Canada’s Forces May Have Nuclear Weapons

Press, Volume C, Issue 29625, 22 September 1961, Page 8

Canada’s Forces May Have Nuclear Weapons

LBjz MELVIN SUFFRtti, Canadian Correspondent o) the New Zealand Press Association! The idea of nuclear weapons for Canada’s armed forces has been revived by the Government, and, as usual, has stirred up a lively debate.

The Canadian Minister of Defence (Mr D. Harkness) said to Parliament a few days ago “It is the Government’s policy that our forces should not be required to face a potential enemy with inferior weapons.

.Similar statemenls were made two years ago by the Prime Minister (Mr Diefenbsker) ahd a former Defence. Minister (Mr G. Pearkes). But the latest speech comes when fear of war is heightened by the Berlin crisis, and the recent resumption of nuclear tests by the Soviet Union. Opposition members of Parliament seized on Mr Harkness's remarks as an indication that the Government ie trying to prepare Canadian people for the moment of decision, Mr Harkness said that three weapons being obtained by Canada had nuclear capability “Honest John,” an artillery rocket, the “Bomarc,” an anti-aircraft missile. and the CF-104, a lowlevel jet bomber. Mr Harkness refused to be pinned down when pressed for a clear statement on whether the Government would acquire nuclear warheads for these weapons, but he said that they were almost valueless without them.

Socialist opposition was unequivocal in its insistence that Canada should refuse to have anything to do with nuclear arms. The Liberals,

led by Mr L. Pearson, said that this was not the time for Canada to join the nuclear powers.

Mr P. Hellyer, a former Liberal associate Defence Minister, said: "The Government is not putting the proper emphasis on developing mobile forces capable of assisting in the deterrence of a limited war, or. in the event of one being waged, of containing it before it spreads into major conflagration.” If atomic weapons were required for defence by N.A.T.O. Powers, they should be under N.A.T.O. control, he said. Public Opinion Polls Public opinion polls have shown that many Canadians are opposed to the acquisition of nuclear warheads. They cling to the hope that Canada might escape widespread destruction in the event of atomic attack. But the fact that North American defence is a joint operation, and that most of Canada’s population lives within a narrow belt along the American border, makes this an unlikely prospect. If the Government is. in fact, trying to prepare Can-

adians for the plunge, the announcement seems unlikely for at least several months, and possibly not until the General Election next year. Another reason is Canada's personal role in trying to promote the new Western disarmament plan to be placed before the United Nations General Assembly session which opened this week. It would be extremely bad timing for Canada to join the “nuclear club" at a time when the assembly was talking disarmament. Still another reason is that various weapons being added to Canada's arsenal will not be ready for nuclear warheads for at least several months. Canadian Control

At one time the Government said it would not accept nuclear warheads unless they were under Canadian control. This is not possible under United States law at present. Lasit year, however, the Prime Minister modified the nosit ion to state that the Government would consent to joint Canadian-American control.

That American military authorities would like to see nuclear arms in Canada has been evident for a long time. Only a few weeks ago. General L. Kuter. of the United States Air Force, made a 'ineech in Toronto in which he presented military advantages of the use of nvclear-tioped air-to-air missiles in jet interceptors. Many Canadians opposed to the .acquisition of nuclear weapons give credit to the Minister of External Affairs (Mr H. Green), who has stood out in Cabinet as their chief opponent. Just a few days ago. Mr Diefenbaker said that idealism had not nrevented the world from marchmg to the brink of war. His remark indicated that Mr Green’s anti-nuclear views are no longer a reflection of Government policy.