https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/ccaed7c0b3597231d644de828c980bc4.pdf d2e959ac407c11d96861a134d39b85ad PDF Text Text , • •• •• Document dis~!'¼'ep,under t}le Access to Information Act - Thi:. Document lS the Property of the G01i5of~1Jitf6llu1We e\tWAfl{ll~a Loi sur /'acces a/'information and is on Loan from the Priv;v Corwcil,Office No. 7-:_71__ Copy No. 'l'he Cnbinet Committee On External Policy __________ _L J\nd Defence ,J.;.________ _ Minutes A meetinr; of the Cabinet Committee on External .Folic;/ and Defence was held :i.n Room 263-S, House of Commons, on 'l'uoscln.:·, Fiay L~, 1971, at 3:15 p.m. Present The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in the Chair, The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator l"Iartin), The·Ftinister of Induntry, Trade and Commerce (Hr. Pepin), 'I'he I1inister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), Also Present Mr. E. B. Armstrong, General F. R. Sharp, I-ir. A. E. Ritchie, Nr. R. P. Cameron, Mr. M. Shenstone, (T,cuortmcnt of I:ixternal Affairs) Lr. D, H.. Gilchrist, (Department of Induntry, ·'l'rade and Commerce) Lt.-Gencral 11. R. Dare, Dr. J.C. Arnell, Mr. G. Smith, (Department of National Defence) • • r'ir-. A. Kroeger, {Treanury Board). Secretar;y Miss P.A. McDougall; (Privy Assistant Council Office) Secretaries Lt. Col. R. P. Bourne, (Privy Council Office) Lt. Col. K. G. Trou~hton~ (Privy Council Office) Contento - Item Use Of Canadian Defence Facilities For Troinin~ Of Forces From Other Countries. \Jhi tc roper on Defence. 2 4 003401 I �Document dis;lo~id und~; th-iA • . -• -- -- - ••• • ___,. Document divulgue en v rt d I cc~•~ to thformation Act . . e u e a Lotsur /'accf!si, /'information ' ' '--i 10 :~ 'Z i~ r~ ;iU ,z l> i• I I :1:7 . :!":1 . !I I !-:-1 ;::1· ' II ;z ~- ''I ! ' II I 'I ! I I ' i I ' II II I I i i I I ' I l' l I i! I II: I. ii I I I I I l I I ' ' ' I I I i I I ' I ; I I ' l'] ( I !I I' ' ~; II I I l II i i, 003402 �5 Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur /'acces ii /'information SECR~;rr I I I (e) Btrategic Air Command. It was clarified for Ministers that "air borne alert" meant that SAC bombers would be carrying nuclear weapons. (Page 8, paragraph d of the memorandum) . (f) BudV,etary Implications. Mr. Macdonald explained that he was requesting an additional $35 million for the 1972-73 fiscal year to take care of an increase in manpower of eight infantry companies; the military manning by Canad.a of the air defence radar stations at Melville, Labrador, previously manned by the U.S. forces; the reactivation of the fleet repair ships HMCSCape Scott and Cape Breton to ensure their availability to deal with oil pollution at sea and other miscellaneous changes. Additional expenses might also be required for pay equity, the · bilingualism program and major capital equipment programs such as a new long range patrol aircraft (See Pages 9-10, paragraph 7 of memorandum). A chart explaining the financial and manpower situation in the Department of National Defence from 1962 to 1973 was circulated and is attached to these minutes. (e) _Capital Equipment Pror;rams. Mr. Pepin commented that a lot of the major capital equipment purchases had not been decided. He noted that at Page 15 of the White Paper in the first paragraph it said that the "Ar[;Us will ..... have. t;o be refitted". Mr. Macdonald. clarified this point by explaining that refittingthe Argus was only one of four possible options. 'l'hc others were to purchase the U.S. Orion aircraft or the U.K. Nimrod airc~aft or additional Boeing 707 1 s which would be specially equipped. No decision had been made. Mr. Pepin commented that the statcricnt in the 1tlhi te Paper was m·i.nlcndint~ nwl should be corr.·cc !;r<l. . . i ! ' Ministers then discuuG0.cl the ·plnn for r;uidinr·; the ·.?1•;_1;,! !'aper through Committee and Gabin ct. Mr. Sharp said that he tlwu1:1t~; Ministers would have no difficulty approving most of the paper. Problem areas would probably be, the trair.ing of foreign forces in Canada, BOMAHC.S, NATOLand Forces and the Budgetary implications. It was conceivable that the paper would be apprcwed by the end of . May. It was g,.,nerally agreed that after the briefing of Cabinet on the White Paper on ·.L'hu:rsday, May 6th, the White Paper should be referred bnck to Coramittnc for "line by line" study. (Miss) P.A. Secretary. McDougall, • ,. 003403 �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur fllf,l;~-!'.j~/ormation I t_l . .V _~I I White l'apcr On Defence 'I'he Committce had for consideration a memorandum of the Minister oi' Natjonal Defence covering the White raper on • Defence and a draft of the White Paper. (0ab. Doc. 11-38-71) 'l'he Minister of National Defence explained memorandum in some detail and the following substantive emerged from the discussion: (a) Base Closures. The Cabinet had already authorized the closure of certain bases. These were Clinton, t?ivers, • Gimli, Ville la Salle, Cobourg, London (27 Supply and Maintenance Depot) St. Hubert (regular force flyine; activity), Rockliffe (as alternative accommodation becomes available in Ottawa) and Bouchard (announcement deferred until June 1, 1971). At Annex A to tho document was a list of foul;' more bases at London, Cornwallis, Shilo and Surnmerside which could be closed to obtain further reductions in personnel, operation and maintenance.costs. Mr. :Macdonald noted that these bases seemed to have been chosen for the maximum political disadvantages which would obtain if they were closed. (b) BOMAilCS. 'rhe Chairman questioned the reasoning in the tlhi t e Paper ( in the la st paragraph of page 23) which was used to justify the retirement of Canadian B01'11\HCS from service. . l"lr. Sharp said that the same reasoning mir:ht apply equally to the U.S.A. BOf'lATlC'f, and yet these were to remain in service. It was nece(-;sary to avoid any implication that Canada thourht the U.B.A. decision was the wrong one. Mr. Macdonald explained that there was a basic difference in the reasons for keeping and not keepinc; BOMAE:CS in service. U.S. BOMARCS were deployed in ·the "footprints" of th0 SAFEGUAUD ABMsites and thus were protected by ABf-1. Likewise the ABMsites were_ protected against nuclco.i:bombers by the TIOJ'1AHCfi.Canadian were not protected nor were they locaterl to protect ABM. Ministers ac;rcccl :,hat thi[l was a crel~_ible exnlan:~ l;·io·, and that the \·lhitP. Paper nhould be amended accor·cl:i ,i:-1 ;''. (c) Mari time Forces. 'i'he Minister of Inductr;y, 'L'rade ar>,l Commerce queried what was meant by "maritime ceneral purpose ca:pabili ties"_._· (page .4 Parc1graph b(.l) of the memorandum). Mr. Macdonald explained that it had not yet been decided what additional ves[els were to be acquired. Torpedo boats, ice-breakers, hydro foils (if current tests pro_yed satisfactory) were being con'sidered but the nature of the maritime threat had not yet been defined. (d) NATO. Mr. Macdonald said that it was recommended t;hat; the Cabinet decision of May 20th, which assiGned land forces to a role with ACE Mobile ~orce (Land), be reversed. Light mobile forces would continue to be employed in the 9cntral Region in a reconnaissance nnd reserve role. 'l'he air squadrons in Europe would relinquish a nuclear strike role on January 1, 1972 at which time all three squadrons would be tasked for conventlonal e;round attack. In ad~i tion two squadronf: of C:F'5 would be assigned, one to ACE and one to ACE Mobile Force (Air) on a fly o-ver basis. By using the two Boeing '?07 aircraft which had been fitted as air tankers, eir;ht CF5 aircraft could be delivered to Norway in 24 hours. • (Pages 5-6 Paragraphs C(l) (2) of the_ memorandum.) • ,. 1 the coverinG points .. 003404 � 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 CDNW18655 Title A name given to the resource Minutes, Cabinet Committee on External Policy and Defence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 4, 1971 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG24, Acc. 1997-98/050, Box 3, File Title: White Paper (May 1971)