed even more is the capacity of other western nations to confront that threat.
In the late forties and early fifties Europe was still recovering from the effects of the last war. It had a shattered economy and in some ways a shattered morale, and the kind of participation that we in Canada then undertook in NATO was exceedingly important. In the past 20 years, however, there has been a revival of the European economy. We have seen in relation, for instance, to the freeing of the German mark the enormous present economic strength of Europe. There has been a rebuilding and a revitalization of Europe. We are now in the position, one we were not in in the early 1950's, where the countries of Europe themselves can play a much greater role in sharing the burden of our common defence than they were able to do.
In the passing years Canada, too, has changed. Our perspectives have changed. We have new domestic problems and we also have new interests in foreign affairs, not only the same ones that we had 20 years ago. So our perspective has changed just as at the same time the capacity of Europe to defend itself has changed. Therefore, it is not surprising that after 20 years we should have reassessed our role in NATO.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East criticizes us for ignoring the view of our allies. That is not what we did, Mr. Speaker. We consulted with our allies and we talked to them about our problems. We discussed the change in perspective. Of course, they were not exactly joyful at the fact we made a relatively minor reduction in our forces; they were not joyful that they would have to take a bigger share of the burden. But there were consultations and discussions about how these reductions should take place. If we were not to take the position that, after all, the final determining voice in what Canada's defence policy should be is our own assessment of what our interests are, then what kind of defence policy or foreign policy would we have?
Is the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East suggesting that we should never implement a policy that we

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
think to be right simply because our allies are in disagreement with part of it? I suggest that we must be the final determinant of what our defence policy should be. Having come to that decision, it was only right to do what we did, namely to consult our allies on how these force reductions should be implemented, in what area and in what sector.


J. Michael Forrestall: There are only two minutes left for you to enlighten us.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I have only two minutes remaining in which to enlighten him, and I regret that very much because it would take a lot more than two minutes to enlighten the hon. member. Given the impossibility of the task I will not even try. What I will do instead is to come back to one remark made by the hon. member for Greenwood when he discussed NORAD bomber defence. I agree to some considerable extent with what he said. There has certainly been a diminishment of the bomber threat. At one time I shared his view completely that we could dismantle our protection and defence system; but I also feel that while it is wrong to over-emphasize its role there is still the necessity to maintain a detection and surveillance system, if only to make sure that the bomber threat is a second strike threat and not a first strike threat. At the moment we are in an era where there are considerable technological developments taking place in this particular area, for example, in AW ACS-airborne warning and control system-and in over-the-horizon detection systems. I think in view of the uncertainty over what this technology is likely to produce it is best at this time to make no dramatically new decision in the NORAD area.
Where I hope the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) will take a searching look at our commitments is in the realm of anti-submarine warfare. The present concept of strategy that we in the west and the Russians accept is that we should both have a guaranteed second strike capacity. The nuclear balance depends upon both sides knowing that they have the capacity, no matter what comes in the worst way from their point of view, to be able so significantly to destroy the other side that neither party would voluntarily launch an attack upon the other. Within the design of that strategy it is enormously important that the basis for that guaranteed destructive capacity on both sides is the missile attack capacity presently held by submarines. I think it is extremely dangerous for us to try to implement policies that would destroy the credibility of a guaranteed response as a second strike weapon by nuclear submarines. We have not reached that stage yet, and I hope we never will.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it is one o'clock. I gather that before the Chair calls it one o'clock the President of the Privy Council, after having had consultations, would like the consent of the House to revert to motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to request a short order to the effect that the House adjourn next Thursday so that the standing committees can make progress with their work and that Thursday, May 27, 1971 be deemed to have been one of the days referred to in standing order 52(5). May I read the order:
That in order to permit the Standing Committee of the House to make progress with their work, when the House adjourns on Wednesday, May 26, 1971, it shall stand adjourned until Friday, May 28, 1971 at 11 o'clock a.m.; and that Thursday, May 27, shall be deemed to have been one of the days referred to in Standing Order 58(1).


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we agree to this, but I want to say that shutting down the chamber is a serious matter to us. There are many of us on this side of the House, including myself, who do not like this idea as a matter of principle. We tried it before and it did not really accomplish much. This time there is a fairly good mood of co-operation and we have a lot of work to do, some in respect of very contentious bills. We will try it again, without any prejudice to the future. I hope it will serve to concentrate attention on the committees and we can really get down to business. I hope the minister will watch the scheduling on Thursday so there will not be any serious conflicts, and so that some unnecessary committee work can be reduced or eliminated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) has said, we are reluctant to give up a day's sitting of the House, but I think it is fair to say that all of us who have been involved in the negotiations about this matter agree that we need a few days for important committee work. As for this one day, to which we have already agreed, we support the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Anything else, while the mood is so agreeable?


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
May 21, 1971



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Forrestall:
That in the opinion of this House the government, having reduced our defence capacity by erosion of our NATO commitment, reduction of our active and reserve forces, and mismanagement of our material and supply requirements, has downgraded our armed forces and led to a questioning of our credibility by our allies.
This House therefore urges the government to declare a defence policy that will clarify the role of our armed forces at home-with particular reference to our north and aid to the civil power-and which will demonstrate our willingness and capacity to contribute to world peace by honouring our alliances.
John (Moody) Roberts: When I was speaking just before the luncheon break I was trying, at the end of my speech, to give a short sketch of the situation in which Canada finds itself, and to do so in a constructive way. I spoke of how the threat to Canada has evolved, and on the basis of that I attempted to indicate what kind of priorities we should give to our defence policy. The world of the 1970's is very different from the world of the early 1950's when the NATO alliance was established. The defence of Canada has changed and the nature of our perspective has changed. In the post second-world-war period there was the cold war rigidity. We are now in a world which appears much more flexible, a world which is sometimes described as multi-polarized.
Even in the last few weeks we saw dramatic steps forward in adopting a less rigid, more flexible international world perspective. There has been the announcement by Mr. Nixon regarding some hopeful perspectives with regard to ABM. There has been the visit of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Russia, and a signing there of agreements which will open up channels of communications between our two countries. There has been the entry of the Chinese into world affairs, demonstrating their desire to participate more closely in the international community than has been evidenced in the past. In our own case, there is our interest in internal order, which we did not emphasize so strongly in the 1950's, a concern regrettably made necessary by recent events. There is the whole problem of sovereignty in relation to the Arctic, and a concern over our strong economic interdependence with some of our allies.
In that changed perspective I suggested that the emphasis we should give to our defence policy was as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said, a continuing dedication to the concept of peacekeeping and a
National Security Measures
continuing dedication of our armed forces to maintain their capacity to serve in that way. Our concern should be not to fundamentally revise our NORAD commitments but to wait and see, certainly not to make great expenditures on equipment in the NORAD area. With regard to NATO, we should continue our policy of reduced commitment which is designed, in a flexible way, to use our capacity for things other than simply our participation in NATO defence.
But, more particularly at the end of my remarks I was trying through you, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) that we should examine very carefully our role in anti-submarine warfare. I say this for two reasons, the first being that the technology of anti-submarine warfare, with the use of nuclear powered submarines, has entered a new level of research and development, one so costly that in my view it would be doubtful if we could participate in it and bear the financial burden for very long without rethinking our role. My second doubt is related to the basic strategy of mutual deterrence.
a (2:10p.m.)
This strategy is that both we in the west and Russia depend on having a second strike capacity which can inflict such damage on any potential attacker that that attacker would be effectively discouraged from launching an attack. An important basis for that second strike capacity is the maintenance of a relatively invulnerable submarine launched ballistic missile. If we, through our efforts in anti-submarine warfare, could reach a stage where we could threaten that second strike capacity on the other side, we would have reached a very unstable level of deterence. Therefore, it seems to me inappropriate for us to spend vast sums of money on making effective our anti-submarine warfare capability because success would be contrary to our interests. We should not be seeking to undermine the Russian second strike capacity because of the danger involved that their consequent insecurity could lead to pre-emptive acts destructive to peace.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the maritime field, instead of concentrating our efforts on anti-submarine warfare we should be making our maritime forces into a "super Canadian Coast Guard." I believe this is the role they should play, and it will become one of increasing importance in view of the new developments in the Arctic. It is a role which would fit in well with what the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) described as the maintenance of Canadian sovereignty.
In the new climate of international affairs Canada has a great opportunity to play a useful role through both its foreign and defence policies. Our defence policy should provide us with flexible military capability adequate to maintain our society at home and to participate in peacekeeping operations through the United Nations and, more moderately but still effectively, be sufficient to support our allies in the western alliance in the maintenance of our mutual security interests.

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate which, I think, is most important since it deals with current events. In fact, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) is now on a visit to the Soviet Union and it seems that discussions are under way regarding NATO, of which Canada is a member, and the Warsaw Pact, of which Russia is the most important member.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before us allows us to question the whole defence system as well as the unity of the countries which take part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, not only as regards defence but also political and economic co-operation.
Therefore, I think that it would be advisable to ask ourselves whether it was necessary for us to belong to NATO. A group of countries does not join in such a treaty without motives. And I think that what motivated this decision by democratic countries resulted from the action of a country which is considered as an enemy and wants to have its totalitarian communist ideology applied throughout the world.
It is the success of the communist block which induced several countries, including Canada, to get together in order to defend themselves against the encroachments of the Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, as World War II brought about the defeat of two big military and industrial powers, Germany and Japan, as well as the weakening of several others, Russia decided to take advantage of the situation to extend its control over Europe.
The Soviet territorial expansion had begun during the war with the annexation of Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania and certain parts of Finland, Poland, Rumania, NorthEast Germany and East Czechoslovakia, a total of 500,000 square kilometers of land inhabited by more than 23 million people.
This is why Paul-Henri Spaak was saying in 1948 that only one large country had emerged from the war with conquests, that is the Soviet Union. This territorial expansion was pursued after the defeat of Germany and completed by a control policy over the East European countries.
The presence of victorious Russian armies at the core of Europe and the communist infiltration in the so-called governments of "national front" subjec.ed Albania, Bulgaria, Rumania, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to Russian domination, a total area of some 1,020,000 square kilometers, with over 90 million inhabitants.
How was this conquest achieved without war? From early 1947, the communist party launched a violent campaign in Hungary against the party of small land-holders and denunciations and other methods resulted in a great number of arrests.
The Nagy government resigned on May 29 and while the new elections did not give the communist party majority it did become the party with most members in the House. The government, thus infiltrated, proclaimed
the dissolution of opposition parties on November 21, 1947.
In Bulgaria, the operation was conducted in a similar fashion. Nicolas Pethov, head of the agrarian party and a member of the opposition, was accused of having fostered a military coup d'etat. He was indicted, condemned on August 16, 1947 and died by hanging on September 23.
The peasant party, accused of fascism, had been dissolved on August 26. On November 22, the administration of the country was reorganized on the Soviet model. On December 11, 1947, Dinvetrov formed a predominantly communist cabinet.
In Rumania, following an election whose results the Anglo-Saxons did not recognize, members of the opposition were accused of having tried to overturn the democratic system. The peasant party was dissolved on October 10, 1947 and its leader, Dr. Manier, was sentenced to life imprisonment on October 29.
Mrs. Anna Pauker, who had prepared herself for the job in Moscow during the war, succeeded Mr. Tataresco, and King Michael had to resign on January 1, 1948.
In Poland, peasant party leader Mikolayezyk, had to resign because of threats to his life. He had to leave his country in November 1947. The communists then took over completely.
In Czechoslovakia the government in Prague which had welcomed the Marshall plan had to change its mind and reconsider its decision after Mr. Gottwald and Mr. Masaryk made an hurried trip to Moscow in July 1947. By intrigues and false accusations they forced Benes to resign in order to set up a communist regime.
Thus, in less than a year, Moscow had managed to bring into subjection the governments of Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia, Warsaw and Prague. The communist party had absolute or almost absolute power in all those capitals where opposition had been swept away. All the Kremlin had to do was to co-ordinate on the international level the action of these governments and to set up a satellite block under Moscow's rule.
Besides, strong pressures were exerted directly and indirectly by the Soviet Union in several other parts of the world, especially in Northern Iran, in Turkey, in Greece, where guerilla warfare which had started in 1944 turned out in 1946 to be a genuine war in which the rebels were getting their reinforcements from bases located in neighbouring communist states, in Asia where the Soviet Union greatly increased its influence in 1945 with the occupation of the greater part of Manchuria and North Korea.
Furthermore, communist agitation was felt in the whole of South-East Asia, in Indochina, in Malaysia, in Burma and in the Philippines where strikes and disorder were stirred up to the point of actual guerilla warfare. Everywhere the local communist parties under orders from Moscow, managed to strengthen Soviet policies by means of well-organized propaganda and steady opposition to any western positions which opposed Soviet

May 21, 1971

objectives. These local communist parties could well be regarded as the fifth column in this cold war.
On Russia's instigation, the communist countries even created in 1947 the Kominform, a communist replica of the Marshall plan, but for a contrary purpose. By late 1947, agitation and strikes intensified a concerted and virulent form of opposition. There were also persistent efforts to infiltrate all branches of activity in western countries, particularly trade unions in France and Italy.
Was this not sufficient to incite countries which did not want communist rule to seek a means of curbing this hunger for domination and subversion? This is why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created on April 4, 1949, in Washington.
Originally, NATO was composed of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the United States, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Greece and Turkey joined the alliance in February 1952, whereas West Germany officially became a member on May 9, 1955.
In 1963, the alliance covered an area of 1,112,633 square miles in Europe and over 7 million square miles in North America, for a total of 8,579,659 square miles with a population of 493 million people.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not only a military alliance to prevent or repel aggression, but also the establishement of permanent co-operation in the political, economic and social fields.
The signatory countries were therefore committing themselves, pursuant to the United Nations Charter, to maintain international peace and security and develop stability and welfare in the North Atlantic area.
Article 1 of the United Nations Charter provides indeed that the purposes of the alliance are to maintain peace, develop friendly relations among nations and achieve international co-operation in solving international economic and social problems.
The 1949 alliance made it possible for some small European countries which were still in a state of economic and military weakness to get together in the interest of common defence with the help of the United States and Canada. Without these two partners, NATO would not have been born or would have been left helpless, especially on the economic side. Indeed, the United States made quite a contribution with their shipments of materiel and by setting up a procurement system for the various European countries, thus giving assistance to the industrial development of western Europe. NATO's efforts were mainly aimed at establishing a deterrent to make it clear to its possible enemies that an attack against any member of the alliance would turn out to be a losing proposition. This policy has proved successful so far and the U.S.S.R. has been retained within its boundaries.
I think NATO should be maintained. In Europe, there is no question about it since political stability is still a long way from having been achieved.
Hon. members will no doubt remember the 1968 events when Czechoslovakia, a Warsaw Pact member state,
National Security Measures
expressed its wish to withdraw and to democratize its institution, to "desocialize" so to speak; Russia did not hesitate to restore order in the country and bring the lost sheep back to the herd.
We must now ask ourselves whether the reasons which urged us to set the NATO alliance back in 1949 are still valid today, whether the threat of aggression or extended domination of the world by the U.S.S.R. has ceased to exist and whether we can now consider the possibility of reducing or even withdrawing our involvement in the NATO forces. In my mind, the threat is still very real and we must be careful in our behaviour within NATO. We knew what we were doing and we had very specific reasons when we joined the alliance. I suggest that no decrease in our armed forces and no drastic changes should take place without previous consultations with the other NATO members.
We should also closely watch the implementation of the Warsaw Pact, particularly the actions of its main proponents. Witnessing the Russians' armament development, both marine and nuclear, is enough to make us wonder about their objectives. No country would arm itself as Russia does presently without a precise purpose. Armament is as costly in Russia as in the United States, in Canada or in any European country. For instance, in 1968-1969 Russian nuclear armament was inferior to American weaponry and we know now that by mid-70 Russia had not only caught up with the United States in the nuclear armament race but had actually overtaken them.
We know about the growing atomic submarine force of Russia. I will repeat what Camilien Houde said when he was Montreal's mayor at the beginning of the 1939-45 war: "Armament is not made for Christmas trees". Russians are not getting armed for decorating purposes: they have a precise objective.
Because of this, we should be careful about our decisions regarding NATO and Canada, as a member country, should respect its commitments, even if certain changes should be made in several areas.
A French general was saying to us when the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence visited France that in days of yore, when peple used to fight with spears and swords, the only thing that could not be done with such weapons was to sit on them. Now the only thing one can do with nuclear arms is to sit on them.
According to a news report, the nuclear stock accumulated by the two camps facing each other in this cold war is equal to 15 tons of TNT for each and every human being, quite enough to destroy the whole world.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should try to find out the position we should take in such circumstances. I believe we should try to convince politicians from all countries, especially those of the great camps facing each other, to come to a peaceful agreement. Not so long ago, there were two great camps: one directed by the United States and the other by Russia. And now, communist China is also playing an important part among the military powers. The ideal would be to be able to convince the

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
leaders of those countries to give less attention to the development of destructive weapons and put their minds more to the	means enabling	all the people under	theirrule to	live	and reach their	full development.It is	said	that two thirds	of the people suffer	fromhunger	and lack the bare necessities of life. Instead of
spending so much money, taxing people and putting them to work to manufacture nuclear armaments, we should increase grants for the development of natural resources to be put at the disposal of all those claiming a right to live.
In conclusion, I shall recall comments that were published in a bulletin that Catholics find a church every Sunday. In fact, the "Sunday Missal" in 1968 reported as follows:
"We do spend $6 billion each year for development projects, and this reluctantly. We earmark $150 billion per year for weapons and we find that normal", said Barbara Ward concerning thhe 1967 budget. Since then, such expenses have increased.
Such spiralling figures are astounding. Let us simplify them: They mean that we spend 25 times as much for armaments as for development. On this planet, we make in a single day $411 million worth of weaponry.
And this happens every day.
While in Bombay in 1964 as well as in his Encyclical on the Development of Humanity, Paul VI denounced this "unbearable scandal" and requested the establishment of a world fund that would be supported by part of the military expenses. But the race continued.
Mr. Speaker, much more attention should be given to development. We should promote the rewarding aspects of life instead of the development of means of destruction. As long as men do not decide to amend their ways, to reduce armament designed to achieve destruction or prevent aggression, we must be on our guard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion in over one year that defence matters have been discussed in the House of Commons itself. This debate is particularly appropriate in view of developments of the last few days and headlines which have appeared in today's newspapers.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) complained that the lead-off speaker for our party, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) had not produced a white paper for the guidance of the government. I think it is expecting rather much of an hon. member to do that in half an hour when that task has taken the government upwards of two years. The government has not succeeded in bringing that white paper forward yet. I will not outline again, as I have done several times in past years, my own views with regard to what Canada's general policy might be in this field. In the few minutes at my disposal I intend, rather, to deal with two or three specific matters, which are about all that time will allow. First, I should like to say that the present trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Russia, the statements he has made there and the pro-
[Mr. LapriseJ
tocol on consultations which was signed two days ago in Moscow are all of great significance in the discussion of Canadian defence policy. The preamble to that agreement, as it appears in the appendix to yesterday's Hansard, is in terms to which no one can take objection. Matters such as promoting the preservation of peace, endeavouring to improve relations in the fields of economy, trade, science, technology, culture and northern development and protecting the environment of the Arctic and the subArctic areas are matters to which no exception can be taken. I think everyone will agree with that. However, when you come to the actual terms of the protocol itself, important questions arise. One wonders what will be the effect of some of the conditions laid down. I refer in particular to condition No. 3 which reads:
The provisions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above do not affect obligations previously assumed by the parties in respect of third states and are not directed against any of them.
One wonders whether that paragraph refers to actions which may be directed against NATO. It may be that it refers to actions on the part of Russia directed against China. I do not know. It is difficult to tell what the meaning of that is. I think we need an explanation of that paragraph.
Generally, however, I would say this: This cosying up to Russia at the present time, when one considers the implications that that may have so far as defence arrangements and the national security of Canada are concerned, could have very far reaching effects indeed. High sounding declarations such as are contained in the preamble to the protocol on consultations are all very well and sound good, I suppose, to almost everybody. However, in my view the basic facts of the world situation must be the ones that we must primarily keep in our minds. The question immediately arises, what are those basic world considerations, particularly as far as our defence and security are concerned.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the first and most important of these considerations is that the only real threat to Canadian security or to the security of all countries of the western world at present comes from the Soviet Union. That is the only real threat to our independence, security and so forth. China may be a threat in future; she is not too much of a threat at present. Since the nuclear capability and very large armed forces of the Soviet Union constitute the only real threat to the security of the western world, the inescapable conclusion is that the NATO alliance of the western world, which has been the chief deterrent to aggressive actions on the part of the Soviet Union towards western countries, must be maintained in a state of strength. Any actions which are taken-and this may be one of them-which will weaken that alliance I think are directly contrary to the interests of this country and the interests of the western world as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Scott Harkness: I see no indication whatever that the intentions of the Soviet Union have changed. Their
May 21, 1971

announced intentions have been to spread communism throughout the world. Their actions since the second world war have demonstrated their determination to do this, and they have the military capability for doing it as far as eastern Europe is concerned. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) outlined some of the aggressive activities of the Soviet Union since the end of the second world war. The moves in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the general tight control exercised over all the countries of eastern Europe are some of the examples he mentioned.
In addition, there is the failure of the Soviet Union to grant any measure of independence to the countries of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and the Ukraine. In recent years, there has been a supply of weapons, military and expert personnel in large measure to Egypt and the Arab countries. There has been expanding naval strength in the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea and into the Indian Ocean. These are not activities which indicate peaceful intentions or the desire, as is frequently expressed, for detente and a movement toward more peaceful relations in the world. These are indications that the Soviet Union is still determined to expand its power and influence.
These are the facts which we must bear in mind. We must not lull ourselves into a state of euphoria over such things as the announcement of the president of the United States yesterday that the Soviet Union and the United States are going to discuss limiting the construction of ABM systems. I think nearly everybody applauds that intention and hopes it will be successful. However, we must bear in mind that disarmament talks have been going on for the past 15 to 20 years, and the actual results have been rather limited. In fact, the only real result which I can think of is discontinuing above ground nuclear testing. In spite of the disarmament talks that have been taking place over this long period of time, the nuclear strength of the two opposing sides has continued to increase. There has been no decrease in the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact countries of which I am aware.
In view of these facts, I find it very disturbing to read the following headlines in today's Globe and Mail:
PM feels protocol with Russia will aid Canada's independence.
The headline in today's Gazette reads:
'Because of overpowering presence of the U.S.'
PM vows solid Soviet links
Must diversify relations to save Canadian culture
The article reads:
Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday made clear the full extent to which he plans to change the direction of Canadian foreign policy and said Canada has much to learn from the Soviet Union.
He placed the new entente between Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the context of Canada's quest for independence from the United States,-
When you read these things, you begin to wonder who the Prime Minister thinks our friends are and who are
National Security Measures
our enemies. If things continue this way, we will have to get a new program to find out where we stand or what is the situation. Who thinks that closer contact with the Soviet Union is going to save and improve Canadian culture? That country is extending its armed might into the Middle East at the present time. It is keeping the Middle East conflict alive and holding down the population of eastern Europe. Is that the kind of culture we want to absorb into this country? It is ridiculous to see headlines along the lines of "Canada has much to learn". What do we have to learn from Russia in relation to the things I have just mentioned? As a matter of fact, I think the Russians have a great deal to learn from us from the point of view of man's humanity to man, civil rights and things like that. We have very little to learn from them, particularly from those points of view.
Believing that the greatest threat to Canada comes from the United States and that we can counteract that with closer links with Russia is completely contrary to the facts of life. The United States' nuclear strategic deterrent is our greatest protection against Russian aggressiveness and will undoubtedly continue to be so. It is certainly in our interest to maintain the best of relations with the United States and not make statements which tend to make the people of the United States think that we believe they are our enemies. Surely, we must know that they are not our enemies. They are our closest neighbour and greatest friend. We are not only dependent on them to a large extent for our defence, but, to a large extent, economically.
It may be that many people think that there has been such an influence on Canadian thinking and culture generally by United States publications, television, radio and so forth and because there has been a considerable amount of investment of American funds in Canada. However, that investment of American funds in Canada is, to quite an extent, the reason we have the standard of living which we have at the present time, as well as the amount of development which has actually taken place in Canada. To confuse the issue by giving the general impression abroad that the greatest threat to Canada is from the United States is the opposite of the truth. In my opinion, it is the height of nonsense. So much for those particular matters.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. Yesterday, questions were asked in the House as to whether the statements by the Prime Minister and the protocol mean a further withdrawal from NATO by Canada. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) said it did not. I certainly hope that proves to be the case. Headlines along these lines only give rise to serious fears that that will be the situation and, I am sure, have disturbed all of our allies in NATO.
I might point out, to speak more directly to the terms of the motion, that our unilateral reduction in our forces in NATO has already had quite a serious effect along these lines. Some of our allies in NATO wonder how sincere we are and to what extent we are going to play a meaningful part in that alliance. Although the actual number of men in the Canadian forces was cut to about

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
half of what it was before, the actual reduction in the contribution we were making to NATO was cut down much closer to l/10th or l/20th of what it had been. We had a heavy brigade. It was equipped with an Honest John battery and a tank regiment. Its fire power, effectiveness and so on was much greater than twice the capability of the new lightly armed combat group which we are supposed to have there. At the same time, the air division which we had in a strike-reconnaissance role had a very considerable fire power. It had a considerable deterrent effect and a considerable potential in the event of hostilities actually breaking out. I suppose we shall have two squadrons of reconnaissance planes. The minister says three. But if there are three they will be small squadrons, considerably smaller than those we had been maintaining in the air division. No fighting power, merely reconnaissance planes to take pictures and so on. Instead of being cut down to half, those squadrons have been cut down to a tenth or a twentieth of what they were in terms of effectiveness. This is what disturbs our allies. It leaves us very far from playing the part we should be playing in NATO at the present time. I certainly hope there will be no further reductions. This whole business of the agreement with the Russians and so on causes one to believe that what Russia is doing is using this as a means of weakening NATO, which has always been one of her long term objectives. It is a question we cannot help asking.
To turn to another matter, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) urged the minister to agree to our servicemen being allowed to join some form of union. I hope very strongly that the minister and the government will give no consideration whatever to that idea. On the basis of a fair amount of military experience, both in peace and in war, I cannot conceive of anything which would be more likely to lead to a breakdown in discipline and to difficulties of all kinds than for military forces to be unionized and become part of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I certainly hope the government will pay no attention to these pleas from Mr. Edwards, I think it is, and others who support his ideas along that line. The maintenance of good discipline and morale is the basis of effective action on the part of any military unit. These qualities are difficult enough to maintain in peacetime as it is, and the introduction of an element such as was proposed by the hon. member would make it even harder to sustain discipline, keep up morale and maintain effective units. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are rising to your feet.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: First, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mir. Brewin) on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces for their kind remarks complimentary to the forces on their excellent work during the period October, November and December last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I also, on a personal note, express appreciation to those hon. members and to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), as well as to the representative of the Creditiste party for the amicable relationship which we have enjoyed since 1 assumed this portfolio? I think this establishes that it is possible to express effective and searching opposition on these questions without any personal animus. I certainly appreciate the spirit with which we have been able to conduct this relationship between each other. May I also express my appreciation to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East for having provided an occasion, the first since I have been Minister of National Defence, upon which to talk about defence matters on the floor of the House.
In the course of his remarks, the hon. member enumerated the problems which he foresaw on the defence scene and suggested these should be dealt with in the white paper. I am obliged to him for doing so. We agree to a substantial extent as to what the problems are, even if we do not agree as to what the solutions may be. I hope to be able to answer his questions more effectively when the white paper is made public. The white paper is now before the cabinet. From my standpoint it would have been easier, I suppose,-I hope it would have been easier-if it had been possible to make the white paper public in time for this debate, but such is the volume of business before my colleagues that I regret it has not been possible to finalize consideration of that document. I hope it will be done shortly.
May I take the occasion to comment on the study of military questions in the House? During the first three sessions of this Parliament, with regard to questions on national defence and related matters of foreign policy, I believe the opportunities which members have had for studying these matters and for seeking information and advice on them, and for arriving at appropriate conclusions, have been unexampled. It is perfectly obvious from the value of the reports which the committee has delivered, for example the extremely valuable one on peacekeeping, the report on Maritime Command and those on NATO and NORAD, that this work has been of great assistance to me in the discharge of my functions as Minister of National Defence, particularly in helping to crystalize some of the defence policy issues which are outstanding for decision at this time. I think it is only fair to take the occasion to compliment the members of the Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Mr. Dobell, Mrs. Seaborn, Mr. Payne and their colleagues, who for the last several years have been of such assistance in bringing before the committee informed persons from this country and other parts of the world to discuss questions of defence policy.
In the course of today's debate a number of hon. members have made observations on defence policy and asked questions to which it is reasonable to expect some response. As to the general tenor and presentation of the speech made by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, I really cannot improve on the comments which were made by my hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) who dealt in an effective manner with what the
May 21, 1971

hon. member had to say. I would suggest, though, that there is a further serious defect in the hon. member's remarks, that is, his failure to come to terms with the serious financial questions which are involved in the political exercise of balancing defence expenditure against expenditure on other aspects of the economy.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is your problem.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He advocates the spending of millions of dollars more on the enhancement of Maritime Command. But he gave no reason for doing so. One suspects they might not be unrelated to the fact that a great many of his electors are associated with that command. It might have been good politics but there was a total absence of policy in what he had to say. He suggested that millions of dollars ought to be spent in a number of defence areas but he failed completely to come to grips with the serious question which arises at the political level-how much of a national budget should be allocated to defence and how much to other needs. Indeed, I was left wondering whether he was advocating a tax increase, a reduction in other programs unspecified, or some other solution. Where is the money to come from which would be needed to carry out the virtual doubling of defence spending which he suggests?
The hon. member referred to a defence budget of nearly $2 billion as representing an insignificant amount. Well, it impresses me as being a very substantial sum to have to provide. I really cannot agree with the approach he has taken here. I am sure we would have been interested to have heard from the hon. member about the priorities in respect of which substantial additional sums ought to be expended, and the way in which they would be provided.


J. Michael Forrestall: We want to know what you have to say.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says he and his friends want to know what I have to say. Our priorities were set out in the statement of April 3, 1969. Again I would remind the hon. member that the first priority in terms of Canada's defence forces is to provide for the protection of Canadian sovereignty and the maintenance of Canada's internal security. In effect, these are the priorities that were set out by the hon. member for Greenwood in his speech.
At some stage there seemed to be a lingering opinion, even among official opposition members, that somehow this should not be the first priority of Canadian defence policy. We are talking about protecting our own territory, maintaining surveillance and control over our own territory, maintaining our internal security and doing these things ourselves. If we do not do these things ourselves, we cannot ask anybody else to do them for us. Therefore, this must be our first priority and any state should plan its defence policy on that basis.
I found the statement of the hon. member for Greenwood helpful in the sense that he set out to state priorities. I found myself in total agreement with his first two,
National Security Measures
as I have said-namely, the preservation of internal order and the defence of Canadian sovereignty. I also found myself in substantial agreement with his general statement of a third priority, contribution to international order, though I would disagree in regard to some aspects. In his remarks I think he disagreed with the notion that Canada can still play a role in protecting the deterrent so that a stable nuclear balance results. Obviously we disagree with his opinion in this regard, though we agree with the essential proposition that he put forward, namely, that the best way of ensuring the defence of Canada ultimately is by making an effective contribution to international order.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) who preceded me gave us a first-class flashback to vintage 1950 "cold war" days. The thrust of his speech was: Who thinks that the west has anything to gain from opening negotiations with the U.S.S.R.? Well, Richard Nixon thinks so. Willi Brandt thinks so. The NATO alliance thinks so. But apparently the hon. member for Calgary Centre does not think so, and presumably he was speaking for his party in this regard. I would remind the hon. gentleman, and his colleagues, of the statement made by Sir Winston Churchill, that in the question of international security it is far better to jaw, jaw, jaw, than to have war, war, war.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) is rising on a point of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I object very much to the attempt of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) to put into my mouth words that were not there. To start with, I said that trying to work toward peace, to increase trade and the other matters contained in the preamble of this protocol, everybody could agree with and that I agreed with them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can interpret his speech any way he wants, but the fact of the matter is-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hansard has the report of my speech.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hansard may well have it-but in fact he was deprecating the opening of negotiations, whether bilateral or otherwise, with the Soviet Union. I think Hansard will establish that whatever he may say now, that is what he said at the time. The hon. member asked: Who thinks that the west has anything to gain from these negotiations? I put it to him again, Richard Nixon thinks so. Flashing back to the hon. member's vintage speech of the 1950s, it will be recalled that Richard Nixon at that time was not exactly a flaming left winger. During the period of time that these negotiations have been carried on, the United States has pressed forward with the strategic arms limitation talks. However, the hon. gentleman seemed to deprecate progress there, though I think we all stand to gain from those talks.

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said I hoped we would gain from them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Then he deprecated progress at the disarmament meetings and asked what they had established. We have established the treaty banning atmospheric testing. I would also remind him of the treaty prohibiting the use of the seabed for military purposes, as well as the treaty against the use of nuclear weapons in outer space. Then there is the forthcoming treaty, we hope, regarding bacteriological warfare. I agree that progress in the disarmament meetings has not been as great as we would have liked, but I think the hon. member does a disservice to the progress already made in deprecating it in the way he did.
I would also refer to the initiatives taken by President Nixon bilaterally with the Soviet Union, not only in regard to SALT but with regard to the Middle East, as well as the negotiations being conducted by the three occupying powers in Berlin and the Soviet Union.
I should also like to say something about Willi Brandt, who after all is not notoriously pro-communist either. If the hon. member will recall the vintage years from which he springs, Willi Brandt was the leading spokesman for Berlin at the time of the Berlin blockade. Willi Brandt and his Ostpolitik recognized that if there is to be a solution to the question of security in Europe, negotiations have to be opened bilaterally with the east.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And he is in real trouble with it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says he is in real trouble. I suppose that if I were asked to form a judgment as to who knows better the affairs of West Germany, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) or Willi Brandt, the answer would be obvious. Let me also remind the hon. member for Calgary Centre that the parties to NATO have decided on mutual and balanced force reductions as a desirable step, and that it should be an initiative taken by the alliance. The NATO countries have been in close co-operation in the development of a plan to bring about a European security conference. Virtually everyone on the international scene is in favour of negotiations with the Soviet Union to try to lower the temperature of international crises, with the possible exception of the official opposition in this Parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I myself said nothing to the contrary. Forget the red herrings and come to the thrust of my argument.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am always concerned that I might be dull, but I am at least glad to have attracted the attention of the hon. member.
There are a few further points I should like to make about the motion itself. I refer to the second paragraph of this rather rambling grab-bag of criticisms expressed in the somewhat ungrammatical terms of the motion. The hon. member refers to the north and aid to the civil power and argues that the role of the armed forces requires clarification, and that they are ineffective. I would suggest to him that having been in the north with

me last weekend, and he having had the advantage that I have not yet had of taking a northern surveillance flight, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East should know better than to make that particular reference. Let me remind him of the great change during the last several years in government policy in regard to the involvement of the armed forces in Canada's north.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you consider 59 people in the north to be our commitment there?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member knows better than that. He was in the north during an operation under the control of those 59 people and he knows that the full resources of the Canadian armed forces are available at the direction of northern headquarters as and when they are needed in the north.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you give us the real facts?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member made his
speech this morning, and although he may feel it was not a good one he should at least let me make mine. He and I have just returned from the opening of the northern region headquarters which will be the co-ordination centre for Canadian armed forces who go to the north. These activities have been much intensified over the last several years. For example, there are Arctic surveillance flights on a regular basis now from Canadian Forces Base Comox and from Greenwood to provide for continuous aerial surveillance of the Arctic.
There has also been intensified training in the north, both summer and winter, for mobile command land forces in the New Viking exercises, so that in course of time all Canadian land forces and combat troops will have experience of exercises of this kind in the north.
There has been an involvement of the Corps of Engineers from Chilliwack in the construction of the Ogilvie River bridge on the Dempster highway. So we have been giving some attention and interest to other proposals put forward to us to have further use made of talents, particularly of the engineers, in connection with work in the north. There is the suggestion, for example, of Mayor Paul Kaeser of Fort Smith that DND assistance might be forthcoming in the construction of a highway program through Wood Buffalo National Park, to which we have been giving some study. There has been the construction of six new airstrips in conjunction with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I think one of my colleagues will be commenting on that in due course.
Last year the Maritime Command held the first antisubmarine exercise in far northern waters since 1961. That squadron operated into Hudson Bay. The operation will be repeated this year both as a training exercise and, with the fleet support ship involved, to re-supply ports and civil installations along the west coast of Hudson Bay. CF-5 aircraft have been operating in the north in connection with trials at Frobisher Bay and land forces operations there. In other words, the northern region
May 21, 1971

headquarters is a headquarters control centre which has assigned to it the responsibility of tasking a large number of units and personnel from other commands of the Canadian armed forces in the north for the purpose of carrying out operations there and creating an effective Canadian presence, particularly in the northernmost part.
With regard to the suggestion that the forces have been downgraded and have become less effective, this is an echo of the remarks I recall being made in this House at the time of the armed forces unification debate. They are remarks which have emanated particularly from the official opposition and from certain spokesmen outside the House in recent years.
I suppose the best answer to the arguments that the forces are less effective and incapable of carrying forward their tasks are the words of congratulation which the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forestall) used when speaking of the forces' performance last fall. Perhaps the best answer to all these criticisms that the forces are no longer effective or capable of doing their job is the fact that they are not only capable of doing it, but have done it very effectively before the eyes of 22 million Canadians. They have done so not only in the past year at home, but also abroad.
Let me point out as an example the involvement of the officers and men of Air Transport Command during the Peruvian operation in which Canadian Caribou and Buffalo aircraft were the only aircraft capable of operating under these difficult conditions. They won the respect and regard of all governments involved, particularly the Peruvian government which decorated the officers. I might mention the similarly effective and quick support given by Air Transport Command in assisting flood victims of East Pakistan. This is a very effective force and one that is extremely capable, upon short notice, to turn its hand to any one of many tasks planned for it and for which it has been trained.


An hon. Member:: What if they had to do two things at the same time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let me point out to the
hon. member that they have been doing two things at the same time. As a matter of fact, they have been doing many things at the same time. Let me point out, with regard to the land forces role in Canada and elsewhere, that the troops were involved in the events in Quebec, which the hon. member may not have noticed but which was noticed by everybody else in the country, while at the same time they were involved in a peacekeeping operation in Cyprus and in the NATO role in Europe. In other words, they were not only doing two things at the same time, but three-and doing them very well in each case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suppose hon. members think they are helping their case by deprecating their forces, but I think the actions of the forces speak much more vividly than hon. members' words.
National Security Measures


Jack Marshall: Would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) rising on a point of order?


Jack Marshall: I think the minister should be a little more statesmanlike. Perhaps he should join the forces and learn something about-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member wants to get into a parliamentary debate, he should be tough enough to accept the give and take of it. I would point out that the hon. members has questioned the effectiveness of the forces, not only in respect of their training but also of their equipment. Perhaps I should remind him again of the evolution of the forces.


An hon. Member:: Not training equipment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will speak in terms of the equipment and point out, for example, with regard to Maritime Command, an area in respect of which he knows something, we have four new destroyers in the service and three new operational support ships. He has suggested that we need a submarine. Let me remind him that we have four now. He said we needed a submersible, and I remind him that we have one. Our equipment is very well suited for the roles we have to play. One interesting thing in connection with anti-submarine operations and the development of helicopter destroyers- Canada is taking a lead among NATO countries in this regard. As he knows, the devices which have been developed by Maritime Command for the purpose of operating helicopters from ships at sea are really among the most interesting aspects of our forces to other navies. The United States navy in particular is following closely this Canadian lead in establishing helicopter destroyers as a principal anti-submarine weapon.
I think it is fair, in regard to land forces, to point out how infinitely better off we are than we were, for example, in 1963. The infantry battalions in 1963 were mounted exclusively in wheeled vehicles with very limited cross-country mobility. We had no amphibious capability and we were without any night-time fighting aids whatsoever. Today, battalions have one company mounted in amphibious armoured personnel carriers which are equipped with infrared night driving and fighting aids. There are also night surveillance services in all battalions. Equipment and personnel weapons have improved as well. So the hon. member is not quite as current on Canadian armament and mechanism as he should be.
I have already referred to the very considerable achievements of the Canadian armed forces in the air. Let me compare the situation of 1960 with 10 years later. At that time, as the hon. member for Calgary Centre will recall, we had no operational close-support aircraft. We only had 25 light, two-man observation helicopters, no appropriate practical airlift and a strategic lift of 12 Yukons, 23 flying boxcars and four Hercules. Today we

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
have two squadrons of CF-5 tactical tighter bombers and we have taken delivery of the first of 50 utility, 14-passenger helicopters. We have 16 large 28-passenger helicopters and we are getting 74 new observation helicopters. We have 15 Buffalo aircraft and 23 Hercules as well as five 707 jet transports.
The hon. member, in saying that the forces are less effective and not equipped to carry out their role, is not being at all factual. Our forces are very well equipped. It is precisely because of the advanced and carefully planned nature of this equipment that we have been able in the last several years to perform so superlatively the tasks we have undertaken.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Were the F-5 and the Bonaventure planned operations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would agree with the hon. member in respect of the Bonaventure, but he and his colleagues think we should still retain an aircraft carrier in service.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Were they planned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was a bad plan. The difference is, we have learned from that bad plan and the hon. member apparently has not. Whether you are talking about the United States or the United Kingdom, the fact of the matter is that it is recognized that the day of the aircraft carrier has passed. This is recognized by other states, but apparently not by the hon. gentleman and his colleagues.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Was the F-5 well planned, or is that another white elephant?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let me point out to the hon. member that he is not correct. In other states, for example in the Netherlands, which have bought the F-5 aircraft, the NF-5, which is constructed in this country, it has been decided that this close-tactical aircraft is eminently suited for the task for which it was acquired.
In summary, I appreciate the opportunity to set out in a general way the response to some of the points which have been made in this debate. What the hon. member pointed out is hardly significant at this time unless the hon. member who moved the motion is prepared to crystallize some of the issues in the debate, which he did not. I hope to be able to deal with some of the issues again when we bring forth the white paper.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Before the minister resumes his seat, would he be willing to answer a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, go ahead.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is there intention to raise in the white paper the subject which I raised that of the continuance of Canada in NORAD and the possibility of saving up to $200 million a year if we are able to get out of what we think is an obsolete commitment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The white paper does intend to deal with that matter. However, I think I have to correct the figures mentioned by the hon. member. As I recall, the expenditure for Air Defence Command is somewhere in the nature of $105 million. I acknowledge that this is a lot of money and I do not regard it as insignificant, as does, apparently, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. We intend to deal with that question. How we will deal with it, I cannot say to the hon. member, but this is really one of the central questions in Canadian defence policy to which we will have to address ourselves at this time.
I would like to thank the House again for the opportunity to exchange views on some of these points. I will follow with interest comments which other hon. members make so that we may perhaps be able to continue this debate at a future time when we have before us the forthcoming statement on defence policy.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out that the minister has one minute left of the time permitted him. If the hon. member's question goes beyond that time the consent of the House will have to be obtained.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sure we will give consent to the minister if he will answer this question. Would he indicate to us briefly, since most of us anticipated that he would, when we might expect the white paper? While I am on my feet may I remind him that I never said the amount was insignificant. I said that it reflected the insignificant thought and attention paid to it by the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I say, on the latter point, that I noted very carefully what the hon. gentleman said. We will see what appears in Hansard. With regard to the timing of the white paper, as I indicated it is now before cabinet. I hope that before the House rises for the summer it will be available, but of course it depends on the dispatch of other business, in particular the preparation for the constitutional conference and the taxation bill. But I hope we might have it available prior to the summer recess.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member but first of all, as I have indicated, may I point out that the minister's time has just expired. Is there consent of the House to allow the minister extended time for the purpose of receiving a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank members of the House. My question is on the point which I tried to raise during the minister's interesting remarks. He said the government had learned from past errors and mistakes, and he admitted that the Bonaventure was a mistake. I would ask the minister directly if the present plan for the implementation of the DDH program involving several hundred million dollars-I have heard an estimate of around $280
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
May 21, 1971

million as well as some pessimistic estimates of $300 million or $400 million-is the result of learning from past mistakes, and what does he plan to do if the figures go awry as did those for the Bonaventure'!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is evident that the hon. member does not follow questions very closely, nor was he listening very carefully. The fact is that my remark about Bonaventure was that the mistake was in keeping an aircraft carrier in the service. I concede that perhaps this is wisdom after the event. In 1964, when the refit was being considered-and that was the general opinion of the navy-it was considered that an aircraft carrier was an effective weapon. In the fullness of time it became increasingly apparent that aircraft carriers are not effective weapons to keep in service, particularly with the kind of responsibilities that we have.
If we had to do it over again we would probably have retired it from service at the time and concentrated our efforts on the helicopter-destroyer program. The hon. member is not a member of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and was not able to participate in the discussion which we had there on the DDH program. I made it perfectly clear to the committee at that time that I was not happy with the cost overrun.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is slippage, such as for the
Bonaventure.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) said that he had difficulty in communicating a significant thought to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East in the limited time available. I think that even with unlimited time one could not communicate anything to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan).
The fact remains that I have not been happy with the management of that program and I hope we can have an examination of the manner in which it was carried out. However, there does not seem to be any disagreement basically, and I take it that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East does not disagree that these are good ships and that they will perform well the service for which they were designed.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion which is now before the House. Indeed, I would go beyond what it states, namely, that the government's defence policy has merely led to a questioning of our credibility by our allies. I have not the least doubt that they have already ceased to question our credibility as a reliable partner in our international alliances because we have made it manifestly clear that our armed service is to be nothing more than a glorified domestic police force with some additional minor responsibilities for defending our coastal territory, particularly our fishing grounds, against foreign invaders, provided that these invaders are from countries not larger in size than Denmark or Norway.
In the Winnipeg Free Press of March 8, 1971, there appeared an editorial entitled "Defence-the last priority". I should like to quote at length from that editorial, not only because it appeared in a newspaper which has 24107-33
National Security Measures
such a long tradition of supporting the Liberal party but because it states in language which is abundantly clear to anyone just how misguided are this government's defence policies. The editorial reads:
The contradictions in Canada's foreign and defence policies have become so glaring that it hardly requires an example, such as is contained in the British statement on defence estimates, to illuminate the Ottawa authorities' cavalier attitude toward defence. We still seem desperately bothered about the stupidity of unification and what colour of uniform our officers and non commissioned officers will wear. Fortunately, our planners do not have to bother about soldiers, an insignificant minority in our defence establishment-17,850 privates as against 68,155 officers and non-commissioned officers. In the polychrome slick brochures that are to explain Canada's foreign policies, the government tells us grandly about the need to find a more stable and mutually acceptable balance of power in the Pacific. But we tell the Commonwealth nations in Singapore that Canada really does not care if somebody pulls the plug out of the Indian Ocean.
Where the British government "firmly believes that its intention to restore the armed forces to their rightful place in the life of the nation and to keep defence in the front rank of its priorities will in itself provide a direct encouragement to recruitment", Canada has relegated defence to the bottom of her priorities.
Yet defence is not a pipe dream of some military industrial complex, as is often imputed to those who watch with anxiety the growing power of the Soviet Union. "Western security", says the British document, "remains under the shadow of the present and potential threat of the vast military resources of the Soviet Union. The threat is not restricted to the NATO area"-an area upon which Canada is turning her back. "Backed by its still growing strategic nuclear capability, its large and modem conventional forces and its rapidly expanding navy and merchant marine, the Soviet Union is engaged in enhancing its power and influence across the world".
At a time when the western world, and Canada among the foremost, has been freezing or cutting its defence spending, the Warsaw pact nations have been increasing theirs at the rate of 6 per cent a year over the past five years. The new strategic situation of the nine Soviet divisions stationed in Czechoslovakia since 1968 has not been altered despite the talk about detente. Closer to home, the North Atlantic in April, 1970, witnessed the largest ever concentration of Soviet ships engaged in a major maritime exercise. The Caribbean is also an area of increasing activity for the Soviet navy. The situation in the Mediterranean is particularly alarming.
.30 p.m.)
Five years ago the- maximum number of Soviet naval vessels in the Mediterranean was five surface ships, five submarines and ten auxiliaries. In 1970, on the latest assessment, this has risen to 30 surface ships, ten submarines, and 25 auxiliaries.
Under its government, Canada is going through the process of shrugging off its old and tried friends, particularly Great Britain and other European Common Market members, in favour of social and political alliances with countries with whom in the past we have not shared common interests or with whom we have not had any substantial contact. There is a great deal of concern being expressed at present that the Soviet Union is finding the sympathetic ear of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to weaken even further NATO's critical role in the defence of the free world.

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
Undoubtedly there are people who believe that the phrase "free world" is simply another cliche used by the western military alliance and its supporters, of whom I am one, to play on the emotional sympathies of people to oppose what they like to term American imperialism. Let me merely say to those people that while our western societies are not without their defects, our citizens are free to leave their countries when they wish to do so, unlike Jews in the Soviet Union, the people of the Ukraine, the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians.
We do not have any Berlin walls and we have not shot people whose only wish was to leave their country. However unpleasant these harsh realities may be to the soft ears of our diplomats, who seem to wish us to form alliances or enter into understandings with countries whose present governments are among the most repressive in the world, the fact is that the world has not yet reached the state where sheep are safe from wolves.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Communists have fundamentally altered their belief in the necessity for a communist-governed world? It is all very well to speak of the attractions of disarmament, particularly when we all agree that there are great, urgent economic and social problems here in Canada and abroad which require vast additional sums of money, which money in the view of some people should be coming from the funds which are now expended for defence purposes, but I would hope that the lesson given the world in the 1930s would still remain obvious. It is not the weak who preserve peace. On the contrary, given the world situation and the appetites of certain nations, the weak unwittingly invite aggression.
The government has all but destroyed the attractiveness of a military career in the Canadian armed services. This retrograde situation began with the unification of the armed services, the destruction of old and glorious regiments and the declining percentage of our national budget which has been allocated for defence purposes in recent years. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 7, 1971, entitled "Disappearing defences":
We are a wealthy middle power, but we pretend we are in the clan of the underdeveloped nations, another Tanzania on the North American continent. Nobody takes this pretence very seriously, probably not even our government that plays at running-though not very fast-with the third world hares while at the same time hunting, though without much conviction, with the superpower hounds. We have a definite task, and it is sheer folly to abandon it at a time when the western Mediterranean is being turned into a Red Lake, when the eastern Mediterranean is bristling with Soviet air power, a sophisticated array that is aimed at neutralizing the sixth fleet rather than protecting Egypt against Israel, and when the Berlin problem remains far from settled.
In 1951, Canada allocated 27 per cent of its budget to defence expenditures. In 1971, it allocated 14.6 per cent of its budget to the same purpose. Can anyone seriously argue that the world situation has altered so clearly in the interests of long-term peace that such a reduction is justified? Canada, under its present administration, is in the awkward and contradictory position of relying upon the United States for its defence in the event of any
major external threat, while at the same time attempting to use every opportunity to criticize American military preparedness, choosing to ignore the fact that our sovereignty over this, the second largest country in the world, is not assured by our own pitiful military might but by that of our ally to the south, whom so many pseudo Liberals in this country wish to use as a whipping-boy for our national deficiencies as well as for most of the world's economic and social problems.
I believe that the government must reverse its erroneous path and make it abundantly clear to everyone, including our closest allies, that we are prepared to resume a befitting role in our military commitments, and that the government is prepared to begin immediately by restructuring and refitting our armed services so that once again Canadians will seek to serve in our military units and our allies will again take seriously our military commitments. With the Soviet Union's increasing maritime power and its intrusion for military purposes into international waters not previously used by it for such purposes, we ought surely to be developing our capacities, particularly our anti-submarine search and surveillance effectiveness.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I also urge that the government expand the armed services so that it would be possible to maintain a significant number of Canadian troops in the far north, both to establish quite clearly our sovereignty in that area and to discourage any question as to that sovereignty, as well as to give our troops lengthy and actual experience in operating under Arctic conditions. I urge those who believe that we can remain both free and militarily unprepared to examine at once, even in recent history, what has happened to countries which have attempted this fallacy.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the motion makes reference to the "role of our armed forces at home-with particular reference to our north." I would like to discuss some of the ways in which the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of National Defence are working together in our north.
As hon. members know, the Department of National Defence has had a presence in the north for some time, and its experience has been put to use in a number of ways. The special problems of communications in the north are being researched at a $325,000 operations' building located four miles north of Inuvik. I think some of us in the south are very prone to take for granted the communications systems which we have readily available to us, but one has only to spend a limited amount of time in some of the more remote settlements of the north to realize how fundamental and essential proper communications are to their existence.
Other more mundane but vital developments have taken place in clothing and equipment for the Arctic. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of National Defence are co-operating to build airstrips in the north. The aim is to promote communication to the various outposts for year-round administration and health services. To allow the landing

May 21, 1971

of Hercules aircraft, four airstrips are being extended at Chesterfield Inlet, Pond Inlet, Whale Cove and Cape Dorset. Two others are being constructed at Igloolik and Pangnirtung. The construction of these airstrips over the next five years will utilize as much local civilian labour as possible.
This summer, work will begin on a 360-foot steel and concrete bridge across the Ogilvie River in the Yukon Territory. This bridge is being built for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by the Department of National Defence. In addition to hiring natives on construction sites, the Department of National Defence has been actively recruiting northern people for the armed forces. CFB Borden has offered an aerospace and engineering course. This training program is sponsored by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is designed to meet the demand for civilian pilots in Canada's north and to involve native peoples in the development of the north. The Department of National Defence has special programs for the native youth. Many young men have participated in many youth programs such as the Young Voyageurs, Sea Scouts and cadets. The feeling is that the broadening of their horizons through such activity will be a vital factor in helping the native youth to adapt to changes in their environment.
The Department of National Defence has a special role in Arctic search and rescue operations. As members are well aware, Canadian forces planes are often called upon to aid in rescue operations and to transport emergency hospital cases. Plans are being laid for the Department of National Defence to provide emergency airlift operations for disasters in our north such as the one which occurred recently when there was a gas blow-out on King Christian Island.
Arctic research is a vital area for co-operation in the north. Consideration is being given to having the Department of National Defence help in the aerial surveillance of mineral surveys, seismic activity and on underwater equipment, particularly during its installation. Transportation is often provided for departmental personnel by DND. The Department of National Defence is providing vocational training programs for the native peoples of the north and is doing a great deal to involve them directly in its development.
I know that my colleague the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has some observations to make in this area, and other hon. members opposite. I shall close now, having listed the areas where there is a substantial amount of co-operation between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and supported by the Conservative party, in essence criticizes the government for reducing our defence capacity by erosion of our NATO commitment and reduction of our armed forces, etc. At 24107-33J
National Security Measures
the outset I must say that I am very much opposed to this resolution. It is pretty well the opposite of what I would have recommended to the government, and it is the antithesis of what I and many people of my ideological belief stand for.
I am very much dismayed when I listen to speeches made in this debate by members of the Conservative party, and in particular their remarks about the things that have happened in regard to the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union. I think we should all be applauding agreements such as that signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Soviet government. It is the type of contact and communication we need and the type of bridge that should be built.
I am very happy to see the government reduce our commitment to NATO and reduce our forces in Europe. I would like to see them go much further and get out of NATO completely, as I suggested in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence the other day. As I say, I am dismayed when I hear the views of members to my right whose ideas are neanderthal and reactionary and are not doing anything to make Canada a country which would contribute to world peace and international development.
It is a very good thing that Canada is starting to move on the international scene. It is good that we have recognized that China exists, and that we now have an embassy in Peking. I hope we move as rapidly as possible to make more arrangements between Canada and China. The people in my constituency would be happy if we could increase trade in potash and wheat with countries such as China. This is the type of thing we should be doing instead of following the reactionary and outdated advice of some members of the Conservative party. I feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when I hear some members of his party speak on this motion. Perhaps that is why the debate is taking place when he is not here.
I realize the position that I am about to take may be unpopular in this House, but I think it is gaining increasing support among the younger people of this country especially and, indeed, among other citizens as well. I come from a generation that was born after the end of the Second World War. We were born into an age of scientific revolution-a revolution that has transplanted hearts, flown men to the moon and provided us with such sophisticated technology that we can now dream of doing almost anything. We have developed weapons that make the bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima look like children's toys. That is why I am concerned about some of the priorities the world has, as evidenced by a motion such as this one.
We are the first generation that goes to bed at night with the knowledge that the pressing of a button could destroy the world because of the tremendous stockpile of sophisticated weapons and the delivery systems of the United States and the Soviet Union. This is the type of world we live in, but still we hear calls for a further escalation in defence spending and a polarization of the world community. Motions like this are doing precisely that, instead of going in the opposite direction.

May 21. 1971
National Security Measures
In the United States this week there was a motion by Senator Mansfield, which was defeated, which called for a cutback of U.S. troop commitment in Europe. We see a continuation of the war in Indochina and a continuation of the burden of poverty and starvation in many countries. People of my generation are challenging some of the fundamental and traditional beliefs that this society has practised for so many years. However, we do not seem to get many answers.
We seem to live in a world that is more interested in money and in trying to kill each other than in spending money for peaceful means of developing the world around us. We are now in a new age and need new solutions to old problems, but instead we rely on old solutions. We have a world community which is really a community of anarchy. We live by the balance of terror. If you have a big bomb on one side, you must have a bigger one on the other side as a deterrent. This is the goal and objective that all of us seem to pursue, instead of pursuing the goals of reducing tension and trying to disarm.
We live by the philosophy of the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. This is the kind of thing we cannot risk in this world of sophisticated weapons. We live by the philosophy: My country, right or wrong. But if everybody lives by that philosophy the result is likely to be devasting.
We must have a new approach, not only in Canada but around the world. When I see a motion like the one before us, I am disappointed, when so many people around the world are trying to reach better understanding. Here we have a Conservative party which is saying, "We should escalate tensions and spend more money on defence, more on NATO and such organizations". I suggest that we should do exactly the opposite, Mr. Speaker. As a middle power nation, Canada should lead the way in trying to make this a better world.
What should be Canada's role? Have our interests changed? I think they have changed considerably in the last 20 years. I think the scene of activity has shifted away from Europe to the undeveloped countries of the third world. We have seen the growing gap between the have and have-not countries of this world, and we have not seen as much emphasis on international development as we should have. Canada should take the lead in many of these areas, as a respected middle power and a nation trusted by many peoples of different ideologies. I do not see things as black and white as do some Tories. I think there is a central ground, and Canada can lead the middle power nations in pursuing goals with countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Zambia.
I think Canada could make a real contribution if we joined some of these other countries in seeking a third way toward peace and international development. You see more and more of this happening among nations of the third world. I hope that Canada can take the lead in that area, instead of dragging behind. That is why I welcome what the Prime Minister has done in the Soviet
Union. That is why I welcome our diplomatic recognition of China. We ought to be doing things like these, but at an even faster rate.
Secondly, I think that Canada should concentrate on strengthening the United Nations as an international body, instead of putting so much effort into NATO, NORAD and other regional military pacts. I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), spent several minutes talking about NORAD. I will not repeat what he said. I agree that NORAD is not only obsolete but that it detracts from world security and prevents or deters the possibility of peace. By contributing to NORAD we are building up tensions instead of de-escalating them. We could save all that money and spend it much more constructively, as others have suggested, on the world community if we did not spend it on defence pacts or in supporting regional organizations.
I am one of those-and the group is growing ever larger-who believe that Canada should withdraw from NATO immediately. For many years NATO has been strictly a military alliance which has been dominated by the United States in a way similar to that in which the Warsaw pact has been dominated by the Soviet Union. If Canada is to pursue an independent foreign policy, we must get out of NATO; otherwise we shall not be able to develop the position that we ought to enjoy in the world community.
On looking at some of the objectives of the NATO alliance, I think it is rather ironic to see that one of its basic objectives is the strengthening and safeguarding of democracy by embracing such authoritarian regimes, alliance there are countries like Greece and Portugal which are autocratic and authoritarian, which are not democratic and which do not have elected parliaments. If that is what NATO is all about, I do not want any part of it for Canada. You cannot save, preserve or develop democracy by embracing such authoritarian regimes. Those countries are in NATO, and that is another reason why we can make a more effective contribution to world peace and development by getting out of this regional organization.
Thirdly, I think that NATO today only increases world tensions. It only polarizes the world community. If Canada were to withdraw from that organization, we could contribute to a de-escalation of tensions both in NATO countries and in Warsaw pact countries. I think that Canada should take the lead here. I am happy that we have de-escalated our role in NATO. We should go all the way and get out altogether. That is one of the greatest contributions we could make to world peace and development.


Mr. Aiken:: Surely the hon. member does not believe that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I believe that, although I am not surprised that the hon. member of the Conservative party does not. His party is so out of touch with the realities of the world around us that it has put on the order paper a motion such as the one we are discussing.

May 21, 1971


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member would not now be making his speech if it were not for the protection given to Canada by NATO. If the hon. member believes what he is saying, I feel sorry for him.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I believe it, otherwise I would not be saying it. More and more people are saying what I am saying, with the exception of a few reactionary Tories who, like dinosaurs, are living far in the past. There is so much trouble in the world because some people believe what the hon. member believes. Nothing is ever totally black or white in this world. There are not only the free enterprise, capitalist countries on the one hand and communist countries on the other: there is a third alternative that countries such as Canada should be pursuing. I could make other remarks about NATO, but time will not permit. I have given a few reasons to support my contention that we should withdraw from that organization.
As I said before, I think Canada should develop an independent foreign policy. In doing that, we should concentrate much more on international development and on peacekeeping. In that way we could make a real contribution to world peace. I think, also, that we should try to strengthen the United Nations and make the world a more harmonious place for all of us to live in, regardless of where we live or the colour of our skin. We must try to communicate more with one another. If we do not communicate there will not be any central agency for the exchange of ideas. As a result, we cannot expect anything but trouble. That is why I welcome any move that will open up a world community and make this one world. After all, in many ways international boundaries do not exist any more. They do not exist in many ways for finance or for modern communications. We must realize that the world community is rapidly becoming a global community and we should be formulating our policies with that in mind.
As I said, I think the motion before us puts emphasis on the wrong priorities and points in the wrong direction. It suggests policies that are the opposite of those that Canada should be pursuing today. Instead of pursuing those policies, we should be trying to get out of NORAD and NATO. We should concentrate on strengthening the United Nations, on peacekeeping and on international development. The policies suggested by the motion will not do us much good because, if adopted, we shall be contributing to the polarization in the world. When that happens you may have, suddenly, a nuclear war. That is what will happen if on these questions we support the narrow-minded, anachronistic views that have prevailed in the past.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbel:
Mr. Speaker, before giving my few thoughts may I comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Although I respect his thoughts and his youth, I feel that if he would read history and learn what happened particularly after the First World War and in the 25 years after the end of that war and the beginning of the Second World War, he would probably make a new assessment of what the protection of our country means.
National Security Measures


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have read history.


Jack Marshall: Previous speakers have covered very well some important factors with regard to the direction that our defence policy might be taking, and it is only left to me to make some general comments about my thoughts regarding defence policy over the years. Canada's defence policy, to my mind, has been a series of short-term stabs in the dark, depending on the whims and fancies of whoever was Minister of National Defence at the appropriate time. There is only one exception to this rule. The only time we had a clear cut defence policy was when the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Hark-ness) was Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: At the present time we are waiting with some anxiety to see what the minister will produce in the way of a directive on the course we are to take in the future. This will be the second white paper that I will have seen in the three years that I have been in politics here.
Let us consider the present state of our forces. The worst blunder that can be made is reducing our forces to 82,000, as we are doing. It will be interesting to hear, in my humble opinion, what some of our retired generals and other senior officers who left the forces in recent years in disgust over our integration and unification policies-whichever came first at the time-have to say about this reduction in strength to 82,000. It would also be interesting if we could be behind closed doors with the chiefs of staff and senior officers at other levels of command and learn their opinions on the question of how we can fulfil our commitments, even according to our last set of priorities, with 82,000 officers and men.
If we were to break down the strength of our Canadian forces, which include 42,000 administrative and support personnel, I am sure we would find that with the 40,000 fighting troops left our strength could not be committed to any exercise larger than the one we unfortunately faced last October in Quebec. Without trying to sound too alarming, I ask: How would our forces have been able to react if a similar incident had sprung up in another part of our country? Thank God, Mr. Speaker, that we were not faced with that situation, because it would have been very embarrassing.
When the minister says that we do not respect the capability and efficiency of our forces, surely he is being very childish. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the reduction of our forces to 82,000 will reduce them to a state of ineffectiveness. I am not looking for any massive force just for the sake of competing with other nations. I realize that most of our efforts as peace-loving Canadians should be directed toward peaceful missions. I also realize that our funds are not limitless. Canada is not a warlike nation. We have no history of military aggression, and our proud military achievements have been directed toward helping

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
other friendly nations combat aggression by other nations with a greed for power. Some of these nations are friendly today. By visiting the war graves in Europe we are reminded of the cost of past wars. We need only visit the war memorials to see the scars left by wars.
We spend money on insurance policies for protection in the event of accidents, fire and sickness, even though we hope they will not strike. Canadians who are charged with the protection of our citizens must be prepared to spend money to defend our country, not only from outside aggression but from internal strife. We must be prepared to protect our sovereignty and to contribute toward the maintenance of world peace. We must recognize our total commitment. Our involvement must be limited to our capacity to pay for such commitments. We do not become proficient by introducing policies without a fundamental appreciation of our aims and objectives or just for the sake of change. This change reminds me of the sensational unification policy of the then Minister of National Defence.
It is not my intention to labour this point of the responsibility for evolving Canada's present role in the over-all spectrum of defence. However, I want to make it clear to those who are responsible for reviewing current policy that it was not a military decision to unify the forces. The responsibility was beyond them. It is a pity that there were not more resolute hearts among the ranks of the admirals, generals and air marshalls who retired in disgust, or that there were not fewer opportunists. It was an exercise in sensationalism for the sake of being sensational, and an exercise in drama for the sake of being dramatic. It was as expert a public relations job as we will ever see.
The results are well known. Those left with straightening out the mess over the past few years have been belaboured with trying to resolve a breakdown in morale and efficiency. However, I have no doubt that the remaining military-oriented and experienced commanders will resolve the travesty. Will the cost ever be known as well as the waste of manpower? Those who brought our fighting troops to victory and glory were cast aside. In their retirement, they must sit and wonder why this happened. I realize that reminding us of the past is an exercise in futility, but I think it is as worth while as the lessons we learned in military schools to study the battles which we have lost in order that we do not lose again.
In the last white paper on national defence, our military roles were listed as maintaining Canadian sovereignty, aid to the civil power, contributing to deterring war and even to aid in economic development. It will be interesting to read what our new strategy will be in defining our role under the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). I sincerely hope that a clearly defined policy will be produced which will last beyond a couple of years, because it is embarrassingly obvious that we have had more changes in the past few years than should normally be expected with clear, military thinking.
We have had integration and continuous cutbacks in our naval forces, army and overseas commitments. We must have a sensible appreciation once and for all with
regard to our aims and objectives, commensurate with what we can spend in the next few years. We must make up our mind whether we will stand up and take our place with an adequate armed force or depend on the American capability to defend North America.
With regard to the future role of our forces, if we cannot maintain a large enough force to react to all emergencies we should seriously study the role of our reserve forces which are being reduced to a state of ineffectiveness. Since World War II the role of the militia has been almost an annual exercise in futility, with changing roles. The support of the reserve forces has been passive, to say the least. I suggest to the minister that our reserve forces should be considered with much more realization of their value in terms of being prepared in case of need and to realistically support the parent, regular forces. I can assure the minister that the 17,000 individuals in our reserve force and militia are dedicated. From the standard of officers whom the minister meets at the conference of defence associations, I am sure he has seen that these part-time soldiers want to play a role on behalf of their country.
The ability of our forces to react in situations such as the Quebec incident emphasizes that training in the militia could be directed to realistic support of our regular forces in aid to the civil power. It is worth asking what would have happened last October if the forces had had to react to more than one such incident. Given encouragement, logistic support and proper training, militia men would be ideal for such duty. Their local, on the spot familiarization gives them the opportunity to train in co-operations with police, firemen and emergency measures organizations. The example of tasking elements of militia units to regular force counterparts and periodically exercising personnel in Europe was successful beyond expectations. This emphasizes the ability of our Canadian youth to quickly adapt by exposing them to the expert training ability of our regular forces.
Another failure on the part of our experts in the role of the militia was to ignore, other than by passing motion, the participation of the conference of defence associations. This always ended in asking them to ratify a plan which was already decided upon. I hope the minister will correct this error and remember our new philosophy of involvement at every level of our society.
If our budget does not permit the maintenance of an adequate force, we must build up our reserves to meet our requirements. In order to accomplish this we must be prepared to provide a sensible nucleus of regular force staff to direct and ensure efficiency in training and in logistic support. The most serious problem in the reserves today is the turnover of personnel. This is due to a lack of training in administrative cadre across the country.
Some years ago the department initiated a series of six-week special militia training courses to provide our young citizens with a basic exposure to the requirements of civil defence. This was an important issue at that time. It was also initiated to overcome a lack of employment which existed. I remind the minister that the cabinet could give serious consideration to reviving such a pro-

May 21, 1971

gram. It would be very timely in facing our unemployment crisis. The basic concept of our militia should be that we can produce efficiency and a proud and dedicated back-up for our regular forces in the case of need and in aid to the civil power. It could form the nucleus in leadership in solid and productive programs for the youth of our country.
We must continue to support what is probably the best program ever sponsored by the Department of National Defence, the cadet services of Canada. It is unfortunate that we have not kept a record of the results of this training in connection with our school systems and under sponsorship of service organizations. If this had been done we could have seen the results of such programs in producing better citizens. I hope the government will continue to support such a program across our nation and, more important, to allow more participation in it.
I give full marks to the minister for providing a more wide-ranging program in the area of special militia training and providing civilian employment for students and others up to the age of 24 years. The broadening of this program to include research and engineering products, food services and physical education programs deserves merit. I am in favour of the program of six weeks' instruction at mobile command bases across Canada in first-aid, hunter safety, bush survival search and rescue, water safety, citizenship, adventure training, leadership and instructional techniques. However, such courses should be provided on a much larger scale because never have we needed more to provide our youth with a sense of purpose, especially in the fields of physical fitness and leadership training.
In our apparent desire to involve our youth and to invite them to confront our government leaders in a sense of participation, we should use basic common sense and allow them to participate in a meaningful way with the proper leadership training which they can pass on to others and at the same time earn enough to complete their education. On the one hand the minister tells us that the numbers must be restricted because of lack of funds; on the other hand the government is prepared to pay students to hitchhike across the country because we want them to see Canada. We have come up with a pretty good Canada as it is, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder what Member of Parliament would have thought, as a youth, that he deserved a government-sponsored tour to make a better country.
We became a better country by hard work and pride in being independent, by suffering through world wars. No one wants to hear the word "war" any longer. So let us put the expertise in military training to a more useful goal as part of their future role-to provide leadership and training to others by healthy and useful participation and direct the energies of our youth to make a useful contribution, and not by inviting them to become militant against those who govern.
Let our youth prepare themselves to provide better government in the future by an over-all plan of instilling
National Security Measures
a sense of responsibility to show how much we need their energies to make a better Canada. We can show them Canada on television in their leisure hours, but they will become better Canadians if they expend some effort through their healthy minds and bodies.
The motion before us today is timely in that it urges the government to declare a defence policy which will indicate that we can and will define a clear and purposeful role for our armed forces, and I hope we will see proof of that in the near future.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I will leave to the experts of the defence committee the question whether we should be moving our armed forces into or out of Europe. I intend to direct my remarks today to what I believe to be the role of the armed forces in the Canadian north.
Historically, the first appearance of the Canadian armed forces in the Canadian north was back in the Klondyke days, the days of the Yukon gold rush. In 1898, a regular force officer, Colonel Evans, led the Yukon field force into the Yukon to work with the Northwest Mounted Police to maintain order and discipline in that unruly era. The field force remained in the Yukon for many years before moving on.
During the course of the years the communications system of the Yukon and the Mackenzie was manned by the northwest signal system of the signal corps. When it became apparent that the private sector was able to take over communications in the territories, the signal corps left. After the Second World War, when the United States army moved out of the Yukon, responsibility for maintaining the Alaska highway, the northwest highway system, was left with the military.
With the growth of civilian services in the area this arrangement, too, passed from the scene and for a number of years the presence of the military in the Canadian north was limited to a number of installations, primarily communications stations at Frobisher Bay, Alert and Inuvik. Exercises were occasionally held in the north to measure the effectiveness of equipment, supplies and communications.
Last year, however, on May 15, the then Minister of National Defence announced the establishment of a northern region command. When Mr. Cadieux made his announcement he indicated that one of the purposes of establishing a northern headquarters was to strengthen Canada's military presence north of the sixtieth parallel. A small aircraft-servicing detachment was established at Frobisher and increased air surveillance coverage was provided.
Together with some of my hon. friends in the House I had the opportunity of joining the committee on national defence and the minister last week in Yellowknife to celebrate Northern Command's first year and to dedicate Colonel Evans' headquarters' building in Yellowknife. In the past year we have seen the development of a reasonably effective plan for the presence of the armed forces north of the sixtieth parallel. Reasonably enough, the size of the permanent force at this stage is limited. They are

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
responsible for logistic and technical support for all commands as they go north of the sixtieth parallel. These commands, whether their forces are seaborne or ground forces, have a responsibility to work with the northern region command so as to carry out an effective exercise in any part of the territories.
In the past year a considerable number of exercises have taken place in various parts of the north to determine the ability of our forces to move and survive in various parts of the Arctic in both summer and winter conditions, to develop new techniques of search and *rescue, and so on. So we have seen a start on the infrastructure. I think I can say that northern people welcome this initiative, not only in terms of the national scene but because they are delighted to have a military presence back again north of the sixtieth parallel.
Other hon. members, especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), have indicated there were many areas in which a military presence could play an effective role in helping develop the Canadian north. My hon. friend made reference to a joint program of building airstrips in co-operation with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. A program for building these airstrips has been set out for seven or eight years based on the availability of funds to be provided by one department, the Department of Northern Affairs. However, because of the military involvement this program can now be completed much earlier and many northern communities will be served by adequate airstrips much sooner than would have been the case under the old arrangements.
The engineering corps has undertaken the responsibility of building a bridge across the Ogilvie River. This is a bridge which would have been completed eventually by the civil authority, but because the military were able to undertake this task, funds were released enabling the highway approaches to be completed, incidently opening access to the Arctic Ocean from the Yukon territory. There are many other areas in which military forces could make a positive contribution.
The minister referred to his visit to Fort Smith last Sunday when the mayor of that community, Mr. Paul Kaeser, directed his attention to a proposal to use the services of the young people in the north who are undergoing vocational training, in co-operation with the technical abilities of the armed forces, to complete a stretch of road which is so low on the list of priorities for northern development that I doubt it will be completed in the seventies.
-20 p.m.)
However, a program is now being worked out between various government departments to use the skills of young northerners, under supervision of experts in the armed forces, to complete one other step in the process of northern development and thus fulfil the dream and the hope of many people in that area. When we had the opportunity of introducing the minister last Sunday, and following the mayor's eloquent plea for the building of this road, I could not help but think that if the Minister
of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) were able to pull it off, this highway should be named after him.
We must also look at the relationship between the military and the civilian community in the north. I have already indicated that this particular road is low in the order of priorities and probably would not be completed during this decade. However, I think that the military have the responsibility for ensuring that their activities, be they in the field of engineering, search and rescue or something else, do not conflict with the interests of civilian operators and people engaged in private enterprise. I believe the military are conscious of that and are making a serious attempt to ensure that there is no such conflict. However, we cannot repeat too often that we must keep close surveillance of and observation of the relationships between the military and the civilian community.
In the field of search and rescue, Northern Command will be setting up a small aircraft fleet in Yellowknife. From time to time there will be pressure to provide services that are normally provided by the civilian operators, and I believe we should insist that there be no conflict here. There will be cases, as happened last week, when a civilian operator is unable to provide the service. Since the military had available the equipment to meet a very serious situation facing one mining community, the mining community, the management, the military and the civilian operators were able to work out a mutual arrangement satisfactory to all and at the same time meet an emergency situation.
With regard to airstrips, by and large there are no communities in the north with civilian operators who can provide equipment to build airstrips. However, in one particular community, Igloolik, it is proposed to go ahead with the development of an airstrip. At the same time, there is an Eskimo community with the necessary equipment to build the airstrip and I think all concerned have agreed it would be better to move this project to another community rather than to conflict with the interests of the Eskimos at Igloolik.
There are still many areas in the north with which the Department of National Defence can concern itself. Last week, during his stop in Yellowknife, the Minister of National Defence announced an exciting new program of recruitement to interest young northerners in a career in the armed forces. The minister indicated that an attempt will be made to recruit 100 men and women for training in the administrative, transportation, supply, food services and communications fields. He went on to say that on completion of their training these young people from the north will be qualified to serve in any armed forces unit; however, particular emphasis will be placed on locating them in the north.
The minister indicated that opportunities were manifold for northerners, but possibly most important of all was that with increased activity of armed forces personnel in the north and by arrangement with northern headquarters a requirement has developed in the north for people with a special knowledge of local working and living conditions and the terrain in the north, to kick off this program. Recruiting teams from various parts of southern Canada are planning to visit the major com-

May 21, 1971

munities of Yellowknife, Inuvik, Whitehorse, Frobisher Bay, Fort Smith, Hay River and Churchill within the next month to meet and talk with young people coming out of the high schools.
Under this program, initially these young people will go to Cornwallis in Nova Scotia to follow whatever trade they choose. They will be trained in groups and ultimately will move back to the north if they so wish. I believe this is an exciting program that will accomplish a lot of things and will provide an opportunity to develop expertise on the north within the armed forces. It also gives the young people of the north an opportunity to have a career in the armed forces. Following their training and service, many of them may leave the armed forces and use their skills in some other capacity in the north.
There are also other areas in which the armed forces can participate. For example, over the years the Ranger Corps has been a very successful operation. It was developed at the end of World War II and has been kept together primarily by a number of very dedicated officers of the armed forces. However, with Northern Command it seems to me the Ranger Corps should be expanded so as to use the talents and knowledge of northerners for surveillance purposes and to assist the military.
Another area that I hope the minister will take a look at is the use in years to come of young Canadians from the south as part of the armed forces team working during the summer months in the Canadian north carrying out a number of projects. For example, following the end of World War II the United States government abandoned all of its equipment along the Canol pipeline. This has been a disaster in terms of the amount of debris that is scattered along the line. I do not think that at this stage the civilian authority is in a position to divert funds to employ people to clear the area, but this might well provide an opportunity for a number of young Canadians to work on such a project over a period of time. It would enable them to see something of the north while providing a very useful service.
Development of canoe routes and preservation of historical sites are two more endeavours for our young people, under the direction and supervision of the military forces, which would enable them to perform a very useful and functional role in the north in years to come. I suggest that the talents of our young people could also be used in the building of emergency airstrips along, for example, the Mackenzie River valley.
At the present time there are landing strips at certain villages near mining or oil developments. It seems to me that with the increase in tourism in the north, particularly those coming in small aircraft, it is desirable that we have these emergency strips along the Mackenzie River so that in the event of trouble aircraft operators will know they are not far from a landing strip. This could be accomplished in a very simple way by employing groups of young people to work on these airstrips after being trained in the south. It would provide young Canadians with an opportunity of seeing something of the Canadian
National Security Measures
north, and at the same time allow them to serve a useful purpose.
I have indicated that we welcome the armed forces presence in the north. In certain areas there can be a conflict with civil services in terms of engineering projects or aircraft services in relation to search and rescue work. I believe the Canadian north will be a much richer place because of the presence of members of the Canadian armed forces and their families. I am personally very happy to have had the opportunity of participating in this debate, and I wish the armed forces great success north of the sixtieth parallel.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have great pleasure in taking part in this debate and in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). This motion will give us a brief opportunity on this Friday afternoon to bring attention to our armed forces and some of the problems the minister faces as we move into the 1970s.
Without re-reading the motion we have before us, let me say to the minister-who is in the House at the moment, although he may not stay until the end of the debate-that had I spoken before him during this debate I would have suggested that many men in the armed services who have experienced many internal battles, including the battle of unification and others, were apprehensive about the appointment of this minister. They were apprehensive because of statements he made about the armed forces before he became Minister of National Defence.
Many of these armed forces personnel know the history of other ministers of national defence, some of whom, it can be suggested, manipulated the role of the armed services. The climate has not been too healthy or constructive. Since the minister assumed the portfolio these apprehensions and concerns have been diluted. Members of the forces, along with parliamentarians, are prepared to give the minister more time before making a decision. We will wait until we see the white paper on defence which was supposed to be placed before Parliament before now.
The minister said earlier that he had some difficulty in communicating any thoughts to myself. I can readily understand that, because at times I think the minister has difficulty in formulating an original thought, let alone communicating it to any hon. member, even this member who always has a receptive ear. I have always been in support of most service operations and I am waiting to see what this new Minister of National Defence is prepared to do.
The purpose of this motion is to articulate some of the concern felt by members on all sides of the House about the emphasis to be placed on defence policy as we head into the 1970s. It was suggested that during this debate the opposition would have an opportunity to put forward a blueprint on national defence. I think this is a rather naive suggestion. The minister seems to take some satisfaction from the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. member for Green-
6066

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
wood (Mr. Brewin), who put forward generalized national defence policies. I really cannot see what help he gets from them. The hon. member for York-Simcoe commented on the remarks of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And he is not in the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: in the last two or three days. Do we, or do we not, have a new detente? Are we not fooling ourselves, because our Prime Minister with a tulip between his teeth can parade through Red Square, that this will make any more doves of peace fly through the world?
Does the fact that the Bolshoi ballet may be one of the better ballets in the world remove the Berlin wall? I think not. I say with some hesitation that I have no confidence whatsoever in the international dialogue, monologue or prescience of the Prime Minister who not so many years ago thought the Second World War was a war of imperialism. It is that type of theoretical, idealistic philosophy which was wrong then and which, if it means anything to the Soviet Union, could get us into a, lot of trouble.
In saying this I do not want to fall into the same trap in which the Minister of National Defence tried to put the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) earlier, when he said that the hon. member was against discussion, against consultation and against negotiation. The minister used a word which the hon. member for Calgary Centre did not even use, in trying to paraphrase what the hon. member said about the words of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Brandt-that we have things to gain in talking to our Russian friends the same as we have things to gain in communicating with the Chinese. We have things to gain in communicating with the Hungarians, the Czechoslovakians and many other people under the suppression of the Russian bear. Of course there should be discussion and communication on technology, on science and on the development of the north. There should be more bilateral arrangements and discussions. The hon. member for Calgary Centre did not use the word "gain".
Of course Mr. Nixon knows that to achieve world peace one has to talk to the big superpower; and that is why Mr. Nixon might want to do what we have done in recognizing China, because it is unreal to have one of the largest countries in the world outside the community of nations. There is a difference between what the hon. member for Calgary Centre said and what I am trying to say and the interpretation by the Minister of National Defence or his misrepresentation.
It is not that we disagree that we should have communication and discussion with the Soviet Union or be receptive to any overture from them. But how should we interpret what was evidently said by our Prime Minister yesterday in a press conference, after signing the protocol, that it was necessary to further develop agreements with Russia to maintain our own culture? Those are the words which I read in the press and which may have been misquoted.
Apparently we have much to learn from the Russians in a cultural or political way. I could ask many rhetorical questions such as, what do we have to learn from the Russians in a political or economic way? One could follow that through further than I intend today, but I suggest that their whole economic infrastructure and their whole economic philosophy leaves little for us to emulate. Quite the opposite, they could learn something from this society, even though questions might be put
National Security Measures
regarding how "just" it is from time to time. We know it is not always pure, but at least it is more open than some other societies.
I do not know who has more to learn about freedom. One could talk to people in Hungary and Czechoslovakia who could tell us a lot about freedom. I suggest that while Canadians should be receptive and have a positive frame of mind regarding bilateral arrangements in areas of science and technology and some other things mentioned in the protocol tabled in Hansard of Thursday, we should be most concerned and on guard and not misled by this'new detente that seems to have sprung out of nowhere.
Let us not forget that another Prime Minister in the Liberal party went to Germany in 1938 and thought that Mr. Hitler was a rather interesting individual. That was Mackenzie King. And a British Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, had a similar attitude. I am not suggesting that the Soviet Union is necessarily like Mr. Hitler's Germany, but there are some aspects of it which certainly should not receive universal acclaim from Members of Parliament, regardless of the party to which they belong.
For this reason we should be careful and cautious not to let the euphoria of tulips in the springtime in Moscow affect our readiness to participate in a meaningful way in the defence arrangements which have allowed us liberty, licence and sometimes excesses in this country. Anyone who suggests that you can lie down and play dead, be unentangled and uninvolved, should look at such countries as Russia, Sweden or Switzerland to find out that there is little involvement there.
Why should we be neutral? Why should we be a vacuum? In fact, we cannot be a vacuum living next to the United States. This is the part I am most suspicious about, that a Prime Minister who has travelled more through Russia and China than he has travelled in the United States thinks things are so odious to the south of us that he has to counterbalance them with entanglements and arrangements with Russia. It is that type of philosophy that produces this type of reasoning. However theoretical or idealistic it may be, it just does not work out in the world of reality and we must remember our history and the many things that we have shared with the people to the south of us. But with that general caveat applied to the question of the protocol on consultations, when the Prime Minister returns I would like him to explain paragraph 2, which reads;
In the event of a situation arising which, in the opinion of the two governments, endangers the maintenance of peace or involves a breach of the peace-
-there are to be consultations. When our Prime Minister is talking to Brezhnev and President Kosygin, would he find out if that is going to apply in the case of Hungary, of Czechoslovakia, of Korea and Viet Nam? And if it would apply, is it the case that the Russian bear would just open one ear and then go on to do what he was going to do anyway, and are we just fooling ourselves?
I suggest that a country like Canada, that could have participated in a meaningful way in the Southeast Asia
24107-34|

May 21, 1971
National Security Measures
situation under the auspices of the International Control Commission but found it was practically useless to participate with countries so directly involved in the east-west conflict, is only fooling itself if we, its people, think we can participate in a meaningful way as an honest broker-which the Prime Minister says we are not-or in any other consultative way with the Soviet Union.
I am amazed that my time has expired and that I have not dealt with Maritime Command.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I find that there are only a few minutes left in which to take part in this debate. I realize that I am following some very knowledgeable speakers from all corners of the House on the matter of defence. I want to discuss one aspect of the motion presented by our party, that dealing with the reduction in our active and reserve forces. I ask, why should our forces not be up to strength? Is there dissatisfaction in our forces today? Very briefly I wish to discuss a survey done within the last three months covering a cross-section of our armed forces.
The reason for the survey was a suggestion made by the Public Service Alliance of Canada to the government that in some way the armed forces might be organized along union lines. When I read the suggestion I had grave misgivings that the forces could be unionized, having had some experience in the active forces in the last war and in the reserve forces. However, many of us felt that we should ask the members of the armed forces what their feelings were on this subject. We chose a number of military bases in Canada, including Base Gagetown which is in my constituency and is one of the finest military bases in the British Commonwealth.


An hon. Member:: Next to Greenwood.


John Chester MacRae: I would dispute that. Some 25 per cent of those who were questioned responded. Was there much opposition to the survey? Rather surprisingly, there was not, although some may have felt that they should not have been written to and a few wrote back to say so. One reply that I remember in particular was that we should keep the army out of politics, and politics out of the army. But of course, Mr. Speaker, at head of the Department of National Defence we have a man who first of all must be elected to the House of Commons.
I would like to put on the record a brief summary respecting the response to the questions we asked. If the minister does not already know about this, I think he will find it of considerable interest. From an analysis of the replies of those who responded we were able to ascertain the following: There appears to be a substantial degree of disenchantment among armed forces personnel about the decision-making process concerning their working conditions.
On the whole, army respondents and non-commissioned respondents have expressed a higher degree of
disenchantment than navy and commissioned respondents. A majority of the respondents appear to be ready to accept the application of the principle of negotiation to the armed forces. However, although this principle of negotiation might not be applicable to all aspects of the armed forces, certain aspects of their working conditions are undoubtedly negotiable. These are pay and allowances, retirement and pension conditions and grievance procedures.
There is a definite lack of consensus among the respondents as to the necessity or even desirability of organizing armed forces personnel along union lines. However, it was felt there should be some mechanism established whereby negotiations with the government are conducted in a collective manner. This negotiating body should be formed within the armed forces, and definitely should not be in the hands of an outside group such as the Public Service Alliance.
Finally-and I concur emphatically in this-the armed forces should not, even in time of peace, have the right to strike. That is as it must be.
I find that I have only a moment or two left, Mr. Speaker, and what I have to say may not be very popular with one or two of my colleagues. I wish to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) for the assistance he has rendered to me in dealing with armed forces personnel problems. This debate has centred mainly on policy. I am more interested in trying to help with the personal problems of the men in the armed forces and their families. The Minister of National Defence is in the chamber, and I wish to say that I appreciate the consideration he has extended to me in the cases that I have brought to his attention.
I remember one particular case last fall. I do not know if the minister noticed at the time but I was very critical of him one day. The following day I went to him about a problem concerning a gentleman who was formerly in the forces. The minister's response was most generous to this ex-serviceman and it was something he and I appreciated. I wish to thank the minister publicly on the floor of the House for this.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. gentleman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being five o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion before the House have expired.
A long weekend in the glorious month of May is a great opportunity to reassess our attitudes and to formulate our judgments on the critical issues that are before us. I hope hon. members will enjoy and share the bountiful gifts of a provident Mother Nature. May her sons learn from her example to be just and good-natured.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 25, 1971