https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/552877c2ea71d18b9473272526e58abf.pdf be4a37ec7b6c13ddd7e2f474ebb6162d PDF Text Text Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'i UNREVISED HANSARD p . ^3391 5 5 - 8 , 363s&=Thursday, S e p t , Ik, 1961 say whether you are going to get nuclear weapons and when you are going to get them", and so on is not going to get the hon. member for Essex East or anybody else in the opposition any further ahead. As I said, our position has been stated. It is there, it is clear and definite, and I am not prepared to make any further statement at this time t3r. Qattasest Mr. Chairman, in his usual '• along the lines on which the hon. member matncr the hon, member for Essex East has for Essex East has been insisting. made such statements as "the government Mr. Hellyer: Will the minister permit a must declare its position now on nuclear question? Will he say whether the po" • *• is the same as it was in May, when li«. £3r. Martin (Ecsex East): Hear, hear. reported as having said in Victoria, as found Mr. Korbncsoi —and so on, as though the in the Victoria Daily Colonist, a paper not csvernment had not made numerous state- too unfriendly to the minister— ments in connection with its position on Mr. Harkness: A very good paper. nuclear weapons. Mr. Hellyer: A very fine paper, the minister Mr. Ketlyor: Too numerous. That Is the says—with respect to the decision regarding trouble. nuclear weapons: "Mr. Harkness stated the Mr. Harknesst All these statements are time to make a decision is when the time along the same Une. comes". Is that still the position of the Mr. HoOyoin Each one different from the^ minister? previous one. t&. ttarhnoss: I tiiink they make the position quite clear. The hon. member for Essex ! t read part of the statement made toy the „ me Minister on February 20, and he referred to one or two other statements. Actually the position tbe government has taken with regard to nuclear weapons was outlined in statements by the Prime Minister Mr. Harkness: The Leader of the Opposion February 20, 1859, January 18, I860, tion went on to say that I should have made February 9, 10G0, July 4, 1060, and July 14, a statement on fundamental issues and questions, and that I had not done so. I submit iceo. t4s. Martin (E=»x East)* I read them all. that if he will read the speech I made he will see that it is a statement on the fundaMr. Harbnees: The hon. member for Essex mental defence situation as far as this counEast read parts of one or two of those state- try is concerned, the position the government ments, and I think the parts he read made has taken in regard thereto, and what we the situation quite clear. I do not think have been doing and are doing. His chief there is any need for me to take up further complaint would seem to be that we have time of the house in rereading them. They not said we are going to get nuclear weapons ara ttsere, they are quite definite, and 1 next week. That is really what it all boils pee no reason why the hon. member or any down to. other hon. member needs to be in any doubt From the statements of the Leader of the as to what has been the position of the gov- Opposition and the hon. member for Essex ernment on nuclear weapons! What the hon. East you would that the acquisition member to trying to do is bludgeon me into or non-acquisition think of nuclear we^png^constiamklng a yes or no statement at this timo tuted the whole fieldo? defence policy. They es to the securing of nuclear weapons. I are one type of weapon, and they would tell Mm right away that he is not going to be used in certain circumstances not bhidcaon me into making any statement used ia others. I think they have toand be rebefore the government is ready to make i t garded as a certain type of weapon and not t£2. RsberccjUh Before it makes up ita looked upon as the end-all and be-all of defence policy, which they are not. mind. The Leader of the Opposition referred to M*. Horkcoca: As I oay, the position we an editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail, have taken has been outlined and I think ) « copy of which 1 have here, and quoted &* "« quito clear. This business of "you must ' some portions of it with approval. I should like to point out that it would appear impossible that the writer of the editorial had read the speech I made yesterday or any of my previous speeches on dcSsnce. Otherwise he could not possibly have written tins editorial, because he states here, after quoting something I had said: The picture this conjures up, intentionally or otherwise, is that oi Canada facing sinfle combat with Russia, and considering whether to become a full-fledged nuclear power to deter the proepective enemy. This is not the problem at all. Canada hes no hope of becoming a nuclear power; to build tekg range rockets and the like as a deterrent U BtSaeether beyond her resources. T£at is exactly what I have been saying fat months. The editorial goes on to say: The main defence of the western world against nuclear war is its deterrent force and the most important components are the mleiles and heavy bombers of the United States strategic air command— In speech after speech I have made thoee very statements, and for the writer of this editorial in the Globe and Mail to write as though these views are contrary to what I have been saying is, of course, simply an indication of the fact that the writer seems to have no knowledge whatsoever of what I have been saying for months past and what I said yesterday. I have been insisting right along tiiat Canada's defence depends on belonging to the NATO alliance, maintaining the NORAD agreement and our efforts toward peace in the United Nations. I have emphasised this time after time. I have emphasized the fact that the forces we maintain in Canada are not forces designed to meet every eventuality. We have no long range strategic bombers, we have no nuclear weapons, we have no missiles. We have no major naval vessels except one aircraft carrier. But within the NATO alliance as a whole we have all these components, and Canada's security is arrived at as a result of her membership in this alliance and the fact that we can depend on our allies to provide these various forces if they are required. The editorial is completely ridiculous. The writer of the editorial and the Leader of the Opposition appear to dislike the fact that I used a somewhat homely analogy about a bear and a man with a rifle. Probably they do not like analogies of any kind, particularly rather homely ones. The Leader of the Opposition went on to talk about NATO having a nuclear strategy. Later he said that he agrees that there is a nuclear strategy and believes that it must be maintained, I am glad to have him make thai definite statement,,because from some of the statements he has* made through the country to past months you would think that he wot against that idea. Having come to this posi tion he, 1 hope, will remain with it. 000890 �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'information - 2 - Mr. Pearson* I have said that every I have spoken. * think that is clear enough. As to the other countries, 1 have not seen any public statements in regard to which countries they D3r. Horkncas: I hope he will not shift his aro; therefore I have to consider that as position every month or so as he has done security information, during the past several months. He asked me „ u a question which I was not really able to vu' *,«»»«MM Oh, oh. catch, as to the basis on which I stated that Mr. Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the Leader there were several countries in NATO that of the Opposition says "Oh, oh". He knows have nuclear weapons on their soil and have quite well that anything along this line is entered into agreements with the United a matter of security until it is released by States in connection with those weapons, as I the people concerned. I have read the letter stated yesterday. I do not know exactly what signed by President Eisenhower and sent to ho meant. I think he is aware of the fact the congress of the United States, which is that this is the case. a matter of public record. I think it makes idL. «. t t„^ „~.. «t,.4 ~,„^f*4«. the situation quite clear. There is nothing J** P w ^r y time countries, ^ ^ gaifled b y m e speUing o u t t h e o t h e r what members. f o u r c o u n t r i e s t o w w c h he referred. Once tSk Hattaaosa: The only thing I would eay more, of course, as I pointed out yesterday, about that would be to quote from a statement all this, which has been public information former President Eisenhower made oa 'or some time, makes a complete sham of the January 17, 1961 in a letter to congress which position taken in connection with NATO by fc£3 been published. This letter contains a me New Democratic party at its convention. reference to an agreement with the govern- Then the Leader of the Opposition went on mem of Italy for co-operation in the use of to mention the weapons systems we have alataarric energy. I quote: ready secured, the Bomarc, the Honest John Vo fccllttote the necessary co-operation on our and the 104. He quoted at the time from a port teataUtion amending the Atomic Energy Act statement by General Foulkes in a pamphlet of i»4 was enacted by me conarea in !88S\ Pur- e n t i t l e d "Canadian Defence Policy in a taent to that legislation agreements for co-opera- _T , . „ ... r . S o were concluded with four ot OUT NATO port- Nuclear Age", one of those behind the headner* in May and June 1*38. A similar agreement lines booklets. He quoted what General was also recently concluded with our NATO antes. Poulkes said as though it were government e ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ n t ^ l m t e r t o n r ^ p ^ £ ***• The Leader of the Opposition knows eej«d NATO proaram. This agreement with tts that General Foulkes does not state governeevornmeat of Italy will enable the United States ment policy. He never did state government to co-operate effectively in mutual defence Planning policy a s chairman of the chiefs of staff. with Italy and in the training of Italian NATO - ^ j w a s t-nhe n r ( , r n - a H v p o f t h . mprT1 hor<! n f forces in erder that, if an attack on NATO should " " » prerogative of the members oi eecur. Italian forces could, under the direction of the government under whom he served, both the supreme allied commander for Europe, ef- the government to which the hon. member festively uts nuclear weapons in their defence, belonged and the present government. From Mr. Pearson: May I ask the minister n*h« way in which the Leader of the Opqueation on this point, since I brought it up? Position put this quotation on the record la ba now telling us that these NATO members it would appear as though General Foulkes have bilateral agreements with the United was stating government policy. I will not say States fox the acquisition of nuclear weapons he did so purposely, but it was designed to by their forces under national or joint control? cause misapprehension on the part of the If so, what members of NATO have made people listening to him or reading Hansard, these agreements he has mentioned? Mr P M n m ; ^ that p ^ T shouW Uke Mr. Harkness: I think what I have read is to say I made it quite clear, as the record wi calf-explanatory. U show, that General Foulkes had no offi_ . _ . „ . .,_ cial responsibility when he made that stateMr. Martin (Easox East): That is another m e n t ' thing altogether; that is for the peaceful use of atomic energy. Mr. Harkness: This is fine, but I say that the , . . way in which the quotation was put would . Mr. Horknoss: Some people refuse to un- te<M , m o s t p e o p l e r e a d i n g Hansard to believe derstand if it does not further their o w n t h a t G e n e r a l r o u l k e B w a s s t a t i n g g o v e r n . ! purposes. This statement made by President m e n t p o U c y T h i s i g n o t ^ c a g e Q ^ ^ Elsenhower contains this sentence to which F o u l k e s w a s a distinguished soldier. He is I have already referred: listened to with great respect on military —if an attack on NATO should occur, Italian subjects. I believe everyone in Canada acS E T Z a n d e r * Tor « S S S T a e ^ M T E « * L 1 * ? ^ t respect. One of the odd things nuclear weapons in their defence. about this, and this is typical of what you find in the Liberal party, is that only the other day the hon. member for Leeds was quoting from this same pamphlet in an attempt to show that General Foulkes was opposed to nuclear weapons. This is typical of the Liberal party, trying to go in two directions at once. The Leader of the Opposition quotes him as being strongly in favour of nuclear weapons, which he is. The hon. member for Leeds was quoting from this booklet, as a reference to page 8250 of Hansard will show, in an attempt to show that General Foulkes a great military leader in Canada, was against nuclear weapons. This again is typical of what you get in the Liberal party. You find people going in opposite directions, so you have complete confusion in the party. I am afraid I often feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition— Mr. Martin (Essex East): Don't feel sorry for him, feel sorry for yourself. Mr. Harkness: —as a result of the things the people in his own party do to him. Mr. Pearson: You should feel sorry for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, too. Mr. Martin (Essex East): You need the help of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs; they should be here to help you. Mr. Harkness: I should like to draw attention to the long, sustained remarks which have been coming for some time from the hon. member for Essex East, who is deliberately breaking the rules by remaining in his seat when he makes these interruptions. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I apologize. Mr. Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition made a reference to the statement the Prime Minister made in regard to the acquisition of the three weapons systems to which I have referred, the Bomarc, the Honest John and the 104. He went into the question of lead times and then gave us his own interpretation of what I had said yesterday and on previous occasions in that regard. I should like to make it quite clear once more that you cannot decide today to arm your forces with nuclear weapons carriers and, having made that decision, expect to have the forces armed with these weapons within two or three years. It takes a considerable length of time after an order is placed to produce any one of these weapons systems, and it takes a considerable length of time to train people in their operation. As I said in my speech when I opened this debate, and as I have said on numerous occasions, it has seemed the part of wisdom to acquire certain weapons systems which . , , , 3000891 �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la toi sur I'acces a I'information MR. HARKNESS (cont.) ere capable of carrying nuclear warheads. I Than in tbe event a decision should tx taken that nuclear warheads are required, we would be in a position to make use of them. It was in connection with this use of the analogy of the bear and the rifle that the Leader of the Opposition chose to object. ' " Mr. Poarcoa: I did not object to i t Mr. Harknoca: This is the situation. If you are going to take due precautions in the extremely troubled situation which has been existing for the last two years or more and you believe that there is any possibility that you might have to have nuclear weapons for your own defence, for defence of your own territory, then it was essential to secure the carriers, the systems which could use nuclear warheads and to put in orders for them MOW considerable time ahead. The Leader of the Opposition objected to the fact that we had placed orders for the Bomarc, the Honest John find the F-104, 1 submit that it was only the part of wisdom and prudence to have done to, whether or not they are ever acJually armed with nuclear warheads. 000892 � 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 CDNW01756 Title A name given to the resource CDNW01756 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