https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/e3f09d45204d0d2eda187d77cc57c15c.pdf 6eb260afd146253b08afec709148e78b PDF Text Text Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la toi sur I'acces a I'information s Unrevised Hansard, January 20, 1960, pp. 137-40 JARB&HY 20. 1£30 137 page 13 of Hansard. I will content myself by simply summarizing what has already been said with regard to the lack of certainty, and confusion referred to in the amendment and the examples which 1 gave respecting the views expressed in various parts of Canada and the United States by the Leader of the Opposition. During the intervening months since last session, he indicated fully the degree of the confusion of bis views and the uncertainty of his remedies in this particular matter. Much has been made today of some remarks passed last evening on the national television network to which I am making no reference, a full answer having been given. I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition will recall that he, too, had an experience on November 10, 1959 when, in a press conference, he revealed in some detail his views with regard to various matters, including nuclear weapons. I do not want to be forced into a position where I shall have to go into detail in that regard. But I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he would reread the record of that occasion he would, I am sure, come objectively to the conclusion that on the basis of the answers which he gave there was that uncertainty and that confusion which he has included in the motion of non-confidence and ascribed to the government. To summarize what he had to say, without going into detail, he said at page 5 of the text: We should not get into the field of atomic weapons at all -unless we have control over the atomic weapons our forces would be using. Then, at the bottom of page 8, I quote again: I said that we should have nothing whatsoever to do with strategic nuclear weapons, the hydrogen bomb, and that sort of thing. We should not allow our forces to use those weapons, however technical they may be and for defence, until we get specific information on the effect they would SPEECH FROM THE THRONE have on fallout and the atmosphere. I have said CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY we should not allow our forces to be armed by nuclear weapons, tactical or strategical, which are ' The house resumed, from Monday, January under the control of another power. 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amend..caeBpethereto of Mr. Pearson. Right Hon. J. G. piofonbahor (Prime MimsierJ: Mr. "Speaker, hon."members will appreciate that a speech which has had to be broken off is not altogether easy to resume without making a summary of what has already been said. However, I do not propose to follow the usual course of reviewing in any detail what I said previously or of repeating the views which I expressed on behalf of the Canadian government regarding nuclear weapons. Those views are fully set forth at Then, a little later on, he had this to say: We have never been told why the United States should not allow nuclear weapons in the hands of Canadian troops to be under the control of Canadian troops. And, again: Are we on the same plane of equipment with the United States forces if a Canadian platoon with a nuclear mortar cannot use it except on orders from the United States forces. It was m order to answer such uncertainty and confusion in the mind of the hon. gentleman that I went particularly into detail, because the views of the government have been expressed on more than one occasion by the Minister of National Defence. Indeed I would 000857 �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'information KB HOUSE O P COMMONS point out that on November 17—and I am referring to a report by Clark Davey, a Globe and Mail reporter—appeared the following: Liberal Leader Pearson predicted today— That would be November 18. —that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would find itself in serious trouble unless the United States, Britain and Prance dedicated control of their nuclear weapons to the NATO council in every circumstance short of total war. Addressing a packed assembly in the spacious Donald Eddy memorial hall here, he said the Liberal party "will vigorously oppose the decision of Prime Minister Diefenbaker's government to equip Canadian forces with weapons that can be used for the defence of Canada only with the authority of another country." —The United States was a friendly power but nevertheless it was not right that "a single country should control the defence of another." The next report is taken from the Winnipeg Free Press and I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will appreciate this. It I think the answer to the ideas expressed carries the headline: "Haggis Puts Mike in by the hon. gentleman were given by him- Mood". The article states: self the other day in silence when I asked "Intolerable" was the word Mr. Pearson used to him what he would do were he to find out describe the situation where at Canadian missile sites an American must press the button to send that it would be impossible to secure the conoff a Bomarc missile. Canadian forces should not sent of all 15 countries. What, then, would be armed with any form of nuclear weapon the his actions be? use of which is controlled by any other single government. Then the report goes on to say: In a 70-minute press conference which seemed What basis did the hon. gentleman have /to confuse Liberal defence policy as often as it for all these statements Surely not the decI clarified it, Mr. Pearson returned to his argument I that Canadian forces should not be armed with larations made by the Minister of National / nuclear weapons under the control of any other Defence. Let us examine what was said by [ country. He came close to calling for the scrapping the minister. It is not a case of my having I of Canada's nine home defence squadrons of just one newspaper report because there are CP-100's because they were obsolete, but never took what appeared to be his thinking out loud many and they are consistent. The Ottawa Citizen on November 10, 1959, reported: quite that far. Canada will have atomic warheads for the Bomarc And then the article goes on—this is a missiles by 1961, defence minister Pearkes Indicated quotation again: No one power, no mater. how powerful, should have authority, within the NATO alliance to approve the use of nuclear weapons on its own. Then, a little later: There was more than national pride involved, he added. It was a case of national sovereignty. He suggested it might be better to move United States forces into Canada bases under a political agreement between the two countries, and permit them to fire as well as control nuclear weapons. And finally, amidst this series of statements characterized by that confusion and uncertainty which is incorporated in the amendment, we have the hon. gentleman saying this: The Canadian forces and the Canadian government—would be in a much stronger position if Canada bought its own missiles. That was on November 16, 1959. A few days later the hon. gentleman went to Halifax and as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, he said: I do not think Canada should accept nuclear weapons either under our own or any other control until we know a great deal more about the effects of radiation. That is an unusually uncertain course and view to be expressed by one who says that this government, having made its position clear, is uncertain. Let me pass on to the next report, taken from the Saint John Tcleproph-Journal of November 24, which comments on a statement made by the hon. gentleman: fMfi l?irtC-&3JsrTiil today. He rejected the suggestion that United States officers would control Canadian Bomarc atomic warheads. Mr. Pearkes emphasized that the Bomarc was a defensive weapon. Under no circumstances could this atomic weapon be used without the express consent of the Canadian government. Mr. Pearson: And that of the United States. Mr. Diefenbaker^ This is the surprising thing in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter as serious as survival the Leader of the Opposition, knowing that these statements had been made by the Minister of National Defence reflecting the views of the government, proceeded to carry across Canada the message that the use in Canada of nuclear weapons, if they were brought into Canada, would be at the wish, authority and under the control of another power. I quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star written by William McGuffin, staff writer: Mr. Pearkes emphasized— Referring to the weapons in question: —that they "cannot be used without the permission of the Canadian government." Mr. Pearson: weapons. Of course, they are our Mr. Diefenbaker: That is what the record says. I have read the statements that were made. And yet, in the face of all those circumstances the hon. gentleman chose to follow a course of giving to the people of 000858 �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'information l3t JADVARY 20. 1080 130 Canada information which was not in ac- will be determined by Canada but ownercordance with the declarations of the govern^ ship will remain in the United States unless ment and indeed was as far removed as the Umted States changes its views in this regard. possible from those declarations. The Leader of the Opposition knows very Mr. Pearson: I wonder if the Prime Min- well that through the years this question ister would permit a question? I would refer has been discussed with the United States. I the hon. gentleman to page 1396 of Hansard wonder whether he suggests that the control of July 2 last on this point, but meanwhile ' over nuclear weapons should be released to I would ask the Prime Minister if he will the extent that the powers here, there and deny that these weapons cannot be used for every place should have them available to the defence of Canada without the permis- them? sion of the United States authorities, these Canadian weapons in the hands of Canadian Mr. Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime forces? Minister is asking me a question I shall be glad to answer it right now. Mr. Diefenbaker: This does not relate to the situation at all. Mr. Diefenbaker: All right. I want to get the hon. gentleman's views. • Some hon. Members: Answer. Mr. Pearson: My point Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Diefenbaker: Let me answer this this. If these weapons are released to Canadian clearly and definitely. The hon. gentleman having followed a course of Insinuation, and forces, for use by Canadian forces for the defence of Canada, they should be owned by declarations not based on the facts, now Canada and should be used under Canadian endeavours to wriggle out of the position in authority exclusively. which he finds himself. Mr. Grefftey: The hon. gentleman never Mr. Pickersgill: The people will decide expressed that view before. who is wriggling. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I remind Mr. Diofcnbakeri Let me repeat what I you oi the fact that the hon. gentleman made said the other evening so there will be no a speech to the air force veterans association misunderstanding on this point. I refer hon. on November 6, 1959. This, too, is tregentlemen opposite to my remarks reported mendously interesting. I have endeavoured to at page 73 of Hansard of January 18, 1960, follow him in his peregrinations as he atwhere I said: tempted to secure support on the part of While I have carefully explained the views of the Canadian people who are fearful, as all the government on previous occasions— people are today, of the danger and possibility I am omitting some words which are irrel- of nuclear war. Let me read what he said on evant because they refer to negotiations still that occasion as his words are found at page 5 of the text of the address: under way. I continued: —Canada's stand might be summarized in this way: Eventually Canadian forces may require certain nuclear weapons if Canadian forces are to be kept effective. The position of a middle power, however, is different. Canada cannot, for instance, and should not, expect to be able to defend Itself by possessing every kind of defence equipment. Then I went on to say: I have studied the hon. gentleman's course as he has gone up and down the length of this country making statements that we shall welcome parliament being convened so that here we may review the situation together. Mr. Pearson: By United States permission. Then, he goes on to say: We cannot change the principle of United States ownership—they have taken a firm stand in this regard—but there shall be Canadian control of use in Canada. Mr. Diefenbaker: I went on to say: I want to make it abundantly clear that nuclear weapons will not be used by the Canadian forces except as the Canadian government decides and in the manner approved by the Canadian government. Canada retains its full freedom of choice and decision. I underline those words. Mr. Pearson: Now answer my question. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have already made "it" abundantly clear ..that use By maintaining and equipping police forces which would be available, with other forces, for use as the agent for carrying out an international decision. The latter I haven't time to talk about tonight but it should be accepted, in my view, as a major part of our defence policy. The former does not require us, I believe, to participate in any form of nuclear retaliation. That, it seems to me, can be left to the state—and there is only one on the western side—which now has nuclear strategic weapons for retaliation, the exclusive control of which it is not able or willing to share with its allies and friends. Canada should. I think, bow out of this field of defence action while, certainly, not bowing out of her obligation to contribute to collective security. �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'information IC9 4 - HOtJDE OF COMSCONS I welcomed that interruption a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, because it gave me the opportunity to mention the last major declaration but one made by the Leader of the Opposition. I have it before me. It is dated December 9. This is the final revised version. It reads: Grit Leader Gives Views Liberal Leader Lester B. Pearson— Mr. Pickersgill: I suggest it was revised by the Prime Minister. MrT Diefftnb.itknr,; I am going to read the entire dispatch. Speaking of revision, I am informed that the hon. gentleman is writing a revised type of biography which will give him a knowledge of revision not possessed by any other man. Mr. Pearson: How about a tittle government policy? Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. King, as revised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Mz. Pickersgill: I thank the Prime Minister for the advertisement. Mr. Diefenbaker: I continue: slightest way the chances of assuring peace, or gave to any potential aggressor the impression that our defensive powers had weakened. In other words, our policy is this, to seek every way possible, in the manner followed so brilliantly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to attain disarmament, to take off the backs not only of Canadians but of people everywhere that load of debt, that load of expenditure that is continuing year by year to mount up astronomically, and at the same time maintain our defences within the natural limitations of Canada's position. I go back to the days of Nehemiah. He followed that course; he maintained his defences and at the same time continued to press for action and agreement to attain peace. Liberal Leader Lester B. Pearson said Monday he would not agree to arming Canadian soldiers with nuclear weapons until he knew a good deal more about their effects. This would include their effects on the atmosphere through radioactive fallout, he told a panel discussion at the annual meeting of tile National Liberal Federation's advisory council. He also said it would be intolerable to him that Canadians should be armed with weapons under control of another country—the United States. If Canadian troops were to have nuclear weapons, they should be under the control of a Canadian commander or under the collective control of NATO. Asked for his view on storing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada, he said that if this were essential it should be done only if the Canadian government had some say In their use. Mr. Pearson: Do you object to that? Mr. Diefenbaker: I have carried the house along that sinuous course taken by the hon. gentleman. He ended up at the end of the year with qualifications in almost every statement he made, instead of coming out and saying on a matter as important and as serious as this to our survival that the question ought to be discussed in a responsible manner based on the situation in which we find ourselves and also reserving for Canada that sovereignty which is the essence not only of our survival as a nation but also of our co-operation with all parts of other NATO countries. Mr. Pickersgill: That certainly is clear. J^jafofcmhahar:, I want to give information not intelligence. Defence is the primary consideration of those in the government because everything else would be in vain if our policies in regard to defence diminished in the fMr, Diefenbaker.l 000860 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDNW01726 Title A name given to the resource CDNW01726 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "DEFENCE - Canada-US Arrangements - Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons for Use by Canadian Forces," RG2-B-2, Box 23-24, file D-1-5(f), Library and Archives Canada (LAC). Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource Nuclear Weapons Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource en